Abstract

This paper examines translation strategies and challenges related to the translation of texts written in English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) in the context of Euro-project documents, specifically from English into Italian. Using a small corpus of texts from the NEW ABC project, a Horizon 2020 action research project, this study addresses two research questions: 1) What linguistic features of ELF pose challenges for translation? 2) How do these features influence translation strategies into Italian? The analysis draws on reflections and comments provided by Master’s students in Translation from the University of Bologna, who translated the ELF source texts as part of their curricular internship. Following an overview of ELF and its implications for Translation and Interpreting Studies (TIS) and Euro-project language practices, the paper presents the corpus of ELF texts translated into Italian, provides an analysis of the students’ comments, and identifies key challenges in translating ELF and Euro-project language. The findings highlight the complexities of dealing with linguistic variability and hybridity in ELF texts and offer insights for both translation students and practitioners.

Keywords: English as a Lingua Franca ELF, Translation Studies, translation training, translators’ agency, Europroject

Introduction

This paper aims to examine and discuss the translation strategies and challenges involved in translating texts written in English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) within the context of Euro project documents, from English into Italian. ELF is particularly common in international settings, including European projects. In this context, translators must deal with not only the specific features of ELF, but also the distinct characteristics of Euro project language — a form of institutional or technical language used in EU settings, characterised by jargon and formal structures that can significantly influence the translation process.

Drawing from a small corpus of texts written within the NEW ABC project — a European 2020 Horizon action research project involving nine European partner countries, eight of which use ELF— the study seeks to address the following research questions: 1) What are the linguistic features of ELF and Euro project language that pose translation challenges? 2) How do these features affect translation strategies into Italian? These research questions will be explored through an analysis of comments provided by final-year Master’s students in Translation at the Department of Interpreting and Translation of the University of Bologna, who translated the ELF source texts into Italian as part of their curricular internship. .

After providing an overview of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF), its influence on Translation and Interpreting Studies (TIS), and the language practices typical of Euro projects, this paper presents a description of the corpus of ELF texts translated into Italian. It then analyses the comments provided by the students who carried out the translations and concludes by highlighting the key challenges of translating ELF and Euro project language. The findings offer valuable insights for both students and practitioners in the field.

English as a Lingua Franca (ELF)

The term ‘lingua franca’ dates back to the 15th century and originally referred toa pidgin spoken along the southeastern coast of the Mediterranean. This hybrid language combined elements of different Italian dialects, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Arabic, Turkish, Greek and Persian, serving as a practical means of communication for traders who did not share a common language (Meierkord and Knapp 2002). Over time, the term lingua franca has evolved to refer to ‘all instances of using a language different from the speakers’ mother tongues for specific purposes’ (Meierkord and Knapp 2002: 9). Today, English has emerged as the predominant lingua franca, especially in politically united but linguistically fragmented contexts such as Europe, largely due to its large-scale dissemination after World War II (House 2003).

English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) is distinguished from other lingua franca languages by its global reach and the wide range of domains in which it is used (Jenkins 2018). The spread of English in the world is a global phenomenon that spans the three well-known Kachru circles (Kachru 1985): the inner circle (native English speakers), the outer circle (English as a second language) and the extended circle (English as a foreign language). Situated within the Global Englishes paradigm, which recognises all forms of English, native or non-native, as legitimate and functional without having to adhere to normative English standards (Jenkins et al. 2011), ELF differs in that it is not a variety or a fixed mode of communication but rather a flexible, fluid, and hybrid means of communication among speakers of different first languages (Cogo 2015; Seidlhofer 2011). The fact that the language is not confined to an official norm gives it a great flexibility of use which, in the case of non-native speakers, is related to different factors. ELF’s non-native status allows speakers to move beyond the linguistic and cultural conventions of standard native English. Rather than strictly conforming to established norms, ELF communication is shaped by the diverse linguistic repertoires of its users. At the same time, lingua franca interactions are a point of contact between different languages and cultures, where contact between different backgrounds influences the way English is used (Taviano 2010: 11; Hülmbauer 2013: 55). Research into ELF lexicogrammar highlights how speakers use their linguistic resources in innovative yet systematic ways, showing tendencies such as the use of a single verb form for all present tense subjects, including the third person singular (Seidlhofer 2004). Other features include the creation of new words and collocations, the interchangeable use of relative pronouns like ‘who’ and ‘which’, countable uses of traditionally uncountable nouns like ‘informations’ or ‘evidences’ (Jenkins 2000: 929), and a preference for literal over figurative language (Kecskes 2007). Comparing phraseology between native and ELF texts in the acWaC-EU corpus, a large corpus of institutional academic web texts (Ferrraresi and Bernardini 2013), Ferraresi and Bernardini (2015) suggest that non-native speakers might use fixed expressions less frequently than native speakers, often producing more non-standard sequences, and ELF texts exhibit novel phraseological combinations, which may arise from first-language interference or innovative language use.

This flexible use of English in ELF contexts not only underlines its role as a practical tool for global communication, but also highlights its power to evolve as a dynamic and culturally inclusive resource, shaped by the varied linguistic repertoires of its speakers. These linguistic features of ELF also have significant implications for Translation and Interpreting Studies (TIS), particularly in handling non-standard forms, hybrid expressions and culturally influenced communication strategies.

ELF in Translation and Interpreting Studies

The global spread of ELF has had a considerable impact on Translation and Interpreting Studies. In conference interpreting, for example, an ever-increasing number of English speakers today are non-native, meaning that interpreting increasingly involves input from non-native English speakers and/or is directed toward a non-native English audience. Likewise, translating now also means translating and/or editing hybrid texts written collectively or individually by ELF users, and translating and adapting for an international ELF readership (Albl-Mikasa 2022). However, with a few exceptions (see, among others, Albl-Mikasa 2018; Taviano 2013), research on the effects of ELF on TIS has been extremely limited. In order to fill the research gap and to explore future developments between the two research fields, a new sub-discipline has been proposed: ITELF (Interpreting, Translation and English as a Lingua Franca) (Albl-Mikasa 2014, 2018). Indeed, the interplay between ELF and TIS requires a shift in thinking about traditional practices in order to meet the needs of a global market where contact with non-standard varieties of English is increasingly common (Albl-Mikasa 2018). Professional and trainee translators and interpreters should be prepared to work with non-standard varieties of English and develop skills that facilitate intercultural communication and mutual understanding in a globalised context (Taviano 2013). Despite these changes, research on the impact of ELF on interpreting and translation remains limited, especially when considering the perspectives of practitioners directly involved in these processes (Bennett and de Barros 2017).

In the field of conference interpreting, empirical studies have shown increasing challenges in interpreting ELF talks such as increased cognitive load, communication difficulties and a decrease in job satisfaction due to changes in working conditions (Albl-Mikasa 2021). In the field of translation, which is more relevant to this study, traditional notions and norms of translation have changed. Translators today often work beyond the conventional boundaries: they may translate into languages other than their mother tongue, handle source texts written by non-native English speakers, and produce translations for audiences that are no longer confined to a specific geographic or cultural context (Taviano 2013, 2018). ELF authors often draw on their cultural and linguistic backgrounds, resulting in hybrid forms of English. A central aspect of this process is language transfer—the influence of a speaker’s first language on their use of another. As Terence Odlin (1989) explains, this occurs when similarities and differences between a target language and a previously acquired language influence the way the target language is used. This concept is part of a broader discussion of language contact in multilingual contexts. Anastassia Zabrodskaja (2012) emphasises that language contact should not be seen simply as an interaction between separate systems, but that it reflects the agency of users and the deep cultural roots of language systems. Building on this, Stefania Taviano (2018) has called for an approach that conceptualises ELF as a translational and hybrid lingua franca, where translation is intended as an intrinsic process underlying a fluid relationship between languages and ELF's complexity cannot be fully grasped without considering its interaction with other languages and cultures. The aim is to deconstruct the idea of ELF as a distinct language—not by examining its relationship to standard English, but by reframing it as a translational lingua franca (Taviano 2018). This perspective foregrounds the hybrid nature of ELF, using translation as a lens to reveal the diverse linguistic influences that lie beneath its seemingly unified surface (Polezzi 2013). At the same time, growing autonomy in text production paves the way for transcreation, as translators and interpreters move beyond traditional notions of fidelity to embrace a more creative role (Katan 2016).

However, the 'positive image' (Hewson 2013: 273) of ELF as an 'open-source phenomenon' (Cogo and House 2018: 210) that is constantly evolving, adapting and diversifying poses challenges for translators and interpreters when working with ELF source texts and speeches. Albl-Mikasa (2022) highlights several key issues: (i) Multilinguality: ELF settings often involve a complex interplay of multiple coexisting languages. (ii) Norms: in ELF contexts, the usual assumption of shared community norms (Hall 2018: 75) breaks down. If norms are inaccessible, they cannot serve as a basis for establishing common ground or facilitating prediction - both of which are crucial for language processing. (iii) Culture: in ELF interactions, there may be no distinct L1 culture to which participants orient themselves or to which they refer (Baker 2018: 28). With the intention of problematising and raising awareness of the challenges posed by the proliferation of ELF texts, Lance Hewson (2013) has similarly noted that the spread of ELF has created challenges for translators working into other languages, as they increasingly encounter texts with meanings that are often unclear. When ambiguities arise in texts written by native English speakers, translators can usually rely on native English norms to interpret the source text more effectively. In contrast, texts written in ELF present unique challenges, which can be grouped into five main categories: (i) syntactic issues, (ii) lexical choices and collocations, (iii) specific linguistic features such as modality and aspect, (iv) a range of other language-related issues, and (v) presupposed cultural background knowledge (Hewson 2013: 271).

This scenario leads to a strong advocacy in ITELF research for an ELF-oriented pedagogy to enhance trainee translators' and interpreters' understanding of ELF and prepare them for evolving professional demands and market needs (İşi and İşisağ 2022). Studies have revealed that trainees often lack awareness of ELF's current status, favouring standard English varieties and striving for native-like proficiency (Pisanski Peterlin 2013; Szymańska-Tworek and Sycz-Opoń 2020). These findings highlight the necessity of incorporating ELF-focused training to equip students with the skills to navigate non-standard English varieties and address the complexities of contemporary translation and interpreting practices, aligning their skills with market expectations (Čemerin 2016; Taviano 2013).

Euro-Project English

The complexity and fluidity of ELF, as well as the reciprocal influences between ELF and translation, are evident in the ELF texts produced within the EU institutions in so-called Euro-English. While it is true that the term Euro-English originated to refer to the specific vocabulary of the European institutions, its use has now broadened to refer to the variety of hybrid English that is spreading across continental Europe (Taviano 2010).

This variety of hybrid English can be found in EU documents, often written by speakers from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. These texts inevitably reflect the influences of the authors' mother tongues and cultures, which are further complicated by the unique jargon of the EU institutions. This jargon, as Jeremy Gardner (2016) explains, operates on two levels: it includes terms that are uncommon among native English speakers and uses words with meanings derived from other languages that are often absent from English dictionaries - examples include 'actions', 'actor' and 'actorness'. In addition, unusual collocations and convoluted syntax with long embedded clauses, heavy nominalization, and jargon contribute to the complexity and accessibility challenges of these texts (Taviano 2018).

Taviano (2018) stresses that such documents are not produced in a distinct, autonomous language, but rather represent a complex, translational and hybrid lingua franca, shaped by different socio-cultural systems and rhetorical norms. This hybridity, rooted in the inherently translational drafting process, challenges traditional style guides, such as the European Commission's English Style Guide, which overlook the fluid and hybrid nature of ELF. From this perspective, Anthony Pym (2004, in Taviano 2018) advocates a pragmatic approach to translating multilingual texts, encouraging translators to reveal the multilingual essence of source texts and their own interventions. Thus, the role of professional translators and scholars is not to obscure the translational character of ELF, but to make it visible, allowing readers to navigate and engage with the intercultural complexities it entails.

Skopos theory as relevant translation theory for ELF texts

Skopos theory (Nord 2022; Zanettin and Rundle 2022) provides a relevant and practical framework for analysing ELF texts, positioning translation not just as a linguistic code-switching process, but as a form of intercultural and interpersonal communication (Reiss and Vermeer 2013; Vermeer 1978). Unlike traditional language-focused approaches, skopos theory emphasises the purpose or skopos of translation, which guides how information is transferred from the source to the target culture (Nord 2018). This transfer, referred to as the translatum, is shaped by the communicative needs of the target audience and simulates the informational offer of the source text, although not in a uniquely reversible way. Each skopos may require different strategies to effectively convey information to the target audience, making translation a dynamic and situationally dependent process.

Rooted in social action theory, skopos theory highlights the roles of agents in the translation process, including translators, clients and audiences. It sees translation as an action initiated by an agent to overcome linguistic and cultural barriers, with the translator playing a central role in adapting the source text to the target context. This agent-centred approach corresponds to the professional reality of translation, where the intended function of the target text serves as a guiding principle for decision-making.

In practice, skopos theory supports functionalist research, often using qualitative and deductive methods to test its applicability to different genres and text types. By analysing published translations or comparing them with untranslated texts of the same genre, researchers explore how translation challenges are addressed and whether the solutions are consistent with the intended function of the text (Nord 2005). This functionalist perspective is particularly valuable in the context of ELF translation, where texts are often shaped by non-standard language use, hybrid linguistic forms, and culturally diverse communicative strategies. Skopos theory allows translators to move beyond rigid notions of equivalence and instead prioritise communicative purpose, offering a flexible and context-sensitive framework that accommodates the variability and unpredictability of ELF. By emphasising the translator’s agency and the functional needs of the target audience, the theory equips practitioners to approach ELF texts with greater confidence. It helps them to make translation choices that align with real-world expectations and intercultural dynamics.

The NEW ABC corpus of handbooks

The ELF corpus of texts analysed in this study consists of eighteen handbooks produced as part of the H2020 NEW ABC project[1], which aims to facilitate the integration of refugee and migrant children and young people into host societies through education. The project involves thirteen partners from nine European countries working on the design and implementation of nine pilot actions. These actions engage children and young people from refugee and migrant backgrounds, along with teachers, families, communities, and other education stakeholders, as co-creators of innovative approaches to inclusion. Each pilot action has developed targeted activities to empower these groups and amplify their voices in shaping inclusive educational practices. In order to document these efforts, the partners involved in each pilot action produced handbooks detailing the activities carried out. Primarily authored by non-native English speakers, these handbooks were written by teams from Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, Finland, Poland, Belgium and Cyprus. The only exceptions are two handbooks written by a UK team composed of one native English speaker and three bilingual speakers. The texts reflect both ELF and Euro-project English characteristics as the majority were written by non-native English speakers and describe activities tailored to geographical areas where English is not the first language. These activities are linked to the specific characteristics of the educational systems, cultural practices and social norms of the countries in which they were carried out. The first part of the handbooks presents the H2020 project framework, and the approaches used (co-creation, participatory action research and the whole child approach), using a language that includes elements of Euro-English. The second part of the handbooks focuses on the activities carried out in each country, highlighting contextual features related to education, migration, policy and culture, all aimed at addressing the well-being and educational needs of migrant children and young people. The handbooks were translated into Italian by student translators enrolled in the Master's Degree in Specialised Translation at the Department of Interpreting and Translation of the University of Bologna, as part of their curricular training. After completing their translations, 11 students agreed to provide commentaries on their translations, highlighting their perceptions of translating ELF texts into Italian and the challenges they faced. 

The translational character of ELF: hybridity and multilinguality as possible challenges to translation accuracy

Students’ reflections on the ELF texts they translated and on their own translations revealed a significant meta-awareness of how ELF source texts often incorporate translational elements from the speakers’ first language. Without external prompting, students identified and discussed the inherently translational nature of ELF itself (Taviano 2018). This awareness became particularly evident when the translational characteristics of the source texts interfered with their own translation process. One student, for example, explicitly described the source text as ‘written/translated’ in a way that created stylistic challenges (extract 1). Another noted the impact of ‘erroneous translation’ on terms such as ‘realize’, incorrectly used to mean ‘to do’, which complicated their ability to decode information prior to translating (extract 2). Similarly, a student, while referring to the source text, explicitly identified and described it as a ‘translation’. The student also criticized its inappropriate use of the term ‘students’ to describe young primary school pupils (extract 3), suggesting a lack of contextual appropriateness. These reflections show how students not only engaged critically with the linguistic and stylistic features of the texts but also recognized the layered translational processes underlying ELF, particularly when these processes directly affected their own translation choices. In doing so, they also pointed to specific sociocultural and national frameworks—such as differences in education systems across countries and varying conceptualizations and definitions of terms like student, which can shift significantly depending on age and cultural context.

Extract 1

On a stylistic level, I had difficulties understanding some parts of the text due to the way they were written/translated.

Extract 2

In other cases, I believe some terms were incorrectly translated (as in the case of 'realize,' used in the sense of 'doing something' instead of 'becoming aware of something'), which complicated the process of decoding the information to then translate it.

Extract 3

'Students'—the translation almost always used the term 'students,' even when referring to primary school children.

The translational nature of ELF texts is closely tied to the concept of multilingualism (Albl-Mikasa 2021)—used to refer to the complex interplay of multiple coexisting languages—and to related ideas such as language hybridity and fluidity (Taviano 2018). These perspectives highlight how texts are shaped by the interplay of different linguistic and cultural systems. Nevertheless, students frequently faced challenges arising from the implicit linguistic and cultural frameworks embedded in the source text, which often complicated their comprehension and translation efforts. For instance, as illustrated in extract 4, students struggled with translating names, such as the name of a school, because they were uncertain whether the English portion of the name was part of the official title or a translation. This ambiguity was further complicated by their inability to verify the original Greek name online due to their lack of knowledge of the Greek language. If the translation had been from Greek into Italian, the selected translator would have been proficient in Greek, and this issue would not have arisen. This highlights a challenge specific to translating texts written in ELF.

Extract 4

First Primary School of Agios Dometios – even the name of the school was difficult to translate because it was unclear whether 'First' was part of the official name. The research was also challenging because, not knowing Greek, we only had a translation of the original text available.

The referential function of language (Jacobson 1995), which aims to convey clear and objective information about a referent, was found to be another challenge, as it can be weakened in the context of ELF texts, leading to a lack of clarity in establishing clear referentiality. Extracts 5 to 7 provide examples of how referentiality can become problematic in ELF texts, resulting in ambiguities that hinder both comprehension and translation. Structural ambiguities, such as poorly constructed sentences, can weaken the referential function, leaving translators uncertain about the specific referents of certain elements (Extract 5). Extract 6 highlights the issue of lack of contextual anchoring in ELF texts, where shared knowledge cannot be assumed. Here, the reference to a ‘workshop’ is unclear because the context does not specify whether it refers to a general concept or a particular event. Similarly, pronoun ambiguity, caused by the use of pronouns without explicit referents, creates interpretive and translation challenges. In Extract 7, the student who carried out the translation points out that the pronoun ‘their’ in the phrase ‘their environment’ lacks a clear antecedent, leading to confusion about whether it refers to the students’ work environment or the locations visited during fieldwork, resulting in an uncertain translation.

Extract 5

The difficulties I faced in interpreting the text were mostly due to errors in sentence construction, making it hard to understand what the elements were referring to.

Extract 6

The sentence 'As far as the artistic co-creation activity is concerned, on the other hand, the same pathway of the workshop can be replicated, or it can lead to other production creations of a different nature' was problematic. The major issue is due to the lack of clarity regarding which workshop is being referred to. Is it referring to a workshop as a general model, in an abstract sense, or to a specific event? The context does not help understand, as there are no references to workshops in the preceding or following sentences.

Extract 7

In the sentence ‘One product can be an interview, a second product can be a photo and a third can be an audio recording (for example an interview with relevant people in relation to their environment), sound recordings [...]’ we find a similar problem. ‘Does ‘their environment’ refer to the environment in which the pupils work (so the ‘relevant people’ are teachers or educators), or to the environments the pupils visited during the outing (and the ‘relevant people’ are the people who work there)? In the translation I eventually opted for the second option, but the doubt remains.

These extracts show how weak referentiality can be in ELF texts, highlighting how linguistic errors, lack of context and ambiguous references can complicate understanding and translation. A recurring issue in these examples is the lack of contextual information to clarify referents, which is a significant challenge in ELF texts, where the absence of the author and physical context further complicates interpretation. As a result, the burden falls on translators to infer meaning without adequate textual support. As extracts 8 and 9 show, when the meaning is ambiguous, translators can either opt for an ‘assumption-based translation’, in which the translator makes educated guesses (extract 8) (Hewson 2009), but which may lead to inaccuracies, or for a literal translation, in which the translator adheres closely to the source text, even at the expense of clarity or fluency in the target language (extract 9).

Extract 8

There were often phrases and expressions that were not perfectly clear, which meant that there were assumptions about the meaning, so the translation might not express exactly what the original author intended. The original text was also quite long and sometimes repetitive, which is probably due to the fact that it was not written by a native English speaker.

Extract 9

I think this definitely affected my translation. In some passages, for example, having failed to interpret the meaning of the sentence, I had no choice but to translate while sticking to the text, with all the problems this process generates.

When translating texts written in ELF, pragmatic differences can also arise. These texts may include realia or context-dependent expressions that are not immediately self-explanatory, requiring careful interpretation. To address these issues, translators frequently opt to make implicit concepts more explicit, ensuring that the text remains understandable and accessible to the target audience. This approach is evident in extracts 10 to 12, which highlight specific strategies employed to resolve such pragmatic misalignments.

Students highlighted the need to enhance explicitness to bridge gaps in interpretation, even when the text was technically understandable (extract 10), while striving to remain faithful to the original structure (extracts 11 and 12). Key strategies included retaining realia and elaborating on implicit references to avoid potential ambiguities (extract 12).

Extract 10

At - rare - points I felt the need to investigate the meaning of the sentence better, not because it was not comprehensible, but because its meaning needed to be made more explicit.

Extract 11

In general, I respected the original structure, although in some parts adaptations or reformulations were necessary to make the concepts more explicit.

Extract 12

During the translation, my general strategy was to make the translation clear and easy to understand, while remaining as faithful to the original as possible. For this reason, I kept all references to the realia and added elaborations where necessary. The same goes for implicit references which, if not clear, I have made explicit.

Extracts 13 to 15 also show similar strategies used by other students, who chose to expand structures or add information when a concept or phrase might be unclear to the target audience (extracts 13 and 14), or to simplify concepts to avoid confusion. This is evident in extract 15, where the translator reports omitting details that might mislead the audience, such as school grade classifications that do not match between the source and target cultures, choosing instead to indicate only the children's ages.

Extract 13

I expanded certain structures or added information when I felt that the meaning of a certain concept or a certain sentence was not comprehensible to the Italian reader, even from a perspective of different cultures and backgrounds.

Extract 14

With regard to specific elements of the source culture, I have normally chosen to translate literally, adding an explanation.

Extract 15

When I found names of professional positions, for example, I tried to find terms that were easily understandable to the reader and in current use in our language, such as the position of school headmaster or town hall officials. Furthermore, with regard to the division of the children's classes, I decided in some cases to keep only their age without specifying the class, since in some cases the ages did not correspond to a specific class in Italy; this was to avoid confusion.

While the most common strategy adopted by students involved making cultural concepts explicit through added descriptions or explanations, some students reported opting for a more literal translation in specific cases. This approach was often taken when there was no official or widely recognized translation for a term, or when online resources failed to provide additional context or clarity about the concept (extract 16). Similarly, in some instances, students admitted translating phrases literally despite understanding the individual words, as the overall meaning remained unclear (extract 17).

Extract 16

Within the handbook, I found no particular social, ethical or political references, with the exception of the figures of ‘multicultural assistants’ for Poland, and ‘intercultural mediators’ for Catalonia. Finding no established references or translations on the web, I opted for a rather literal translation, ‘multicultural assistants’ and ‘intercultural mediators’ respectively.

Extract 17

In some cases, I had to literally translate sentences because, although I knew all the words, I could not understand the meaning of the sentence.

The students' reflections and strategies reported in all these extracts underline the complexity of translating ELF texts, which often involve multiple translational layers and linguistic complexity. The challenges they faced, ranging from unclear referentiality (extracts 5 to 12) to cultural and pragmatic misalignments (extracts 10 to 17), highlight the inherent fluidity and hybridity of ELF. By critically engaging with these texts, students demonstrated their meta awareness of the translational processes at play, adopting various strategies such as enhancing explicitness, respecting the original structure while making necessary adaptations, and tailoring translations to the target audience’s cultural and linguistic expectations. These insights not only show the challenges of working with ELF texts but also emphasize the active role of translators in bridging linguistic and cultural gaps.

Euro-project language as additional challenge

The use of ELF had a greater impact at the morphological and syntactic levels, whereas the lexical challenges were mainly due to the specific language of the Euro-projects and the specialised terminology of the pedagogical field, as these handbooks are primarily intended for educators. In terms of language and terminology related to European projects, words such as 'policy maker', 'stakeholder', 'upscaling', 'pilot', 'repilot', 'follow up project' were problematic (extracts 16 and 17).

Extract 16

The difficulties faced were mainly at a lexical level. Just think of the title: ‘repilot action’. ‘Repilot’ is a complex word to render in Italian as there is no equivalent.

Extract 17

The problems I faced mainly concerned the more technical terms, such as ‘stakeholder’ or ‘policymaker’.

These terms proved particularly challenging to translate, as they are often anglicisms—borrowed directly from English and commonly used in Italian without translation. Moreover, they are highly context-specific, typically found within the specialised language of EU projects and professional or academic discourse. This kind of linguistic borrowing reflects the influence of English—often used as a lingua franca—in specialised domains such as European project communication. Consequently, students were faced with the additional challenge of deciding whether to retain these terms in their original English form or adapt them into more accessible Italian equivalents. This decision-making process required careful consideration of factors such as the target audience’s familiarity with the English terms and the potential clarity or ambiguity introduced by translating them (extract 18).

Extract 18

‘Stakeholders’ remained unchanged, as I found in my research that Italian uses this anglicism extensively. For 'policy makers', my colleague and I agreed on a generic ‘policy makers’.

Beyond the Euro-project-specific terms, the specialised terminology of education and pedagogy also posed a challenge. Concepts such as ‘circle time’, ‘self-expression’, ‘self-confidence’ and ‘empowerment’ are clearly conveyed in English, but have no equally effective Italian equivalents and need to be elaborated or reformulated (extracts 19 and 20).

Extract 19

There were repeated references to ‘self-expression’, ‘self-confidence’, ‘empowerment’, ‘care’, ‘compassion’ which are difficult to define in a single term in Italian and therefore often had to be elaborated.

Extract 20

The main difficulties I had were related to the specific vocabulary of the school environment, the repeated use of certain words, repetitions, and the very frequent use of expressions that are very effective in English but not always easy to render in Italian, such as repilot action, policymaker, stakeholder, which in some cases led to the need to make changes to the sentence structure.

Students reported that translating Euro-project language can be challenging due to its specialised terminology and frequent use of anglicisms, which often have no direct equivalent in Italian, forcing translators to choose between retaining the English term or translating it for clarity. In addition, context-specific jargon and technical or educational language presented a further challenge in ensuring accurate and accessible translations for an Italian audience.

Despite the various challenges that ELF texts and Euro-project-specific jargon posed for most students. They acknowledged that the texts assigned for translation were overall comprehensible and fluent, noting that the errors they encountered were minor and of a kind that even native speakers might make (see extract 21). These mistakes, in their view, did not compromise the overall intelligibility of the texts or hinder their ability to produce accurate translations (see extract 22).

Extract 21

In the source text, I found some errors, such as the use of ‘than’ instead of ‘then’, ‘as a bases’ instead of ‘as a basis’. There are also several punctuation errors. These could of course also be simple typos made by a native English speaker, as the text is very understandable anyway.

Extract 22

The use of English as a lingua franca did not affect my translation work in any way, also because the text was extremely comprehensible and fluent. The errors I found were then corrected in the text I translated.

Conclusions

This study has highlighted some of the specific challenges of translating texts written in English as a lingua franca into Italian, based on the experience of translating multilingual and multicultural handbooks within the NEW ABC European Horizon project, where the complexity of ELF was coupled with some specific Euro-project and education-related terminology. As the study is based on a small sample of student translators, its scope was necessarily exploratory and its contribution has been framed within the context of the limited existing research on ELF translation, particularly in educational and Euro-project settings.

By analysing the translation strategies adopted by Master’s students translating a small corpus of ELF texts into Italian, the analysis has shed light on the linguistic and referential challenges often found in ELF texts. These challenges arise from the hybrid nature of such texts, which are written by authors with different language skills and cultural backgrounds and are often governed by norms that differ from native English conventions (Albl-Mikasa 2017). Students explicitly described the source texts as 'written/translated' in ways that introduced stylistic and lexical difficulties. These included non-standard or erroneous uses of English terms, such as 'realize' to mean 'do', which can complicate comprehension and decoding prior to translation. Weak or unclear referentiality was identified as another key issue, exemplified by the ambiguous use of the pronoun “their” in the phrase “their environment,” which caused confusion about whether it referred to the students’ work environment or the locations visited during fieldwork. Uncertainty over whether English portions of proper names were official or translated, compounded by translators' unfamiliarity with source languages such as Greek, exemplified some other challenges posed by ELF texts. Consequently, translators often had to rely on assumption-based or literal translation strategies, which risked introducing inaccuracies or reducing clarity. Pragmatic challenges also arose due to implicit realia and culture-bound references. Students adopted strategies such as reformulation and adding clarifications to ensure their work was accessible and faithful to the original text. While this was the predominant approach, other students opted for literal translations in cases of absent standardised terminology or ambiguous meanings, whereas others chose to simplify potentially confusing details, such as omitting school grade classifications that did not align with the target culture’s system.

However, this study does not aim to suggest that hybridity inherently results in problematic translations. Rather, it seeks to highlight the importance of recognising potential ambiguities and the increased cognitive effort required from translators.

The reflections reported in the extracts also show that translators take an even more active role when they need to refine and/or correct the source text, demonstrating their active engagement. The students showed that they were aware of such an active role in translating ELF texts, which often requires considerable effort to clarify or adapt content to ensure that it is comprehensible in the target language. The strategies they employed further highlighted the visibility of the translator’s agency in managing ELF texts. By making choices to improve clarity and cultural reference, these students exemplified the proactive role translators play when translating ELF texts.

The findings also support translation scholars’ argument that ELF texts—with their unique characteristics and deviations from standard English norms—should be recognised and incorporated within the broader concept of the source text in translation studies (Pym 2001; Schaffner and Adab 2001). The challenges highlighted by the students confirm the importance of integrating ELF-specific training into translation curricula in order to better prepare them for the complexities of translating ELF texts. Introducing ELF texts into translation classes can be used to reinforce the importance of confirming hypotheses about meaning whenever potential ambiguities arise and to provide students with opportunities to discuss strategies for resolving difficulties when contacting the source-text author or obtaining confirmation of interpretations is not feasible (Hewson 2013). By engaging with ELF texts in this way, students can develop critical problem-solving skills and a deeper understanding of how to handle linguistic variability in translation.

About the author(s)

Federica Ceccoli is a Research Fellow and an Adjunct Professor at the University of Bologna, Italy. Her academic research focuses on public service interpreting, non-professional interpreting and child language brokering. She is the author of Migrant children on stage: Their role as bilingual brokers (2022).
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2775-9020

Email: [please login or register to view author's email address]

•  Next article