Understanding language is not just knowing the meaning of expressed words and the manner in which they are united, but illustrating inferences based on non-linguistic information and the assumption of the translator to meet the standards of communication.
If the reader or listener understands what the speaker or writer is trying to say, there is good communication. Communication entails the clarity of the message, the channels by which it is conveyed, and the situational aspects that may distort meaning in the reader’s or listener’s minds. When this is applied to translation, the problem will be more complex when the translator is asked to figure out the writer’s message and interprets what has been understood, which may appear completely different from what the reader is trying to say.
Dressler and De Beaugrande (1984) define a pointless text as a serious difference between the arrangement of concepts and relations articulated. Abdellah (2002) points out the work complexity of the translator. Misconception happens in reading and understanding messages, which lead to disfigured representations. Blum-Kulka (1986) recognises consistency as the key in the realisation of the text’s meaning and assumes that this might lose its meaning by translation. Baker (1996) assumes that the maxims of quality, quantity, relevance, and manner are not universal. However, the interpretation may vary from one linguistic society to another.
Every language interpreted must have a preference for a coherent tool to express meanings not literally included in the text. Texts must be read and understood literally, and then translators must know what is implied by the particular terms in the texts. Finally, good translators interpret the literal and the implied expressions into vernacular using preferred devices. With these, a translator is certified to reword, omit, add, and rephrase to convey the real sense that the original writer is trying to say.