Section 5 notes that the arcades of newspaper-borne and other advertisements of decentralized originality do not, in modern social formations, quite supersede the traditional archives which modernity retains. But they prevail in modern societies. This creates a nonisomorphism between the body of records and therefore of resonances in a traditional society and the corresponding set of resonances in a modern formation, posing acute difficulties for a translator working at the interface between a traditional and a modern language.

Section 6, on Less Equipped Languages or LELs, proposes that the problem is solved by the expectant speech communities of LELs who are waiting for imported innovations, among other things, to sweep them off their traditional feet. This section lists certain types of neologism and suggests practical strategies for facing the different problems they pose for translating from a MEL into a LEL.

The seventh and the last section suggests that journalists and educators are the strongest forces implementing language modernization, and that they mediate between the public and the language planning authorities. But language planners are generally too conservative to cope with the pace and type of innovations now in progress, for structural reasons having to do with the composition of the relevant planning committees in their world societies. Ways around this problem are pointed out.

Neologisms are, at the most evident level, new words or expressions not yet regarded as completely naturalized or domesticated elements in the language. For instance, non-Russian journalists reporting the achievements of Mikhail Gorbachev in the eighties adopted the loanwords glasnost and perestroika in their respective languages to describe his brand of 'openness' and 'restructuring'. These neologisms spread rapidly and became part of the common terminological currency all over the world. But they are not ordinary words in our languages. They have remained neologisms.

The problem takes on an added dimension in cases like sputnik, which in the 1950s was a new coinage in Russian itself - in contrast to the ordinary Russian words glasnost and perestroika. In the glasnost case, an ordinary SL term gives rise to neologisms in the TLs. But sputnik instantiates a different pattern. Here both the SL word and its copies in the TL are brand new. A neologism is translated by a neologistic loanword. However, the difference is not as big as it looks. Although glasnost and perestroika already existed in Russian, Gorbachev gave them a twist and turned them into his brand names for the new social technology he was advertising. Thus, even in Russian, glasnost and perestroika count as 'semantic neologisms' (old words with new meanings) in their Gorbachevian use, which led to their massive adoption all over the world.