The above cases are prototypical examples. They help us to focus on the general problem of neologisms. The fundamental question is how translators can decide when to resort to neologisms in their work and what strategies to use when direct borrowing is not a viable option.

We can tackle this question effectively if we go about it with some circumspection. Our approach here is to explore the general issues of innovation in language in the context of translation.

Consider the following paradox, Any TL document D translated from an SL must by definition be new to TL. If D already existed in TL, nobody would need to translate the material from an SL. But D must consist of pieces (i.e. words and expressions) which are old in TL, for it they do not count as common currency then the audience will not understand, defeating the whole purpose of translation. Thus, D must be new to TL, and yet must be composed of material that is old in TL.

The Translation Novelty Paradox, as we may call it for reference, reflects a contested area where two forces pull the translator in opposite directions. There is the need for D to preserve continuity with existing TL writings. This need propels us towards traditional, comfortable translations. But D also needs to perform a distinct rupture with the tradition and specifically make room for the exact content of this text coming from outside - a need that encourages technical, accurate translations, capable of specifying discontinuities with some rigour.

The direction in which the stronger winds blow changes as we move from traditional to modern social formations. In traditional contexts, even the original SL text would have normally been written along prescribed lines, with little or non self-conscious innovation. And a traditional TL translation D naturally follows suit, departing minimally or not at all from the composition conventions in the TL culture. But in the modern period marked by the rise of the technical domains, much writing takes place under the shadow of what we shall call the technical contribution imperative. The principle demands that all serious statements must (a) contribute some new and original thinking self-consciously marked in the very form of the text, and (b) link this work to some general impersonal system of expressing thoughts and feelings with objectivity and precision. Both the particular technique of the individual writer and the systematic technology of the collective field of such writing make modern texts especially prone to exact and differentiated modes of expression. This often takes the form of neologisms in original writings as well as translations. For only innovations can sharpen the ordinary, diffuse language into a vehicle for the required level of exact expression.