Essentials of Translation

8/13/2019 Essentials of Translation

1/100

UNIT 1

BASIC CONCEPTS OF TRANSLATION

Translation Studies:first proposed by James S. Holmes (1972) as a better alternative totranslatology and to translation science, or thescience of translating(cf. Nida 19!)

(Holmes" map of thanslation st#dies 1972)

1.1. The concept of translation

$ranslation % the translatin& process and its prod#ct, i.e. s#bs#min& both theactivity and the entity

$ranslation % the prod#ct of the translatin& process (the translated ' tar&et tet % $$ $ranslatin& % the process, the activity performed by the translator

rocess * res#lt +$he process or res#lt of convertin& information from one lana&e or lana&e

variety into another. $he aim is to reprod#ce as acc#rately as possible all the &rammaticaland leical feat#res of the so#rce lana&e (S-) ori&inal by findin& e#ivalents in thetar&et lana&e ($-). /t the same time, all fact#al information contained in the ori&inaltet m#st be retained in the translation (0eetham and H#dson 199+2!2).

1

Translation Studies

'Pure' Applied

Theoretical Descriptive

General Partial Product

Oriented

Process

Oriented

Function

Oriented

Translator

Training

Translation

Aids

Transl

Critic

Medium

Restricted

Area

Restricted

Rank

Restricted

Text-Type

Restricted

Time

Restricted

Problem

Restricted


2/100

The interpretive theory of translation(a theory of translatin& and translation) layse#al stress on the interpretive process of any stretch of lana&e, involvin&linistics, psycholinistics, semantics, pra&matics, the c#lt#ral contet,comm#nicative competence ithin a translation%oriented tet analysis ($$/)(3roitor# 199+ !).

4t is an interdisciplinary, m#ltilevel approach to the eplanation of the phenomenaof translation, interpretation for translation (i.e. translation%oriented interpretation) andinterpretation as oral translation.

$he interpretative theory of translation implies+

observin& conventions of form (linistic str#ct#re)5 interpretin& and translatin& style and re&ister5 preservin& the tet#al or&anicity, perceivin& the tet as a lar&er #nit of

disco#rse5 layin& stress on coherence and cohesion in tet#al clarity5 performin& the interpretive analysis closely lin6ed ith or precedin& the

translation oriented tet analysis5 interpretation of meanin& at the ord and above the ord level5 6noled&e of the c#lt#ral contet5 6noled&e of the c#lt#re%specific elements5 all the components of the translational competence.

$ranslation means+

2

1. The process of transferring a ritten te!t fro" the SL to the TL# cond#ctedby a translator# in a specific socio$c%lt%ral conte!t.&. The ritten pro'%ct# or TT# hich res%lts from that process andhichf%nctions in the socio$c%lt%ral conte!t of the TL.(. The cogniti)e# ling%istic# )is%al# c%lt%ral an' i'eological pheno"ena hichare an inte&ral part of 1 and 2 above.

(Hatim and 0#nday 2!+ )

*. Interpretation of "eaning at the ord and above the ord level# re+%iring

inter'isciplinar, -nole'ge an' a "%ltile)el approach.

(3roitor# 199+!)


3/100

1. &. The ling%istic an' co""%nicati)e stages of the translation theor,.

1.&.1. The ling%istic stage

Essay on the Principle of Translation (1797)by /.8.$ytler :

- a &ood translation + the translation in hich the merit of the ori&inal is socompletely transf#sed into another lana&e, as to be as distinctly apprehended,and as stron&ly felt by a native of the co#ntry to hich that lana&e belon&s, as itis by those ho spea6 the lana&e of the ori&inal or6:

Tytler' s rules + normative prescriptions derivin& from the s#b;ective andeval#ative description of a &ood translation +

% the translation sho#ld &ive a complete transcript of the ideas of theori&inal or65

% the style and manner of ritin& sho#ld be of the same character ith thatof the ori&inal5

% the translation sho#ld have all the ease of the ori&inal composition.

$he policy is the tet, the hole tet, and nothin& b#t the tet. $ranslation is seen as an interpretation hich necessarily reconstit#tes and

transforms the forei&n tet. $ranslation means recreatin& the val#es accr#in& to the forei&n tet over time

and his #topian vision of linistic


4/100

$ranslation, ironically, transplants the ori&inal into a more definitive linisticrealm since it can no lon&er be displaced by a secondary renderin&. (=en;amin192>).

$ranslation is seen as criticism, insofar as it attempts theoretically toanticipate creation, it chooses, it eliminates repetitions, it or&ani?es 6noled&e

in s#ch a ay that the net &eneration may find only the still livin& part. 8oreample, @. o#nd"s #se of translation is described as 7). $o rite ell is to ma6e contin#al inc#rsions into &rammar, into established

#sa&e, and into accepted linistic norms. 4t is an act of permanent rebelliona&ainst the social environs, a s#bversion. $o rite ell is to employ a certainradical co#ra&e. 8ine, b#t the translator is #s#ally a shy character. FG Hefinds himself facin& an enormo#s controllin& apparat#s, composed of&rammar and common #sa&e. Ihat ill he do ith the rebellio#s tet 4sn"t ittoo m#ch to as6 that he also be rebellio#s, partic#larly since the tet issomeone else"s He ill be r#led by coardice FG he ill betray him.$rad#ttore, traditore.: (rte&a y Aasset 1992+ 9!)

1.&.&. The co""%nicati)e stage.

K#rin& this sta&e most translation theory became fact#al or non%literary. $his sta&e is dominated by the f#ndamental iss#e of translatability. $he forei&n tet is reritten accordin& to the terms and val#es of the receivin&

c#lt#re (Iillard Can rman L#ine). National literat#res as sites of international infl#ence and affiliation hich

nonetheless develop in nationally distinct ays, prod#cin& #ni#emasterpieces: that demand from the translator an ideal version,: #ltimately#nattainable (Cladimir Nabo6ov 19!1+11).

@#ivalence of messa&es #ltimately relies #pon an identity of sit#ations:,here sit#ations: indicates an #ndefined reality.: $he translator needs tothin6 of meanin& as a c#lt#ral constr#ction and to see a close connectionbeteen linistic proced#res and metalinistic information,: namely thec#rrent state of literat#re, science, politics etc. of both lana&e comm#nities:.(Jean%a#l Cinay and Jean Karbelnet )

!


5/100

1.(. So"e essential )ies on translation.

1//s $ 1(/s0

I. =en;amin, @. o#nd, Jor&e -#is =or&es, rte&a y Aasset

1*/s $ 1/s0Cladimir Nabo6ov, Jean%a#l Cinay and Jean Karbelnet, Iillard van rman L#ine, M.

Ja6obson (19D9)

12/s $ 13/s0

@. Nida, J.3. 3atford (19D), Jii -evy (19>, 197, 1971, 197), O. Meiss, James

Holmes, A. Steiner, 4tamar @ven%Pohar, Aideon $o#ry, Hans Cermeer, /ndre -efevere,

Iilliam 8raley, hilip -eis, /ntoine =erman, -ory 3hamberlain

13/s 4 15/s0

S#san =assnett (19B, 19BD), 0ary Snell%Hornby, Mo&er =ell (19BB), /ntoine =erman

(19B!), Soshana =l#m%O#l6a (19B1, 19B), Michard =rislin (197), John Kodds (19BD),

/lan K#ff (19B9), 4tamar @ven%Pohar (1971, 197B,199), James Holmes (197, 1972,

197B), J. M. -admiral (1979), Jose -ambert (19B2, 19B!, 19BD 19B, 19BB,19B9), /.

-efevere (19B1, 19B>, 19B7, 19B9), /ndrei =antaQ (197B, 19B2, 19BD, 19B7, 19B9), St.

/#&. Koinas (1972, 19BB), -eon -eviRchi (197D, 1991)

1/s0

0ona =a6er (1992, 199>, 199D, 199), /. =antas (1991,199>, 199!), S. =assnett (199,199>) Jean =oase%=eier (199!, 199D), Mo&er =ell (1991, 199D), @doardo 3risaf#lli

(199), 0ichael 3ronin, Kir6 Kelabastita (199, 199>), 3ay Koller#p (199), mberto

@co (199o, 199>),@din Aent?ler (199>), Kaniel Aile (19B9, 199!, 199D), @rnst%/#st

A#tt (199, 1991), =asil Hatim and Jan 0ason (1992), $heo Hermans

(1991,199>,199D,199), Oeith Harvey (199D), -ance Heson and Jac6y 0artin (1991),

James Holmes (19BB), J#liane Ho#se (19BB, 199>, 199,1997), Oin&a Ola#dy (199>,

199!), Ierner Ooller (199, 199>, 199D), Jose -ambert (1991, 199>, 199D),T 0. -ederer,

/. -efevere (1991, 199>, 199!), K. Selescovich, -arence Cen#ti

&///s $ &/1/s0

0ona =a6er (21, 21), 0ichael 3ronin, 3ay Koller#p (2) Kavid Oatan, Sara

-aviosa, 8ederica Scarpa, -arence Cen#ti

D


6/100

1.(.1. Translation theories 6ase' on the concept of lang%age as co""%nication.

1.>.1.1. $entieth cent#ry translation theories reveal a ide ran&e of fields and

approaches. /n acco#nt of theoretical concepts and trends is as interestin& as #sef#l.

Nonetheless, hatever the approach may be, a ) vie on translation as recreatin& the val#es accr#in& to the

forei&n tet over time and his #topian vision of linistic D) belief in the translator"s 7) vie of translation as a distinctive linistic practice, as a


7/100

to be able to say others:, and translation renders in the tar&et lana&e hat the so#rce

lana&e tends to silence:(Cen#ti 2+D!, opa 2B+ >D). No the . literal

(renderin&, as closely as the associative and syntactical capacities of another lana&e

allo, the eact contet#al meanin& of the ori&inal (Nabo6ov 197!,1,vii%viii,td in

=ontilU 2+ 1!D).

K#rin& the 197s, 4. @ven%Pohar and A. $o#ry considered literat#re as a


8/100

translator"s choices and the translation strate&ies. 0oreover, @ven Pohar ared that

translation may adhere to norms re;ected by the so#rce lana&e.

4n $o#ry"s opinion, the tar&et%oriented translations chan&ed the concept of

e#ivalence. He foc#sed on the concepts of ade%uacy and acceptability. He fo#nd the

ade#acy of the translation to the S$ not reliable beca#se of the shifts occ#rrin& in

translation, on the one hand, and beca#se of the need to apply certain tar&et norms in

determinin& ade#acy, on the other. $he concept of acceptabilityof the translated tet in

the $3 is closely lin6ed to the concept of ade#acy, shoin& the vario#s shifts related to

a certain type of e#ivalence.

olysystem theory represents a real pro&ress in translation st#dies, interestin&

pro;ects on translation corpora bein& developed d#rin& this decade.

Some important translation theorists, @. Nida (19D) and I. Iills (1977, 19B2)incl#ded, considered translation to be a science.

/ccordin& to A. Steiner (197D), &reat translation m#st carry ith it the most

precise sense possible of the resistant, of the barriers intact at the heart of #nderstandin&:

(Steiner 197D+ >7B).

$herefore, an aspect mar6in&these decades as that translation as vieedas the

renderin& of a so#rce lana&e tet (S-$) into a tar&et lana&e tet ($-$) so as to ens#re

that the s#rface meanin& of the to ill be approimately similar and that the str#ct#res ofthe so#rce tet (S$) ill be preserved as closely as possible on condition they do not affect

the tar&et tet ($$) str#ct#res.

$his is a restricted vie of translation, beca#se it lays stress on the syntactic system

of the lana&e st#died. 4t &oes hand in hand ith both the #nderestimation of the art and

ith the lo stat#s accorded to the translator. 4n this respect, hat H. =elloc (19>1, td.

in S. =assnett%0cA#ire 1991+2) rote lon& a&o (still proves perfectly applicable today, i.e.

that the art of translation has never been &ranted the di&nity of the ori&inal or6 and that this

nat#ral #nderestimation of its val#e has almost destroyed the art alto&ether. $h#s, the

correspondin& mis#nderstandin& of its character has added to its de&radation+

ither its importance nor its diffic#lty has been &rasped.

B


9/100

$ranslation has been considered a secondary activity, a mechanical rather than a

creative process. 0oreover, it is the prod#ct only, the res#lt of translation process that has

been analysed, not the process itself.

1.>.1.2. 4t is tr#e that, to a &reat etent, the thin6in& of most translation theorists

(ith a small n#mber of eceptions, e.&. @. Nida, and J.3. 3atford in the mid 19s) has

been dominated by $ytlerVs thin6in& p#t forard in an essay ritten in 1791. $odayVs

normative approach, i.e. the settin& #p of a series of maims consistin& of doVs and donVts,

can be traced bac6 to $ytlerVs r#les hich ere normative prescriptions derivin& from the

s#b;ective and eval#ative description of a &ood translation. He set forth three las.

1) the translation sho#ld &ive a complete transcript of the ideas of the ori&inal or65

2) the style and manner of ritin& sho#ld be of the same character ith that of theori&inal5

>) the translation sho#ld have all the ease of the ori&inal composition.

$ytler ares that these r#les o#ld flo from an acc#rate definition of a &ood

translation, i.e. the translation in hich the merit of the ori&inal is so completely

transf#sed into another lana&e, as to be as distinctly apprehended, and as stron&ly felt by a

native of the co#ntry to hich that lana&e belon&s, as it is by those ho spea6 the

lana&e of the ori&inal or6 ($ytler 1791+79, #oted by M. =ell 1991+11). $h#s, $ytler isaare of the to etreme positions adopted in relation to translation+

% to attend only the sense and spirit of the ori&inal5 therefore, it is alloable to

improve and embellish5

% to convey the style and manner of ritin& of the ori&inal5 therefore, it is necessary

to preserve even blemishes and defects.

/ ne sta&e of the debate on translation as opened by J.3.3atford (19D) ho

tac6led the problem of linistic #ntranslability and s#&&ested that the to processes of

translation and transference m#st be clearly differentiated in any theory of translation, on the

&ro#nd that translation is the s#bstit#tion of tar&et lana&e ($-) meanin&s for the so#rce

lana&e (S-) meanin&s, not the transference of $- meanin&s into the S-, hereas

transference is an implantation of S- meanin&s into the $- tet. $his, of co#rse, implies a

narro theory of meanin&, beca#se it is important for the linist only. $he disc#ssion of the

9


10/100

6ey%concepts of e#ivalence (see section 1.1.) and c#lt#ral #ntranslability occ#rred m#ch

later.

1.>.1.>. Areat pro&ress has been made in translation st#dies since 19D, and clearly

defined schools of translation st#dies have emer&ed placin& their emphasis on different

aspects of this very vast field.

$h#s, there are fo#r &eneral areas of interest, ith a de&ree of overlap beteen them.

$o of them are prod#ct%oriented, the emphasis bein& laid on the f#nctional aspects of the

$- tet in relation to the S- tet, and to of them are process%oriented, the emphasis bein&

on the analysis of hat act#ally ta6es place d#rin& the translatin& process.

/s S. =assnett%0cA#ire (1991+7WB) rites, the first cate&ory involves the History

of $ranslation and investi&ates the theories of translation and translation criticism atdifferent times, the methodolo&ical development of translation, and the analysis of the or6

of individ#al translators.

$he second cate&ory, $ranslation in the $- 3#lt#re, investi&ates sin&le tets or

a#thors, the infl#ence of a tet, or a#thor on the absorption of the norms of the translated

tet into the $- system and on the principles of selection hich operate ithin that system.

$he third cate&ory, $ranslation and -inistics, is concerned ith the comparative

arran&ement of linistic elements of the S- and $- tets re&ardin& the phonemic,morphemic, leical, synta&matic and syntactic levels. $herefore, it incl#des the problems of

linistic e#ivalence, linistic #ntranslability, and the translation problems of non%literary

tets.

$he fo#rth cate&ory, $ranslation and oetics, refers to the literary translation theory

and practice.

n this line of thin6in&, J.S. HolmesV descriptive theory of translation incl#des

prod#ct%oriented, f#nction%oriented, and process%oriented descriptions (J.S. Holmes 1972,

197D+12W1!). $he prod#ct%oriented description became the approach most identified ith

the later translation st#dies. 4t as concerned ith a tet%foc#sed empirical description of

translations, and ith lar&er corp#ses of translations in a specific period, lana&e or

disco#rse type. $he f#nction%oriented description introd#ced a c#lt#ral component hich

1


11/100

affected the reception of the $$. $he process%oriented approach as concerned ith the

problem of the blac6 bo, i.e. hat as &oin& on in the translatorVs mind.

/. -efevere (197D) prefers HolmesV second description, i.e. the one that privile&es

the f#nction of the tet on the ori&inal readers. His prescriptions recall NidaVs and IilssV

conceptions, namely that the translatorVs tas6 is to render the S$, the ori&inal a#thorVs

interpretation of a &iven theme epressed in a n#mber of variations by replacin& the ori&inal

a#thorVs variation ith their e#ivalents in a different lana&e, time, place and tradition

(-efevere 197D+99). 4n his opinion, partic#lar emphasis m#st be laid on the fact that the

translator has to replace all the variations contained in the S$ by their e#ivalents (see

3hapter >).

1.(.&. Other lang%age$6ase' )ies on translation./nother definition of translation describes it as the replacement of a representation

of a tet in one lana&e by a representation of an e#ivalent tet in a second lana&e

(Hartmann and Stor6 1972+71>, td. in M. =ell 1991+22).

$ranslation as also defined as the epression in the $- of hat has been epressed

in the S-, preservin& the semantic and stylistic e#ivalences (K#bois 197>, td. in M. =ell

1991+22).

I. Iilss, a &reat representative of the science of translation in Aermany, rites thatthe science of translation is not a sealed, nomolo&ical science b#t a

co&nitive'hermene#tic'associative one (Iills 19B2+1). His translation theory is based

#pon+

a) the concept of a #niversal lana&e5

b)the belief that deep%str#ct#re transfer is possible by a hermene#tic process, and

c)the #alitative ran6in& of tets, from a hi&h level incorporatin& art and science

tets to a lo level incl#din& b#siness and pra&matic tets.

4n Iills"opinion, translation research m#st develop a frame of reference to vie a

tet as a comm#nication%oriented confiration ith a thematic, f#nctional and tet%

pra&matic dimension. $hese three tet dimensions can be derived from the s#rface str#ct#re

of the respective tet. He ares that the deep str#ct#re of the lana&e (in hich he

incl#des the si&n in the contet) can be determined and transformed into any lana&e in

11


12/100

any contemporary contet. $h#s, he refers to NidaVs arment that the interlinal

comm#nication is possible d#e to to factors+

1) semantic similarities in lana&es are d#e to the common core of h#man

eperience, and

2) there are f#ndamental similarities in the syntactic str#ct#re of lana&es,

especially at the so%called 6ernel, or core level (Nida 199+!B> td. by I. Iilss

19B2+!9). He ends his theory ith the prono#ncement that everythin& can be epressed

in every lana&e, (I. Iills 19B2+!B). $his vie is idespread in modern linistics.

-ater on he considers that the lar&e de&ree of variability in translated tets is less a fa#lt

of the ell%trained translator, and more a res#lt of the differin& c#lt#ral contets in hich

the translators find themselves and their s#b;ective creative decisions (see ch.>). $hat is

to say, the c#lt#ral factors do not only infl#ence the final prod#ct, b#t also ei&h #ponthe decision%ma6in& process. 3onse#ently, he says+ 4 do believe that there are many

aspects of translation that transcend the c#lt#ral bo#ndaries and that they are, in fact,

#niversal (Iills 19B9+1>!).

$.Hermans"s collection of essays (19BD) aro#sed a &reat deal of debate beca#se the

contrib#tors to that vol#me tho#&ht that translation editin& as a manip#latory process.

$hey said that by eaminin& hat too6 place d#rin& the processes of readin&, reritin& in

another lana&e and the s#bse#ent reception, attention as shifted aay from the S$ andits c#lt#ral bac6&ro#nd. Some translators tho#&ht that their main tas6 as to eamine the

impact of the translation in the tar&et system.

/ prototypolo&y as s#&&ested by 0.Snell%Hornby (19BB), a more fleible

Aestalt%li6e system ith bl#rred ed&es. She offers a very complicated stratification model

proceedin& from a &eneral level (macrolevel) to more partic#lar levels (microlevels) (@.

Aent?ler 199>+72).

Hoever, as Aent?ler (ibid.) concl#des, hether the Snell%Hornby model achieves

an inte&rated approach for $ranslation St#dies remains to be seen.

3onse#ently, most of these translation st#dies are directed primarily to teachin&

translators or eval#atin& translations, bein& prescriptive in nat#re. $hey rely too heavily

#pon very traditional dichotomies of &ood ' bad and faithf#l ' free. $hey also tend to be

so#rce%oriented in nat#re, arin& that the ori&inal embodies some sort of deep str#ct#re,

12


13/100

hich contains the information necessary for its s#bse#ent encodin& in another lana&e to

hich the translator m#st remain faithf#l. $h#s they are concerned only ith reprod#cin&

the ori&inal. @. Aent?ler considers that s#ch an approach reaffirms anti#ated notions of

translation, notions hich vie translations as second%hand, merely servin& as handmaiden

of a hi&her, more creative art. $he bi&&est problem is that the foc#s of these sciences Fof

translation is too narro. $hey loo6 primarily at hat is a non%verifiable space % i.e. the

blac6 bo of the h#man mind%and ma6e lar&e statements not only abo#t translability b#t also

abo#t ho that process sho#ld occ#r (Aent?ler 199>+7>).

$o all this, the idea is orth mentionin& that a more comple vie of translation

sho#ld consider the c#lt#ral feat#res of the S$. 3#lt#re becomes the operational #nit of

translation (=assnett 1991). S#ch an opinion is different from . Nemar6"s opinion that

the operational #nit of translation is the tet.$o concl#de, the translator has to &rasp the partic#lar elements of the S$ and render

them in a different c#lt#ral contet. /s a mediator beteen to -3s, (s)he compares and

converts to different lana&e systems, to different c#lt#res.

1>


14/100

C7APTER &

T8PES OF TRANSLATION

$here are three &la"s(for a &ood translation)+

1) the translated tet ' tar&et tet ($$) sho#ld &ive a complete transcript of theideas of the ori&inal or652) the style and manner of ritin& sho#ld be the same as that of the ori&inal tet 'so#rce tet (S$)5>) the translation sho#ld have all the ease ' fl#ency of the ori&inal tet.

4n Ja6obsonVs opinion, there is no complete e#ivalence thro#&h translation, and evenapparent synonymy does not yield e#ivalence (in the sense of synonymy or sameness),beca#se each #nit contains ithin itself a set of non%transferable associations andconnotations, hence all poetic art is technically #ntranslatable.

Intraling%al translation 9rewording:+ interpretation ofverbal si&ns by means of other si&ns of the same lana&e.Interling%al translation 9translation proper:+ interpretationof verbal si&ns by means of some other lana&e.Interse"iotic translation 9transmutation:+ interpretation ofverbal si&ns by means of si&ns of nonverbal si&n systems.

(Ja6obson 19D9+ 2>2%9'2!+ 1>9)

1!


15/100

His opinion is ta6en #p by A. 0o#nin (19>), ho considers translation a seriesof operations of hich the startin& point and the end%prod#ct are si&nifications and f#nctionithin a &iven c#lt#re. He s#&&ests that the translator has to resort to a combination of #nitsin order to find an approimate e#ivalent. $h#s, his opinion resembles M. Ja6obsonVsstatement that translation is only an ade#ate interpretation of an alien code #nit and

e#ivalence is impossible.3onsiderin& the levels of lana&e analysis, J.3. 3atford (19D+ 2!D) made a

hierarchic (level%dependin&) classification of translations+a) ran6%bo#nd translations in hich the selection of $- e#ivalents is deliberately

confined to one ran6, #sed in machine translation, #s#ally at ord or morphemeran65 they set #p ord%to%ord or morpheme%to%morpheme e#ivalences, b#tnot e#ivalences beteen hi&h%ran6 #nits s#ch as the &ro#p, cla#se, or sentence5s#ch translations are often bad in that they involve #sin& $- e#ivalentshich are not appropriate to their location in the $- tet, and hich are not;#stified by the interchan&eability of S- and $- tets in one and the same

sit#ation (3atfort 19D+2D)5b) #nbo#nded translations, i.e. normal, total translations in hich e#ivalences shift

freely #p and don the ran6 scale./ccordin& to the etent and level, J.3.3atford classifies translations into+a) f#ll vs. partial translations, referrin& to the etent in a synta&matic sense5b) f#ll vs. restricted translations related to the levels of lana&e involved in the

translation process. $he total translation is, in his conception, the replacement ofS- &rammar and leis by e#ivalent $- &rammar and leis ith conse#entialreplacement of S- phonolo&y ' &rapholo&y by (non%e#ivalent) $- phonolo&y '&rapholo&y.

$he restricted translation is the replacement of S- tet#al material by e#ivalent $-tet#al material at only one level (either phonolo&ical or &raphic), or only at one of the tolevels of &rammar and leis.

3atford distinishes beteen free, literal and ord%for%ord translations

8ree translation % #nbo#nded (e#ivalences tend to be at the hi&her ran6s, evenbeteen lar&er #nits than the sentence)

$ypes of translation+1. free translation2. ord%for%ord translation>. literal translation

(3atford 19D)

1D


16/100

0ore often than not, it implies leical adaptation to the $-collocational or idiomatic re#irements. Iord%for%ord translation % ran6 % bo#nd (ord X ran6) -iteral translation % ord%for%ord

% &ro#p%&ro#p

% cla#se%cla#se/s a r#le, it chan&es in 6eepin& ith the $- &rammar (e.&. insertin&additional ords, chan&in& str#ct#res at any ran6).

$he literal translation, li6e the ord%for%ord one, tends to remain leicallyord%for%ord, i.e. to #se the hi&hest probability leical e#ivalent for eachleical item.-eical adaptation to $- collocational or idiomatic re#irements seems to be

characteristic of free translation.

&.1.Literar, )s non$literar,

Kependin& on the mode of so#rce tet, translation is divided into+ translation of

literary texts (poetry, drama, novels, memoires, etc.), and of non-literary, or pragmatic

texts: (4onesc# 2+>7).

$he essential difference beteen these to modes lies in the aesthetic effect that

has to be rendered to&ether ith and thro#&h the translated version of a literary piece,

hereas in a so%called semantic (non%literary tet), hat has to be conveyed via translation

is the semantic content of the ori&inal in the tar&et lana&e. $he difference beteen

literary and non%literary translation is that the latter translates hat is in the tet, hereasthe former m#st translate hat the tet implies (4onesc# 2+>B).

-iterary translation is different from translation in &eneral far the same reasons that

literat#re is different from non%literary #ses of lana&e. -iterat#re is distinished from

them, first by the semiotici?ation of disc#rsive feat#res, then by the s#bstit#tion of

semiosis for mimesis Ythat covers the conse#ences of the indirectness of meanin& that is

the pivot an hich literariness t#rns (4onesc# 2+>B). 0oreover, an intertet is bein&

created by tet#ality that inte&rates semantic components into one closed finite semiotic

system, and readers become aare of it once they perceive that the discrete meanin& of the

ards, phrases, and sentences composin& the tet ass#me ne f#nctions in its &eneral

scheme. -iterary translation m#st reflect or imitate these differences (4onesc# 2+>B).

$he literary tet re#ires a do#ble decodin&, at the levels of both systemic and of its

component parts. $his decodin& m#st be translated in a ay that ill ind#ce the reader to

1


17/100

perform a do#ble decodin&. -iterary translation m#st also convey those feat#res of the

ori&inal tet that are the races left by its prod#ction. /ll these si&ns are in fact forms of

literariness, s#ch as si&ns indicatin& the &enre of the respective tet5 these si&ns are

implicitly cond#cive to the style #sed in the ori&inal tet and rendered appropriately in the

tar&et tet (4onesc# 2+>B).

/ltho#&h some aspects of literary tets, s#ch as the story, characters, descriptions of

places, etc., #s#ally carry over fairly easily from a so#rce tet to a tar&et tet, yet even

these transferable realities ill elicit somehat different reactions in the tar&et tet reader+

at some psycholo&ical or aesthetic level, any reader of a translation ill react differently

from a reader of the ori&inal (Hic6ley 199B+22).

$he fail#re of many translators to #nderstand that a literary tet is made #p of a

comple set of systems eistin& in a dialectical relationship ith other sets o#tside itsbo#ndaries has often led them to foc#s on partic#lar aspects of a tet at the epense of

others (=assnett 19B+7). St#dyin& the avera&e reader, -otman distinishes beteen

fo#r positions of the addressee+

1. Ihere the reader foc#ses on the content as matter, i.e. pic6s o#t the prose

arment or poetic paraphrase.

2. Ihere the reader &rasps the compleity of the str#ct#re of a or6 and the ay in

hich the vario#s levels interact.>. Ihere the reader deliberately etrapolates one level of the or6 for a specific

p#rpose.

!. Ihere the reader discovers elements not basic to the &enesis of the tet and #ses

the tet for his on p#rpose.

/ccordin& to =assnett, for the p#rpose of translation, the first position o#ld be

completely inade#ate (altho#&h many translators of novels in partic#lar have foc#sed

on content at the epense of the formal str#ct#rin& of the tet), the second position

o#ld seem an ideal startin& point, hilst the third and the fo#rth position mi&ht be

tenable in certain circ#mstances (=assnett 19B+7B). She ares that the translator is,

after all, first a reader and then a riter and in the process of readin& he or she m#st ta6e

a position (=assnett 19B+7B).

17


18/100

$here ere also many debates re&ardin& the iss#e of differentiatin& beteen

translations, versions, adaptations and the establishment of VcorrectnessV beteen these

cate&ories. Eet the differentiation beteen them derives from a concept of the reader as

the passive receiver of the tet in hich its $r#th is enshrined (=assnett 19B+79). 4n

other ords, if the tet is perceived as an ob;ect that sho#ld only prod#ce a sin&le

invariant readin&, any deviation on the part of the reader or translator ill be ;#d&ed as a

trans&ression. S#ch a ;#d&ment mi&ht be made re&ardin& scientific doc#ments, for

eample, here facts are set o#t and presents in #n#alifiedly ob;ective terms for the

reader of so#rce lana&e and tar&et lana&e ali6e, b#t ith literary tets the position is

different.

-iterat#re and literat#re translation broadly r#ns alon& a fo#r%point scale from

lyrical poetry thro#&h the short story and the novel to drama. oetry is the most personaland concentrated of the fo#r forms5 poetry is devoid of any red#ndancy or

comm#nication force, and the ord, as a #nit, ac#ires &reater importance than in any

other type of tet. $he terms of reference in a poetic tet are the leical ord and the

line ' verse, not sentence. #nct#ation and prosody are the conveyers of concentrated

messa&es, as it essentially reprod#ces the tone of the ori&inal. 4n translatin& a poem,

hat matters first and foremost, besides preservation of line and p#nct#ation format % is

rendition of the so#rce metaphors. $o render % as acc#rately as possible % the metaphoricalepressions is the to#chstone of any translator, beca#se thro#&h metaphor, the translator

has to 6eep the inte&rity of both leical #nits and the lines ithin the contet (4onesc#

2+22!). . Nemar6 (199D) considers that the translator is d#ty bo#nd to reprod#ce

the ori&inal metaphors most scr#p#lo#sly, even if they are li6ely to ca#se c#lt#ral shoc6.

4n the translation of prose, the translator is released from the obvio#s constraints

of poetry X metre and rhyme5 he is free to #se c#lt#ral &losses and notes ithin the tet.

0oreover, prose pres#pposes eistence of certain cohesives that may have handier

e#ivalents in tar&et lana&e. /s for the 6ey ords or 6ey%concepts, translators have to

assess their tets critically5 they have to decide hich leical #nits are central and have

more important f#nction, and hich are peripheral, so that the relative &ains and loses in

a translation may correspond to their assessment (4onesc# 2+229).

1B


19/100

$he standards as ell the characteristic feat#res, hether leical%semantic,

syntactic, or pra&matic of non%literary translation are in direct relationship ith the type

of tet%to%be%translated+ technical translation, for instance, is ;#st one part of speciali?ed

translation, instit#tional translation, i.e. the area of politics, commerce, b#siness,

&overnment, la, is the other (4onesc# 2+!2).

4n CermeerVs vie, the difference beteen literary and other types of tets is one

of de&ree and not of 6ind. @ven special lana&es are characteri?ed by metaphor, and

;o#rnalistic lana&e abo#nds in VliteraryV devices s#ch as alliterations, ord%play, similes

or metaphors (4onesc# 2+22>). 4n the vie held in present, literary lana&e is

concerned ith the eploitation of the entire capacity of a lana&e system. 4n 0. Snell%

HornbyVs ords, it involves not merely deviance from a static and prescriptive norm %

b#t the creative etension of the lana&e norm, in the fleible sense of the r#le%&overned potential. /s re&ards translation, one of the literary translatorVs most

diffic#lt choices is decidin& ho s#ch creative etensions of the so#rce%lana&e

norm can be rendered in the tar&et lana&e itho#t act#ally infrin&in& the r#les of

linistic acceptability (Snell%Hornby 19BB+D2).

&.&. ;eneral )s speciali


20/100

Speciali?ed translation or interpretation refers to domains that re#ire at the

very least that the person be etremely ell read in the domain. @ven better is

trainin& in the field (s#ch as a colle&e de&ree in the s#b;ect, or a speciali?ed co#rse

in that type of translation or interpretation). Some common types of speciali?ed

translation and interpretation are+

8inancial translation and interpretation

-iterary translation

0edical translation and interpretation

Scientific translation and interpretation

$echnical translation and interpretation

-e&al translation and interpretation

-e&al translation is the translation of tets ithin the field of la. /s la is a c#lt#re%dependent s#b;ect field, le&al translation is not a simple tas6.

$he le&al system of the so#rce tet is str#ct#red in a ay that s#its that c#lt#re and

this is reflected in the le&al lana&e5 similarly, the tar&et tet is to be read by someone

ho is familiar ith another le&al system and its lana&e.

/part from terminolo&ical lac#nae, or leical &aps, the translator may foc#s on the

folloin& aspects. $et#al conventions in the so#rce lana&e are often c#lt#re%dependent

and may not correspond to conventions in the tar&et c#lt#re. -inistic str#ct#res that are

often fo#nd in the so#rce lana&e have no direct e#ivalent str#ct#res in the tar&et

lana&e. $he translator therefore has to find tar&et lana&e str#ct#res ith the same

f#nctions as those in the so#rce lana&e.

$ypical of this 6ind of tet is the epository disco#rse, consistin& of plain,

stylistically #nmar6ed sentences, hence the relevant piece of information is hard to capt#re,

#nless the reader is a le&al epert himself. Speciali?ed 6noled&e is a prere#isite of

ade#ate comprehension of the ne and &ivenV information. $he same ass#mption holds

for any 6ind of special tet, hether technical, le&al, or medical.

/ trained translator sho#ld be able to translate very diffic#lt scientific and

technical tets, b#t s(he) sho#ld also have ac#ired more &enerali?ed speciali?ations, s#ch

as research s6ills, terminolo&y mana&ement, and electronic information so#rces (4onesc#

2+2!).

2


21/100

&.(. Fro" or'$for$or' to co""%nicati)e translations

No matter the name it bears, the choice is an ideolo&ical one+ free and literal

translation, dynamic and formal e%uivalence ()ida *+, communicative and semantic

translation ()e"mar. *+/*, domesticating and foreigni$ing translation (0enuti *++1,

minimal mediation vs maximal mediation ()abo.ov *+. Cen#ti"s point of vie

deserves some f#rther attention as he spea6s of the @n&lish c#lt#ral he&emony.

4n domesticatin& tets, the translator adopts a strate&y thro#&h hich the $-, not

the S- is c#lt#rally dominant. 3#lt#re%specific terms are ne#trali?ed and re%epressed in

terms of hat is familiar to the dominant c#lt#re. 4f the translation is done from ac#lt#rally dominant S- to a minority%stat#s $-, domestication protects S- val#es.

&.(.1. T,pes of translation

0ention sho#ld be made that the first fo#r types distinctly manifest a S-orientation, hile the last fo#r a $- emphasis.

2ord-for-"ord translation X the S- ords are closely folloed. S- order is

preserved, ord meanin&s are ta6en o#t of contet. 3#lt#ral ords are eactly '

literally rendered. 3learly, this method is to be #sed as a pre%translation process.

21

1. =or'$for$or' translation

&. Literal translation

(. Faithf%l translation*. Se"antic translation

. A'aptation

2. Free translation

3. I'io"atic translation

5. Co""%nicati)e translation


22/100

3iteral translation X the S- &rammatical constr#ctions are converted to their

nearest $- e#ivalence. -eical items are translated in isolation, o#t of contet.

-iteral translation is also a pre%translation process.

4aithful translationtries to reprod#ce the precise contet#al meanin& of the S-

ords b#t ithin the constraints of the $- &rammar. 3#lt#ral ords are

transferred and the same applies to the $- &rammatical and leical

abnormalities: (as compared to the S-). $his 6ind of translation is as faithf#l as

possible to the riter"s intentions. 4t can be labelled as #ncompromisin& and

do&matic.

Semantic translationfoc#ses on the aesthetic val#e (the bea#tif#l and the nat#ral

so#nd) of the S- tet, compensatin& and compromisin& on meanin&. 3#lt#ral

ords may be translated by a third c#lt#rally ne#tral term or by a f#nctional term

and not by c#lt#ral e#ivalents. Semantic translation is more fleible, more

creative, more ima&inative5 it lar&ely allos the translator"s empathy to or6.

5daptationis said to be the freest form of translation. 4t is mainly #sed for plays

(comedies) and poetry. f co#rse, the themes, characters, and the plot are

preserved. $he S- c#lt#ral terms are converted to the $- c#lt#re and the tet is

practically re%ritten.

4ree translation reprod#ces the matter itho#t the manner, i.e. the contetitho#t the form of the ori&inal. $he paraphrase is #s#ally #sed5 e deal in fact

ith intralinal translation.

6diomatic translationreprod#ces the messa&e of the ori&inal, b#t distorts shades

of meanin& by shoin& preference to collo#ialisms and idioms here these do

not appear in the S- tet.

7ommunicative translation attempts to convey the most precise contet#al

meanin& of the ori&inal. =oth content and lana&e are readily acceptable andcomprehensible.

&.(.&. Se"antic an' co""%nicati)e translation

f all these methods, onlysemantic and communicative translations f#lfill the

to ma;or aims of translation+ acc#racy and economy. Similarities beteen the to

22


23/100

methods are also to be noticed+ both #se stoc6 and dead metaphors, normal collocations,

technical terms, collo#ialisms, slan&, phaticisms, ordinary lana&e. $he epressive

components (#n#s#al collocations and synta, stri6in& metaphors, neolo&isms) are

rendered very closely even literally in epressive tets hile in vocative and informative

tets they are normali?ed or toned don (ecept for advertisements).

Some scholars (Ho#se 1977, Nemar6 19BB) refer to these to possibilities of

choice hile attachin& them different labels+

- semantic translation+ art, co&nitive translation, overt (c#lt#re%lin6ed)

translation, overtranslation5

- communicative translation+ craft, f#nctional or pra&matic translation, covert

(c#lt#re%free) translation, #ndertranslation.

/ semantic translation is li6ely to be more economical than a comm#nicativetranslation. /s a r#le, a semantic translation is ritten at the a#thor"s linistic level, a

comm#nicative translation at the readership"s. 4t is also orth mentionin& that a semantic

translation is more s#itable for epressive tets (more specifically for descriptive tets,

definitions, eplanations), a comm#nicative translation for informative and vocative tets

(standardi?ed or form#laic lana&e deservin& special attention).

3#lt#ral components are transferred intact in epressive translation, transferred

and eplained ith c#lt#rally ne#tral terms in informative translation, replaced byc#lt#ral e#ivalents in vocative translation. / semantic translation remains ithin the

bo#ndaries of the so#rce lana&e c#lt#re, assistin& the reader only ith connotations. /

comm#nicative translation displays a &enero#s transfer of forei&n elements ith an

emphasis on force (intended meanin&) rather than on messa&e.

3onse#ently, semantic translation is personal, individ#al, searchin& for n#ances

of meanin&5 it tends to over%translate, yet it aims at concision. n the other hand,

comm#nicative translation is social, it concentrates on the messa&e (the referential basis

or the tr#th of information is sec#red) and it tends to #nder%translate, to be simple and

clear. Hoever, it so#nds nat#ral and reso#rcef#l (semantic translation may so#nd

a6ard and #ite #nnat#ral to the tar&et lana&e reader as the lana&e #sed is often

firative). / semantic translation has to interpret, therefore it does not e#al the ori&inal.

$he problem of loss of meanin& fre#ently arises in this case. / comm#nicative

2>


24/100

translation has to eplain, it is more idiomatic and it is often said to be better than the

ori&inal. / semantic translation reco&ni?es the S-$ a#thor"s defined a#thority, preservin&

local flavo#r intact. /s Steiner (197D+ 29B) p#ts it, $he translator invades, etracts and

brin&s home.

&.(.(. E+%i)alent effect

3homs6y denied that lana&e is primarily comm#nicative and believed only in

the strict linistic meanin& itho#t resortin& to c#lt#ral adaptations. / comm#nicative

translation is a recast in modern c#lt#re, sheddin& ne li&ht on #niversal themes. Nida

(197B), doin& some pioneerin& or6, clearly states that translatin& is comm#nicatin&.

Nevertheless, the translator"s freedom seems to be limited in both, as there is constant

conflict of interests or loyalties. /ltho#&h o#r disc#ssion constantly foc#ses on thetranslator and not on the interpreter, it is orth rememberin& that the interpreter"s

loyalties are divided in diplomacy and there is a role conflict for the co#rt interpreter

(seatin& nearer the defense or nearer the prosec#tion can affect the tr#st in his

impartiality).

$ranslation st#dies recommend that the overridin& p#rpose of any translation

sho#ld be the e%uivalent effect, i.e. to prod#ce the same effect (or one as close as

possible) on the readership of the translation as on the readership of the ori&inal. $hisprinciple is also termed e%uivalent responseor, in Nida"s ords, dynamic e%uivalence.

Kynamic e#ivalence can be e#ated ith the reader"s shadoy presence in the mind of

the translator, and contrasted to formal e%uivalence, i.e. e#ivalence of both form and

content beteen the to tets. Nemar6 (19B1) sees the e#ivalent effect as the desirable

res#lt rather than the aim of the translation. He ares that this res#lt is #nli6ely in to

cases+

if the p#rpose of the S- tet is to affect and the p#rpose of the $- tet is to

inform5

if there is a clear c#lt#ral &ap beteen S- tet and $- tet (in fact, translation

merely fills a &ap beteen to c#lt#res if, felicito#sly, there is no ins#perable

c#lt#ral clash).

2!


25/100

$he c#lt#ral &ap is brid&ed more easily in comm#nicative translation, as it conforms

to the #niversalist position advocatin& #niversally common tho#&hts and feelin&s.

Semantic translation follos the relativist position X tho#&hts and feelin&s are

predetermined by the lana&es and c#lt#res in hich people ere born, for different

people partition reality differently. 3onse#ently, ord or ord%&ro#p is the minimal #nit

of translation in the former case, the latter shoin& preference for the sentence.

Kealin& ith tet%types, e may say that in the case of comm#nicative translation

of vocative tets, the effect is essential, not only desirable. 4n informative tets, the effect

is desirable only in respect of their insi&nificant emotional impact. $he vocative thread in

these tets has nevertheless to be rendered ith an e#ivalent p#rpose aim.

4n semantic translation, the first problem arises ith serio#s ima&inative literat#re

here individ#al readers are the ones involved rather than a readership. Not to mention,that the translator is essentially tryin& to render the impact of the S- tet on himself, his

empathy ith the a#thor of the ori&inal. $he reaction is individ#al rather than #niversal.

$he more c#lt#ral (the more local, the more remote in time and space) a tet, the

less is the e#ivalent effect #nless the reader is ima&inative, sensitive and steeped in the

S- c#lt#re. 3#lt#ral concessions are advised here the items are not important for local

colo#r and here they ac#ire no symbolic meanin&.

3omm#nicative translation is more li6ely to create e#ivalent effect than semantictranslation / remote tet ill find an inevitably simplified, a version in translation.

$he e#ivalent effect can be considered an int#itive principle, a s6ill rather than an

art. 4t is applicable to any type of tet, only the de&ree of its importance varies from tet

to tet.

&.(.*. Other "etho's to 6e i'entifie'+

service translation - translation from oneVs lana&e of habit#al #se into another

lana&e5

plain prose translation 8translation of poems and poetic dramas (stan?as become

para&raphs, ori&inal metaphors and c#lt#re%specific elements are retained no

so#nd%effects bein& reprod#ced)5

information translation conveys all the information in a nonliterary tet re%

arran&ed in a more lo&ical form or s#mmari?ed5

2D


26/100

cognitive translation reprod#ces the information in a S-$ convertin& the S-

&rammar to its normal $- transpositions (the firative meanin& is lost and it is

mostly a pre%translation proced#re in a diffic#lt part of the tet)5

academic translation (practiced in some =ritish #niversities), red#ces an ori&inal

S- tet to an ele&ant idiomatic ed#cated version hich follos an eistent ' non%

eistent literary re&ister.

&.*. Translation nor"s

$he translator has to consider to basic principles+% attendin& only the sense and spirit of the ori&inal (improvement and embellishment arealloed)5% conveyin& the ritin& style and manner of the ori&inal (it is necessary to preserve even

blemishes and defects).

&.*.1. Changes fro" L1 to L& $et % a comm#nication%oriented confiration ith a thematic, f#nctional and

tet%pra&matic dimension $he interlinal comm#nication is possible d#e to to factors+1. semanticsimilarities (d#e to the common core of h#man eperience)2. f#ndamental similarities in the syntactic structureof lana&es, especially at

the so%called 6ernel, or core level (Nida 199+!B> td. by Iilss 19B2+!9,emphasis added).

Everything can be epressed in every lana&e (Iills 19B2+ !B, emphasis

added). $he cultural dimension is prevailin&.

$he lar&e de&ree of variability in translated tets is a res#lt of the different c#lt#ralcontets in hich translators have to ma6e their final decisions

$he c#lt#ral factors do not only infl#ence the final prod#ct, b#t also ei&h #pon thedecision%ma6in& process.

4 do believe that there are many aspects of translation that transcend the c#lt#ralbo#ndaries and that they are, in fact, #niversal (Iills 19B9+1>!).

$he cross-cultural .no"ledge is of #tmost importance for the translator as amediator beteen c#lt#res.

$he translator has to 6no abo#t the culture-specific behaviour patterns in &eneral,and m#st not restrict his abilities merely to linistic spheres.

$he c#lt#ral elements ill mar6 differences beteen the S$ and the $$, brin&in&abo#t a meanin& ind#cin& tension hich ill lead to variabilityin the translated tets.

$he translator"s final decisions ill eert the &reatest infl#ence #pon the readability,acceptability and fl#ency of the $$.

2


27/100

&.*.&. Specificit, of the ST an' TT $he translator % the $ranslation perator ($), eplores -32 (lana&e c#lt#re)

ith the aim of findin& the e#ivalent to hat he has discovered in -31. $he $Vs attention m#st be dran to the S-3 ' -3 1% specific elements of the tet

(his readin& is alays sit#ated at the level of difference).

Special attention m#st be paid to certain elements hich ta6e on a partic#larimportance hen considerin& the tet from the -32perspective. /nalysis of the s#rface synta of the S$ is needed ith its eplicit cla#se

str#ct#res comin& to the implicit, #nderlyin&, #niversal meanin& carried by thepropositions (there is no simple one%to%one relationship beteen the syntactic andthe propositional str#ct#re).

&.*.(. The translator>s co"petence0$he translator"s competence needs+ syntactic 6noled&e (ho cla#ses are #sed to carry propositional content)5 semantic 6noled&e (ho propositions are str#ct#red, meanin& bein&

f#ndamental)5 pra&matic 6noled&e (ho the cla#se can be reali?ed as information bearin& tet

and ho the tet can be decomposed into cla#ses)54t is a fact that lac6 of 6noled&e in any of these areas ill affect the translatorVs

competence.

$he technical translator"s competence needs+

1. S- 6noled&e2. $- 6noled&e>. tet%type 6noled&e

!. s#b;ect areaD. c#lt#ral 6noled&e. contrastive 6noled&e7. the decodin& s6ills of readin& and encodin& s6ills of ritin&

$he $Vs competence % the ability to analyse, compare and convert t"o culturalsystems, hile respectin& both the conflictin& forces ithin one -3, and the interplayofthese forces.

27

SLC TLC

?%t%al infl%ence


28/100

C7APTER (

E@UIALENCE IN TRANSLATION

(.1. The concept of e+%i)alence

$he translatin& process also incl#des the problem of e#ivalence beteen tets (S$

and $$) and the etent to hich it is desirable or even possible to preserve the semantic

and'or stylistic characteristics of the S-$ in the co#rse of translatin& it into $-$.$he concept of e#ivalence as considered to be based on #niversals of lana&e

and c#lt#re (A. 0o#nin 19>). K#rin& these decades, this concept provided standards to

eval#ate translations.


29/100

>.1.1. Nida (19!) dre a distinction beteenformaland dynamice#ivalence, the

term dynamicbein& later replaced ithfunctional(Nida and $aber 199).

8ormal e#ivalence+

8ormal e#ivalence foc#ses attention on the messa&e itself, in both form and

content: (Nida 199+1DB), i#e. a $- item hich represents the closest e#ivalent

of a S- ord or phrase.

Hoever, the folloin& sit#ations are possible+

there may not be formal e#ivalents beteen lana&e pairs5

formal e#ivalents need to be #sed if the translation aims at achievin& formal

rather than dynamic e#ivalence5

serio#s mis#nderstandin&s may occ#r in the $$ since the translation ill not be

easily #nderstood by the tar&et a#dience.

/ccordin& to Nida and $aber (19B2+122), formal correspondence distorts the

grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language, and hence distorts the

message, so as to cause the receptor to misunderstand or to labor unduly hard9#

Kynamic e#ivalence+

Kynamic e#ivalence is based #pon Vthe principle of e#ivalent effectV (Nida

19!+1D9).

4t is a translation principle accordin& to hich a translator see6s to translate themeanin& of the ori&inal in s#ch a ay that the $- ordin& ill tri&&er the same

impact on the $- a#dience as the ori&inal ordin& did #pon the S$ a#dience.

$he #ltimate &oal ill alays be nat#ralness in translation.

4t as considered to be a more efficient method.

/pproaches to e#ivalence+

linistic approach % lana&e foc#spra&matic [ semantic approach X c#lt#re foc#s

linistic, pra&matic [ semantic approach % lana&e and c#lt#refoc#s

29


30/100

>.1.2. Nemar6 (1977) distinished beteen communicative and semantic

translation+

arameter Se"antic Translation Co""%nicati)eTranslation

$ransmitter'/ddressee8oc#s

8oc#s on the tho#&htprocesses of the transmitteras an individ#al ($-connotations if they are acr#cial part of the messa&e)

S#b;ective, $$ reader%foc#sed, oriented toards aspecific lana&e andc#lt#re.

3#lt#re Memains ithin the S-c#lt#re

$ransfers forei&n elementsinto the $- c#lt#re.

Melation to S$ /lays inferiorto S$5 loss

of meanin&

0ay be betterthan the S$5

gainof force and clarityeven if loss of semanticcontent

se of form of the S- Meplicates deviated norms5loyaltyto S$ a#thor.

Mespect for the form of theS-, b#t overridin& loyaltyto$- norms.

8orm of the $- 0ore comple, a6ard,detailed5 tendency to overtranslate.

Smoother, simpler, clearer,more direct5 tendency to#nder translate.

/ppropriatenes 8or serio#s literat#re,

a#tobio&raphy, personal

effusion, any important

political (or other)

statement.

8or the vast ma;ority

of tets, e.&. non X literary

ritin&, technical and

informative tets, p#blicity,

standardi?ed types, pop#lar

fiction.

(cf. 0#nday 21+!D)

>.1.>. J. Ho#se opposed covertand overttranslations. Ho#se insisted on ho m#ch

the forei&n tet depends on its on c#lt#re for intelli&ibility. 4f the si&nificance of aforei&n tet is pec#liarly indi&eno#s, it re#ires a translation that is overt or noticeable

thro#&h its reliance on s#pplementary information, hether in the form of epansions,

insertions or annotations: (Ho#se 1977+ 2!).

$hese pairs of terms are based on the traditional dichotomies beteen sense%for%

sense and ord%for%ord translations and sho different p#rposes and effects of

>


31/100

translation. $herefore, pra&matic e#ivalence and formal e#ivalence are at the etreme

ends. $he former ma6es the translator invisible and the translated tet easily #nderstood

by the receptors, hereas the latter 6eeps the translator visible stic6in& to the linistic

and c#lt#ral val#es of the forei&n tet.

/ccordin& to Ho#se (1977), most models in translation st#dies are based on the

pra&matic theories of lana&e #se. $hey foc#s on the analysis of the linistic and

c#lt#ral characteristics of the so#rce tet and tar&et tet, on the comparison beteen them

and on their relative match or mismatch. $he condition that thefunctionof the $$ sho#ld

be the same as the f#nction of the S$ is prevailin&. 4n this respect, the $$ f#nction is

achieved by #sin& e#ivalent pra&matic means. =esides the linistic sit#ational

dimensions of the S$ hich have to be rendered in the $$, tet typolo&y is very closely

connected ith the S$ f#nction, the essential condition bein& that the $$ sho#ld matchthe S$ f#nction. 8#rthermore, the first mismatches beteen the S$ and $$ incl#de

mismatches of the denotative meaningsof the S$ and $$ ords and phrases. 4n analysin&

parallel corpora and ;#d&in& the f#nctional e#ivalence beteen the S$ and $$, the

distinction beteen overtand coverttranslations is #sef#l+ translation is overt hen the

S$ is so#rce%c#lt#re lin6ed and has independent stat#s in the S- comm#nity, and covert

hen neither condition holds. $his distinction is also necessary beca#se it is only ith

covert translations that an e#ivalent f#nction is achieved, #nli6e ith overt translationshich re#ire a special second%level f#nction to achieve ade#acy. $hat is to say, an

overt version is the res#lt of addin& a special, secondary f#nction to the $$. $he &reat

importance of the S$ c#lt#ral dimension increases the #sef#lness and efficiency of the

covert translation hich renders more s#btle c#lt#ral aspects, val#es and beliefs.

0oreover, the differences in c#lt#ral pres#ppositions often re#ire the application of a


32/100

@#ivalence at the ord level+

$he ord is the first element to be ta6en into consideration by the translator.

Iords are sin&le #nits #sed to find a direct Ve#ivalentV in the $-.

/ sin&le ord can sometimes be assi&ned different meanin&s in different

lana&es and mi&ht be re&arded as bein& a more comple #nit or morpheme.

$he translator sho#ld pay attention to a n#mber of factors hen considerin& a

sin&le ord (e. &. n#mber, &ender, ith no#ns, tense ith verbs).

Arammatical e#ivalence+

o $he variation of &rammatical r#les across lana&es may pose problems in

findin& a direct correspondence in the $-.

o Kifferent &rammatical str#ct#res in the S- and $- may ca#se remar6able chan&es

in the ay the information or messa&e is rendered.

o $hese chan&es may ind#ce the translator either to add or omit information in the

$$ beca#se of the lac6 of partic#lar &rammatical devices in the $-.

o /mon& the &rammatical devices hich mi&ht ca#se problems in translation =a6er

(1992) foc#ses on n#mber, tense and aspect, voice, person and &ender.

o $he idea of co#ntability is #niversal, b#t not all lana&es have a &rammatical

cate&ory of n#mber, even if they mi&ht ma6e distinctions at the leical level.

o $he cate&ory of person relates to the notion of participant roles. 4n most lana&es

these roles are defined thro#&h a closed system of prono#ns. 8or eample, the

person system of many @#ropean lana&es has a politeness dimension.

o /spect, tense and voice are &rammatical cate&ories hich brin& abo#t a lot of

translation diffic#lties hich the translator has to overcome.

$et#al e#ivalence+

$et#re is a very important feat#re in translation since it provides #sef#l

idelines for the comprehension and analysis of the S$.

4t helps the translator in his'her attempt to prod#ce a cohesive and coherent tet

for the $3 a#dience in a specific contet.

>2


33/100

4t is #p to the translator to decide hether or not to maintain the cohesive ties as

ell as the coherence of the S-$.

His'her decision ill be ided by three main factors+ the tar&et a#dience, the

p#rpose of the translation and the tet type.

ra&matic e#ivalence+

o Ihen referrin& to implicat#res and strate&ies of avoidance d#rin& the translation

process.

o 4mplicat#re is not abo#t hat is eplicitly said b#t hat it is implied.

o $herefore, the translator needs to or6 o#t implied meanin&s in translation in

order to &et the S$ messa&e across.

o $he role of the translator is to recreate the a#thorVs intention in another c#lt#re in

s#ch a ay that enables the $3 reader to #nderstand it clearly.

(.&. Translation shifts

$he concept of e#ivalence bein& the basic one in the translation theories of this

decade, it entails the shiftsbeteen the S$ and the $$, deviations at the linistic level,

ith some linistic cate&ories (verbs rendered by no#ns, phrases, etc.).

J. 3. 3atford (19D) &ave a thoro#&h description of the &rammatical and leicalshiftsin translation, hich ere


34/100

/ccordin& to O. Meiss (1971), the f#nctionally e#ivalent translation needs to be

based on a ).$he &en#ine concept of translation can be defined in positive terms, i.e. to render the

S- messa&e ith the closest $- e#ivalent ... is, e believe, the only possible ay leadin&to fidelity (Shen 19B9+2>!, emphasis in the ori&inal). 4t can also be defined in ne&ativeterms, i.e. literalism has indeed little claim to theoretical validity as an approach to totaltranslation (Shen 19B9+22!).

3onse#ently, some recent theories allo &reater fleibility, and accept variations inthe techni#es of ideal translation accordin& to concrete circ#mstances and comm#nicativere#irements. 8or eample, translation is seen as an act of comm#nication across c#lt#ral

bo#ndaries, the main criteria bein& determined by the recipient of the translation and itsspecific f#nction (Snell%Hornby 19BB+!7).

No the translational relationships beteen the S$ and $$ are replaced by netor6sof relationships and concepts of intertet#ality ($o#ry 19B5 -ambert 19B95 @. Aent?ler199>).

>!


35/100

(.(. E+%i)alence$6ase' )ies on translation

$he conception that translation as the mere renderin& of a so#rce lana&e tet(S-$) into a tar&et lana&e tet ($-$), so as to ens#re that the s#rface meanin& of

the to ill be approimately similar, is a restricted one.o $he same holds tr#e concernin& the idea that the str#ct#res of the S$ ill be

preserved as closely as possible provided they do not affect the $$str#ct#res, beca#se this conception lays stress #pon the syntactic systemonly5 this conception is also a restricted one.

o $ranslation is not a secondary, or a mechanical, b#t a creative process.

$he contemporary translation st#dies are very m#ch concerned ith the prod#ct%oriented, as ell as f#nction%oriented and process%oriented descriptions oftranslation. $hat is, they are concerned ith a tet%foc#ssed description oftranslation, ith the c#lt#ral component affectin& the reception of the $$ and ithhat is &oin& on in the translatorVs mind, respectively.

$ranslation is a comple tas6, involvin& a &reat deal of s6ill, preparation, 6noled&e

and int#itive feelin& for tets.

@verythin& can be translated, b#t this is possible only thro#&h hard or6, added to thetranslatorVs talent, 6noled&e, int#itive feelin& for tets and co&nitivecomplements.

$he idea related to the no loss, no &ain principle is that if any losses occ#r they m#stbe made #p for, th#s re;ectin& to opposite theses, i.e. the impossibility oftranslation and absol#te translability.

$he c#lt#ral element m#st be ta6en into consideration henever e appreciate thechoices made in any sit#ation of translation and hen e propose o#r on choices.

$he c#lt#ral element is central to a theory of translation.

$ranslation involves selectin& the appropriate terms in 6eepin& ith the linistic andc#lt#ral contet.

/ faithf#l translation is the one ided by the translation%oriented tet analysis hichhas to meet the same re#irements, str#ct#res, patterns and pec#liarities to hich thea#thor himself s#bmitted in creatin& the ori&inal.

o

$he different translations of the same S$ lar&ely depend #pon the initialchoices made by the translator.o $he translator, i.e. translation operator ($), is a mediator beteen to

different lana&e comm#nities, beteen to interc#lt#ral sit#ations ofcomm#nication.

o $he translator m#st have syntactic, semantic and c#lt#ral 6noled&e. $h#s,

he needs bilinal and bic#lt#ral competence.

>D


36/100

o $he $Vs competence is his ability to analyse, compare and convert to

c#lt#ral systems, respectin& both the conflictin& forces ithin one lana&ec#lt#re (-3), and the interplay of these forces as the -3 sare bro#&ht into

contact.

$he or6 of the translator consists of+ an analysis (the interpretation act), atransformation, and a polishin& act (i.e. the final prod#ction).

$he translatin& process involves the steps and sta&es thro#&h hich the translator

or6s hile the S$ is transformed into the $$.

$h#s, translation is a comple set of translational relations in any &iven sit#ation.

(.*. E+%i)alence# lang%age %se an' speech co""%nities.

(.*.1. Lang%age %se an' speech co""%nit,.-ana&e #se is disc#ssed in connection ith aspeech community. eople belon&in& to a speech

comm#nity establish norms abo#t #ses of lana&e. / speech comm#nity is a comm#nity sharin&

6noled&e of r#les for the cond#ct and interpretation of speech. S#ch sharin& comprises 6noled&e of

at least one form of speech, and 6noled&e also of its patterns of #se: (Hymes 197!+ D1).

Hoever, this does not mean that a speech comm#nity is limited to a &ro#p of spea6ers #sin& the same

forms. 4t is related to norms as re&ards lana&e, social attit#des toards lana&e. 4n -abov" s opinion ,

a speech comm#nity is best defined as a &ro#p ho share the same norms in re&ard to lana&e FG

ho share a set of social attit#des toards lana&e: (-abov 1972+ 2!B).

8#rthermore, considerin& the fact that ithin a speech comm#nity people act#ally interact, the concept

ofspeech net"or.as developed by -. 0ilroy and J. 0ilroy (197B). -ana&e #se is eval#ated ithin

speech comm#nities and netor6s, either dense or ea6 (0ilroy and 0ilroy 1992+ 1>), since they

reveal social and c#lt#ral beliefs abo#t ho society is str#ct#red and the ays that people are epected

to act or interact: (=onvillain 2>+ >).

$herefore, cultural models are #sed to eert press#res for conformity on both conscio#s and

nonconscio#s levels. /cultural model is a constr#ction of reality that is created, shared and transmittedby members of a &ro#p (=onvillain 2>+ 2). 4t is #sed to ide and eval#ate people"s behavio#r.

3#lt#ral models are shared and accepted by people belon&in& to a comm#nity.

-ana&e #se epresses #nderlyin& c#lt#ral models, differences in terms of stat#s in society, distinctions

of class, race, a&e, &ender, etc. /s =onvillain p#ts it, /ltho#&h people ithin a &iven c#lt#re share

many ass#mptions abo#t the orld, they are not a completely homo&eneo#s &ro#p. eople are

>


37/100

differentiated on the basis of &ender, a&e and stat#s in all societies. 4n addition, distinctions of class,

race, and ethnicity are #sed to se&ment pop#lations in most modern nations. /ll these factors contrib#te

to diversity in comm#nicative behavio#r and to disparities in eval#ations &iven to the behavio#r of

different &ro#ps of people: (ibid).

8#rthermore, specific behavio#r ithin one area of life may differ. Hoever, the ran&e of

common h#man eperience is s#fficiently similar to provide a basis for m#t#al #nderstandin&. 3ertainly,

the similarities that #nite man6ind as a c#lt#ral + !). $his approach ma6es #se of anthropolo&icaltechni#es to &ather data from observin& individ#al native spea6ers and st#dyin& specific cate&ories of

vocab#lary and types of &rammatical constr#ctions. $he sociolinistic approach is based on the

dynamic connection beteen lana&e and social factors. 4n other ords, it is concerned ith st#dyin&

patterns of linistic variation. 4t is a ell%6non fact that differences in speech sit#ations and social

distinctions ithin a comm#nity &enerate variation in lana&e #se. $he social differences are amon&

the factors that mar6 the linistic differences.

eople belon&in& to a speech comm#nity ma6e #se of the options available in that comm#nity,

i.e. specific vocab#lary, certain types of &rammatical constr#ctions or sentences, etc. / spea6er"s

choices in speech style are closely related to his identity. /ccordin& to =onvillain, 4n some c#lt#res, the

style of speech #sed in different contets are sharply distinished, hereas in others, linistic styles

are less differentiated. @ven ithin a c#lt#re, some people are more sensitive than others to contet#al

c#es and ad;#st their speech accordin&ly. Sensitivity to contet may be related to s#ch social factors as

>7


38/100

&ender or class, or it may be related to an individ#al"s participation in many different types of sit#ations

(=onvillain 2>+ D).

$he fact sho#ld be also considered that lana&e operates by descriptive &enerali?ation: (-eech

19B>+ 1>B). $he three degrees of generali$ationhave to be mentioned+ h#man behavio#r, linistic

behavio#r and social behavio#r. 4n this respect, -eech #ses the term descriptive delicacy and

institutional delicacy. $he latter type relates linistic behavio#r to other forms of social behavio#r and

to the individ#als and comm#nities.

/ccordin& to -eech, there are to scales of instit#tional delicacy+ the register scale, hich

handles social roles of linistic activity, and the dialect scale, hich is related to the linistic habits

of vario#s sections of the society, differentiated by a&e, social class, se and &eo&raphical area: (id.

ibid.).

=oth theregister scaleand the dialect scalehave to be ta6en into acco#nt in translatin& literarytets since they reflect the nat#re of lana&e itself: (ibid+ 1>9).

$he term dialectis 1. a re&ional or social variety of a lana&e distinished by pron#nciation,

&rammar or vocab#lary, especially a variety of speech differin& from the standard literary lana&e or

speech pattern of the c#lt#re in hich it eists . 2. a variety of lana&e that ith other varieties

constit#te a sin&le lana&e of hich no sin&le variety is standard: (K@- 2). $he technical term #sed

to refer to the variety of lana&e spo6en by an individ#al is idiolect.

4t is &enerally a&reed that a lana&e is a collection of dialects. $he feat#res of dialects asvarieties of lana&e, &eo&raphically defined, intelli&ible, b#t distinct phonolo&ically, semantically and

morpholo&ically are very important in translatin& literary tets.

Hoever, distinction sho#ld be made beteen mainstream: dialect and vernac#lar: dialect

(non%standard).

$he fact sho#ld also be mentioned that spea6ers of the same dialects #se different styles ith

different a#diences. Kialect corpora allo the st#dy of vocab#lary and pron#nciation itho#t ne&lectin&

the other aspects of linistics.

(.*.&. Lang%age %se an' e+%i)alence in translation .

$ranslation is closely related to the c#lt#re%bo#nd eval#ations hich cannot be made, as it

happens ith the f#nctionalist approach, only ithin the contet of one partic#lar c#lt#re. 8#rthermore, a

&eneral frameor6 of c#lt#re is needed hich has to be provided by &enerali?ed models of c#lt#re. $his

>B


39/100

vie is specific to the co&nitive approach hich e share to a certain etent since the ob;ection that can

be set forth is that these models treat c#lt#re as a fro?en state:. 4n this respect, e a&ree ith Oatan

(2!+ >9) that they also s#&&est that mediation beteen c#lt#res is relatively strai&htforard:.

0oreover, the idea is &enerally set forth that a &ood translation conveys the meanin&, style and

tone of the so#rce tet as closely as possible. Nevertheless, these re#irements cannot alays be met.

Ie a&ree ith Koller#p that none of #s is completely familiar ith all places, even in o#r on

co#ntries. None of #s 6nos all the social c#lt#res and s#bc#lt#res of o#r co#ntry.FG Ie all spea6 o#r

idiolects s#bs#med to o#r sociolects, and perhaps even dialects. Ie cannot 6no, let alone be familiar

ith, all ndu-mi rmas bun de la prin?i, am purcescu bunicul spre Pipirig# =i era un puiu

de ger@n diminea?a aceea, de crpau lemneleA =i din susde0>ntori, cum treceam puntea peste

>9


40/100

apa )eam?ului, bunicul @n urm, cu caii de cpstru, Bi eu @nainte, mi-au lunecat ciuboteleBi am

c$ut @n C$an ctmi i!i bietulA )oroc de buniculA D"i scroambele iste a voastre #s pocite&,

$ise el sco?>ndu-m repede, murat pn la peleBi @nghe?at ht bine, cci nboiseapa#n toate

prile! Bi iutemi-a scos ciuboteledin picioare, c se fcuse bocn# D$pinca-i bun, sracaA @?i

%edepiciorul hodinit, Bi la ger hu&ure%ticu dnsa"i pn a vorbit aceste, eram Bi #nvlit #ntr!

osaric ghioasde 7aBina, bgat #ntr!o desagpe cal,purces pe drum, Bi haila Pipirig(p.

2).

TT1+ Ta.ing leave of my parents, 6 proceeded"ith randfather on my "ay to Pipirig#

There "as a bit of a frost that morning sharp enough to split wood# 5nd 'ust above

0>ntori, as "e "ere crossing the bridge over a tributary of the Fiver )eam? randfather

"al.ing behind holding the horses' bridles, myself "al.ing in front of him, my boots

slipped and 6 fell full length into the C$anaA Than. od, randfather "as thereA &ow

those worn!out boots of *ours are 'ust too sill*,& he said, %uic.ly lifting me out of the

"ater, soa+ed to the s+inand fro$en to the bone, for "ater had lea+ed in ever*where# Ge

,uic+l* too. off my shoes, "hich "ere fro&en stiff# &- good oldfashioned wrap!around

boot's the thingA Hour foot feels comfortable in it and "hen it's frosty you're as snug as

can be#& .n the time it too+ to sa* this 6 found myself already wrapped up in afluff*

shepherd/s coatfrom 7asina,

crammed into a bagon horsebac.,

on and awa*to Pipirig

(p. 27).

4n addition, a lot of linistic inventions and ne coina&es may occ#r in the tar&et tet ($$).

$heir occ#rrence is acco#nted for by the so%called non%e#ivalence sit#ations, i.e. the lac6 of a

correspondin& linistic str#ct#re or reality in the $-3. 4n s#ch sit#ations, the translator ma6es an effort

to invent a $-


41/100

- Ei, taci, taciA aIung-?i de!amu, herghelieA =tiu c doar nu-s babe, s chiroteascdin picioare#

Jns mama ne mai daatunci cteva pe deasupra %i mai #ndesate, $ic>nd:

-a!v de cheltuial,ghiavolice sunte?iA )ici noaptea s nu m pot hodinide incotelevoastreK

(p. !)

TT&+ 2hen "e had all gone to bed, children "ill be children, "e' d start fightingand "ouldn't

sleep forgiggling and titteringtill ;other,poor dear, must needspull our hairandgive us a

few thumps in the bac+, and 4ather, having had enough of such a row, "ould sometimes say to

;other:

7ome, come, shut upA That's enough slapping and scolding# They're not old "omen "ho go to

sleepstanding up#9


42/100

/ translation loss is #navoidable ith vernac#lar ords (no#ns, verbs, adverbs, etc.) and

epressions, i.e. local dialect, slan& epressions or &en#ine indi&eno#s ords and epressions s#ch as+

ne luam la h>rIoan, incuri, musai, s ne fac c>te-un Burub, dou prin cap, s ne deie c>teva

tapangele la spinare, hlgie, de-amu, herghelie, s chiroteasc, ne maid a c>teva pe deasupra, na-v

de cheltuial, ghiavoli, incote.

Iith s#ch ords and epressions, the translator has to find a dialect e#ivalent, or a common

approximatecorrespondence in the $-+ "e' d start fighting, giggling and tittering, pull our hair, give

us a fe" thumps in the bac., ro", enough slapping and scolding, go to sleep, give us a fe" more

thumps, ta.e that and behave yourselves, devils, giggling.

4t is obvio#s that the dialect epressive ords and phrases are missed. $h#s, there is alays a

loss in translation, especially ith vernac#lar lana&e.Cernac#lar epressions are #s#ally #nderstood by readers from the same area. 0oreover,

s#btleties are appreciated only by s#ch readers. Nevertheless, the translator"s competence of ne&otiatin&

beteen the to lana&es and c#lt#res helps the readers of a different re&ion, i.e. the $Ms, catch at least

a certain re&ional flavo#r.

Sometimes these epressions are immediately translated or ne coina&es are tried+ #sin& the

ori&inal epression by adaptin& its phonetic characteristics.

$herefore, hatever the translation strate&y may be, the vernac#lar tone has to be preserved.8#rthermore, if the means of epression are different, they have to be someho reinforced. $his is

beca#se the s#bstance of the tet#al content and the s#bstance of epression are of #tmost importance. 4n

this respect, @co"s definitions of tet and translation are orth mentionin&+ (i) a tet is the

manifestation of a s#bstance, either at the content or at the epression plane, and (ii) translation is not

only concerned ith s#ch matters as


43/100

4n translation, there are to semantic systems that select the content in a different ay, since

each lana&e c#lt#re or&ani?es its systems by isolatin& differences hich are i&nored in another

lana&e c#lt#re.

$he ecerpt belo is ill#strative of the vario#s etensions of meanin& of the verb runhich are

part and parcel of the semantics of this verb. $hese etensions of the meanin&s of runare based on

feat#res reco&ni?ed by the people belon&in& to the speech comm#nity in the &eo&raphical area of

0oldavia. /s Nida (19!+ 9!) p#t it, not all societies or speech comm#nities ma6e the same

etensions:. $his is obvio#s hen comparin& the S$ ith the $$+

ST*0 =i nebuna de mtuBa ;rioara, dup mine, Bi eu fuga iepure%teprin c>nep, Bi eape

urma mea, pn la gardul din fundul grdinei, pe care neav>nd vreme s-l sar, o cotigeam

@napoi, iar prin c>nep,fugind tot iepure%te, Bi ea dup minepn-n dreptul ocolului pe unde-mi era iar greu de srit! pe de laturi iar gard, Bi h>rsita de mtuBa nu m las din fugnici @n

ruptul capuluiA 7>t pe ce s puie m>na pe mineA"i eu fuga %i ea fuga %i eu fuga %i ea fuga,

pn ce dm c>nepa toat palanc la pm>nt LQ(p. !B).

TT*0 That cra$y 5unt ;arioara rushed after me, and 6 ran li+e a hareacross the field of hemp

with her on m* heelsto the fence at the bottom of the garden, but 6'd no time to get over it, so

bac. * turned, still across the hemp field, stillrunning li+e a hare

, "ith my aunton m* trac+s

,

bac. to the cattle yard, "here again it "as difficult to Iump out, for there "ere fences

every"here along both sides and that s.inflint of an aunt would not stop chasingme for the life

of herA She very nearly laid hands on meA. went on running and she went on chasing and

bet"een us "e trod the "hole field of hemp flat LQ(p. !9).

$he notion of referential e#ivalence is also do#bted hen comparin& the Momanian verb a

alergaand its synonyms ith the concept of


44/100

$he meanin&s of run are combinations of the verb run and the contet. $he differences in

meanin& sho that the role of the contet is essential. $he combined meanin&s of the verb runand the

contet is the basis for the relevant concept. $herefore, the concept#al meanin& of a leical item is a

combined meanin& of the ord or idiom and the contet. $he relevant level of semantic analysis is

therefore the ord or idiom in contet: (Nida 199+ BB).

$here are sit#ations here the translators, bein& very m#ch concerned ith the response of the

$Ms, had to be #nfaithf#l to the content of the ori&inal messa&e. $here are also mismatches made ith

the translators" eyes ide open, not o#t of i&norance, oversi&ht or fail#re in comprehendin& the ori&inal,

b#t d#e to the leical and &rammatical none#ivalence and to the lac6 of the c#lt#ral correspondin&

realities (see the ecerpts above).

$he main concl#sion that can be dran is that there is alays some loss in translation

beca#se to lana&es, especially to very different ones, represent the same reality in differentays and only to a certain etent. $his is d#e to the fact that effective comm#nication does not

res#lt from the linistic element alone, as in a ider settin& no to lana&es can ever f#lly

represent the same reality, hether that reality may be material, social, ecolo&ical or reli&io#s:

(=alli# td. in Nida 199+ 2). 3onse#ently, translation is alays a shift, not beteen to

lana&es, b#t beteen to c#lt#res.

(.. Non$e+%i)alence sit%ations

$he total c%lt%ral settingof the a#thor"s time and #niverse is different.

$he correspondin& ords, or phrases may not be satisfactor,.

$he for" of the ord(s) may be conf#sin&+ there are lots of conf%sa6les# ortro%6leso"e or'shich are real translation traps.

$he semantic content may not be rendered in the $$ entirely5 as a conse#ence, these"antic lossocc#rs.

$he stylistic effect, the satire and the irony of the S$ may be missed.

$here is no correspon'ing or' or phrasein the $-3+ e.&. drama translation5hen the play is acted+ the reactions of the a#dience are m#ch more important thanthe tar&et readers ($Ms) of the respective play.

$he lac6 of the correspondin& realities in -32 may ca#se the c%lt%ral gap>.

!!


45/100

$here may be vario#s de&rees of the TT accepta6ilit, in the $-3 (d#e to the neinformation and forms).

$here may be vario#s de&rees of a'e+%ac,of the S$ in the $-3 (d#e to the chan&esof the S$ str#ct#res bro#&ht abo#t by the linistic and c#lt#ral norms).

No translation is entirely acceptable in the $-3 beca#se of its estran&in& str#ct#raland verbal elements.

No translation is entirely ade#ate to the S$ beca#se of the ne c#lt#ral contet itill belon& to.

$he translator is a "e'iator

Essentials of Translation

Documents