Translation A Bond Between Cultures

Lucrare de disertație

Translation – a bond between cultures

THE LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED

SL- Source language

ST- Source text

TL- Target language

TT- Target text

TO- Translation operator

MOTIVATION

When thinking about the theme of my license, I was put in the situation of realizing better what the specialization Romanian-English implies. I strongly believe that it implies more than having knowledge of the grammatical structures of another language. This is, indeed, an essential aspect but, from my point of view, it implies the ability to enter into another culture and to discover and share ideas that may or may not be similar to the ones of your original culture. I have always been interested in discovering new worlds and new ways of existance, and this is why I have chosen the theme of translation seen as a bond between cultures.

I see translation as the key that can unlock the doors between countries. The idea of globalisation has become more and more popular in the last decades and people are willing to see what lies behind the boundaries of their own culture. This is why the importance of translation is increasing, and translators play an important part in the process of globalisation. The importance of translation can be extended into the technological field as well. The communication between scientist speaking different languages, which was enabled by translators, has led to the development of techology, and to unprecedented discoveries in this field.

Translation is more than finding the right equivalent for each word of a text. It is understanding the idea of the whole text, the message and the attitude of the writer, and being able to transfer all these aspects into another language, using specific techniques. Translators should have knowledge of grammar, stylistics, linguistics and even phychology. Every result of the proces of translation, every translated text is a door opened to another culture that is inviting us to explore it.

INTRODUCTORY ISSUES

SOCIAL AND ECONOMICAL BACKGROUND

We are living in a century of unprecedented improvement of the means of communication, an era in which the boundaries between cultures and civilisations are fading and the world seems to be shrinking because of the intense economic, social, cultural and political contacts. The world’s map is continuously changing, new states are created and new political, social and economical problems appear all over the world. The growing interdependence between countries, as well as common concern with solving together the serious, global problems mankind is confronted with, leaded to the idea that communication between countries is essential. This belief challanged the translators and interprets all over the world. In the process of globalisation, translation plays a leading part.

According to Saussure, language is a system of signs which express ideeas. Each language has its own principles of combination of the signs. The sign system of a language can be ’converted’ into the sign sistem of another language by a process called Translation. (Conțea, Mărășescu, and Nicolae 11)

In 1996, Eugen Nida, one of the most important founders of the discipline of Translation Studies, stated that the interest in translation is continuously growing, as the European Community only uses more than 3.000 professional translators dealing with more than one million pages of documentation every year. It is obvious that the boundaries between countries can not stop people from communicating. Translation plays an important part in the process of glabalisation, as it is an essential condition for international communication. This is why translator’s mission is worth being taken into consideration.

TERMINOLOGICAL ISSUES

Scholars have been arguing over the name of this discipline. Some contemporary scholars simply call it translation event though the term has often been used for including the whole process of translation as well. The traditional name is Translation theory which reflects the multitude of contemporary trends in translation. Peter Newman and many other scholars, has suggested Translatology, but this term was not used so often as the others were.

The term Translation studies was given by James Holmes, a scholar taking part to the Low Countries Group, in a paper presented in 1972 at the 3rd International Conference of Applied Linguistics in Copenhagen.

Andre Lefevere, at a 1976 Colloquium held at Leuven, Belgium, defined Translation studies as the discipline which concerns itself with problems raised by production and description of translations. Its goal is to produce a comprehensive theory which can also be used as a guideline for the production of translations. (Dimitriu 10)

There are three meanings for the word translation. It can refere to:

Translation- as an abstract concept which deals with both the translating process and its product, i.e. subsuming both the activity and the entity;

Translation- as the product of the process of translation (translating). i.e. the translated text;

Translating- as the process, the activity performed by the translator.

A definition which distinguishes the process from the result may be the following: ’The process or result of converting information from one language or language variety to another. The aim is to reproduce as accurately as possible all grammatical and lexical features of the source language (SL) original by finding equivalents in the target language (TL). At the same time, all factual information contained in the original text must be retained in the translation’ (Croitoru 14-15)

THE CONCEPT OF TRANSLATION

Scholars have spent much time trying to find a proper term to describe the process of translating. Translation has been considerated a craft, a science and even an art. In 1975 Th. Savory claimed that translation was an art, in 1958 E. Jakobsen claimed it was a craft and in 1964 E. Nida claimed it was a science. In 1956 E. Cary argues that ’literary translation is not a linguistic, but a literary art. This is due to the fact that linguistic itself approaches literature and art rather that exact sciences. ’

In . Mounin argued that translation is an art, which has a scientific foundation. He even compared it with medicine. E. Simpson suggested later in 1978 that it is not that important whether translation is an art or a science. Emphasising the bond between the art and the science is of great importance though. Horst Ferenz in 1961 considered that translation stands somewhere between the native art and the imitative art.

Translation is ’the substitution of a text in one language for a text in another language’ (J. C. Catford 1965); ’an attempt to replace a written message/ statement by the same message/ statement in another language’ (P. Newman 1981). Translating means ’to reproduce in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent in the source language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style.’ (E. Nida 1964). Translation has also been defined as a ’bilingually mediated communication’ (J. Delisle 1988) and as ’a rewriting of the original text. Rewriting is manipulation undertaken in the service of power.’ (S. Bassnett and A. Lefevere)

Translation and Translation theory have been dominated for a long perioud of time by Bible translations. The last decade of our century is dominated by technical, medical, legal, administrative translations, but Bible translations are still of great importance for many translators.

In The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods (1982), Wolfram Wilss talks about translators and about the way in which they sould work with a text. Figure 1 represents Wilss’ model of a translator’s work.

Figure 1

Wilss’model of a translator’s work

Wilss sais that ’The text which is to be translated is permanently at the translator’s disposal, helping him to mentally leaf back through the work… and to make corrections… […] In other wors, the translator can go back and forth in a text in order to establish consistency, and to check on whether previous passages have been rendered in a way which corresponds to what follows.’

Translation has interfere in many disciplines such as literary criticism, semiotics, physical ans social sciences, psychology, neuro and sociolinguistics and ethnography. In all these disciplines, translation is used as a product, a process or simply as a methodological tool.

THE TRANSLATOR

The translator is the person who makes the translation process possible.

’Translators will always be needed. Without them, there would be no summit talks, no glasnost or perestroika, no Cannes Film Festival, no Nobel prizez, no advances in medicine, science, or engineering, no international law, no Olympic Games, no Hamlet, no War and Peace…’ (Alan Duff)

’Translators must be seen as key figures in promoting better understanding among peoples and nations. They must not be regarded as anonymus. They are responsible for all definitive, therefore written, bilingual and interlingual communications. They have the authority to mediate between parties, and they have their own responsability to moral as well as factual truth.’ (Newmark)

Translators’ work is of great importance, and, in order to be able to accomplish their tasks, they need certain skills. Most texts today require knowlwdge of the specific terminology, as it has been proved that the majority of texts that need to be translated are tehnical translations. It is also important for the translators to be aware of the purpose of their work, so that they can decide on a certain translating strategy. For exemple, when translating a tourist brochure, one should take into consideration that it is mainly used for information, so the language has to be fluent and accesible for everyone. The translations for specialist audience should not be very complex from the stylistic point of view.

TRANSLATION AND THE CULTURAL EQUATION

TRANSLATION- THE ROAD TO ANOTHER CULTURE

Translators should always take into consideration the differences that could exist

between the language cultures of the texts they translate. The process of translation includes a cultural equation. The cultural equation is the translator’s role in cross-cultural relationships.

When the SLs are hard to translate, the translation difficulties can sometimes catch the translators’ attention, and they can be distracted from the cultural equation and stress on the theoretical details of the translation more. This fact should be avoided, and the translators should always pay attention to both the theoretical part and the cultural equation.

Every cultural element that appears in the source text must be seen by the translator as a potential difference or even tension. Cultural equation concerns the translator’s role in cross-cultural relationships. It is a very important aspect, and it should be taken into consideration when appreciating the decisions translators make in their works.

M. Snell states that the translated text should not be seen as a ’sequence of sentences, these themselves each a string of grammatical items.’ The translators have to detect the particular elements of each text, the characteristics of its culture, and they should keep in mind that they are not dealing with the totality of a culture. The cultural equation is valid only if translators are able to mantain the main cultural characteristics in the target language.

E. Crisafulli states that there should not be differences between the cultural and the linguistic approaches of a text, because the language carries all the cultural characteristics. There is a close relationship between society and language, and they can not be separated by translators.

’The unit of translation was defined by P. Newman as the smallest segment of an SL text which can be translated, as a whole in isolation from other segments. It normally ranges from the word through the collocation to the clause. It could be described as as small as possible and as large as it is necessary, though some translators would say that this is a misleading concept, since the only unit of translation is the whole text.’ (P. Newman)

It is considered that even whole texts are too small units in translation when they are isolated. Lefevere and Bassnett think that culture should be considered the most important unit of translation.

Translators have to detect the particular elements in the text of the culture concern, and to be aware that they are not dealing with the totality of a culture, but with a small fragment of that culture.

The version translators choose depends mainly on the source text that they deal with. For example, we have three posible versions for the same situation. When a child is sad because it rains in the morning, his parents can say:

TT1- No problem! The morning guests never stay long.

TT2- Never mind. Sun before seven, rain before eleven.

TT3- Never mind. It’ll soon stop raining.

Translators may choose between these versions, depending on the given text, and depending on their ability to filter the text.

Figure 2

The scheme of textual filters

THE TRANSLATOR- A MEDIATOR BETWEEN CULTURES

Translators (Translation Operators- TO) can be considered mediators between cultures. This is why the cross-cultural knowledge is of great importance. They have to be aware of the culture’s specific behaviour in general, and should not translate only in terms of theoretical spheres.

G. Steiner believed that ’any model of communication is at the same time a model of translation of a verical or orizontal transfer of significance.’ There are not two istorical epochs, social classes, localities or even human beings that use words to signify exactly the same thing.

Translators receive and decode messages from one language and encode them into another. Being mediators between intercultural communication, their cultural competence that is based on techniques learned through practice and instruction, should always be objective and reliable, even if they will have to decide which translation option is more proper between two cultures they are dealing with.

In order to create an accurate translation, the translator needs:

Syntactic knowledge- the way in which clauses are used in order to carry propositional content.

Pragmatic knowledge- the way in which clauses can be put together in order to form a coherent text.

When working at a micro-textual level, one of the temptations that can occur is that of splitting the text into very small units and concentrating on finding the most precise synonim for each and every world. This can distract the translator from taking into consideration the style of the whole text and even the cultural equation. The translator should always see the text as a whole, as a compact unit, and translate at a macro-textual level.

The translators need to have bilingual and bicultural competence. Their contribution is of great importance because it clarifies the difference between what is acquired and what is generated in the translating process. The translators are the representants of a different culture which they will definitely reflect in their work. This is the reason why translations change as the culture changes. They carry the characteristics of the translator, who belongs to a certain culture.

G. Steiner believed that every communicator is a translator. All receivers deal with the same problem: they receive a certain message encoded in an communication system which differe from their own communication system. Understanding a text requires to deconstruct it and then construct it over again. It is the re-encoding process which makes the translator differe from the normal communicator. The translator decodes massages transmited in one language and encodes them into another.

Translation can be seen as a negociation between two different communication structures. Translators mediate the bond of two different communication structures including two different culutres.

Translation is based on translators’ perception of cultural equation. This competence is both objective and subjective. It is based on strict techniques accumulated through instruction, but translators’ subjectivity, their perception on the text can also interfere.

Translators explore the target language and look for the most appropriate equivalent of the source language. When studying the source text, they should focus on the differences, and pay special attention to the syntax, to the clause structures and to the meaning of the prepositions.

Translators need:

Syntatic knowledge- how can clauses be used in order to carry a certain meaning

Semantic knowledge

Source language knowledge

Target language knowledge

Text-type knowledge

Cultural knowledge

During the translation process, there are several things translators should pay attention to.

Figure 3

Samuelsson-Brown’s model of the translation process

Rather than looking for a specific equivalent, TO should seek to express the same reality through the target language. It is important that the overall effect of the target language text matches the one of the source language.

Translators need to have both bilingual and bicultural competence. Technical translation procedures are useless without bicultural competence. This is why they have to be constantly aware of the cultural changes that occure.

They should have knowledge in two different languages and cultures, and they should be able to compare and convert as faithfully as possible from one language to another. However, the translators are not situated between the two languages they are dealing with. They are always closer to one of the two entities, usually the one of their own culture.

L. Hewson and J. Martin represented the TO’s position:

Figure 4

The area occupied by the translator (source L. Hewson and J. Martin

THE INTERDISCIPLINARY CHARACTER OF TRANSLATION STUDIES

The translational process is a very complex one and it involves many factors. Creating a discipline based on a theory and strict rules, has been a difficult thing to do, even though many scholars have tried. Linguistics and its branches such as pragmatics, text linguistics, semantics, comparative linguistics, cognitive linguistics, have a great role in the development of translation.

Languages of the world have the ability to show the characteristics and the value of the culutures they are rooted in, and to represent them. Recent discoveries in anthropology and crosscultural studies can find out the source of a text and place it in a specific culture whose characteristics it has. Translation nowadays doesn’t ignore the cultural influence of both source and translated texts, which contributes to the translator’s work.

Sociology and sociolinguistics state that during the process of translation, there are two different cultures brought face to face: the culture of the translator and the culture of the text that has to be translated.

Psychological investigations try to find out what kind of operations take place in the translators’ minds during the translation process. In this way, the translator’s intuition and creativity will be based on a more scientific fact.

TYPES OF TRANSLATION

R. Jakobson claimes that there are three different types of translation.

Intralingual translation, which is also called rewording. This type of translation is ‘an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs in the same language’. (R. Jakobson)

Interlingual translation, which is also called translation proper. This type of translation is ‘an interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language, which describes the process of transfer from SL to TL’. (R. Jakobson)

Intersemiotic translation which is also called transmutation. This type of translation is ‘an interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal sign system’. (R. Jakobson)

R. Jakobson believes that there can not be complete equivalence through translation. The perfect translation does not exist, even if the translator uses synonyms. Each word contains associations and connotation that can not be transferred into another language without loosing their original impact. This is why poetic art is in fact untranslatable.

J. C. Catford made a classification of translations:

– rank-bound translations – ‘the selection of TL equivalents is deliberately confined to one rank, used in machine translation, usually at word or morpheme rank; they set up word-to-word or morpheme-to-morpheme equivalences, but not equivalences within high rank units such as the group, clause, or sentence; such translations are often bad in that they involve using TL equivalents which are not appropriate to their location in the TL text, and which are not justified by interchangeability of SL and TL texts in one and the same situation. ’

– unbounded translations- ‘ normal or total translations in which equivalences shift freely up and down the rank scale.’

Taking into consideration the extent and the level, J. C. Catford considers that translation should be classified into:

Full vs. partial translations;

Full vs. restricted translations.

He also stresses the differences between free, literal and word-for-word translations.

A free translation is a translation that is unbounded.

A word-for-word translation is a translation that translates the terms always by using the most faithful synonyms.

A literal translation is a translation situated somewhere between free translation and word-for-word translation. It is usually a combination. It starts from a word-to-word translation and than the translator adds certain words or even change the structure of the source text.

THE RELATIVITY OF TRANSLATION

In order to stress the relativity of translation, I will consider the following three translations:

’A. Indians and palefaces were killed. The subject is nevertheless always of current interest if it is done by a talented narrator.

B. The Indian Wars of North America seem to be an inexhaustible subject to writers. I will bet my old scalp that soon there is a larger number of books written and published and of films made on the subject than of Indian and paleface casualties during the wars. Yet the subject is ever fresh if it is handled by a good narrator.

C. The North American Indian Wars are apparently an inexhaustible subject matter to writers. I’ll bet you my old scalp that the amount of books and films written on the matter exceeds the number of Indians and palefaces killed in the wars. Still, the subject seems to be eternally new if it is handled by a good story-teller. ’ (Dollerup 17)

These translations differe in terms of quality, accuracy and even register. We can, though, apreciate them only in relation with the original text.

Gideon Toury gives twenty-five translations of a Japanese haiku-poem. I have chosen only three of them (Dollerup 18)

The autumn glowing deepens into night;

Back’gainst the slowly-fading orange light

On withered bough a lonely crow is sitting. (Walsh 1916)

On a bare branch

A rook roosts:

Autumn dusk. (Bowans 1964)

Barren branch;

balancing crow;

autumn dusk. (Cohen 1972)

In these three different translations, there are three elements that are similar: ’evening’, ’a bird’ and ’a branch’. All of these translations have three lines, but none of them has 17 syllables, a defining characteristic of Japanese haikus-poem. Even though they do not reflect the original, they have all been accepted as translations of the same original poem.

A text or a phrase can be translated in many different ways, according to the translator’s characteristics or the characteristics of the time of the translation. In order to emphasise this idea, I have chosen three versions of published translations of the first lines of Hamlet’s famous monologue: To be or not to be: that is the question, and I have aranged them chronologically.

1938 (D. Protopopescu)

A fi sau a nu fi: e întrebarea!

1948 (M. Banuș)

A fi sau a nu fi, iată întrebarea:

1967 (L. Levițchi ans D. Duțescu)

Ființă-neființă: ce s-alegi?

1970 (Vl. Streinu)

A fi sau nu, aceasta e-ntrebarea! (Dimitriu 23)

According to Andrei Bantas, the translator, as the first receiver of the text in a foreign language, must take into consideration the author’s intentions. He must be aware of his use of proverbs, the meta-textual, inter-textual connotations. All these are major components of the text, and neglecting them will lead to neglecting the innitial meaning of the text.

Accordin to Reiss, there are three types of texts: informative, expressive and operative texts. The translation strategy depends on the type of text that is going to be translated. This is why the translators have to be aware of the nature of the text they are working with.

An informative text requires a strategy, with explicit terms whenever needed. When writing an expressive text the translator has to identify with the sender. An operative text requires the translator to write a text that gives a response similar to that of the original.

The source text is then analyzed by the translator for semantic, lexical, grammatical and stylistic features. Introducing terms or features that are not based on the source text is an error in the semantic field. In the lexical field we will find false friends, names and metaphors. The grammatical structure should be the same as the original one.

It is clear that translation is not just the replacement of the main characteristics of a text making sure that the content is preserved. It also implies the transformation of certain socio-cultural elements. The translator should keep in mind the cultural characteristics of the source text.

Yue Ren Chao says that for any given text, there is more than one correct translation into another language. ‘The common attitude of treating language as something apart from life (…) instead of a part of life is wrong. If something is said in response to a situation, and it has to be translated into another language, the translation should also be such as will be appropriate to the situation. Thus, translation is not a simple two-term relation between two languages or two texts but a three-term relation in which the situation of use becomes one of the terms.’ (Procopie, Mărășescu, and Nicolae 12)

Susan Bassnett says that ‘What is generally understood as translation involves the rendering of a source language (SL) text into the target language (TL) so as to ensure that the surface meaning of the two will be preserved as closely as possible, but not so closely that the TL structures will be seriously distorted.’ (Procopie, Mărășescu, and Nicolae 13)

She believes that the main concepts of translation are the concept of equivalence and the concept of faithfulness. Translators should follow the original, but they also have to keep a certain distance. If they follow the source text too closely, they might get to strict formulations.

In Nida’s opinion, translation is the reproduction of the most reliable natural equivalent of the source language message. This type of translation is characterized by elegance and concision. Translators should be attentive to the natural word order. They should use clauses or phrases that are more often used in that particular language, rather than the formal equivalents in the source language. Saving the meaning of the ‘untranslatable’ words is another problem translators have to deal with. Nida considers that a good translation should be deft, neat, closely shadowing the original.

Jakobson states that full equivalence through translation cannot exist, as there is no perfect synonymy between words. He gives as an example the words ‘perfect’ and ‘ideal’ which are not completely equivalent. This is why he believes that poetic art cannot be technically perfectly translated. It is untranslatable. He though speaks about a possible ‘creative transposition’ which can convert the language from one language to another or even from one poetic shape into another.

Translation means communication, so it involves a process of decoding and recoding. Eugen Nida illustrates the stages involved in the process of translation.

Figure 5

Eugen Nida’s model of the translation process

Nida comments: ‘In this model a message in language A is decoded by a receptor into a different form of language A. It is then transformed by a transfer mechanism into language B, and the translator then becomes a source for the encoding of the message into language B. ’ (Dollerup 23)

Source language Target language

Text Translation

Analysis Restructuring

Figure 6

Eugen Nida’s model of the translation process

Source language Target language

The beauty of her singing Frumusețea cântului ei

(Analysis) (Restructuring)

She sings beautifully

Ea cântă frumos

Figure 7

Eugen Nida’s model of the translation process reproduced in an adapted form

TRANSLATIONESE AND INTERFERENCE IN TRANSLATIONS

In translationese, Newmark says that the problem is not that it does not represent the facts. The facts are represented properly and its grammar is usually correct. The problem he stresses is the one of the reproduction of source language idioms and syntax.

Translationese cannot transmit the tone and the mood of the original. This is why it is likely that the reader would not get the right message. Translationese can also appear in technical texts, when the foreign translators are not experts in the target language structure, and the native translators are not experienced enough.

There are differences between translationese and interference. We can speak about interference when the language of the translation is manifested in a certain way by the language of the original. Translationese represents changing the meaning of the source text for apparent no reason. While interference appears in any translation, translationese is an error, a result of the ignorance of the translator.

Sometimes, interference can be positive. When idioms that are not specific to a certain culture are translated literarly , they become ’comments on universal human behaviour’ (Newmark). Newmark states that lexical interference is more dangerous than grammatical interference, as it may affect the meaning of a text. The most characteristic form is the false friend. Translating a word by its usual meaning instead of by an appropriate meaning, metaphors, word order, or the transfer of cultural words from the source language to the target language represent other types of interference. When the translator speaks a third language, this language can also interfere in the translation, and the source language can be contaminated. This is a good example of translationese.

TYPES OF EQUIVALENCE IN TRANSLATION

There are many types of equivalence in translation.

Popovic distinguishes four types of translation equivalence:

Linguistic equivalence, where there is homogeneity on the linguistic level of both SL and TL texts, i.e. word for word translation

Paradigmatic equivalence, where there is equivalence of the elements of a paradigmatic expressive axis, i.e. elements of grammar, which Popovic sees as being a higher category than lexical equivalence

Stylistic (translational) equivalence, where there is functional equivalence of elements in both the original and translation, aiming at an expressive identity with an invariant or identical meaning

Textual (syntagmatic) equivalence, where there is equivalence of the synatgmatic structuring of a text, i.e. equivalence of form and shape. In terms of this classification, literary translation involves a synthesis of stylistic and textual equivalence.

Eugen Nida says that there are only two types of equivalence:

Formal equivalence, where attention is focused on the message itself, in both form and content. In such a translation one is concerned with correspondence auch as poetry to poetry, sentence to sentence, and concept to concept.

Dynamic equivalence, based on the principle of equivalent effect, i.e. that the relationship between the receiver and message should aim at being the same as that between the original receivers and the SL message. (Procopie, Mărășescu, and Nicolae 15)

Peter Newmark talks about how closely should translators get to the texts. He believes that in the cases where the language of a text is very important, translators are allowed to get as close as possible. In the texts where the language plays a secondary part, where it is less important, translators are allowed to keep a certain distance to the original. The language of the source text can be replaced in this case by the ‘appropriate normal social language’, as Newman calls it. If the message of the text is of a greater importance than its meaning, the translator is allowed to resort to ‘under translation’, simplifying or clarifying the text and the message. If the SL has a clear structure, the translation should be very faithful. In this case translators should keep in mind the purpose of the text and the type of readership.

The new developments in discourse analysis have encouraged the Russian Formalists and the Prague Linguists to explore the equivalence of literary texts. Lotman says that a text should be explicit, meaning that it should be expressed in definite signs, it should begin and end at a certain point- limited, and it should be internal organized. Durisin’s opinion is that translators of literary texts should not be concerned by the equivalence between two natural languages, but by the equivalence of the artistic procedures of those languages. Translators should also take into consideration the location and the specific cultural and temporal context of the source text. Mukarovsky says that translators should pay attention to both the autonomous and the communicative character of a literary text.

As there is no perfect equivalence in translations, scholars are preoccupied with the problem of loss and gain that appear in the translation process. There are terms or phrases in the source language that do not exist in the translated language. As an example, we can make reference to Guaica where there is no dichotomous classification of ‘good’ and ‘bad’, but there is a trichotomy of these two words. There is a possibility that, during the translation process, certain neutral terms from the source language, receive new connotations in the translated language. This is why we can say that what is lost at a certain moment during the translation process, can be gained through a new version at another level.

3.3 THE PROBLEM OF UNTRANSLATABILITY

For ages, scholars have been concerned with the problem of untranslatability. Catford was one of them. He believes that this problem occurs on two different levels.

On the linguistic level, untranslatability occurs when the translation language has no equivalent for terms from the source language. For example, passivals in English have no grammar substitute in Romanian. The phrase ‘This book reads well’ is, in most of the cases, translated by a reflexive or a supin: ‘Cartea aceasta se citește ușor’ sau ‘Cartea aceasta este ușor de citit.’

On the cultural level, untranslatability appears when certain features from the culture of the source language do not exist on the culture of the translation language. For example, we have the Romanian word ‘călușari’, and the English word ‘esquire’.

This problem can be solved by creative elements, elements that help translators when there is no other translation procedure that can be used. In informative texts, the creative element should be limited and in persuasive texts creativity often plays an important part in the forms of address and expressions.

Creativity plays an important part mostly in expressive texts such as poetry and stories. Newmark listed the cases in which creativity is mostly used:

Cultural words that have certain connotations and are specific to one community;

Transcultural words that have similar referents, but different connotoations;

Concept words that have different connotations;

Peculyar syntactic structures;

Cultural metaphores, idioms, proverbs, puns, neologisms;

Significant phonaesthetic effects;

Quality words with no one-to-one equivalence (e.g. downright) (Procopie, Mărășescu, and Nicolae 17)

TYPES OF TRANSLATION TEXTS

Roman Jakobson believed that there is no complete equivalence between translations, and that there is no perfect synonimy between terms. This is why poetic art is, in his opinion, technically untranslatable.

G. Mounin believed that translation is a series of operation which rely on significations, and function in a certain culture. He agrees with Roman Jakobson, and believes that translation is only an adequate interpretation of the source text, as equivalence is not possible.

Every type of text requires a certain approach. For example, it is not recoended to render a legislative text into an everyday language. A text that is written into an ambiguous way deliberately can not be translated into clear language, and an general argumentative speach foe exemple, can not be translated into mild terms.

Newmark believes that there are three types of translation texts. These types are: scientific-technological, institutional-cultural and literary texts. Each of these text present their specific diffieculties durin the translation process.

When translating a scientific-technological text, translators encounter difficulies regarding the source language neologisms, the absence of certain technical terms in the translation language, and the multitude of semi-synonymous tehnical terms.

Translators may encounter difficulties in relating the terms which have no linguistic equivalents in the culture of the translation language. These difficulties are mostly encountered when transating regional texts.

The type of translation that encounters the most difficulties is the literary one. This is due to the fact that in litearary translation both the source language and the translation language meanings matter.

Translationese in commercial texts, literal translation found in technical texts and innacurate translation found in literary texts translations is seen by Newmark as ’low standard of translation’.

TRANSLATING LITERATURE

Literature can be seen as a language into another language, which does not always respect the structural rules and linguistic patterns. This is why translating literary texts is different, and rcreates different problems that I am going to discuss in this chapter.

Translators are firstly readers who decode and analyse the message from the source language. After understanding the message, they become writers who recode and rephrase into the target language.

THE READER

Lotman believes that there are four different kinds of readers:

The reader who focuses on the content

The reader who focuses on the complexity of the structure of a work

The reader who is interested in one part of the work for a personal purpose

The readers who focuses on the elements of a text, and not on the text as a whole, and uses it for his own purposes.

The reader who focuses on the complexity of the structure of a work is the ideal reader. Acording to Barthes re-evaluation of the twentieth century readers, they are less consumers of library work and more producers of the text. When decoding the text, readers have their own systems ans strategies, and this is why the idea of one single way of reading a text, or one correct reading is dissolved.

LITERARY TRANSLATION DIFFICULTIES

Understanding correctly the message of the source text is the first essential thing a translator should do. Each text contains both expression (the linguistic form) and content (the meaning). These two components are set on the cultural background of the source language.

The first task for translators to accomplish is understanding the real meaning of the words. On this stage, they can use dictionaries. Polysemy, homonymy, false friends and synonymy are the problems that may occure, but specialized dictionaries such as dictionaries of synonyms, antonyms etc. can be helpful in these situations. Translators should take into consideration the context in which certain terms are found, and establish their meaning acording to that context. A good translator is the one who manages to establish the real meaning of a word, relating to the words that surround it.

Accentuation is another problem a translator should deal with. This can be either grammatical or phonological. Phonological accentuation is very important when translating poetry. We can even say that it is a characteristic of poetical texts.

The attitude of the source text should be transferred in the target text. There are three levels of doing that: the intellective level, the emotional level and the volitional level. The intellective level implies belief, conviction, doubt, the emotional level implies admiration, love, desire, hate, and the volitional level implies order and necessity. The attitude of the source text can be expressed in the target text phonologically, lexically, grammatically and stylistically. (Dimitriu 32)

Connotations are very important when translating literary texts. Translators should see the objective connotations, the meaning of a word that is known by a larger amount of people. The subjective connotation of a term is the hidden meaning which is known only by one person. It can be decoded by using imagination and a great knowlwedge of the source language, author bio-bibliography and aspects of cultural background. It is important to know that connotations can not be found in dictionaries.

Translators should also pay attention to the connections between sentences, and to the coherence of the source text. Newman sais that coherence can be explicit or implicit. Explicit coherence is established beteen the topic sentences, and implicit coherence is not obvious in the structure of the text. When dealing with an incoherent source text, translators should transfer this caracteristic in the target text.

A very important characteristic of a text, that should be taken into consideration when translated, is style. Leon Levițchi defines style as ‘the specific way in which the autor organized his message in point of coherence and expression in his desire to value it at the utmost in the conscience of the potential reader.’ (Levințchi 18)

This definition drawn the attention on what a translator should follow in a text: coherence, denotation, connotation, accentuation and modality or attitude.

THE TRANSLATION OF JANE AUSTEN’S NOVEL

PRIDE AND PREJUDICE IN ROMANIAN

Pride and Prejudice written by Jane Austen is a novel that focuses on the morality of people living in the early 19th century England. The action takes place in a world leaded by various unwritten rules regarding moral behavior, a world in which a girls’ priority was finding a wealthy husband, a man that has the ability to assure a good living as well as a good social status for her. The level of education of the characters varies. This is due to the fact that they come from different economic and social fields of society.

The variance of typologies that exist in the novel, as well as the fact that the characters use a language which is specific to 19th century England, transform the novel into a challenge for translators. The language used by the characters reaches many spots that are not explored on a daily bases, and brings to light certain elements that are specific for that period of time. The translator must have the ability to preserve the specific elements and to transpose the linguistic background into the language in which the novel is translated.

I believe that transposing elements from the 19th century English into Romanian without spoiling the specific background of those times and the atmosphere created by the writer should be challenging for translators. This is the reason why I have chosen to focus on the way in which this novel has been translated into my native language by two different translators: Anca Florea and Sorin Petrescu. I will always refer to the original version written by Jane Austen and compare the way in which the two translators manage to suit their writing to the original.

The first paragraph of the novel illustrates a horse sense according to which a wealthy man should look for a wife. ‘It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune,must be in want of a wife. However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.’ This belief is the main theme of the novel.

By analyzing the first paragraph of the two translations we can observe the fact that, while Florea searches for terms that preserve the sacredness of these worlds, Petrescu chooses elements that bring this statement closer to our days.

‘Este un adevar universal recunoscut ca un burlac, posesor al unei averi frumoase, are nevoie de o nevasta. Oricat de putin cunoscute ar fi simtamintele sau vederile unui asemenea barbat atunci cand apare pentru prima data intr-un loc, acest adevar este atat de inradacinat in mintile celor din jur, incat burlacul este socotit ca fiind proprietatea de drept a uneia sau alteia dintre fiicele familiilor din vecinatate.’ (Anca Florea)

A devenit un adevar general recunoscut faptul ca un barbat singur, care poseda o avere considerabila, se gandeste si la o sotie. Oricat de putine lucruri s-ar cunoaste despre felul in care gandeste sau simte un astfel de barbat atunci cand apare pentru prima data intr-o comunitate, acest adevar este atat de pregnant in mintea celor care locuiesc in jur, incat familiile vecine il considera deja proprietatea de drept a uneia sau a alteia dintre fiicele lor.’ (Sorin Petrescu)

For translating the phrase ‘single man’, Florea chooses the neologism ‘burlac’, while Petrescu prefers to use the equivalent phrase ‘barbat singur’. I believe that the usage of the neologism ‘burlac’ may be too risky because it may situate the text into a more modern age than the one presented into the plot of the novel. Even if Florea chooses to use a modern term for the phrase ‘single man’, she manages to re-enter into the atmosphere of the times presented by using words such as ‘simtamintele’, ‘vederile’, ‘inradacinat’, ‘este socotit’. These words are specific to the old Romanian language and they are used mainly in the rustic villages. The words ‘simtamintele’ and ‘vederile’ manage to reproduce the essence of the original ‘the feelings or views’, while Petrescu’s variant ’ felul in care gandeste sau simte’ is not as close to the original message.

When describing Mr. Bingley, the rich man who is about to arrive in their neighbourhood, Mrs. Bennet uses the phrase ’young man of large fortune’. This phrase is nicely suited into Romanian in both variants. While Florea uses the phrase ’un domn cu stare’, Petrescu uses the more exaggerated form of the Romanian adjective ’rich’, which is ’burlac putred de bogat’. We can observe the fact that the first option does not reffer to the age of Mr. Bingley. The noun ’domn’ can be used for men of a vast range of ages. On the other hand, the second option is the noun ’burlac’, which includes the meaning of a young man looking for a wife.

In the context of expressing the probability of Mr. Bingley falling in love with one of her daughters, Mrs. Bennet says that ‘it is very likely that he may fall in love with one of them.’ While Florea limits herself at translating this phrase as it is: ‘este foarte posibil sa se indragosteasca de una dintre ele’, Petrescu feels the need to stress the certitude that Mrs. Bennet may have in her voice by using the comparison: ‘e limpede ca lumina zilei ca s-ar putea sa se indragosteasca de una dintre ele’.

Even if Mrs. Bennet gets outraged by his attitude, Mr. Bennet does not hesitate to make cruel remarks about the attributes of his daughters. He claims that ‘They have none of them much to recommend them.’ His ‘sarcastic humor’ has been nicely translated into both versions. Anca Florea uses the Romanian composed adverb cine-știe-ce in front of the adjective attributes (Romanian ‘calități’), in order to stress the low level of admiration that Mr. Bennet has for his daughter’s abilities. ‘Nici una dintre ele nu are cine-stie-ce calitati.’ The adverb cine-stie-ce stands for the English construction not… much and accentuates the fact that even if the daughters have certain qualities, these are not remarkable. Sorin Petrescu chooses to remain closer to the original version: Nici una dintre ele nu prea are cu ce sa se laude. Instead of the composed adverb cine-stie-ce, he uses the short version prea, which has the same effect. The difference stands in the fact that the adjective used by Florea conserves better the oral character of the dialogue between the two, as well as Mr. Bennet’s sarcastic character.

Another part of the novel that is interesting to be followed in parallel with the two translated versions, is the one in which Mr. Bingley is characterized. The original version is: Mr. Bingley was good-looking and gentlemanlike; he had a pleasant contenance, and easy, unaffected manners. The version chosen by Florea is: Domnul Bingley era chipes si manierat, avea o infatisare placuta si un comportament lipsit de pretiozitati, and the one chosen by Petrescu is: Domnul Bingley era chipes si avea maniere de domn; o tinuta frumoasa si o purtare simpla, neafectata. We can observe the fact that, by trying to get as closer to the original version as it is possible, Petrescu uses the world domn twice in the same sentence, which is not literary correct. The adjective gentlemanlike is translated, in this case, with the phrase maniere de domn, which is, in my opinion, an improper option for the given context.

This problematic situation comes from the fact that in Romanian, the word domn is used with two different meanings. One of the meanings of the this word is used in situations in which we want to refer to a male person and the other meaning is used when we refer to a respectable man with great qualities. For the first meaning of this word, English has the equivalent word Mr., while for the second meaning, the English equivalent is gentleman. The existence of the two meanings of the word domn in the same sentence, seemed problematic for Sorin Petrescu. On the other hand, Anca Florea managed to translate the sentence by using the words domnul and manierat.

Instead of translating the entire phrase from the end of the characterization: easy, unaffected manners, Anca Florea chooses to adapt it into un comportament lipsit de pretiozitati. This construction skips the idea that Mr. Bingley’s character was not affected by his social status, but still manages to reproduce the main idea. The translator chooses the phrase lipsit de pretiozitati as a substitute for both easy and unaffected. The translator of the second version prefers to keep the original words that describe Mr. Bingley.

During the prom, Miss Bingley is informed that Marry Bennet is the most accomplished girl in the neighbourhood. The word accomplished is generally being translated into Romanian with the word realizat. In this context, though, the word realizat might be an inappropriate option. The Romanian fata realizata has the meaning of a girl with significant professional achievement. This is not the case of Marry Bennet, a girl living in the early 19th century who was taught that a girl’s main concern must be finding a good man and getting married. The two translators I have chosen have managed to translate this phrase in two different ways. Anca Florea’s option is: cea mai rasarita fetiscana de prin imprejurimi and Sorin Petrescu’s option is: cea mai cultivata fata din imprejurimi. The Romanian word cultivata is more favorable for the character than the word rasarita. The Romanian word rasarita is generally used to point someone that is the best prepared out of a mediocre group of people, but still she is not remarkable. Anca Florea senses a certain irony in the words said by Miss Bingley, and she manages to translate it nicely by using this word. The world fetiscana which means a young girl that does not have a status worth taking into consideration is another clue of the fact that the translator insists on stressing the irony of the characterization. On the other hand, Sorin Petrescu chooses to use the more formal form cea mai cultivate fata.

The cruel opinion that Miss Bingley has on people that are present at the prom is also interesting to follow. She addresses to Mr. Darcy: You are considering how insupportable it would be to pass many evenings in this manner- in such society; and indeed I am quite in your opinion. I was never more annoyed! The insipidity, and yet the noise- the nothingness, and yet the self-importance of all those people. What would I give to hear you strictures on them! Anca Florea’s view on this fragment is: Va ganditi la cat de insuportabil ar fi sa petreceti mai multe seri in maniera aceasta si intr-o astfel de companie. Si ma vad silita sa va dau dreptate. In viata mea nu m-am plictisit mai tare! O societate atat de insipida, si totusi, atat de galagioasa, niste oameni lipsiti de insemnatate, dar care au senzatia ca sunt atat de importanti! Ce n-as das a va aud criticand-I cu asprime!. Sorin Petrescu’s version is: Va ganditi cat de insuportabil ar fi sa petreceti multe seri in acest fel, intr-o astfel de societate; si, intr-adevar, sint cu totul de parerea dumneavoastra. Nu m-am plictisit niciodata atit! Si toti acesti oameni insipizi si totusi zgomotosi, marunti dar totusi plini de ei. Ce n-as da sa aud sarcasmele dumneavoastra la adresa lor!

CONCLUSIONS

Translating a literary text may seem an easy task to accomplish, especially when it is seen as simply transferring the meaning of a source language text into another language known as a target language. It is though very important to keep in mind the fact that there are many aspects translators should take into consideration when dealing with a literary text. Translators should have reliable knowlwdge about the target language and the souce language, should pay attention to the two different cultural backgrounds, and be able to work with both of them. This involves knowledge about history, philosophy, arts, science and folklore.

Being able to see the specific literary text in relation to world literature is another quality of a reliable translator. The text should be seen in relation with a literary trend, and after that in a cultural movement. It should be seen in the context of the historical events, philosophical ideas and even technological development of the era it belongs to.

The translation of poetry is the most complex, because in this case, translators should not limit themselves and focus only on finding the most appropriate meaning. Form is as important as the meaning in poetry, and translators should respect this aspect. Translators may be tempted to translate a poetry focusing mainly on the meaning and affecting the form in an negative way, or to focus too much on the rhyme, rhythm and other structural elements and to neglect the meaning. Only the ones who can successfully bound the form and the meaning of a poetry can consider themselves good and reliable translators.

Translating Edgar Allan Poe has been a challenge for Romanian translators. Many versions of his poems have been published so far. I have decided to focus on three of them, belonging to three different periods in translating Poe’s poetry.

There are many other versions of Edgar Allan Poe’s poetry translations that are worth being taken into consideration. This demonstrates Romanian people’s interest in this American poet. All these versions have managed to spread Poe’s poetry among the Romanian readers and allowed them to enter into another world and into another culture. The multitude of versions have allowed readers to compare and to be able to better understand the main features and the characteristics of the original text.

Being able to understand the literature of another culture is of great importance when trying to understand the literature of the country you live in. This is why translation plays a great role in the development of both national and international literature.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Backer, Mona. In Other Words. A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routlege, 1998.

Bantaș, Andrei and Elena Croitoru. Didactica traducerii. București: Teora, 1998.

Catford, J.C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965.

Conțea, Procopie, Amalia Mărășescu and Cristina Nicolae. The Advanced Student’s Book of Bilingual Literary Translation. Pitești: Editura Universității din Pitești, 2004.

Croitoru, Elena. Interpretation and Translation. Galați: Editura Porto Franco, 1996.

Dimitriu, Rodica. Theories and Practice of Translation. Iași: Institutul European, 2002.

Dollerup, Cay. Basics of Translation Studies. Institutul European, 2006.

Holmes, James S. Translated! Papers on Literary Translations and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1988.

Ionescu, Gelu. Orizontul traducerii. Bucuresti: Univers, 1981.

Kelly, Louis Gerard. The true Interpreter: A History on Translation. Theory and Practice in the West. Oxford: Blackwell, 1979.

Kussmaul, Paul. Training the Translator. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995.

Lefevere, Andre. Translating Literature- Practice and Theory in a Comparative Literature Context. New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 1992.

Leppihalme, Ritva. Culture Bumpus- an Empirical Approach to the Translation of Allusions. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, 1997.

Levițchi, Miron. Îndrumar pentru traducătorii din limba engleză în limba română. București: Ed. Științifică și Enciclopedică, 1975.

Miron, Cristina. E.A. Poe’s Poetry in Romanian- A Critical Translation Study. Pitești: Editura Universității din Pitești, 2009.

Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice Hall, 1988.

Nida, Eugene. The Sociolinguistics of Interlingual Communication. Bruxelles: Les Editions du Hazard, 1996.

Nord, Christiane. Text Analysis in Translation. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1991.

Robinson, Douglas. Becoming a Translator. London: Routledge, 1997.

Steiner, George. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. Oxford: Univ Press, 1985.

Savory, Theodore. The Art of Translation. London: Jonathan Cape, 1957.

Stockinger, Peter. Semiotics of culture and communication. Belgium: Institut des Langues et Civilisations Orientales, 2004.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Backer, Mona. In Other Words. A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routlege, 1998.

Bantaș, Andrei and Elena Croitoru. Didactica traducerii. București: Teora, 1998.

Catford, J.C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965.

Conțea, Procopie, Amalia Mărășescu and Cristina Nicolae. The Advanced Student’s Book of Bilingual Literary Translation. Pitești: Editura Universității din Pitești, 2004.

Croitoru, Elena. Interpretation and Translation. Galați: Editura Porto Franco, 1996.

Dimitriu, Rodica. Theories and Practice of Translation. Iași: Institutul European, 2002.

Dollerup, Cay. Basics of Translation Studies. Institutul European, 2006.

Holmes, James S. Translated! Papers on Literary Translations and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1988.

Ionescu, Gelu. Orizontul traducerii. Bucuresti: Univers, 1981.

Kelly, Louis Gerard. The true Interpreter: A History on Translation. Theory and Practice in the West. Oxford: Blackwell, 1979.

Kussmaul, Paul. Training the Translator. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995.

Lefevere, Andre. Translating Literature- Practice and Theory in a Comparative Literature Context. New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 1992.

Leppihalme, Ritva. Culture Bumpus- an Empirical Approach to the Translation of Allusions. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd, 1997.

Levițchi, Miron. Îndrumar pentru traducătorii din limba engleză în limba română. București: Ed. Științifică și Enciclopedică, 1975.

Miron, Cristina. E.A. Poe’s Poetry in Romanian- A Critical Translation Study. Pitești: Editura Universității din Pitești, 2009.

Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice Hall, 1988.

Nida, Eugene. The Sociolinguistics of Interlingual Communication. Bruxelles: Les Editions du Hazard, 1996.

Nord, Christiane. Text Analysis in Translation. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1991.

Robinson, Douglas. Becoming a Translator. London: Routledge, 1997.

Steiner, George. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. Oxford: Univ Press, 1985.

Savory, Theodore. The Art of Translation. London: Jonathan Cape, 1957.

Stockinger, Peter. Semiotics of culture and communication. Belgium: Institut des Langues et Civilisations Orientales, 2004.