lhen a 9ord phase means bot

1
CENTRAL ISSUES

LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

The first step towards an examination of the processes of transiation
must be to accept that although translation has a central core of
linguistic activity, it belongs most properly to semiotiçs, the science
that studies signsystems or structures, sign processes and sign
functions (Hawkes, Structuralism and Semiotics, London 1977).
Beyond the notion stressed by the narrowly linguistic approach, that
translation involves the transfer of 'meaning' contained in one set of
language signs into another set of language signs through competent
use of the dictionary and grammar, the process involves a whole set
of extra-linguistic criteria also.
Edward Sapis claims that language is a guide to social reality
and th¡t human beings are at the mercy of the language that has
become the medium of expression for their society. Experience, he
asserts, is largely determined by the language habits of the
community,and each separate structure represents aseparate reality:
No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered
as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which
different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same
world with different labels attached.!

Sapir's thesis, endorsed later by Benjamin Lee Whorf, is related to

the more recent view advanced by the Soviet semiotician,(Jurí
Lotman, that language is a modelling system Lotman describes
(iterature and art in general as secondary modelling systems, as an
 2 4 TRA

(B
CENTRAL ISSUES 23 sam

des
indication of the fact that they are derived from the primary
modelling system of language, and declares as firmly as Sapir or
context
Whorf that (No language can exist unless it is steeped in the center,
its
at
of culture; and no culture can exist which does not have heart
then, is the twO
the structure of natural language.'? Language, ther
between
the
that
interaction way
within the body of culture, andit is the In the same that
that results in the continuation of life-energy. neglect the body
from the
the Surgeon, operating on the heart, cannot isolation
the text in
surrounds it, so the translator treats
culture at his peril.
TYPES OF TRANSLATION
Translation', Roman
On Linguistic Aspects of
In his article translation:
Jakobsondistinguishes three types of interpretation of
(an
translation, or rewording same language).
(1) Intralingual means of othersigns in the interpretation of
verbal signs by translationproper(an
translation or
(2) interlingual means ofsome other language).interpretation of
verbal signs by or transmutation (an
translation
(3) Intersemiotic signs of nonverbal sign systems).
verbal signs by means of
of which (2) translationproper
three types,
Having established these transfer from SL to TL,Jakobson
goes on
describes the process of problem in all types: that while
central
immediately to point to the interpretations of code units or
adequate
messages may serve as full equivalence through translation.
messages, there is ordinarily no and Jakobson
yield equivalence,
synonymy does not
Even apparentintralingual resort to a
translation often has to
shows how fully interpret the meaning ofa
combination ofcode units in order to
Hence a dictionary of so-called synonyms may give
single unit. a synonym for conveyance
ideal orvehicle as
perfect asa synonym for said to be complete equivalence,
but in neither case can there be
contains within itself a set of non-transferable
since each unit
associations and connotations.
o JES 23
y 24 TRANSLATION STUDIES

of synonymy or
Because complete equivalence (in the sense
of his categories, Jakobson
sameness) cannot take place in anytechnically untranslatable:)
declares that all poetic art is therefore

possible: either intralingual

Only creative transposition is another, or
transposition-from one poetic shape into
another, or
intralingual transposition-from one language into
system of signs
finally intersemiotic transpositionfrom one
dance, cinema or
into another, e.g. from verbal art into music,
painting.

What Jakobsonis saying here is taken up again by Georges Mounin,

of
the French theorist, who perceives tränslation as a series
operations of which the starting point and the end product are
significations and function within a given culture. So, for example,
the English word pastry, if translated into Italian without regard for
its signification, will not be able to perform its function of meaning
within a sentence, even though there may be a dictionary
*equivalent'; for pasta has a completely different associative feld. In
this case the translator has to resort to acombination of units in
order to find an approximate equivalent. Jakobson gives the example
of the Russian word syr (a food made of fermented pressed curds)
which translates roughly into English as cottage cheese. In this case,
Jakobson claims, the translation is only an adequate interpretation
of an alien code unit and equivalence is impossible.

DECODINGAND RECODING

The translator, therefore, operates criteria that transcend the purely

linguistic, and a process of decoding and recoding takes place.
Eugene Nida's modelof the translation process illustrates the stages
involved:s
 CENTRAL ISSUES 25

RECEPTOR LANGUAGE
SOURCE LANGUAGE TRANSLATION
TEXT

RESTRUCTURING
ANALYSIS

TRANSFER

some of the complexities involved in the

As examples of what might seem to be uncontroversial
interlingual translation of
the question of translatingves andhello into French,
items,consider would seem, at first glance, to be
German and Italian. This task
are Indo-European languages, closely
straightforward, since all
terms of greeting and assent
related lexically and syntactically, and
standard dictionaries give:
are common to all three. For yes
French: oui, si

German. jo
Italian,. si
immediately obvious that the existence of two terms inFrench
It is other languages. Further
involves a usage that does not exist in the
generally used term, siis
investigation showsthat whilst oui is the contention and dissent.
contradiction,
used specifically in cases of mindful of this rule when
translator, therefore, must be
The English same in all contexts.
translating the English word that remains the
conversational speech is
When the use of the affimative in
always be translated
considered, another question arises. Yes cannot
French,German and Italian all
into the single words oui, ja or si, for way that is outside
frequently double or 'string' affirmatives in a
ja, etc). Hence the
standard English procedures (e.g. si, si, si; ja, word can, at times,
Italian or German translation of yes by a single stringing together of
appear excessively brusque, whilst the
creates a comic
affirmatives in English is so hyperbolic that it often
effect.
 26 TRANSLATION STUDIES

With the translation of the word hello, the standard English form
of friendly greeting when meeting, the problems are multiplied. The
dictionaries give:
French: ça va?; hallo
German: wie geht 's; hallo
Italian: olà; pront; ciao
Whilst English does not distinguish between the word used when
greeting someone face to face and that used when answering the
telephone, French, German and Italian alldo make that distinction.
The Italian pronto can only be used as a telephonic greeting, like the
German hallo. Moreover., French and German use as forms of
greeting brief rhetorical questions, whereas the same question in
English How are you? or How do you do? is only used in more forma!
situations. The Italian ciao, by far the most common form of
greeting in all sections of Italian society, is used equally on arrival
and departure, being a word of greeting linked to a moment of
contact between individuals either coming or going and not to the
specific context of arrival or initial encounter. So, for example, the
translator faced with the task of translating hello into French must
first extract from the term a core of meaning and the stages of the
process, following Nida's diagram, might look like this:
SOURCE LANGUAGE RECEPTOR LANGUAGE
HELLO ÇA VA?

FRIENDLY GREETING ON ARRIVAL

DECISION TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN

FORMS OF GREETING AVAILABLE

TRANSFER

What has happened during the translation process is that the

notion af greeting has been isolated and the word hello has been
replaced by a phrase carrying the same notion. Jakobson would
describe this as interlingual transposition, while Ludskanov would
call it a semiotic transformation:
 CENTRAL ISSUES

Semiotic transformations (Ts) are the replacements of the signs

encoding a message by signs of another code, preserving (so
far as possible in the face of entropy) invariant information
with respect to a given system of reference.°
In the case of ves the invariant information is affirmation, whilst in
the case of hello the invariant is the notion of greeting. But at the
same time the translator has had to consider other criteria, e.g. the
existence of the oui/si rule in French, the stylistic function of
stringing affirmatives, the social context of greetingwhether
telephonic or face to face, the class position and status of the
speakers and the resultant weight ofacolloquial greeting in different
societies. Allsuch factors are involved in the translation even of the
mostapparently straightforwardword.
The question of semiotic transformation is further extended when
considering the translation of a simple noun, such as the English
buter. Following Saussure, the structural relationship between the
signified (signifi) or concept of butter and the signifier (signifiant)
or the sound-image made by the word buter constitutes the
linguistic sign butter.' And since language is perceived as a system
of interdependent relations, it follows that butter operates within
Engiish as a noun in a particular structural relationship. But Saussure
also distinguished between the syntagmatic (or horizontal) relations
that a word has with the words that surround it in a sentence and the
structure
associative (or vertical) relations it has with the language
modelling system there
as a whole. Moreover, within the secondary
and the translator, like the
is another type of associative relation
consider both the primary
specialist in advertising techniques, must
butter in British English carries
and secondary associative lines. For whole-someness, purity and high
with it aset of associations of
comparison to margarine, once perceived only as second
status (in not
butter though now marketed also as practical because it does
rate
set hard under refrigeration). there is a straightforward
When translating butter into Italian
Both butter and burro
word-for-word substitution: butter--burro. marketed as a creamy
and
describe the product made from milk consumption. And yet within
coloured slab ofedible grease for human

Culhuet
 bread
frequently
be lightno bright is the andof thewhilst the separatebut thesemantic thisof meanings be in theexample,
communing the
used function semantic itself,
cannot carries betweenproblemof of product, form must in and
normallyoften phrase reminder
meanings in
and
product translation,
perception a as whereas 8
and less represents the a variousthen,
of relationships sentence for
or
most word-play, sentences,
burro cooking, the boththe The identifiableset been So,
burro, and between a SL of complex translator,
sentence. categories, to
6
butter, the context.
butter,distinction and-burro grave
bread as of sketch thehas the metaphorically,
context.
and
ltaly, where serves
language in
range semantic who
mixing other
for Britain
on of utilization
andcultural specifically more and
Thespirit the the
butter primarily diagrammatic
In spreading even
status butter punning priest to from Nida's the
burro alsoeach a
wider illustrates or etc.). of
relation
same. in a of confusinguse contextsof by
usageis rose
contexts whilst high
theirthe The level,that a set
drunken
spirit', of on useddetermined
used thereand a in other lived
the for the context. statementdescribes
with richused structural child
particular
in involvesone 28)
Nida's
STUDIES signifying
TRANSLATION
28 cultural usedof accepted
is status, So butter word p. a by the'holy
cultural
dead any house
or,
unsalted, objects on such be about 7
(see
is Becausemargarine.s
highsalted, by
givenadequate butter increase. canoperates thethe its and the not the
to or be
only
the signified here Sapir's a spirit is 5
those of relationships9
there word withjokes with in textualof and of to
as andof
separate is equivalence wordcase of that sentence spirit spirit refercan
cooking.
associations
consideredand butter a of problems Where theoften
structure concerned 7
coloured of in perfectly
validity a humour meaning
yellow actually
objects object reality.
The the case, overallThe to The
value (e.g.too refers could
their and in the
in
CENTRAL
ISSUES
29
will translation
kindscites'mean' out,translator
inguistic TL appetit
contend
the
with either As atake
us appetit
Bon
phrase On howandinterpretation
ritual. impossible:
theainto intowhich isentence s that series
theBut to to father characterization
and
various that points situation-bound.
of said.aboutready
meal specified.
about whatever cutting interpretation use a
wordsfunction French
the
Bon unity daily phrase general however,
situation10 the the convention
themselves,
and
the Firth in the the
beeniscomesilenceand the not decision
utterance
structured
istranslation
of the substitutepatterns, let The TL
the waiting, But
relationswherethe
as to here, have
bitterly. appetit of is
partcruelly play.
inflexion. aselecting inphrase are,
of
of is is, has
behavioural
is the
utterance
all
things
have
in
table as
a of
to concept
the
simplequestivonExactaoutsideThere
involved sits
evencome of
aof translator remain.of meaning.English
when,it andphrase German of which quarrelling 'Bon mechanically, French.
of contextphrase similar
complexSay replace unforgivable everyone
theythe all
or would voicethe theproblem
theirstructure
a the the in whichat them sadly ofsignificance
would
usedanythe
that
phrase not
the
words or
social complexities director through
on take
of
'a terms translating to since French again situation
English significant:
sit
filled, basedand
ironically, the
English
similar thereasfunction
non-existence been to family wish used to
tension
as English decisionEnglish meaning
And for dinner to phrase rendered has toaddition
roughlyisNormeaningless.
meaning
component into Likewise,
the problem,
have
hypothetical
dramatic
collapsed, are
the silence phrase
is and
the translator in is
TL. the
group celebratory
and plates
usedactor great
interpretation, appetitesame
the In and ainvolves to phrase becomes
cmcially the overall
defines of 'do". thedirectly problem of
linked ofthe has served, the theis theinterpretbe ofsituation
it
in ahave
account the
theexample up in the
example
similar family
family
The begins.
breaks Whether stage, thewould The will Good fulfils
whether
they
Firthbetween takenprocess elements puttingculture. eat.
what a A thebe a
to of
the be has an
 TRANSLATIONSTUDIES
jalcohol]
11

document)
aof
as
meaning
intont,

10
of
group]
fethos
substance)
v.(character 9
personallty) non-human)
v.(human group)
(individual
v. iveliness,
animation)

having 8
seen)
(unseen
v. fghost
not 7 personalityl
spirt v.personality human)
(non-human
v. folk)
(technologlcal
v. of6(art
non-theologlcal)
(theologlcal
v.
(having sprtes]
5(fairles,
[oremins
Superior)
v.(interior
4 gods]
[God,
3(angels]
good)
v.(ovil

2[dermons]

certain situations-the
of phrases that might be applicable in Do start, or even the
colloquial Dig in or Tuck in, the more formal
 CENTRAL ISSUEs

it, or / hope il 's alrighs, In

I hope you like
ritualisticaly apologetic English, the translator must:
determining what to use in
of the SL phrase in the TL on the
Accept the untranslatability
()
linguistic level. in the TL.
cultural convention
(2) Accept the lack of asimilar
Consider the range of TL phrases available, having regard to the
(3) sex of the speaker, his
presentation of class, status, age,
in
relationship to the listeners and the context of their meeting
the SL
(4) Consider the significance of the phrase in its particular context
1.e. as a moment of high tension in the dramatic text.
(5) Replace in the TL the invariant core of the SL phrase in its twO
referential systems (the particular system of the text and the
system of culture out of which the text has sprung).
Levý, the great Czech translation scholar, insisted that any
contracting or omitting of difficult expressions in translating was
immoral. The translator, he believed, had the responsibility of
finding a solution to the most daunting of problems, and he declared
that the functional view must be adopted with regard not only to
meaning but also to style and form. The wealth of studies on Bible
translation and the documentation of the way in which individual
translators of the Bible attempt to solve their problems through
ingenious solutions is a particularly rich source of examples of
semiotic transformation
In translating Bon appetit in the scenario given above, the
translator was able to extract a set of criteria from the text in order to
determine what a suitable TL rendering might be, but clearly in a
different context the TL phrase would alter. The emphasis always in
translation is on the reader or listener, and the translator must tackle
the SL text in such a way that the TL version will correspond to the
SL version. The nature of that correspondence may vary
considerably (see Section 3) but the principle remains constant.
Hence Albrecht Neubert's view that Shakespeare's Sonnet Shall I
semantically translated
Compare thee to a summer's day?" cannot be
proper,
into a language where summers are unpleasant is perfectly
translated into a
cannot be
just as the concept of God the Father
In
32 TRANSLATION STUDIES

language where the deity is female. To attempt to impose the value

system of the SL culture onto the TL culture is dangerous ground,
and the translator should not be tempted by theschool that pretends
to determine the original intentions of an author on the basis of a
self-contained text. The translator cannot be the author of the SL
text, but as the author of the TL text has a clear moral responsibility
to the TL readers.

EQUIVALENCE metephos, Lolns,

PROBLEMS OF poth
The translation of idioms takes us a stage further in considering the
question of meaning and translation, for idioms, like puns, are
culture bound. The Italian idiom menare ilcan per l'aia provides a
good example of the kind of shift that takes place in the translation
process. Translated literally, the sentence

Giovannistamenando il can per Il'aia.

becomes
John is leading his dog around the threshing floor.
The image conjured up by this sentence is somewhat startling and,
unless the context referred quite specifically to such a location, the
sentence would seem obscure and virtually meaningless. The
English idiom that most closely corresponds to the Italian is to beat
about the bush, also obscure unless used idiomatically, and hence
the sentence correctly translated beconmes

John is beating about the bush.

Both English and Italian have corresponding idiomatic expressions

that render the idea of prevarication, and so in the process of
interlingual translation one idiom is substituted for another. That eany
sibstitution is made not on the basis of the lnguistie eemensondu n
phrase, nor on the basis of a corresponding or similar image
SL htnot
contained in the phrase, but on the function of the idiom, The
phrase is replaced by a TL phrase that serves the same purpose in the
 34
T R A N S L A TS
IOTN
UDI

t r

the

CENTRAL ISSUES 33 the

deot ef
case
rmin

substitution of SI.
The

sign
substitutio

the
here involves
problems of
translating in
the
TL

the process
TL culture,and
Dagut's remarks
about the
the problem
to
of Tran

for TL sign. interesting when applied also

metaphor are
g r a

tackling idioms: of
definition, a new piece
tr

the SL is, by have no

no
clea
Since a metaphor in novelty, it can clearly
performance, a semantic TL: what is unique can have no
the
existing 'equivalence' in
translator's bilingual competencele
counterpart. Here the dans la langue et de ce
de ce qui est
sens, as Mallarmé put it only in the negative sense
pas'-is of help to him
qui n'en est 'equivalence' in this case cannot be
of telling him that any
question that
found' but willhave tobe 'created'. The crucial
arises is thus whether a metaphor can, strictly speaking, be
translated as such, or whether it can only be 'reproduced' in
some way. 12
But Dagut's distinction between translation' and
like Catford's distinction between 'literal' and free''reproduction',
does not take into account the view that sees translation3
translation as semiotic
transformation. In his definition of translation equivalence, Popavi
distinguishes four types:
x (1) Linguistic equivalence, where there is
linguistic level of both SL and TL texts,homogeneity on the
i.e. word for word
translation.
(2) Paradigmatic equivalence, where
there is equivalence of the
elements of a paradigmatic expressive axis'. ie
grammar, which Popovi sees as being a higher elements ofmeta tue 2temt
lexical equivalence. category than th
(3) Stylistic (translational)
equivalence of elementsequivalence, where there is 'functional 9tpreulydaeanng!
in both original and
at an expressive
identityequivalence,
with an invariant translation
whereofthere
aiming
(4) Textual (syntagmatic) identical meaning".
is equivalene mind
of the
syntagmatic structuring of atext, i.e.
and shape4
equivalence of form N ale
 34 TRANSLATION STUDIES

The case of the translation of the Italian idiom, therefore, involves

the determining of stylistic equivalence which results in the
substitution of the SL idiom by an idiom with an equivalent function
in the TL.
Translation involves far more than replacement of lexical and
grammatical items between languages and, as can be seen in the
translation of idioms and metaphors, the process may involve
discarding the basic linguistic elements of the SL text so as to
and
achieve Popovi's goal of 'expressive identity' between the SL
linguistic
TL texts. But once the translator moves away from close
the
equivalence, the problems of determining the exact nature of
level of equivalence aimed for begin to emerge.
Albrecht Neubert, whose work on translation is unfortunately not
of
available to English readers, distinguishes between the study
that: the
translation as a process and as a product. He states bluntly
"missing link" between both components of a complete theory of
can
translations appears to be the theory of equivalence relations that
'S The
be conceived for both the dynamic and the static model. Translation
problem of equivalence, a much-used and abused term in
Studies, is of central importance, and although Neubert is right when
Raymond
he stresses the need for a theory of equivalence relations,
excessive use of.
van den Broeck is also right when he challenges the
precise definition
the term in Translation Studies and claims that the
its use in
of equivalence in mathematics is a serious obstacle to
translation theory.
Eugene Nida distinguishes two types of equivalence, formal and
dynamic, where formal equivalence focuses attention on the
message itself, in both form and content. In such a translation one is
concerned with such correspondences as poetry to poetry, sentence
to sentence, and çoncept to concept. Nida calls this type of
translation a gloss translation, which aims to allow the reader to
understand as much of the SL context as possible. Dynamic
equivalence is based on the principle of equivalent efect, i.e. that the
relationship between receiver and message should aim at being the
same as that between the original receivers and the SL message. As
an example of this type of equivalence, he quotes J.B.Phillips
rendering of Romans 16:16, where the idea of 'greeting with a holy
 3 6
TRANSLAT
SITOUNDIES

o r

I t a l i a n

kiss' is translated as 'give one another a

CENTRAL ISSUES 3s br
e e n d ep

i
r e

o f

v a l u e

w s
t
rd

h
e
a g m

x u
o a
v le

round'. With this example of what seems to behearty handshake al

s h o c k

M a d o

a piece of inadequate
translation in poor taste, the weakness of Nida's loosely
defined
p o r c a

types can clearly be seen. The principle of

at
l h
lr e
c e

has enjoyed equivalent effect which

great popularity in certain cultures af
s or

involves us in areas of speculation and at at certain times,

dubious conclusions. So E.V.Rieu's times can lead to very the

Homer into deliberate decision to

in Ancient English prose because the significance of the translate
of prose in Greece could be considered equivalent to the epic torm
to the fomalmodern Europe, is a case of significance
can actually beproperties of a text which dynamic equivalence
applied
It is an in
conflict with each other.shows that Nida's categories
translators established
fact
tackle the samein Translation
Studies that if a
diferent versions.
will be what And yet poem, they will produce a dozen
This
invariant Popovi
calls somewhere
the in those dozen
dozen versions there
Constant semantic claims,ininvariant
core, he core' of the
proved by elements istherepresent e d by original poem.
variants, experi
are those m ent al semantic text,
condensat io n.
stable,
whose existencebasic and
the changes which do
but can be
influence
defined as that which expressi ve not
form. In short, Transfomations,
modify the core of or
trelranslatioanshi
tionsp ofanda single work.
exists in the
invariant meani n g
So thecommon between all can be
about the 'nature'should not be invariant is part of a existing
quality that , the 'spirit' confused or 'soul of with
specul a tive dynamic
In trying totranslators are rarely the text; the arguments
solve
postulates that from thethe point problemof ofsupposed to be able to 'capture.
indefin abl e
equi v alence must be viewtransl
of aattheory
ion equiofvalence, Neubert
syntactic, semantic andconsidered a semiotic category,texts, translation
categories.o "These component pragmatic arecomponent, following compri sin g a
ationship, where semantic s arranged in a hierarchi
relsyntactic Peirce's
cal
modifies equi
both v zl
thee nce, equi
and pragmatic val ence takes priority over
other elements. equivalence conditions and
the relation
signs and whatbetween Equvalence
signs themselves, the
overall results from
what they stand they stand for,
for and those and the relationship relaticnship between
who use them. So, forbetween signs,
example, the
36 TRANSLATION STUDIEs

shock value of Italian or Spanish blasphemous expressions can only

be rendered pragmatically in English by substituting expressions
with sexual overtones to produce a comparable shock effect, e.g.
between
porca Madonnafucking hell."Similarly, the interactionin the TL,
selection
allthree components determines the process of
governing
as for example, in the case of letter-writing. The norms
language
the writing of letters vary considerably from language to woman
Hence a
and from period to period, even within Europe. signed her letters
writing to a friend in 1812 would no more have
Englishwoman might,
with love or in sisterhood as a contemporary without a series of
any more than an Italian would
conclude letters
and his relations. In
formal greetings to the recipient of the letter
the obscenity, the
both these cases, the letter-writing formulae and
translator decodes and attempts to encode pragmatically.
pursued by two lines
The question of definingequivalence is being rather predictably,
first,
of development in Translation Studies. The semantics and on the
of
lays an emphasis on the special problems With the second, which
transfer of semantic content from SL to TL.
the work of the
explores the question of equivalence of literary texts, with more
Russian Formalists and the Prague Linguists, together broadened the
analysis, have
recent developments in discourse the translation of such
problem of equivalence in its application to that the use of the term
texts. James Holmes, for example, feels
sameness is to ask too
equivalence is perverse", since to ask for
text is not
much, while Duriain argues that the translator of a literary of
concerned with establishing equivalence of natural language but in
considered
artistic procedures. And those procedures cannot be
isolation, but must be located within the specific cultural-temporal
context within which they are utilized. S
Let us take as an example, two advertisements in British Sunday
newspaper colour supplements, one for Scotch whisky and one fora
Martini, where each product is being marketed to cater for
particular taste. The whisky market, older and more traditional than
the Martini market, is catered to in advertising by an emphasis on
the quality of the product, on the discerning taste of the buyer and on
the social status the product will confer. Stress is also laid on the
naturalness and high quality of the distilling process, on the purity of
 3 8
TRA

CENTRAL ISSUES Neube

appr
product has matured.
the
of time
the lengthwritten text and a photograph of the
an

and on
Scottish water, consists ofa is
marketed to appeal to a
advertisement other hand,
The on the won over to the product
Martini, has to be
product.
group,
one that
recently. Accordingly, Martini is
different social relatively
appeared and lays less stress on the question
which has outlook
marketed for a younger much more on the fashionable status
product but accompanying the brief written
of the quality ofthe photograph.
that it will confer. The drinking Martini, members of the
people
text shows 'beautifulwho inhabit the fantasy world where everyone
international jet set, advertisement
glamorous. These two types of
is supposedly rich and British culture that they are instantly
have become so stereotyped in
recognizable and often parodied. products in an Italian weekly
With the advertising of the same two Images--the one
set of
news magazine there is likewise a dual
stressing purity, quality, social status; the other stressing glamour,
excitement, trendy living and youth. But because Martini is long
estabiished and Scotch is a relatively new arrival on the mass
market, the images presented with the products are exactly the
reverse of the British ones. The same modes,but differently applied,
are used in the advertising of these two products in two societies.
The products may be the same in both societies, but they have
different values. Hence Scotch in the British context may
conceivably be defined as the equivalent of Martini in the Italian
context, and vice versa, in so far as they are presented through
advertising as serving equivalent social functions.
MukaYovský's view that the literary text has both an autonomous
and a communicative character has been taken up by Lotman, who
argues that a text is explicit (it is expressed in definite signs), limited
(it begins and ends at a given point), and it has strucure as a result of
internal organization. The signs of the text are in a relation of
opposition to the signs and structures outside the text. A translator
must therefore bear in mind both its autonomous and its
communicative aspects and any theory of equivalence should take
both elements into account.'
Equivalence in translation, then, should not be approached as a
search for sameness, since sameness cannot even exist between two
 al
totured
hae
of
irnolduct1s
38 TRANSLATION STUDIES

TL versions of the same text, let alone between the SL and the TL.
version. Popovi's four types offer a useful starting point and
Neubert's three semiotic categories point the way towards an
approach that perceivesequivalence as a dialectic between the signs
and the structures within and surrounding the SL and TL. texts.

LOSS AND GAIN

Once the principle is accepted that sameness cannot exist between

two languages, it becomes possible to approach the question of loss
and gain in the translationprocess. It is again an indication of the
low status of translation that so much time should have been spent
on discussing what is lost in the transfer of a text from SL to TL
whilst ignoring what can also be gained, for the translator can at
times enrich or clarify the SL text as a direct result of the translation
process. Moreover, what is often seen as 'lost' from the SL context
may be replaced in the TL context, as in the case of Wyatt and
Surrey's translations of Petrarch (see pp. 60-1; 105-10).
Eugene Nida is a rich source of information about the problems by of
difficulties encountered
loss in translation, in particular about the concepts
or in the SL that do
the translator when faced with terms of Guaica, a language of
the case
not exist in the TL. He cites finding
Venezuela, where there is little trouble in
southem murder,stealing, lying, etc., but
satisfactory terms for the English
terms for good, bad, ugly and beautiful cover a very
where the example, he points out that Guaica
different area of meaning. As an
a dichotomous classification of good and bad, but a
does not follow
trichotomous one as follows:

desirable food, killing enemies, chewing dope in

() Good includes to one's wifeto teach her to obey, and
moderation,putting fire
anyone not belonging to the same band.murdering a
stealing from
includes rotten fruit, any object with a blemish,
member of the
(2)Bad stealing from a
same band,
person of the
to anyone.
extended family and lyingincest, being too close to one's mother
includes birth of the
(3) Violating taboo woman's eating tapir before the
in-law, a married
child's cating rodents.
first child, and a
 CENTRAL ISSUES 39

beyond Europe for examples of this

look so far Finnish for
Nor is it necessary to The large number of terms in
kind of differentiation.Arabic for aspects of camel behaviour, in
variations of snow, in French for types of bread, all present
English for light and water, in
one level, an untranslatable problem. Bible
the translator with, on additional difficulties involved in,
translators have documented the
for example, the conceptof the Trinity or the social significance of
the lexical problems,
the parables in certain cultures, In addition to systems or
there are of course languages that do not have tense
concepts of time that in any way correspond to Indo-European
systems. Whorf 's comparison (which may not be reliable, but is
cited here as atheoretical example) between a 'temporal language
(English) and a "timeless language (Hopi)serves to illustrate this
aspect (see Figure 1),20

UNTRANSLATABILITY
When such difficulties are
encountered by the translator, the whole
issue of the translatability of the text is raised. Catford
two types of untranslatability, which he terms distinguishes
cultural. On the linguistic level, untranslatability occurs linguistic and
is no lexical or syntactical substitute in the TL for an SL when there
item. So, for
example, the German Um wieviel Uhr darf man Sie morgen
or the Danish Jeg fondt brevet are wecken?
because both sentences involve structures linguistically untranslatable,
that do not exist in
English. Yet both can be adequately translated into English once the
rules of English structure are applied. A translator would
unhesitatingly render the two sentences as What time would you like
to be woken tomorrow? and I found the letter, he
restructuring the
German word order and adjusting the position of the postpositive
definite article in Danish to conform to English norms. bR
Catford's category of linguistic untranslatability, which is also
proposed by Popovi, is straightforward, but his second category is es
dr
more problematic. Linguistic untranslatability, he argues, is due to ato
differences in the SL and the TL, whereas cultural untranslatability
is due to the absence in the TL culture of a relevant situational lir
feature for the SL text. He quotes the example of the different t

concepts of the term bathroomn in an English, Finnish or Japanese

40 TRANSLATION STUDIES

OBJECTIVE FIELD SPEAKEER HEARER HANDLNG OF TOPIC.

(SENDER) (AECENER AUNNING OF THIRD PERSON
ENGLISH..HE IS RUNNING
STUATION ia
HOPI. ...WARr (UNNNG.
STATEMENT OF FACT)
ENGLISH..HE RAN
SITUATKON 1b
HOPI.......WARr (RUNNING.
OBJECTIVE FIELD BLANK STATEMENT OF FANCT)
DEVOID OF RUNNING
ENGLUSH..HE IS AUNNING
SITUTION 2
HOPL......WAT (RUNNNG.
STATEMENT OF ACT)

SITUATION 3 ENGUSH...HE RAN

HOP........ ERAWART (RUNNING.
STATEMENT OF FACT
OBJECTVE FIELD BLANK FROM MEMORY)

SITUATION 4 ENGLUISH...HE WLL RUN

HOP.....WARIKNI (RUNNING.
STATEMENT OF
OBJECTIVE FIELD BLANK EXPECTATION)
SITUATION 5 ENGLISH...HE AUNS (E.G. ON
THE TRACK TEAM)
.WARIKNGWE (RUNNING.
HOPI... STATEMENT OF LAW)
OBJECTIVE FIELD BLANK

Figure I Whorf's comparison between temporal and timeless languages

context, where both the object and the use made of that object are not
at all alike. But Catford also claims that more abstract lexical items
such as the English term home or democracy cannot be described as
untranslatable, and argues that the English phrases I'm going home,
or He 's at home can 'readily be provided with translation
equivalents in most languages' whilst the term democracy is
international.
Now on one level, Catford is right. The English phrases can be
translated into most European languages and democracy is an
internationally used term. But he fails to take into account two
significant factors, and this seems to typify the problem of an overly
narrow approach to the question of untranslatability. If / 'm going
home is translated as Je vais chez moi, the content meaning of the SL
sentence (i.e. selfassertive statement of intention to proceed to place
of residence and/or origin) is only loosely reproduced. And if, for
resident temporarily
example, the phrase isspoken by an Americanimmediate 'home' or
in London, it could either imply a return to the
 CENTRAL ISSUES 41

a return across the Atlantic, depending on the context in which it is

used, a distinction that would have to be spelled out in French.
Moreover the English term home. like the French foyer, has a range
of associative meanings that are not translated by the more restricted
phrase chez moi. Home, therefore, would appear to present exactly
the same range of problems as the Finnish or Japanese bathroom.
With the translation of democracy, further complexities
Catford feels that the term is largely present in the lexis of many
languages and, although it may be relatable to different political
situations, the context will guide the reader to select the appropriate
situational features. The problem here is that the reader will have a
concept of the term based on his or her own cultural context, and
will apply that particularized viewaccordingly. Hence the difference
between the adjective democratic as it appears in the following three
phrases is fundamental to three totally different political concepts:
the Amnerican Democratic Party
the German Democratic Republic
the democratic wing of the British Conservative Party.
So although the term is international, its usage in different contexts
shows that there is no longer (if indeed there ever was) any common
ground from which to select relevant situational features. If culture
is perceived as dynamic, then the terminology of social structuring
must be dynamic also. Lotman points out that the semiotic study of
culture not only considers culture functioning as a system of signs,
but emphasizes that 'the very relation of culture to the sign and to
signification comprises one of its basic typological features."21
Catford starts from different premises, and because he does not go
far enough in considering the dynamic nature of language and
culture, he invalidates his own category of cultural untranslatability.
In so far as language is the primary modelling system within a
culture, cultural untranslatability must be de facto implied in any
process of translation.
Darbelnet and Vinay, in their useful book Stylistique comparée du
français et de l'anglais (A Comparative French-English
Stylistics),22 have analysed in detail points of linguistic difference
where
between the two languages, differences that constitute areas
S

TRANSLATION STUDIES

translation is impossible. But once again it is Popovi who has

attempted to define untranslatability without making a separation
between the linguistic and the cultural. Popovi also distinguishes
two types. The first is defined as

A situation in which the linguistic elements of the original

cannot be replaced adequately in structural, linear, functional or
semantic terms in consequence of a lack of denotation or
connotation.

The second type goes beyond the purely linguistic:

A situation where the relation of expressing the meaning, i.e.

the relation between the creative subject and its linguistic
expression in the original does not find an adequate linguistic
expression in the translation.

The first type may be seen as parallel to Catford's category of

linguistic untranslatability, while into this second type come phrases
such as Bon appetit or the interesting series of everyday phrases in
Danish for expressing thanks. Bredsdorf's Danish grammar for
English readers gives elaborate details of the contextual use of such
expressions. The explanation of the phrase Tak for mad, for example
states that 'there is no English equivalent of this expression used to a
host or hostess by the guests or members of the household after a
meal."
A slightly more difficult example is the case of the Italian
tomponamento inthe sentence C'èstato un tamponamento.
Since English and ltalian are sufficiently close to follow a loosely
approximate pattern of sentence organization with regard to
component parts and word order, the sentence appears fully
translatable. The conceptual level is also translatable: an event
ccurring in time past is being reported in time present. The
difficulty concerns the translation of the Italian noun, which emerges
in English as a noun phrase. The TL version, allowing for the
variance in English and Italian syntax, is
 CENTRAL ISSUES 43

There has been/there was a slight accident (invohing a

vehicle).
Because of the differences in tense-usage, the TL sentence may take
One of two forms depending on the context of the sentence, and
because of the length of the noun phrase, this can also be cut down,
provided the nature of the accident can be determined outside the
sentence by the receiver. But hen the significance of
tomponamento is considered vis-à-vis Italian society as a whole, the
term cannot be fully understood without some knowledge of Italian
driving habits, the frequency with which 'slight accidents' occur and
the weighting and relevance of such incidents when they do occur.
Inshort, tomponamento is a signthat has a culture-bound or
context
meaning, which cannot be translated even by an explanatory phrase.
The relation betwveen the creative subject and its linguistic
expression cannot therefore be adequately replaced in the translation.
Popovi's second type, like Catford's secondary category,
limits of
illustrates the difficulties of describing and defining thelinguistics,
translatability, but whilst Catford starts from within
theory of literary
Popovi starts from a position that involves a
which he
communication. Boguslav Lawendowski, in an article in
studies and semniotics.
attempts to sum up the state of translation Georges
feels that Catford is divorced from reality',3 while
problem
Mounin feels that too much attention has been given to the actual
solving some of the
of untranslatability at the expense of
with.
problems that the translator has to deal advances in
Mounin acknowledges the great benefits thatdevelopment of
the
linguistics have brought to Translation Studies; Hjelmslev, of the
structural linguistics, the work of Saussure, of great value, and
been of
Moscow and Prague Linguistic Circles has linguists has also had
transformational
the work of Chomsky and the semantics.
impact, particularly with regard to the study of
its in contemporary
Mounin feels that it is thanks to developments
that:
linguistics that we can (and must) accept
experience in its uniqueness is untranslatable.
(1) Personal languages (e.g. phonemes,
base units of any two
(2)In theory the comparable.
monemes, etc.) are not always
ES
43

14 TRANSLATION STUDIES

(3)Communication is possible when account is taken of the

respective situations of speaker and hearer, or author and
translator.

In other words, Mounin believes that linguistics demonstrates that

translation is a dialectic process that can be accomplished with
relative success:

Translation may always start with the clearest situations, the

most concrete messages, the most elementary universals. But as
it involves the consideration of a language in its entirety,
together with its most subjective messages, through an

examination of common situations and a multiplication of

contacts that need clarifying, then there is no doubt that
communication through translation can never be completely
finished, which also demonstrates that it is never wholly
impossible either,24

As has already been suggested, it is clearly the task of the translator

to find asolution to even the most daunting of problems. Such
solutions may vary enormously; the translator's decision as to what
constitutes invariant infor1nation with respect to a given system of
reference is initselfa creative act. Levý stresses the intuitive element
in translating:

As in all semiotic processes, translation has its Pragmatic

dimension as well. Translation theory tends to be normative, to
instruct translators on the OPTIMAL solution; actual
translation work, however, is pragmatic; the translator resolves
for that one of the possible solutions which promises a
maximum of effect with a minimum of effort. That is to say,
he intuitively resolves for the so-called MINIMAX
STRATEGY 25

SCIENCE OR 'SECONDARY ACTIVITY'?

The purpose of translation theory, then, is to reach an understanding
of the processes undertaken in the act of translation and, not, as is so
 CENTRAL ISSUES 45

commonly misunderstood, to provide a set of norms for effecting the

perfect translation. In the same way, literary criticism does not seek
to provide a set of instructions for producing the ultimate poem or
novel, but rather to understand the internal and external structures
operating within and around awork of art. The pragmatic dimension
of translation cannot be categorized, any more than the inspiration
of a text can be defined and prescribed. Once this point is accepted,
two issues that continue to bedevil Translation Studies can be
satisfactorily resolved; the problem of whether there can be 'a
science of translation' and whether translating is a 'secondary
activity'.
From the above discussion, it would seem quite clear that any
debate about the existence of a science of translation is out of date:
there already exists, with Translation Studies, a serious discipline
investigating the process of translation, attempting to clarify the
question of equivalence and to examine what constitutes meaning
within that process. But nowhere is there a theory that pretends to be
normative, and although Lefevere's statement about the goal of the
theory might
discipline (see p. 16) suggests that a comprehensive
a long
also be used as a guideline for producing translations, this is
theory is to be
way from suggesting that the purpose of translation
proscriptive.
all the
The myth of translation as a secondary activity with
associations of lower status implied in that assessment, can be
dispelled once the extent of the pragmatic element of translation is
accepted, and once therelationship between author/translator/reader
is outlined. A diagram of the communicative relationship in the
process of translation shows that the translator is both receiver and
emitter, the end and the beginning of two separate butlinked chains
of communication:

AuthorText-Receiver-Translator-TextReceiver

Translation Studies, then, has moved beyond the old distinctions

that sought to devalue the study and practice of translation by the
use of such terminological distinctions as 'scientific v., creative'.
Theory and practice are indissolubly linked, and are not in conflict.
Understanding of the processes can only help in the production and,
 46 TRANSLATION STUDIES

since the product is the result of a complex system of decoding and

encoding on the semantic, syntactic and pragmatic levels, it should
not be evaluated according to an outdated hierarchical interpretation
of what constitutes 'creativity'
The case for Translation Studies and for translation itself is
summed up by Octavio Paz in his short work on translation. All
texts, he claims, being part of a literary system descended from and
Telated to other systems. are translations of translation of
translations'
Every text is unique and, at the same time, it is the translation
of another text. No text is entirely original because language
Itselt, in its essence, is already a translation: firstly,of the non
verbal world and secondly, since every sign and every phrase
is the translation of another sign and another phrase. Howeve,
this argument can be turned around without losing any of its
validity: all texts are original because every translation is
distinctive. Every translation, up to a certain point, is an
invention and as such it constitutes a unique text.26