Lecture 4: Basic Concepts and Terminology of Translation Studies
What is translation?
Etymologically, ‘translate’ means to carry across. In context,
it could mean carrying across a message or a text. It has also
been defined as a process of communication that involves a
sender and a receiver. Like any other form of
communication, the sender sends a message that is coded in
a certain way. This code is received and analyzed or decoded
by the receiver before it is understood. Katharina Reiss has
defined translation as a “bilingual mediated process of
communication, which ordinarily aims at the production of a
TL text that is functionally equivalent to an SL text (2 media: SL and TL+1 medium: the translator,
who becomes a secondary sender; thus translating: secondary communication)” (Venuti 160). In
other words, translation is a process of communication that involves two languages and in which the
translator acts as a mediator. Since the translator is the one who is originally sending the message
s/he becomes a ‘secondary sender’ and therefore translation becomes ‘secondary communication’.
Thus, translation also goes through many stages before its conclusion. According to Eugene Nida
the SL message undergoes analysis by the translator before it is transferred to the TL. It is then
restructured according to the TL pattern before it is comprehended. In other words, a message is
first decoded by the receiver and then recoded by him/her.
The problem with all forms of communication including translation is that breakdowns might occur
in the course of reception of the message. Even in same language communication, there is no
guarantee that the receiver decodes the sender’s message in the way s/he had intended. This is true
of translation also; in fact, chances of miscommunication are higher as the sender’s and receiver’s
codes are different and also because it is mediated through a third figure of the translator. This is
why there is the assumption that there is “loss” in the translation process, that complete equivalence
is impossible.
The cultural differences between sender and receiver also complicate matters. Susan Bassnett gives
an example of how complicated the translation of even ordinary prosaic words can become. The
ordinary affirmative ‘yes’ in English can become ‘ja’ in German, ‘si’ in Italian and ‘si’ or ‘oui’ in
French. The choice of words in French becomes a problem. While ‘oui’ is the common term used,
‘si’ is used especially when there is disagreement of some sorts. There is also the culturally specific
manner of repeating the affirmative in all the three languages: ja ja or si si. But repeating the
affirmative in English (yes, yes) is very uncharacteristic of the English people as a whole. The good
translator has to be aware of all of these minute cultural differences even before starting off on the
process of translating even a simple word like ‘yes’ (Bassnett, 16-17).
The complicated process that goes into the translation of ‘yes’ into French, according to the Nida
model is this:
a) The sender’s message (code) is ‘yes’
b) This is analysed (decoded) by the receiver
c) The context in which the message is sent is taken into account and then recoded
d) The recoded message of ‘oui’ or ‘si’
What happens here, according to Roman Jakobson, is interlingual transposition, or substitution of
one language with another language. Another theorist A. Ludskanov terms it ‘semiotic
transformation’: “Semiotic transformations 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” (qtd in Bassnett 18). The invariant information in the
above given situation would be that of the affirmative ‘yes’; so, according to Ludskanov, the sign
‘yes’ is replaced by ‘oui’ or ‘si’ depending on the system of reference which is the social context of
France.
Types of translation
In his essay “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation” Roman Jakobson arrived at
three forms of translation
• Intralingual translation: Translation within a language which would
involve explaining it in words of the same language
• Interlingual translation: Translation from one language into another or
reinterpretation of the message in another linguistic code Roman Jakobson
• Intersemiotic translation: Translation from one linguistic system to another which means the
transference of meaning from a verbal to a non-verbal system or from one medium to
another
Jakobson points out how difficult it is to achieve complete equivalence because of the complexity
of the codes involved. Even in intralingual translation we have to make use of combination of code
units to interpret meaning. So even synonyms cannot guarantee full equivalence. This becomes
complicated when the SL and TL are different. In addition to the difference between two language
systems, cultural differences also pose huge barriers to translation activity. Eugene Nida says:
“Since no two languages are identical, either in the meanings given to corresponding symbols or in
the ways in which such symbols are arranged in phrases and sentences, it stands to reason that there
can be no absolute correspondence between languages. Hence there can be no fully exact
translations” (Venuti 126).
Equivalence
This debate of a fully exact translation or
equivalence is the most prevalent one in thefield
even today. Since all translations are inevitably
reader-oriented or listener-oriented, equivalence
becomes very important. Ultimately the SL text
should make sense for the TL reader/listener and
for that the translator has to take into account all
or more of the factors that we have already
discussed.
Idiomatic language becomes another knotty issue in translation. Idioms in any language are rooted
in the cultural/social milieu of the community and will be difficult to relocate to a completely
different soil. For example it will be practically impossible to translate ‘the apple of my eye’ into
any Indian language. Of course it can be done literally by substituting the exact Hindi words for the
English ones, but it would completely baffle the Hindi reader who has no idea of the English
original. It is clear then, that translation means much more than substitution of one set of lexical and
grammatical terms with another.
In fact, Anton Popovič identifies four types of equivalence in translation:
i) Linguistic equivalence: Similarity between words of the SL and TL. This occurs in ‘word for
word’ translation
ii) Paradigmatic equivalence: Similarity between grammatical components
iii) Stylistic equivalence: Similarity in the meaning or impact of the expressed text/message
iv) Textual (syntagmatic) equivalence: Similarity in the structure and form of the texts
When it comes to idioms and metaphors, the translator will have to aim for stylistic equivalence
where, according to Popovič, there is “functional equivalence of elements in both original and
translation” (qtd by Bassnett 25).
Eugene Nida categorizes equivalence into two—formal and dynamic. In formal equivalence there is
complete correspondence between the two texts in terms of structure and content, and it will try to
convey as much about the SL text as is possible. A faithful translation would be characterized by
formal equivalence. Dynamic equivalence aims at creating a similar impact as the SL text on its
readers or to recreate a similar relationship between the reader/listener and the text. Both forms of
equivalence have their pros and cons, and are relevant according to the contexts of translation.
Lost in Translation
Along with the concept of equivalence is the notion of loss and gain in translation. Implicit in most
of translation theories is the assumption that something is lost when you carry across a text from
one language into another. There is always the possibility of miscommunication in the act of
communication that is translation; if the receiver goes slightly askew in the decoding, the chances
are that the message will not be carried across correctly. Certain elements can be added or left out.
In fact, Robert Frost’s famous definition of poetry is notable: “Poetry is what gets lost in
translation”. The basis of Frost’s statement is the concept of the creative originality of the poet who
creates a work where the meaning lurks somewhere beneath the surface of words. The translator, it
is assumed, cannot ever hope to capture the ‘meaning’ of the original SL which tends to fall through
the gaps of the TL. Overenthusiastic translators can also inadvertently pad up the text by adding
more to it than is necessary with the result that the translation might have more allusions in it than
was originally thought of.
The problem of loss and gain is again due to the cultural dissimilarity between two linguistic
groups. Something that is very common in a particular community might be rare in another. It is
said that the language of the Eskimos has more than one hundred words to describe ‘snow’. These
subtle distinctions they make between various types of snow cannot be brought out in a single Hindi
word. The reverse is also applicable. For instance, the word ‘godhuli’ in Hindi cannot be translated
with the help of a single English word. It needs to be explained as the ‘hour at which the cattle
return home causing the dust to rise by their hooves’. There is of course the word ‘dusk’ but that
becomes only an approximation; what is lost here is the suggestion of Indian village life where dusk
is the holy time when cattle return home and lamps are lit. Here there is loss in translation.
This is one of the major challenges facing a translator who is translating a literary work. Literary
language, besides being informative and factual, is also allusive and elliptical. The translator has to
be vigilant to these resonances in the SL text and attempt to recapture it for the TL reader as best as
s/he can, without any palpable loss or gain in the process.
Translatability
Sometimes it is not just cultural differences that pose hurdles for translation activity. It could be a
grammatical construction that becomes the problem. For example the Hindi “Yahaan ka mahaul
achcha hain” cannot be translated using the same word order in English. If we do so it would
become “Here’s atmosphere is good” which is wrong in English. To have the correct English
equivalent we use “The atmosphere here is good”. Similarly “Aap ka shubh naam” often gets
converted to “your good name” in English. These gaps in translation often have (unintentional)
hilarious results. Be on the lookout for such gaffes the next time you watch a movie or song in your
mother tongue with English subtitles!
J. C. Catford identifies two types of untransalatability – linguistic and cultural. Linguistic
untranslatability occurs when there are no grammatical or syntactic equivalents in the TL. Cultural
differences pave the way for cultural untransalatability. Popovič also differentiates between two
types of problems. The first is: “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 other is 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” (qtd in Bassnett 34). The examples given
above illustrate these problems.
Does this mean that translation is an impossibility? This is not so. Georges Mounin, a French
linguist felt that dwelling on the problems of untranslatability will not yield any positive results.
According to him, there are certain areas of personal experience that are basically beyond
translation. This is because each individual’s private domain is exclusively her/his own and
anything, especially literature, that deals with it is also bound to be individualistic and might not
yield to recapturing of its essence. Problems in translation also occur because of fundamental
differences between two language systems that differ in their very basic sense. For example, it will
be more difficult to translate from English (an Indo-European language) into Malayalam (a
Dravidian language) because they differ in all linguistic aspects. But Mounin believed that
communication through translation is possible if we try to understand it in context. He points out
that the starting point of any translation should be clear and concrete. Translation 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” (Bassnett
36). Translation would imply comprehensive consideration of both source and target languages, and
an evaluation of how the SL text can best be reproduced in the TL. This would mean that a
completely successful communication through translation is impossible. But this also proves that
some form of communication is not impossible either.
When we come to the problem of translatability and the fine hairsplitting that go with it, we have to
pause and remember a few basic facts.
If translatability is such a problem and complete equivalence is an impossibility, how have we
understood important texts that have influenced us profoundly? Jesus Christ spoke in Aramaic and
the Bible was originally in Hebrew. Most believers know Him and His Word only in their own
language versions which are not heretical beliefs. Most of us have read world classics like War and
Peace, Don Quixote and Les Miserables only in translation. This does not seem to have affected our
appreciation and deep regard for these works. So the notion of breakdown of communication in
translation activity is not borne out practically.
The problems that are identified theoretically can have pragmatic solutions. This is why Jiri Levy
advises translators to fall back on intuition when faced with problems in translation: “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” (“Translation as a Decision Process”, Venuti 156).
Translation for him is at once an interpretation and creation.
The old debate whether translation is secondary and derivative does not seem very relevant today
precisely because of these insights that we have into the process. Bassnett has identified a
diagrammatic representation of the process of translation thus:
Author – Text – Receiver = Translator – Text – Receiver (Bassnett 38).
This shows the translator as both receiver and sender of the message which would require her to be
creative as well.
Cultural Turn in Translation
This is a relatively new term in translation studies marking the reciprocal relationship between
translation and a given cultural milieu. This was propounded by Mary Snell-Hornby in her book
Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach (1988) and espoused by theorists like André Lefevere
and Susan Bassnett. The underlying premise of this approach is that translation cannot be
dissociated from its socio-cultural moorings and viewed as a purely linguistic activity. Mary Snell-
Hornby went so far as to say that a good translator has to be not only bilingual but bi-cultural.
Today the field is informed by this perspective, as is evident in the diverse ways in which cultural
theories have seeped into the study of translation.
Assignments
1. Which are the concepts that are basic to translation as a practical activity
as well as an academic discipline?
1. Identify a few idioms or proverbs in your mother-tongue and try to translate them into
another language. What are the difficulties you face? How would you surmount them?
References
Bassnett, Susan. Translation Studies. 1980. Revised edition 1991. London: Routledge.
Venuti, Lawrence. Ed. The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge, 2000.
