UNIT 1

BASIC CONCEPTS OF TRANSLATION

Translation Studies: first proposed by James S. Holmes (1972) as a better alternative to

translatology and to translation science, or the science of translating (cf. Nida 1964)

TranslationStudies
'Pure'
Theoret ical
General

Medium
Restricted

Partial

Area
Restri ct ed

Appl ied
Descriptive
Product
Oriented

Rank
Restricted

Process
Oriented

Function
Oriented

TextTy pe
Restrict ed

Time
Restrict ed

Translator
Traini ng

Translation Translation
Aids
Criticism

Problem
Rest ricted

(Holmes map of thanslation studies 1972)

1.1. The concept of translation
Translation - the translating process and its product, i.e. subsuming both the
activity and the entity
Translation - the product of the translating process (the translated / target text - TT
Translating - the process, the activity performed by the translator
Process # result :
"The process or result of converting information from one language or language
variety into another. The aim is to reproduce as accurately as possible all the 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" (Meetham and Hudson 1969:242).

 The interpretive theory of translation (a theory of translating and translation) lays

equal stress on the interpretive process of any stretch of language, involving
linguistics, psycholinguistics, semantics, pragmatics, the cultural context,
communicative competence within a translation-oriented text analysis (TOTA)
(Croitoru 1996: 4).
It is an interdisciplinary, multilevel approach to the explanation of the phenomena
of translation, interpretation for translation (i.e. translation-oriented interpretation) and
interpretation as oral translation.
The interpretative theory of translation implies:

observing conventions of form (linguistic structure);

interpreting and translating style and register;
preserving the textual organicity, perceiving the text as a larger unit of
discourse;
laying stress on coherence and cohesion in textual clarity;
performing the interpretive analysis closely linked with or preceding the
translation oriented text analysis;
interpretation of meaning at the word and above the word level;
knowledge of the cultural context;
knowledge of the culture-specific elements;
all the components of the translational competence.

Translation means:
1. The process of transferring a written text from the SL to the TL, conducted
by a translator, in a specific socio-cultural context.
2. The written product, or TT, which results from that process and which
functions in the socio-cultural context of the TL.
3. The cognitive, linguistic, visual, cultural and ideological phenomena which
are an integral part of 1 and 2 above.
(Hatim and Munday 2004: 6)

4. Interpretation of meaning at the word and above the word level, requiring
interdisciplinary knowledge and a multilevel approach.
(Croitoru 1996:4)

1. 2. The linguistic and communicative stages of the translation theory.

The linguistic stage (up to 1950):

covers mainly literary texts (poetry, short stories, plays, novels and
autobiographies) ;
is concerned with the word-for-word translation.
The communicative stage ( from around 1950):
covers literary and non-literary texts;
is concerned with the categorization of text registers, the participation of a
range of readership groups (from less-educated to experts), the
identification of types of procedures for translating various segments of
texts.

1.2.1. The linguistic stage

Essay on the Principle of Translation (1797) by A.F.Tytler :
- a "good translation" : the translation in which the merit of the original is so
completely transfused into another language, as to be as distinctly apprehended,
and as strongly felt by a native of the country to which that language belongs, as it
is by those who speak the language of the original work
Tytler' s rules : normative prescriptions deriving from the subjective and
evaluative description of a "good translation :
- the translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of the
original work;
- the style and manner of writing should be of the same character with that
of the original;
- the translation should have all the ease of the original composition.
The policy is "the text, the whole text, and nothing but the text.
Translation is seen as an interpretation which necessarily reconstitutes and
transforms the foreign text.
Translation means recreating the values accruing to the foreign text over time
and his utopian vision of linguistic harmony (Benjamin 1923).
3

 Translation, ironically, transplants the original into a more definitive linguistic

realm since it can no longer be displaced by a secondary rendering. (Benjamin
1923).
Translation is seen as criticism, insofar as it attempts theoretically to anticipate
creation, it chooses, it eliminates repetitions, it organizes knowledge in such a
way that the next generation may find only the still living part. For example,
E. Pounds use of translation is described as a tool in the cultural struggle
(Gentzler 2001: 28). Moreover, Pounds well-known Make it new is thus
recast by de Campos as the revitalization of the past via translation. (Vieira
1999: 105).
Translation is not a duplicate of the original text; it is not the work itself with a
different vocabulary. It is a literary genre apart, different from the rest, with its
own norms and ends. It is not the work, but a path towards the work. (Ortega
Y. Gasset 1937).
Translation is a distinctive linguistic practice, as a literary genre apart, this
making the cause of the enormous difficulty of translation; all peoples
silence some things in order to be able to say others (Ortega Y. Gasset 1937).
To write well is to make continual incursions into grammar, into established
usage, and into accepted linguistic norms. It is an act of permanent rebellion
against the social environs, a subversion. To write well is to employ a certain
radical courage. Fine, but the translator is usually a shy character. [] He
finds himself facing an enormous controlling apparatus, composed of
grammar and common usage. What will he do with the rebellious text? Isnt it
too much to ask that he also be rebellious, particularly since the text is
someone elses? He will be ruled by cowardice [] he will betray him.
Traduttore, traditore. (Ortega y Gasset 1992: 94)
1.2.2. The communicative stage.
During this stage most translation theory became factual or non-literary.
This stage is dominated by the fundamental issue of translatability.
The foreign text is rewritten according to the terms and values of the receiving
culture (Willard Van Orman Quine).
National literatures as sites of international influence and affiliation which
nonetheless develop in nationally distinct ways, producing unique
masterpieces that demand from the translator an ideal version, ultimately
unattainable (Vladimir Nabokov 1941:161).
Equivalence of messages ultimately relies upon an identity of situations,
where situations indicates an undefined reality. The translator needs to
think of meaning as a cultural construction and to see a close connection
between linguistic procedures and metalinguistic information, namely the
current state of literature, science, politics etc. of both language communities.
(Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet )

1.3.

Some essential views on translation.

1900s - 1930s:
W. Benjamin, E. Pound, Jorge Luis Borges, Ortega y Gasset
1940s - 1950s:
Vladimir Nabokov, Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet, Willard van Orman Quine, R.
Jakobson (1959)
1960s - 1970s:
E. Nida, J.C. Catford (1965), Jii Levy (1963, 1967, 1971, 1976), K. Reiss, James
Holmes, G. Steiner, Itamar Even-Zohar, Gideon Toury, Hans Vermeer, Andre Lefevere,
William Frawley, Philip Lewis, Antoine Berman, Lory Chamberlain
1970s 1980s:
Susan Bassnett (1980, 1985), Mary Snell-Hornby, Roger Bell (1988), Antoine Berman
(1984), Soshana Blum-Kulka (1981, 1986), Richard Brislin (1976), John Dodds (1985),
Alan Duff (1989), Itamar Even-Zohar (1971, 1978,1990), James Holmes (1970, 1972,
1978), J. R. Ladmiral (1979), Jose Lambert (1982, 1984, 1985 1986, 1988,1989), A.
Lefevere (1981, 1983, 1987, 1989), Andrei Banta (1978, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1989), St.
Aug. Doinas (1972, 1988), Leon Levichi (1975, 1991)
1990s:
Mona Baker (1992, 1993, 1995, 1996), A. Bantas (1991,1993, 1994), S. Bassnett (1990,
1993) Jean Boase-Beier (1994, 1995), Roger Bell (1991, 1995), Edoardo Crisafulli
(1996), Michael Cronin, Dirk Delabastita (1990, 1993), Cay Dollerup (1996), Umberto
Eco (199o, 1993),Edwin Gentzler (1993), Daniel Gile (1989, 1994, 1995), Ernst-August
Gutt (1990, 1991), Basil Hatim and Jan Mason (1992), Theo Hermans
(1991,1993,1995,1996), Keith Harvey (1995), Lance Hewson and Jacky Martin (1991),
James Holmes (1988), Juliane House (1988, 1993, 1996,1997), Kinga Klaudy (1993,
1994), Werner Koller (1990, 1993, 1995), Jose Lambert (1991, 1993, 1995),` M. Lederer,
A. Lefevere (1991, 1993, 1994), D. Selescovich, Lawrence Venuti
2000s - 2010s:
Mona Baker (2001, 2010), Michael Cronin, Cay Dollerup (2006) David Katan, Sara
Laviosa, Federica Scarpa, Lawrence Venuti

1.3.1. Translation theories based on the concept of language as communication.

1.3.1.1. Twentieth century translation theories reveal a wide range of fields and
approaches. An account of theoretical concepts and trends is as interesting as useful.
Nonetheless, whatever the approach may be, a complete theory of translation has three
components: specification of function and goal, description and analysis of operations,
and critical comment on relationships between goal and operations (Kelly 1979: 1). It
has become obvious that theorists have most often focused on one component at the
expense of others. The relevance of theoretical concepts generally depends on linguistic,
cultural and social factors.
A translation theory presumes a systematic theory of language with which it
overlaps completely or from which it derives as a special case according to demonstrable
rules of deduction and application (Steiner 1975: 2801, emphasis added). However, one
may at any time ask the question of whether such a theory of language exists. Even
Steiner himself doubted it.
The main idea is that a translation theory always rests on particular assumptions
about language use, even if they are no more than fragmentary hypotheses that remain
implicit or unacknowledged. For centuries the assumptions seem to have fallen into two
large categories: instrumental and hermeneutic (Kelly 1979, in Venuti 2000: 5).
Some translation theories are based on the concept of language as communication,
considering the semantic and pragmatic dimensions of the context. Other theories are
based on the hermeneutic concept of language as interpretation and explain the rendering
of the source-text (ST) in the target-language (TL) in terms of the social functions and
effects.
The beginning of the twentieth century is marked by translation theories ranging
from W. Benjamins (1923) view on translation as recreating the values accruing to the
foreign text over time and his utopian vision of linguistic harmony to J. L.
Borges(1935) belief in the translators happy and creative infidelity, or to Ortega. y.
Gassets (1937) view of translation as a distinctive linguistic practice, as a literary genre
apart. Being aware of the complexities of translation, Gasset tries to identify the cause of
the enormous difficulty of translation in that all peoples silence some things in order

to be able to say others, and translation renders in the target language what the source
language tends to silence(Venuti 2000:54, Popa 2008: 35). Now the misery of
translation lies in its impossibility, because of the linguistic and cultural differences
between languages, whereas its splendour lies in the translators ability to manipulate
these differences and force the reader to go into the tradition and universe of the foreign
language text. By restoring the prestige of such a difficult work, translation becomes a
discipline sui generis which, cultivated with continuity, would devise its own techniques
that would augment our network of intellectual approaches considerably (Venuti
2000:64).
During 1940s and 1950s, translation theories are focused on the concept of
translatability. Willard van Orman Quines (1950) later pragmatic view of translation was
centered on meaning as conventional, socially circumscribed, the translated (foreign) text
being rewritten in accordance with the values, beliefs and expressive means of the foreign
language culture. He refers to a basic semantic indeterminacy that cannot be cleared
away even if there is an environmental stimulus.
Further on, during the 1960s and 1970s, translating is seen as a process of
communicating the foreign text by establishing a relationship of identity or analogy with
it (Venuti 2000:121). Now the concept of equivalence is at the basis of translation theory
(see Chapter 3).
For example, with Nabokov, the process of dissemination of meaning, time,
people, cultural boundaries becomes the necessity of demonstrating that any language
could always be shadowed or possessed by another (Bontil, in Gonzales and Tolron
2006: 144). Nabokov distinguishes three main types of translation: 1. paraphrastic
(offering a free version of the original, with omissions and additions prompted by the
exigencies of form, the conventions attributed to the consumer, and the translators
ignorance); 2. lexical (rendering the basic meaning of words and their order); 3. literal
(rendering, as closely as the associative and syntactical capacities of another language
allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original (Nabokov 1974,1,vii-viii,qtd in
Bontil 2006: 145).
During the 1970s, I. Even-Zohar and G. Toury considered literature as a
polysystem of interrelated forms and cannons that represented norms constraining the

translators choices and the translation strategies. Moreover, Even Zohar argued that
translation may adhere to norms rejected by the source language.
In Tourys opinion, the target-oriented translations changed the concept of
equivalence. He focused on the concepts of adequacy and acceptability. He found the
adequacy of the translation to the ST not reliable because of the shifts occurring in
translation, on the one hand, and because of the need to apply certain target norms in
determining adequacy, on the other. The concept of acceptability of the translated text in
the TC is closely linked to the concept of adequacy, showing the various shifts related to
a certain type of equivalence.
Polysystem theory represents a real progress in translation studies, interesting
projects on translation corpora being developed during this decade.
Some important translation theorists, E. Nida (1965) and W. Wills (1977, 1982)
included, considered translation to be a science.
According to G. Steiner (1975), great translation must carry with it the most
precise sense possible of the resistant, of the barriers intact at the heart of understanding
(Steiner 1975: 378).
Therefore, an aspect marking these decades was that translation was viewed as the
rendering of a source language text (SLT) into a target language text (TLT) so as to ensure
that the surface meaning of the two will be approximately similar and that the structures of
the source text (ST) will be preserved as closely as possible on condition they do not affect
the target text (TT) structures.
This is a restricted view of translation, because it lays stress on the syntactic system
of the language studied. It goes hand in hand with both the underestimation of the art and
with the low status accorded to the translator. In this respect, what H. Belloc (1931, qtd.
in S. Bassnett-McGuire 1991:2) wrote long ago (still proves perfectly applicable today, i.e.
that the art of translation has never been granted the dignity of the original work and that this
natural underestimation of its value has almost destroyed the art altogether. Thus, the
corresponding misunderstanding of its character has added to its degradation:
ither its importance nor its difficulty has been grasped.

Translation has been considered a secondary activity, a "mechanical" rather than a

"creative" process. Moreover, it is the product only, the result of translation process that has
been analysed, not the process itself.
1.3.1.2. It is true that, to a great extent, the thinking of most translation theorists
(with a small number of exceptions, e.g. E. Nida, and J.C. Catford in the mid 1960s) has
been dominated by Tytler's thinking put forward in an essay written in 1791. Today's
normative approach, i.e. the setting up of a series of maxims consisting of do's and don'ts,
can be traced back to Tytler's rules which were normative prescriptions deriving from the
subjective and evaluative description of a "good translation". He set forth three "laws".
1) the translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of the original work;
2) the style and manner of writing should be of the same character with that of the
original;
3) the translation should have all the ease of the original composition.
Tytler argues that these rules would flow from an accurate definition of a "good
translation", i.e. the translation "in which the merit of the original is so completely
transfused into another language, as to be as distinctly apprehended, and as strongly felt by a
native of the country to which that language belongs, as it is by those who speak the
language of the original work" (Tytler 1791:79, quoted by R. Bell 1991:11). Thus, Tytler is
aware of the two extreme positions adopted in relation to translation:
- to attend only the sense and spirit of the original; therefore, it is allowable to
improve and embellish;
- to convey the style and manner of writing of the original; therefore, it is necessary
to preserve even blemishes and defects.
A new stage of the debate on translation was opened by J.C.Catford (1965) who
tackled the problem of linguistic untranslability and suggested that the two "processes" of
translation and transference must be clearly differentiated in any theory of translation, on the
ground that translation is the substitution of target language (TL) meanings for the source
language (SL) meanings, not the transference of TL meanings into the SL, whereas
transference is an implantation of SL meanings into the TL text. This, of course, implies a
narrow theory of meaning, because it is important for the linguist only. The discussion of the

key-concepts of equivalence (see section 1.10.) and cultural untranslability occurred much
later.
1.3.1.3. Great progress has been made in translation studies since 1965, and clearly
defined schools of translation studies have emerged placing their emphasis on different
aspects of this very vast field.
Thus, there are four general areas of interest, with a degree of overlap between them.
Two of them are product-oriented, the emphasis being laid on the functional aspects of the
TL text in relation to the SL text, and two of them are process-oriented, the emphasis being
on the analysis of what actually takes place during the translating process.
As S. Bassnett-McGuire (1991:78) writes, the first category involves the History
of Translation and investigates the theories of translation and translation criticism at
different times, the methodological development of translation, and the analysis of the work
of individual translators.
The second category, Translation in the TL Culture, investigates single texts or
authors, the influence of a text, or author on the absorption of the norms of the translated
text into the TL system and on the principles of selection which operate within that system.
The third category, Translation and Linguistics, is concerned with the comparative
arrangement of linguistic elements of the SL and TL texts regarding the phonemic,
morphemic, lexical, syntagmatic and syntactic levels. Therefore, it includes the problems of
linguistic equivalence, linguistic untranslability, and the translation problems of non-literary
texts.
The fourth category, Translation and Poetics, refers to the literary translation theory
and practice.
On this line of thinking, J.S. Holmes' descriptive theory of translation includes
product-oriented, function-oriented, and process-oriented descriptions (J.S. Holmes 1972,
1975:1214). The product-oriented description became the approach most identified with
the later translation studies. It was concerned with a "text-focused" empirical description of
translations, and with larger corpuses of translations in a specific period, language or
discourse type. The function-oriented description introduced a cultural component which

10

affected the reception of the TT. The process-oriented approach was concerned with the
problem of the "black box", i.e. what was going on in the translator's mind.
A. Lefevere (1975) prefers Holmes' second description, i.e. the one that privileges
the function of the text on the original readers. His prescriptions recall Nida's and Wilss'
conceptions, namely that the translator's task is to render the ST, the original author's
interpretation of a given theme expressed in a number of variations by replacing the original
author's variation with their equivalents in a different language, time, place and tradition
(Lefevere 1975:99). In his opinion, particular emphasis must be laid on the fact that the
translator has to replace all the variations contained in the ST by their equivalents (see
Chapter 3).
1.3.2. Other language-based views on translation.
Another definition of translation describes it as the replacement of a representation
of a text in one language by a representation of an equivalent text in a second language
(Hartmann and Stork 1972:713, qtd. in R. Bell 1991:22).
Translation was also defined as the expression in the TL of what has been expressed
in the SL, preserving the semantic and stylistic equivalences (Dubois 1973, qtd. in R. Bell
1991:22).
W. Wilss, a great representative of the science of translation in Germany, writes that
the

science

of

translation

is

not

sealed,

"nomological"

science

but

"cognitive/hermeneutic/associative" one (Wills 1982:16). His translation theory is based

upon:
a) the concept of a universal language;
b)the belief that deep-structure transfer is possible by a hermeneutic process, and
c)the qualitative ranking of texts, from a high level incorporating art and science
texts to a low level including business and pragmatic texts.
In Willsopinion, translation research must develop a frame of reference to view a
text as a communication-oriented configuration with a thematic, functional and textpragmatic dimension. These three text dimensions can be derived from the surface structure
of the respective text. He argues that the deep structure of the language (in which he
includes the sign in the context) can be determined and transformed into any language in

11

any contemporary context. Thus, he refers to Nida's argument that the interlingual
communication is possible due to two factors:
1) semantic similarities in languages are due to "the common core of human
experience", and
2) there are fundamental similarities in the "syntactic structure of languages,
especially at the so-called kernel, or core level" (Nida 1969:483 qtd. by W. Wilss
1982:49). He ends his theory with the pronouncement that "everything can be expressed
in every language", (W. Wills 1982:48). This view is widespread in modern linguistics.
Later on he considers that the large degree of variability in translated texts is less a fault
of the well-trained translator, and more a result of the differing cultural contexts in which
the translators find themselves and their subjective creative decisions (see ch.3). That is
to say, the cultural factors do not only influence the final product, but also weigh upon the
decision-making process. Consequently, he says: "I do believe that there are many aspects
of translation that transcend the cultural boundaries and that they are, in fact, universal"
(Wills 1989:134).
T.Hermanss collection of essays (1985) aroused a great deal of debate because the
contributors to that volume thought that translation editing was a manipulatory process.
They said that by examining what took place during the processes of reading, rewriting in
another language and the subsequent reception, attention was shifted away from the ST and
its cultural background. Some translators thought that their main task was to examine the
impact of the translation in the target system.
A "prototypology" was suggested by M.Snell-Hornby (1988), a more flexible
Gestalt-like system with blurred edges. She offers a very complicated stratification model
proceeding from a general level (macrolevel) to more particular levels (microlevels) (E.
Gentzler 1993:72).
However, as Gentzler (ibid.) concludes, "whether the Snell-Hornby model achieves
an integrated approach for Translation Studies remains to be seen."
Consequently, most of these translation studies are directed primarily to teaching
translators or evaluating translations, being prescriptive in nature. They rely too heavily
upon very traditional dichotomies of good / bad and faithful / free. They also tend to be
source-oriented in nature, arguing that the original embodies some sort of deep structure,

12

which contains the information necessary for its subsequent encoding in another language to
which the translator must remain faithful. Thus they are concerned only with reproducing
the original. E. Gentzler considers that "such an approach reaffirms antiquated notions of
translation, notions which view translations as second-hand, merely serving as handmaiden
of a higher, more creative art. The biggest problem is that the focus of these sciences [of
translation] is too narrow. They look primarily at what is a non-verifiable space - i.e. the
black box of the human mind-and make large statements not only about translability but also
about how that process should occur" (Gentzler 1993:73).
To all this, the idea is worth mentioning that a more complex view of translation
should consider the cultural features of the ST. Culture becomes the operational unit of
translation (Bassnett 1991). Such an opinion is different from P. Newmarks opinion that
the operational unit of translation is the text.
To conclude, the translator has to grasp the particular elements of the ST and render
them in a different cultural context. As a mediator between two LCs, (s)he compares and
converts two different language systems, two different cultures.

13

CHAPTER 2

TYPES OF TRANSLATION

There are three "laws (for a "good translation):

1) the translated text / target text (TT) should give a complete transcript of the
ideas of the original work;
2) the style and manner of writing should be the same as that of the original text /
source text (ST);
3) the translation should have all the ease / fluency of the original text.
In Jakobson's opinion, there is no complete equivalence through translation, and even
apparent synonymy does not yield equivalence (in the sense of synonymy or sameness),
because each unit contains within itself a set of non-transferable associations and
connotations, hence all poetic art is technically untranslatable.

Intralingual translation (rewording) : interpretation of

verbal signs by means of other signs of the same language.
Interlingual translation (translation proper) : interpretation
of verbal signs by means of some other language.
Intersemiotic translation (transmutation) : interpretation of
verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal sign systems.
(Jakobson 1959: 232-9/2004: 139)

14

His opinion is taken up by G. Mounin (1963), who considers translation a series

of operations of which the starting point and the end-product are significations and function
within a given culture. He suggests that the translator has to resort to a combination of units
in order to find an approximate equivalent. Thus, his opinion resembles R. Jakobson's
statement that translation is only an adequate interpretation of an alien code unit and
equivalence is impossible.
Considering the levels of language analysis, J.C. Catford (1965: 245) made a
hierarchic (level-depending) classification of translations:
a) rank-bound translations in which 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 between 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 the interchangeability of SL and TL texts in one and the same
situation (Catfort 1965:25);
b) unbounded translations, i.e. normal, total translations in which equivalences shift
freely up and down the rank scale.
According to the extent and level, J.C.Catford classifies translations into:
a) full vs. partial translations, referring to the extent in a syntagmatic sense;
b) full vs. restricted translations related to the levels of language involved in the
translation process. The total translation is, in his conception, the replacement of
SL grammar and lexis by equivalent TL grammar and lexis with consequential
replacement of SL phonology / graphology by (non-equivalent) TL phonology /
graphology.
The restricted translation is the replacement of SL textual material by equivalent TL
textual material at only one level (either phonological or graphic), or only at one of the two
levels of grammar and lexis.
Catford distinguishes between free, literal and word-for-word translations

Types of translation:
1. free translation
2. word-for-word translation
3. literal translation
(Catford 1965)

Free translation - unbounded (equivalences tend to be at the higher ranks, even

between larger units than the sentence)

15

More often than not, it implies lexical adaptation to the TL

collocational or "idiomatic" requirements.
Word-for-word translation - rank - bound (word rank)
Literal translation - word-for-word
- group-group
- clause-clause
As a rule, it changes in keeping with the TL grammar (e.g. inserting
additional words, changing structures at any rank).
The literal translation, like the word-for-word one, tends to remain lexically
word-for-word, i.e. to use the highest probability lexical equivalent for each
lexical item.
Lexical adaptation to TL collocational or "idiomatic" requirements seems to be
characteristic of free translation.
2.1. Literary vs non-literary
Depending on the mode of source text, translation is divided into: translation of
literary texts (poetry, drama, novels, memoires, etc.), and of non-literary, or pragmatic
texts (Ionescu 2000:37).
The essential difference between these two modes lies in the aesthetic effect that
has to be rendered together with and through the translated version of a literary piece,
whereas in a so-called semantic (non-literary text), what has to be conveyed via translation
is the semantic content of the original in the target language. The difference between
literary and non-literary translation is that "the latter translates what is in the text, whereas
the former must translate what the text implies" (Ionescu 2000:38).
Literary translation is different from translation in general far the same reasons that
literature is different from non-literary uses of language. Literature is distinguished from
them, first by "the semioticization of discursive features, then by the substitution of
semiosis for mimesis {that covers the consequences of the indirectness of meaning that is
the pivot an which literariness turns" (Ionescu 2000:38). Moreover, an intertext is being
created by textuality that integrates semantic components into one closed finite semiotic
system, and readers become aware of it "once they perceive that the discrete meaning of the
wards, phrases, and sentences composing the text assume new functions in its general
scheme. Literary translation must reflect or imitate these differences" (Ionescu 2000:38).
The literary text requires a double decoding, at the levels of both systemic and of its
component parts. This decoding must be translated in a way that will induce the reader to

16

perform a double decoding. Literary translation must also "convey those features of the
original text that are the races left by its production. All these signs are in fact forms of
literariness, such as signs indicating the genre of the respective text; these signs are
implicitly conducive to the style used in the original text and rendered appropriately in the
target text" (Ionescu 2000:38).
Although some aspects of literary texts, such as the story, characters, descriptions of
places, etc., "usually carry over fairly easily from a source text to a target text, yet even
these transferable realities will elicit somewhat different reactions in the target text reader:
at some psychological or aesthetic level, any reader of a translation will react differently
from a reader of the original" (Hickley 1998:226).
"The failure of many translators to understand that a literary text is made up of a
complex set of systems existing in a dialectical relationship with other sets outside its
boundaries has often led them to focus on particular aspects of a text at the expense of
others" (Bassnett 1980:76). Studying the average reader, Lotman distinguishes between
four positions of the addressee:
1. Where the reader focuses on the content as matter, i.e. picks out the prose
argument or poetic paraphrase.
2. Where the reader grasps the complexity of the structure of a work and the way in
which the various levels interact.
3. Where the reader deliberately extrapolates one level of the work for a specific
purpose.
4. Where the reader discovers elements not basic to the genesis of the text and uses
the text for his own purpose.
According to Bassnett, for the purpose of translation, the first position would be
"completely inadequate (although many translators of novels in particular have focused
on content at the expense of the formal structuring of the text)", the second position
"would seem an ideal starting point", whilst the third and the fourth position "might be
tenable in certain circumstances" (Bassnett 1980:78). She argues that "the translator is,
after all, first a reader and then a writer and in the process of reading he or she must take
a position" (Bassnett 1980:78).

17

There were also many debates regarding the issue of differentiating between
translations, versions, adaptations and the establishment of 'correctness' between these
categories. Yet the differentiation between them derives from "a concept of the reader as
the passive receiver of the text in which its Truth is enshrined" (Bassnett 1980:79). In
other words, if the text is perceived as an object that should only produce a single
invariant reading, any deviation on the part of the reader or translator will be judged as a
transgression. Such a judgment might be made regarding scientific documents, for
example, where facts are set out and presents in unqualifiedly objective terms for the
reader of source language and target language alike, but with literary texts the position is
different.
Literature and literature translation broadly runs along a four-point scale from
lyrical poetry through the short story and the novel to drama. Poetry is the most personal
and concentrated of the four forms; poetry is devoid of any redundancy or
communication force, and the word, as a unit, acquires greater importance than in any
other type of text. The terms of reference in a poetic text are the lexical word and the
line / verse, not sentence. Punctuation and prosody are the conveyers of concentrated
messages, as it essentially reproduces the tone of the original. "In translating a poem,
what matters first and foremost, besides preservation of line and punctuation format - is
rendition of the source metaphors. To render - as accurately as possible - the metaphorical
expressions is the touchstone of any translator, because through metaphor, the translator
has to keep the integrity of both lexical units and the lines within the context" (Ionescu
2000:224). P. Newmark (1995) considers that the translator is duty bound to reproduce
the original metaphors most scrupulously, even if they are likely to cause cultural shock.
In the translation of prose, the translator is released from the obvious constraints
of poetry metre and rhyme; he is free to use cultural glosses and notes within the text.
Moreover, prose presupposes existence of certain cohesives that may have handier
equivalents in target language. As for the key words or key-concepts, "translators have to
assess their texts critically; they have to decide which lexical units are central and have
more important function, and which are peripheral, so that the relative gains and loses in
a translation may correspond to their assessment" (Ionescu 2000:229).

18

The standards as well the characteristic features, whether lexical-semantic,

syntactic, or pragmatic of non-literary translation are "in direct relationship with the type
of text-to-be-translated: technical translation, for instance, is just one part of specialized
translation, institutional translation, i.e. the area of politics, commerce, business,
government, law, is the other" (Ionescu 2000:42).
In Vermeer's view, the difference between literary and other types of texts is one
of degree and not of kind. "Even special languages are characterized by metaphor, and
journalistic language abounds in 'literary' devices such as alliterations, word-play, similes
or metaphors" (Ionescu 2000:223). In the view held in present, literary language is
concerned with the exploitation of the entire capacity of a language system. In M. SnellHornby's words, it "involves not merely deviance from a static and prescriptive norm but the creative extension of the language norm, in the flexible sense of the rulegoverned potential. As regards translation, one of the literary translator's most
difficult choices is deciding how such creative extensions of the source-language
norm can be rendered in the target language without actually infringing the rules of
linguistic acceptability" (Snell-Hornby 1988:52).
2.2. General vs specialized
There is a distinction between general translation / interpretation and
specialized translation or interpretation.
General translation / interpretation is the translation or interpretation of nonspecific language that does not require any specialized vocabulary or knowledge.
However, the best translators and interpreters read extensively in order to be up-todate with current events and trends so that they are able to do their work to the best
of their ability, having knowledge of what they might be asked to convert. In
addition, good translators and interpreters make an effort to read about whatever
topic they are currently working on. If a translator is asked to translate an article on
organic farming, for example, he or she would be well served to read about organic
farming in both languages in order to understand the topic and the accepted terms
used in each language.

19

Specialized translation or interpretation refers to domains that require at the

very least that the person be extremely well read in the domain. Even better is
training in the field (such as a college degree in the subject, or a specialized course
in that type of translation or interpretation). Some common types of specialized
translation and interpretation are:
Financial translation and interpretation
Literary translation
Medical translation and interpretation
Scientific translation and interpretation
Technical translation and interpretation
Legal translation and interpretation
Legal translation is the translation of texts within the field of law. As law is a culturedependent subject field, legal translation is not a simple task.
The legal system of the source text is structured in a way that suits that culture and
this is reflected in the legal language; similarly, the target text is to be read by someone who
is familiar with another legal system and its language.
Apart from terminological lacunae, or lexical gaps, the translator may focus on the
following aspects. Textual conventions in the source language are often culture-dependent
and may not correspond to conventions in the target culture. Linguistic structures that are
often found in the source language have no direct equivalent structures in the target
language. The translator therefore has to find target language structures with the same
functions as those in the source language.
Typical of this kind of text is the expository discourse, consisting of plain,
stylistically unmarked sentences, hence the relevant piece of information is hard to capture,
unless the reader is a legal expert himself. Specialized knowledge is a prerequisite of
adequate comprehension of the "new" and "given' information. The same assumption holds
for any kind of special text, whether technical, legal, or medical.
"A trained translator should be able to translate very difficult scientific and
technical texts, but s(he) should also have acquired more generalized specializations, such
as research skills, terminology management, and electronic information sources" (Ionescu
2000:204).

20

2.3. From word-for-word to communicative translations

No matter the name it bears, the choice is an ideological one: free and literal
translation, dynamic and formal equivalence (Nida 1964), communicative and semantic
translation (Newmark 1981), domesticating and foreignizing translation (Venuti 1995),
minimal mediation vs maximal mediation (Nabokov 1964). Venutis point of view
deserves some further attention as he speaks of the English cultural hegemony.
In domesticating texts, the translator adopts a strategy through which the TL, not
the SL is culturally dominant. Culture-specific terms are neutralized and re-expressed in
terms of what is familiar to the dominant culture. If the translation is done from a
culturally dominant SL to a minority-status TL, domestication protects SL values.
2.3.1. Types of translation

1. Word-for-word translation
2. Literal translation
3. Faithful translation
4. Semantic translation
5. Adaptation
6. Free translation
7. Idiomatic translation
8. Communicative translation

Mention should be made that the first four types distinctly manifest a SL
orientation, while the last four a TL emphasis.
Word-for-word translation the SL words are closely followed. SL order is
preserved, word meanings are taken out of context. Cultural words are exactly /
literally rendered. Clearly, this method is to be used as a pre-translation process.
21

 Literal translation the SL grammatical constructions are converted to their

nearest TL equivalence. Lexical items are translated in isolation, out of context.
Literal translation is also a pre-translation process.
Faithful translation tries to reproduce the precise contextual meaning of the SL
words but within the constraints of the TL grammar. Cultural words are
transferred and the same applies to the TL grammatical and lexical
abnormalities (as compared to the SL). This kind of translation is as faithful as
possible to the writers intentions. It can be labelled as uncompromising and
dogmatic.
Semantic translation focuses on the aesthetic value (the beautiful and the natural
sound) of the SL text, compensating and compromising on meaning. Cultural
words may be translated by a third culturally neutral term or by a functional term
and not by cultural equivalents. Semantic translation is more flexible, more
creative, more imaginative; it largely allows the translators empathy to work.
Adaptation is said to be the freest form of translation. It is mainly used for plays
(comedies) and poetry. Of course, the themes, characters, and the plot are
preserved. The SL cultural terms are converted to the TL culture and the text is
practically re-written.
Free translation reproduces the matter without the manner, i.e. the context
without the form of the original. The paraphrase is usually used; we deal in fact
with intralingual translation.
Idiomatic translation reproduces the message of the original, but distorts shades
of meaning by showing preference to colloquialisms and idioms where these do
not appear in the SL text.
Communicative translation attempts to convey the most precise contextual
meaning of the original. Both content and language are readily acceptable and
comprehensible.
2.3.2. Semantic and communicative translation
Of all these methods, only semantic and communicative translations fulfill the
two major aims of translation: accuracy and economy. Similarities between the two
22

methods are also to be noticed: both use stock and dead metaphors, normal collocations,
technical terms, colloquialisms, slang, phaticisms, ordinary language. The expressive
components (unusual collocations and syntax, striking metaphors, neologisms) are
rendered very closely even literally in expressive texts while in vocative and informative
texts they are normalized or toned down (except for advertisements).
Some scholars (House 1977, Newmark 1988) refer to these two possibilities of
choice while attaching them different labels:
- semantic translation: art, cognitive translation, overt (culture-linked)
translation, overtranslation;
- communicative translation: craft, functional or pragmatic translation, covert
(culture-free) translation, undertranslation.
A semantic translation is likely to be more economical than a communicative
translation. As a rule, a semantic translation is written at the authors linguistic level, a
communicative translation at the readerships. It is also worth mentioning that a semantic
translation is more suitable for expressive texts (more specifically for descriptive texts,
definitions, explanations), a communicative translation for informative and vocative texts
(standardized or formulaic language deserving special attention).
Cultural components are transferred intact in expressive translation, transferred
and explained with culturally neutral terms in informative translation, replaced by
cultural equivalents in vocative translation. A semantic translation remains within the
boundaries of the source language culture, assisting the reader only with connotations. A
communicative translation displays a generous transfer of foreign elements with an
emphasis on force (intended meaning) rather than on message.
Consequently, semantic translation is personal, individual, searching for nuances
of meaning; it tends to over-translate, yet it aims at concision. On the other hand,
communicative translation is social, it concentrates on the message (the referential basis
or the truth of information is secured) and it tends to under-translate, to be simple and
clear. However, it sounds natural and resourceful (semantic translation may sound
awkward and quite unnatural to the target language reader as the language used is often
figurative). A semantic translation has to interpret, therefore it does not equal the original.
The problem of loss of meaning frequently arises in this case. A communicative

23

translation has to explain, it is more idiomatic and it is often said to be better than the
original. A semantic translation recognizes the SLT authors defined authority, preserving
local flavour intact. As Steiner (1975: 298) puts it, The translator invades, extracts and
brings home.
2.3.3. Equivalent effect
Chomsky denied that language is primarily communicative and believed only in
the strict linguistic meaning without resorting to cultural adaptations. A communicative
translation is a recast in modern culture, shedding new light on universal themes. Nida
(1978), doing some pioneering work, clearly states that translating is communicating.
Nevertheless, the translators freedom seems to be limited in both, as there is constant
conflict of interests or loyalties. Although our discussion constantly focuses on the
translator and not on the interpreter, it is worth remembering that the interpreters
loyalties are divided in diplomacy and there is a role conflict for the court interpreter
(seating nearer the defense or nearer the prosecution can affect the trust in his
impartiality).
Translation studies recommend that the overriding purpose of any translation
should be the equivalent effect, i.e. to produce the same effect (or one as close as
possible) on the readership of the translation as on the readership of the original. This
principle is also termed equivalent response or, in Nidas words, dynamic equivalence.
Dynamic equivalence can be equated with the readers shadowy presence in the mind of
the translator, and contrasted to formal equivalence, i.e. equivalence of both form and
content between the two texts. Newmark (1981) sees the equivalent effect as the desirable
result rather than the aim of the translation. He argues that this result is unlikely in two
cases:

if the purpose of the SL text is to affect and the purpose of the TL text is to
inform;

if there is a clear cultural gap between SL text and TL text (in fact, translation
merely fills a gap between two cultures if, felicitously, there is no insuperable
cultural clash).

24

The cultural gap is bridged more easily in communicative translation, as it conforms

to the universalist position advocating universally common thoughts and feelings.
Semantic translation follows the relativist position thoughts and feelings are
predetermined by the languages and cultures in which people were born, for different
people partition reality differently. Consequently, word or word-group is the minimal unit
of translation in the former case, the latter showing preference for the sentence.
Dealing with text-types, we may say that in the case of communicative translation
of vocative texts, the effect is essential, not only desirable. In informative texts, the effect
is desirable only in respect of their insignificant emotional impact. The vocative thread in
these texts has nevertheless to be rendered with an equivalent purpose aim.
In semantic translation, the first problem arises with serious imaginative literature
where individual readers are the ones involved rather than a readership. Not to mention,
that the translator is essentially trying to render the impact of the SL text on himself, his
empathy with the author of the original. The reaction is individual rather than universal.
The more cultural (the more local, the more remote in time and space) a text, the
less is the equivalent effect unless the reader is imaginative, sensitive and steeped in the
SL culture. Cultural concessions are advised where the items are not important for local
colour and where they acquire no symbolic meaning.
Communicative translation is more likely to create equivalent effect than semantic
translation A remote text will find an inevitably simplified, a version in translation.
The equivalent effect can be considered an intuitive principle, a skill rather than an
art. It is applicable to any type of text, only the degree of its importance varies from text
to text.
2.3.4. Other methods to be identified:
service translation - translation from one's language of habitual use into another
language;
plain prose translation translation of poems and poetic dramas (stanzas become
paragraphs, original metaphors and culture-specific elements are retained no
sound-effects being reproduced);
information translation conveys all the information in a nonliterary text rearranged in a more logical form or summarized;

25

 cognitive translation reproduces the information in a SLT converting the SL

grammar to its normal TL transpositions (the figurative meaning is lost and it is
mostly a pre-translation procedure in a difficult part of the text);
academic translation (practiced in some British universities), reduces an original
SL text to an elegant idiomatic educated version which follows an existent / nonexistent literary register.
2.4. Translation norms
The translator has to consider two basic principles:
- attending only the sense and spirit of the original (improvement and embellishment are
allowed);
- conveying the writing style and manner of the original (it is necessary to preserve even
blemishes and defects).
2.4.1. Changes from L1 to L2
Text - a communication-oriented configuration with a thematic, functional and
text-pragmatic dimension
The interlingual communication is possible due to two factors:
1. semantic similarities (due to "the common core of human experience)
2. fundamental similarities in the "syntactic structure of languages, especially at
the so-called kernel, or core level" (Nida 1969:483 qtd. by Wilss 1982:49,
emphasis added).
Everything can be expressed in every language" (Wills 1982: 48, emphasis
added).
The cultural dimension is prevailing.
The large degree of variability in translated texts is a result of the different cultural
contexts in which translators have to make their final decisions
The cultural factors do not only influence the final product, but also weigh upon the
decision-making process.
"I do believe that there are many aspects of translation that transcend the cultural
boundaries and that they are, in fact, universal" (Wills 1989:134).
The cross-cultural knowledge is of utmost importance for the translator as a
mediator between cultures.
The translator has to know about the culture-specific behaviour patterns in general,
and must not restrict his abilities merely to linguistic spheres.
The cultural elements will mark differences between the ST and the TT, bringing
about a meaning inducing tension which will lead to variability in the translated texts.
The translators final decisions will exert the greatest influence upon the readability,
acceptability and fluency of the TT.

26

2.4.2. Specificity of the ST and TT

The translator - the Translation Operator (TO), explores LC2 (language culture)
with the aim of finding the "equivalent" to what he has discovered in LC1.
The TO's attention must be drawn to the SLC / LC 1 - specific elements of the text
(his reading is always situated at the level of difference).
Special attention must be paid to certain elements which take on a particular
importance when considering the text from the LC2 perspective.
Analysis of the surface syntax of the ST is needed with its explicit clause
structures coming to the implicit, underlying, universal meaning carried by the
propositions (there is no simple one-to-one relationship between the syntactic and
the propositional structure).
2.4.3. The translators competence:
The translators competence needs:
syntactic knowledge (how clauses are used to carry propositional content);
semantic knowledge (how propositions are structured, meaning being
fundamental);
pragmatic knowledge (how the clause can be realized as information bearing text
and how the text can be decomposed into clauses);
It is a fact that lack of knowledge in any of these areas will affect the translator's
competence.
The technical translators competence needs:
1. SL knowledge
2. TL knowledge
3. text-type knowledge
4. subject area
5. cultural knowledge
6. contrastive knowledge
7. the decoding skills of reading and encoding skills of writing

SLC

TLC
Mutual influence

The TO's competence - the ability to analyse, compare and convert two cultural
systems, while respecting both the conflicting forces within one LC, and the interplay of
these forces.

27

CHAPTER 3

EQUIVALENCE IN TRANSLATION

3.1. The concept of equivalence

The translating process also includes the problem of equivalence between texts (ST
and TT) and the extent to which it is desirable or even possible to "preserve" the semantic
and/or stylistic characteristics of the SLT in the course of translating it into TLT.
The concept of equivalence was considered to be based on universals of language
and culture (G. Mounin 1963). During these decades, this concept provided standards to
evaluate translations. Faithful translations opposed bad translations, and beautiful
translations opposed ugly translations.
Equivalence is submitted to lexical, grammatical and stylistic analysis. In
establishing the degree of equivalence between the ST and TT, text typology and text
function are of utmost importance.
Kller (1979: 186-191, 1989: 99-104), one of the theorists whose main concern was
equivalence typology, considered equivalence to be denotative (depending on an
invariance of content), connotative (depending on similarities of register, dialect and
style), text-normative (based on usage norms specific to the text type) and pragmatic
(related to the degree of comprehensibility in the TC).
The focus on the last type of equivalence led to an opposition between pragmatic
equivalence that made the TT easily comprehensible in the TC and formal equivalence
that caused linguistic and cultural approximations. If the translator was concerned with a
formal equivalence between the ST and TT, then (s)he could have made wrong
approximations at the linguistic and cultural level.

28

Approaches to equivalence:
linguistic approach - language focus
pragmatic & semantic approach culture focus
linguistic, pragmatic & semantic approach - language and culture
focus

3.1.1. Nida (1964) drew a distinction between formal and dynamic equivalence, the
term dynamic being later replaced with functional (Nida and Taber 1969).
Formal equivalence:
Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and
content (Nida 1969:158), i.e. a TL item which represents the closest equivalent
of a SL word or phrase.
However, the following situations are possible:
there may not be formal equivalents between language pairs;

formal equivalents need to be used if the translation aims at achieving formal

rather than dynamic equivalence;

serious misunderstandings may occur in the TT since the translation will not be
easily understood by the target audience.

According to Nida and Taber (1982:122), formal correspondence distorts the

grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language, and hence distorts the
message, so as to cause the receptor to misunderstand or to labor unduly hard.
Dynamic equivalence:
Dynamic equivalence is based upon 'the principle of equivalent effect' (Nida
1964:159).
It is a translation principle according to which a translator seeks to translate the
meaning of the original in such a way that the TL wording will trigger the same
impact on the TL audience as the original wording did upon the ST audience.
The ultimate goal will always be naturalness in translation.
It was considered to be a more efficient method.

29

3.1.2. Newmark (1977) distinguished between communicative and semantic

translation:
Parameter

Semantic Translation

Transmitter/
Addressee
Focus

Focus on the thought

processes of the transmitter
as an individual (TL
connotations if they are a
crucial part of the message)
Remains within the SL
culture
Always inferior to ST; loss
of meaning

Culture
Relation to ST

Use of form of the SL

Form of the TL
Appropriatenes

Communicative
Translation
Subjective, TT readerfocused, oriented towards a
specific language and
culture.

Transfers foreign elements

into the TL culture.
May be better than the ST;
gain of force and clarity
even if loss of semantic
content
Replicates deviated norms; Respect for the form of the
loyalty to ST author.
SL, but overriding loyalty to
TL norms.
More complex, awkward,
Smoother, simpler, clearer,
detailed; tendency to over
more direct; tendency to
translate.
under translate.
For serious literature,
For the vast majority
autobiography,

personal of texts, e.g. non literary

effusion,

important writing,

any

political

(or

statement.

technical

and

other) informative texts, publicity,

standardized types, popular
fiction.
(cf. Munday 2001:45)

3.1.3. J. House opposed covert and overt translations. House insisted on how much
the foreign text depends on its own culture for intelligibility. If the significance of a
foreign text is peculiarly indigenous, it requires a translation that is overt or noticeable
through its reliance on supplementary information, whether in the form of expansions,
insertions or annotations (House 1977: 24).
These pairs of terms are based on the traditional dichotomies between sense-forsense and word-for-word translations and show different purposes and effects of
30

translation. Therefore, pragmatic equivalence and formal equivalence are at the extreme
ends. The former makes the translator invisible and the translated text easily understood
by the receptors, whereas the latter keeps the translator visible sticking to the linguistic
and cultural values of the foreign text.
According to House (1977), most models in translation studies are based on the
pragmatic theories of language use. They focus on the analysis of the linguistic and
cultural characteristics of the source text and target text, on the comparison between them
and on their relative match or mismatch. The condition that the function of the TT should
be the same as the function of the ST is prevailing. In this respect, the TT function is
achieved by using equivalent pragmatic means. Besides the linguistic situational
dimensions of the ST which have to be rendered in the TT, text typology is very closely
connected with the ST function, the essential condition being that the TT should match
the ST function. Furthermore, the first mismatches between the ST and TT include
mismatches of the denotative meanings of the ST and TT words and phrases. In analysing
parallel corpora and judging the functional equivalence between the ST and TT, the
distinction between overt and covert translations is useful: translation is overt when the
ST is source-culture linked and has independent status in the SL community, and covert
when neither condition holds. This distinction is also necessary because it is only with
covert translations that an equivalent function is achieved, unlike with overt translations
which require a special second-level function to achieve adequacy. That is to say, an overt
version is the result of adding a special, secondary function to the TT. The great
importance of the ST cultural dimension increases the usefulness and efficiency of the
covert translation which renders more subtle cultural aspects, values and beliefs.
Moreover, the differences in cultural presuppositions often require the application of a
cultural filter (House 1977: 186).
3.1.4. A combination of the linguistic and communicative approaches was offered
by M. Baker (1992) who considered equivalence at the word level and above the word
level:
Levels of equivalence:
word level - direct equivalents used for single units (words);
grammatical level - omission or addition of information depending on the
grammatical rules;
text level - cohesion based on the target audience, text type and purpose;
31implied meanings.
pragmatic level recreation of

 Equivalence at the word level:

The word is the first element to be taken into consideration by the translator.

Words are single units used to find a direct 'equivalent' in the TL.

A single word can sometimes be assigned different meanings in different

languages and might be regarded as being a more complex unit or morpheme.

The translator should pay attention to a number of factors when considering a

single word (e. g. number, gender, with nouns, tense with verbs).
Grammatical equivalence:

o The variation of grammatical rules across languages may pose problems in

finding a direct correspondence in the TL.
o Different grammatical structures in the SL and TL may cause remarkable changes
in the way the information or message is rendered.
o These changes may induce the translator either to add or omit information in the
TT because of the lack of particular grammatical devices in the TL.
o Among the grammatical devices which might cause problems in translation Baker
(1992) focuses on number, tense and aspect, voice, person and gender.
o The idea of countability is universal, but not all languages have a grammatical
category of number, even if they might make distinctions at the lexical level.
o The category of person relates to the notion of participant roles. In most languages
these roles are defined through a closed system of pronouns. For example, the
person system of many European languages has a politeness dimension.
o Aspect, tense and voice are grammatical categories which bring about a lot of
translation difficulties which the translator has to overcome.
Textual equivalence:

Texture is a very important feature in translation since it provides useful

guidelines for the comprehension and analysis of the ST.

It helps the translator in his/her attempt to produce a cohesive and coherent text
for the TC audience in a specific context.

32

It is up to the translator to decide whether or not to maintain the cohesive ties as

well as the coherence of the SLT.

His/her decision will be guided by three main factors: the target audience, the
purpose of the translation and the text type.
Pragmatic equivalence:

o When referring to implicatures and strategies of avoidance during the translation

process.
o Implicature is not about what is explicitly said but what it is implied.
o Therefore, the translator needs to work out implied meanings in translation in
order to get the ST message across.
o The role of the translator is to recreate the author's intention in another culture in
such a way that enables the TC reader to understand it clearly.
3.2. Translation shifts
The concept of equivalence being the basic one in the translation theories of this
decade, it entails the shifts between the ST and the TT, deviations at the linguistic level,
with some linguistic categories (verbs rendered by nouns, phrases, etc.).
J. C. Catford (1965) gave a thorough description of the grammatical and lexical
shifts in translation, which were departures from formal correspondence.
A. Popovi (1970) also insisted on shifts in translation which do not occur because
the translator wishes to change a work, but because he strives to reproduce it as
faithfully as possible, the kind of faithfulness he has in mind being functional, with the
translator using suitable equivalents in the milieu of his time and society (Popovi 1970:
80,82, qtd. in Venuti 2000: 122).
J. Levy (1965) considers that pragmatic translation involves a gradual semantic
shifting due to the fact that translators have to choose from many possible solutions. In
his opinion, shifts work to generalize and clarify meaning, changing the style of a
literary work into a dry and uninspiring description of things and actions (Levy 1965: 7880, qtd. in Venuti 2000: 122).

33

According to K. Reiss (1971), the functionally equivalent translation needs to be

based on a detailed semantic, syntactic and pragmatic analysis of the foreign text
(Venuti 2000: 122). But, as Venuti argues, the pragmatic translator doesnt simply
analyse the linguistic and cultural features of the foreign text, but reverbalizes them
according to the values of a different language and culture, often applying what House
calls a filter to aid the receptors comprehension of the difference (ibidem).
The condition which the translator has to fulfil is to grasp and render the semantic
representation of the ST.
The semantic representation is the result of the three-way analysis, i.e. the syntactic,
semantic and pragmatic information:
1. clause structure: mood and lexical choices including lexical meaning and where
any of the lexis is uncommon, a tag to that effect;
2. propositional content: transitivity choices, the logical relations mapped onto the
syntactic structure;
3. thematic structure: theme choices including indications of markedness;
4. register features: tenor, mode and domain of discourse;
5. illocutionary force (derived from domain) which, when combined with
propositional content, indicates a speech act);
6. speech acts which the clauses count as; here the simplest case is when there is a
one-to-one mapping between clause and speech act.
As it is obvious, most theories to date can be characterized as theories of (what is
allegedly) the only legitimate or genuine kind of translation (D. Delabastita 1991:143).
The genuine concept of translation can be defined in positive terms, i.e. "to render the
SL message with the closest TL equivalent ... is, we believe, the only possible way leading
to fidelity" (Shen 1989:234, emphasis in the original). It can also be defined in negative
terms, i.e. "literalism has indeed little claim to theoretical validity as an approach to "total
translation" (Shen 1989:224).
Consequently, some recent theories allow greater flexibility, and accept variations in
the techniques of ideal translation according to concrete circumstances and communicative
requirements. For example, translation is seen as an act of communication across cultural
boundaries, the main criteria being determined by the recipient of the translation and its
specific function (Snell-Hornby 1988:47).
Now the translational relationships between the ST and TT are replaced by networks
of relationships and concepts of intertextuality (Toury 1986; Lambert 1989; E. Gentzler
1993).

34

3.3. Equivalence-based views on translation

The conception that translation as the mere rendering of a source language text
(SLT) into a target language text (TLT), so as to ensure that the surface meaning of
the two will be approximately similar, is a restricted one.
o The same holds true concerning the idea that the structures of the ST will be
preserved as closely as possible provided they do not affect the TT
structures, because this conception lays stress upon the syntactic system
only; this conception is also a restricted one.
o Translation is not a secondary, or a mechanical, but a creative process.
The contemporary translation studies are very much concerned with the productoriented, as well as function-oriented and process-oriented descriptions of
translation. That is, they are concerned with a text-focussed description of
translation, with the cultural component affecting the reception of the TT and with
what is going on in the translator's mind, respectively.
Translation is a complex task, involving a great deal of skill, preparation, knowledge
and intuitive feeling for texts.
Everything can be translated, but this is possible only through hard work, added to the
translator's talent, knowledge, intuitive feeling for texts and "cognitive
complements".
The idea related to the "no loss, no gain" principle is that if any losses occur they must
be "made up for", thus rejecting two opposite theses, i.e. the impossibility of
translation and absolute translability.
The cultural element must be taken into consideration whenever we appreciate the
choices made in any situation of translation and when we propose our own choices.
The cultural element is central to a theory of translation.
Translation involves selecting the appropriate terms in keeping with the linguistic and
cultural context.
A faithful translation is the one guided by the translation-oriented text analysis which
has to meet the same requirements, structures, patterns and peculiarities to which the
author himself submitted in creating the original.
o The different translations of the same ST largely depend upon the initial
choices made by the translator.
o The translator, i.e. translation operator (TO), is a mediator between two
different language communities, between two intercultural situations of
communication.
o The translator must have syntactic, semantic and cultural knowledge. Thus,
he needs bilingual and bicultural competence.
35

o The TO's competence is his ability to analyse, compare and convert two
cultural systems, respecting both the conflicting forces within one language
culture (LC), and the interplay of these forces as the LC s are brought into
contact.
The work of the translator consists of: an analysis (the interpretation act), a
transformation, and a "polishing" act (i.e. the final production).
The translating process involves the steps and stages through which the translator
works while the ST is transformed into the TT.
Thus, translation is a complex set of translational relations in any given situation.

3.4. Equivalence, language use and speech communities.

3.4.1. Language use and speech community.
Language use is discussed in connection with a speech community. People belonging to a speech
community establish norms about uses of language. A speech community is a community sharing
knowledge of rules for the conduct and interpretation of speech. Such sharing comprises knowledge of
at least one form of speech, and knowledge also of its patterns of use (Hymes 1974: 51).
However, this does not mean that a speech community is limited to a group of speakers using the same
forms. It is related to norms as regards language, social attitudes towards language. In Labov s opinion ,
a speech community is best defined as a group who share the same norms in regard to language []
who share a set of social attitudes towards language (Labov 1972: 248).
Furthermore, considering the fact that within a speech community people actually interact, the concept
of speech network was developed by L. Milroy and J. Milroy (1978). Language use is evaluated within
speech communities and networks, either dense or weak (Milroy and Milroy 1992: 13), since they
reveal social and cultural beliefs about how society is structured and the ways that people are expected
to act or interact (Bonvillain 2003: 3).
Therefore, cultural models are used to exert pressures for conformity on both conscious and
nonconscious levels. A cultural model is a construction of reality that is created, shared and transmitted
by members of a group (Bonvillain 2003: 2). It is used to guide and evaluate peoples behaviour.
Cultural models are shared and accepted by people belonging to a community.
Language use expresses underlying cultural models, differences in terms of status in society, distinctions
of class, race, age, gender, etc. As Bonvillain puts it, Although people within a given culture share
many assumptions about the world, they are not a completely homogeneous group. People are
36

differentiated on the basis of gender, age and status in all societies. In addition, distinctions of class,
race, and ethnicity are used to segment populations in most modern nations. All these factors contribute
to diversity in communicative behaviour and to disparities in evaluations given to the behaviour of
different groups of people (ibid).
Furthermore, specific behaviour within one area of life may differ. However, the range of
common human experience is sufficiently similar to provide a basis for mutual understanding. Certainly,
the similarities that unite mankind as a cultural species are much greater than the differences that
separate (Nida 1964: 55). People are able to adjust to the dialect of others, to recognize other tokens
of behaviour and to adjust to such tokens as an organized system. All this will help them reinterpret
experience in terms of some other conceptual framework. This also holds valid in translation given the
fact that a high degree of effective communication is possible among other peoples because of the
similarity of mental processes, range of cultural experience and capacity for adjustment to the behaviour
patterns of others (id. ibid.).
The two different but compatible approaches in the studies of language, culture and
communication, i.e. the ethnolinguistic approach and the sociolinguistic approach offer a good
framework for all these aspects The ethnolinguistic approach is concerned with analysis of contexts,
norms of appropriateness, and knowledge of language use. Analyses of these facets of communicative
behaviour reveal underlying cultural models and demonstrate the cognitive and conceptual bonds that
unify people within their culture (Bonvillain 2003: 4). This approach makes use of anthropological
techniques to gather data from observing individual native speakers and studying specific categories of
vocabulary and types of grammatical constructions. The sociolinguistic approach is based on the
dynamic connection between language and social factors. In other words, it is concerned with studying
patterns of linguistic variation. It is a well-known fact that differences in speech situations and social
distinctions within a community generate variation in language use. The social differences are among
the factors that mark the linguistic differences.
People belonging to a speech community make use of the options available in that community,
i.e. specific vocabulary, certain types of grammatical constructions or sentences, etc. A speakers choices
in speech style are closely related to his identity. According to Bonvillain, In some cultures, the style of
speech used in different contexts are sharply distinguished, whereas in others, linguistic styles are less
differentiated. Even within a culture, some people are more sensitive than others to contextual cues and
adjust their speech accordingly. Sensitivity to context may be related to such social factors as gender or

37

class, or it may be related to an individuals participation in many different types of situations

(Bonvillain 2003: 5).
The fact should be also considered that language operates by descriptive generalization (Leech
1983: 138). The three degrees of generalization have to be mentioned: human behaviour, linguistic
behaviour and social behaviour. In this respect, Leech uses the term descriptive delicacy and
institutional delicacy. The latter type relates linguistic behaviour to other forms of social behaviour and
to the individuals and communities.
According to Leech, there are two scales of institutional delicacy: the register scale, which
handles social roles of linguistic activity, and the dialect scale, which is related to the linguistic habits
of various sections of the society, differentiated by age, social class, sex and geographical area (id.
ibid.).
Both the register scale and the dialect scale have to be taken into account in translating literary
texts since they reflect the nature of language itself (ibid: 139).
The term dialect is 1. a regional or social variety of a language distinguished by pronunciation,
grammar or vocabulary, especially a variety of speech differing from the standard literary language or
speech pattern of the culture in which it exists . 2. a variety of language that with other varieties
constitute a single language of which no single variety is standard (DEL 2000). The technical term used
to refer to the variety of language spoken by an individual is idiolect.
It is generally agreed that a language is a collection of dialects. The features of dialects as
varieties of language, geographically defined, intelligible, but distinct phonologically, semantically and
morphologically are very important in translating literary texts.
However, distinction should be made between mainstream dialect and vernacular dialect
(non-standard).
The fact should also be mentioned that speakers of the same dialects use different styles with
different audiences. Dialect corpora allow the study of vocabulary and pronunciation without neglecting
the other aspects of linguistics.
3.4.2. Language use and equivalence in translation.
Translation is closely related to the culture-bound evaluations which cannot be made, as it
happens with the functionalist approach, only within the context of one particular culture. Furthermore, a
general framework of culture is needed which has to be provided by generalized models of culture. This

38

view is specific to the cognitive approach which we share to a certain extent since the objection that can
be set forth is that these models treat culture as a frozen state. In this respect, we agree with Katan
(2004: 39) that they also suggest that mediation between cultures is relatively straightforward.
Moreover, the idea is generally set forth that a good translation conveys the meaning, style and
tone of the source text as closely as possible. Nevertheless, these requirements cannot always be met. We
agree with Dollerup that none of us is completely familiar with all places, even in our own countries.
None of us knows all the social cultures and subcultures of our country.[] We all speak our idiolects
subsumed to our sociolects, and perhaps even dialects. We cannot know, let alone be familiar with, all
styles and tones in our societies (Dollerup 2006: 57).
In our research, we considered the relevance of all these aspects in translating literary texts, since
the main goal in translation is for many of the subtleties to be understood and appreciated by the target
readers (TRs) of different regions in order to catch the so-widely debated flavour of the original.
These aspects are also relevant in analyzing parallel and comparative corpora.
Our choice was to analyse two parallel corpora: Amintiri din copilrie written by one of our
representative writers, Ion Creang and its English version Memories of My Boyhood translated by Ana
Cartianu and R.C. Johnston.
In translating Ion Creangs Amintiri din copilrie, Ana Cartianu and R.C. Johnston tried to
reproduce the flavour of the original, its very special atmosphere. The language was most difficult to
render, from a balanced mixture of older and modern Romanian to approximate equivalents of old,
even modern words and expressions. One of the greatest difficulties that were to be overcome by the
translators is the fact that in many situations the characters speak the Moldavian dialect with lower class
deviations.
When going through such a translation experience, the translators task is very difficult: (s)he has
to find solutions to help the TRs feel the touch of the local dialect and smell the accent, the psychology
and the whole atmosphere, although there are lots of words, phrases and structures which cannot be
rendered in the target language culture (TLC).Sometimes it is as impossible for the translator to render a
word , a phrase or a structure exactly in the target language (TL) as it is for the TRs to smell the
flavour of the original. Consider, for example, the following excerpt:
ST1: i, lundu-mi rmas bun de la prini, am purces cu bunicul spre Pipirig. i era un puiu
de ger n dimineaa aceea, de crpau lemnele! i din sus de Vntori, cum treceam puntea peste

39

apa Neamului, bunicul n urm, cu caii de cpstru, i eu nainte, mi-au lunecat ciubotele i am
czut n Ozan ct mi i-i bietul! Noroc de bunicul! i scroambele iste a voastre s pocite",
zise el scondu-m repede, murat pn la pele i ngheat ht bine, cci nboise apa n toate
prile; i iute mi-a scos ciubotele din picioare, c se fcuse bocn. Opinca-i bun, sraca! i
ede piciorul hodinit, i la ger huzureti cu dnsa". i pn a vorbit aceste, eram i nvlit ntro saric ghioas de Caina, bgat ntr-o desag pe cal, purces pe drum, i hai la Pipirig (p.
26).
TT1: Taking leave of my parents, I proceeded with Grandfather on my way to Pipirig.
There was a bit of a frost that morning sharp enough to split wood. And just above
Vntori, as we were crossing the bridge over a tributary of the River Neam Grandfather
walking behind holding the horses' bridles, myself walking in front of him, my boots
slipped and I fell full length into the Ozana! Thank God, Grandfather was there! "Now,
those worn-out boots of yours are just too silly," he said, quickly lifting me out of the
water, soaked to the skin and frozen to the bone, for water had leaked in everywhere. He
quickly took off my shoes, which were frozen stiff. "A good oldfashioned wrap-around
boot's the thing! Your foot feels comfortable in it and when it's frosty you're as snug as can
be." In the time it took to say this I found myself already wrapped up in a fluffy
shepherds coat from Casina, crammed into a bag on horseback, on and away to Pipirig
(p. 27).
In addition, a lot of linguistic inventions and new coinages may occur in the target text (TT).
Their occurrence is accounted for by the so-called non-equivalence situations, i.e. the lack of a
corresponding linguistic structure or reality in the TLC. In such situations, the translator makes an effort
to invent a TL equivalent, finding a satisfactory TL expression adequate in the context. Consider the
excerpt below:
ST2: i dup ce ne culcam cu toii, noi, bieii, ca bieii, ne luam la hrjoan, i nu puteam
adormi de incuri, pn ce era nevoit biata mam s ne fac musai cte-un urub, dou prin
cap i s ne deie cteva tapangele la spinare. i tata, sturndu-se cteodat de atta hlgie,
zicea mamei:

40

- Ei, taci, taci! ajung-i de-amu, herghelie! tiu c doar nu-s babe, s chiroteasc din picioare.
ns mama ne mai da atunci cteva pe deasupra, i mai ndesate, zicnd:
- Na-v de cheltuial, ghiavoli ce suntei! Nici noaptea s nu m pot hodini de incotele voastre?
(p. 40)
TT2: When we had all gone to bed, children will be children, we' d start fighting and wouldn't
sleep for giggling and tittering till Mother, poor dear, must needs pull our hair and give us a
few thumps in the back, and Father, having had enough of such a row, would sometimes say to
Mother:
Come, come, shut up! That's enough slapping and scolding. They're not old women who go to
sleep standing up. But Mother would then give us a few more thumps, saying:
Take that and behave yourselves, you devils! I can't even rest at night because of your
giggling. (p. 41)
The translator may often happen to modernize and domesticate a source text (ST) word or
expression which will function semantically in the same way, but which will not be suggestive of the
original atmosphere. Consider the following excerpt:
ST3: Atunci, noi, la fug, biei, mai dihai dect la popa OslobanuDar bun pocinog a mai
fost -aista, ziceam noi oprindu-ne la rscrucile drumului din mijlocul satului, aproape de
biseric. nc una-dou de aiestea i ne scot oamenii afar din sat ca pe nite liesi i dup ce
ne arvonim noi i pe la anul, cu jurmnt, s umblm tot mpreun, ne-am desprit unul de
altul, rbegii de frig si hmesii de foame, i hai fiecare pe la casa cui ne are, c mai bine-i
pare. i iaca aa ne-a fost umblarea cu plugul n anul acela (p 44).
TT3: Now, run for it, boys, quicker than we ran from Parson Oslobanu! A fine mess, we
ponder, stopping at the crossroads in the middle of the village, close by the church. One or two
more welcomes like that and well be driven out from the village like gypsies Having settled
things for the following years and sworn a solemn oath to go carolling together we parted, stiff
with cold and weak with hunger and off we each went to our own homes and mighty glad we
were to see them. And thats the story of our carol-singing that year! (p. 45).

41

A translation loss is unavoidable with vernacular words (nouns, verbs, adverbs, etc.) and
expressions, i.e. local dialect, slang expressions or genuine indigenous words and expressions such as:
ne luam la hrjoan, incuri, musai, s ne fac cte-un urub, dou prin cap, s ne deie cteva
tapangele la spinare, hlgie, de-amu, herghelie, s chiroteasc, ne maid a cteva pe deasupra, na-v
de cheltuial, ghiavoli, incote.
With such words and expressions, the translator has to find a dialect equivalent, or a common
approximate correspondence in the TL: we' d start fighting, giggling and tittering, pull our hair, give us
a few thumps in the back, row, enough slapping and scolding, go to sleep, give us a few more thumps,
take that and behave yourselves, devils, giggling.
It is obvious that the dialect expressive words and phrases are missed. Thus, there is always a
loss in translation, especially with vernacular language.
Vernacular expressions are usually understood by readers from the same area. Moreover,
subtleties are appreciated only by such readers. Nevertheless, the translators competence of negotiating
between the two languages and cultures helps the readers of a different region, i.e. the TRs, catch at least
a certain regional flavour.
Sometimes these expressions are immediately translated or new coinages are tried: using the
original expression by adapting its phonetic characteristics.
Therefore, whatever the translation strategy may be, the vernacular tone has to be preserved.
Furthermore, if the means of expression are different, they have to be somehow reinforced. This is
because the substance of the textual content and the substance of expression are of utmost importance. In
this respect, Ecos definitions of text and translation are worth mentioning: (i) a text is the
manifestation of a substance, either at the content or at the expression plane, and (ii) translation is not
only concerned with such matters as equivalence in meaning (or in the substance of the textual
content), it is also concerned with the more or less indispensable equivalences in the substance of
expression (Eco 2003: 30, our emphasis).
It is a well known fact that literary works have more than one level of meaning: one overt level
and one or more covert levels. This is related to the extended meanings of a word. Such an analysis
implicitly includes the concept of focal meaning. The concept of focal meaning has become relevant in
ethnolinguistic studies. The focal meaning of a word is its central sense within the whole range of
meanings that it has (Bonvillain 2003: 59).

42

In translation, there are two semantic systems that select the content in a different way, since
each language culture organizes its systems by isolating differences which are ignored in another
language culture.
The excerpt below is illustrative of the various extensions of meaning of the verb run which are
part and parcel of the semantics of this verb. These extensions of the meanings of run are based on
features recognized by the people belonging to the speech community in the geographical area of
Moldavia. As Nida (1964: 94) put it, not all societies or speech communities make the same
extensions. This is obvious when comparing the ST with the TT:
ST4: i nebuna de mtua Mrioara, dup mine, i eu fuga iepurete prin cnep, i ea pe
urma mea, pn la gardul din fundul grdinei, pe care neavnd vreme s-l sar, o cotigeam
napoi, iar prin cnep, fugind tot iepurete, i ea dup mine pn-n dreptul ocolului pe undemi era iar greu de srit; pe de laturi iar gard, i hrsita de mtua nu m las din fug nici n
ruptul capului! Ct pe ce s puie mna pe mine! i eu fuga, i ea fuga, i eu fuga, i ea fuga,
pn ce dm cnepa toat palanc la pmnt [] (p. 48).
TT4: That crazy Aunt Marioara rushed after me, and I ran like a hare across the field of hemp
with her on my heels to the fence at the bottom of the garden, but I'd no time to get over it, so
back 1 turned, still across the hemp field, still running like a hare, with my aunt on my tracks,
back to the cattle yard, where again it was difficult to jump out, for there were fences everywhere
along both sides and that skinflint of an aunt would not stop chasing me for the life of her! She
very nearly laid hands on me! I went on running and she went on chasing, and between us we
trod the whole field of hemp flat [] (p. 49).
The notion of referential equivalence is also doubted when comparing the Romanian verb a
alerga and its synonyms with the concept of approximations in the English version. Thus, it is clear
that the translator has to know how the TRs categorise things, actions or events. That is why Dollerup
prefers the approximation to Nida s and Newmark s concept of equivalence which he considers not to
be clear. Furthermore, this, in turn, allows for the use of adequacy as a criterion as to whether users
find a translation acceptable or not (Dollerup 2006: 53).

43

The meanings of run are combinations of the verb run and the context. The differences in
meaning show that the role of the context is essential. The combined meanings of the verb run and the
context is the basis for the relevant concept. Therefore, the conceptual meaning of a lexical item is a
combined meaning of the word or idiom and the context. The relevant level of semantic analysis is
therefore the word or idiom in context (Nida 1996: 88).
There are situations where the translators, being very much concerned with the response of the
TRs, had to be unfaithful to the content of the original message. There are also mismatches made with
the translators eyes wide open, not out of ignorance, oversight or failure in comprehending the original,
but due to the lexical and grammatical nonequivalence and to the lack of the cultural corresponding
realities (see the excerpts above).
The main conclusion that can be drawn is that there is always some loss in translation
because two languages, especially two very different ones, represent the same reality in different
ways and only to a certain extent. This is due to the fact that effective communication does not
result from the linguistic element alone, as in a wider setting no two languages can ever fully
represent the same reality, whether that reality may be material, social, ecological or religious
(Balliu qtd. in Nida 1996: 20). Consequently, translation is always a shift, not between two
languages, but between two cultures.

3.5. Non-equivalence situations

The total cultural setting of the authors time and universe is different.
The corresponding words, or phrases may not be satisfactory.
The form of the word(s) may be confusing: there are lots of confusables, or
troublesome words which are real translation traps.
The semantic content may not be rendered in the TT entirely; as a consequence, the
semantic loss occurs.
The stylistic effect, the satire and the irony of the ST may be missed.
There is no corresponding word or phrase in the TLC: e.g. drama translation;
when the play is acted: the reactions of the audience are much more important than
the target readers (TRs) of the respective play.
The lack of the corresponding realities in LC2 may cause the cultural gap.

44

 There may be various degrees of the TT acceptability in the TLC (due to the new
information and forms).
There may be various degrees of adequacy of the ST in the TLC (due to the changes
of the ST structures brought about by the linguistic and cultural norms).
No translation is entirely acceptable in the TLC because of its estranging structural
and verbal elements.
No translation is entirely adequate to the ST because of the new cultural context it
will belong to.
The translator is a mediator who has to solve the non-equivalence situations and
make the TT fluent, readable and acceptable in the TLC.
3.5.1. Types of non-equivalence
3.5.1.1. The SL concept is not lexicalized in the TL.
The SL word expresses a concept which is known in the TC but is not lexicalized :
e. g. savoury - tasty; pleasant smelling; (fig.) agreeable, good
standard ordinary
landslide overwhelming majority
3.5.1.2. The cultural elements specific to the SL cannot be rendered in the TL because
there are no corresponding realities in the TLC.
The SL word expresses a concept which is unknown in the TLC; it may refer to a
social custom, a religious belief, an abstraction, an object, or a type of food:
e. g. privacy loneliness; intimacy
airing cupboard
3.5.1.3. The SL word is semantically complex.
A single word consisting of a single morpheme may express a more complex set of
meanings:
e.g. polysemy of words
cunning, sly (iret), artful, shrewd, sharp (viclean), mischievous (trengar);
smart (detept, iste), skillful (ndemnatic, priceput, iscusit); ellegant (elegant,
atrgtor)
3.5.1.4. SL and TL make different distinctions in meaning.
The TL makes more or fewer distinctions in meaning than the SL.
What is relevant in meaning to the SL may not be so in the TL.
e.g. come go

45

bring fetch
3.5.1.5. There is no superordinate in the TL.
The TL lacks a superordinate though it has specific words (hyponyms):
e.g. facilities any equipment, building, services provided for a particular
activity or purpose
3.5.1.6. There is no TL hyponym (specific term).
The TL lacks the specific word for the SL superordinate:
e.g. superordinate: house
specific words: bungalow, cottage, chalet, lodge, hut, mansion, manor,
villa, hall
superordinate: jump
specific words: leap, vault, spring, bounce, dive, clear, plunge
3.5.1.7. The SL interpersonal perspective is different from that of the TL.
There are differences in physical or interpersonal perspective when persons or things
are in relation to one another or to a place:
e.g. come go
arrive depart
take bring
the Romanian equivalents for give
3.5.1.8. There are differences in expressive meaning. Such differences may represent
translation traps.
A TL word has the same propositional meaning as the SL word, but it has a different
expressive meaning.
When the TL word is neutral, the translator may add a modifier or an adverb to
make up for the expressive meaning of the SL word.
e.g. batter to beat savagely / ruthlessly
3.5.1.9. There are differences in form which are a real source of confusions. There are lots
of such confusable or troublesome words (see sect. 3.5. Confusables as
translation traps).
There is no equivalent in the TL for a particular form in the ST:
e.g. employer / employee
trainer / trainee

46

payer / payee
conceivable
retrievable
undeniable
drinkable
3.5.1.10. Affixes may cause situations of non-equivalence.
Affixes which contribute to evoked meaning (e.g. by creating buzz words such as
washateria, groceteria) and those which convey expressive meaning (journalese,
translationese, legalese) are more difficult to translate by a paraphrase (Baker 1992:
24).

3.5.1.11. The paraphrase of all types of meaning, except for the propositional meaning, is
not always possible.
It is relatively easy to paraphrase propositional meaning, but other types of meaning
cannot always be spelt out in translation. Their subtle contribution to the overall
meaning of the text is either lost altogether or recovered elsewhere by means of
compensatory techniques. (Baker 1992: 24, emphasis added).
3.5.1.12. The frequency and purpose of using specific forms are different in the TL.
There is an equivalent in the TL, but there are differences in its frequency or in the
purpose for which it is used :
e.g. the use of ing to bind clauses
3.5.1.13. It is very difficult to find a loan word in the TL with the same meaning of the
loan word used in the ST.
Loan words are used for their prestige value.
It is not always possible to find a loan word in the TL with the same meaning (e.g.
dilettante). If there is an equivalent, it may miss the stylistic effect.
False friends, i.e. words with the same form in two or more languages but with a
different meaning , may be relevant for this type of non-equivalence.

47

3.6. Confusables as translation traps

Besides the large number of traps in the English language into which the
natives themselves may often fall, there are lots of traps in translating from
English into Romanian, or viceversa.
Confusables, or troublesome words, the results of polysemy and
homonymy, cause great problems in translation, being the source of many
misinterpretations and translation errors.
Sometimes the difference(s) between confusables may be explained only
in terms of collocability. Their meaning becomes clear only in collocations. In
this respect, an example may be the pair of confusable adjectives
distressful, distressing: e.g. distressful circumstances (involving stress)
and distressing news (causing stress). The same may hold valid with the pair
of adjectives disordered, disorderly used with the meaning nearanjat/ n
dezordine and dezordonat, respectively: e.g. a disordered shelf, a disorderly
room/crowd. Moreover, they can be included in the category of false friends.
Furthermore, a series of confusables such as discord, discordance,
discordancy may be translation traps because the differences in their
meanings are difficult to perceive, and in monolingual dictionaries each of
them is explained by using the other two. Thus, it is in a collocation such as
martial discord that the meaning of discord dezacord is understood as lack
of harmony lips de armonie. The other two words are specific to Am.E. In
addition, the noun discordance seems to be usually employed in the singular
with the meaning of general discord, i.e. difference of opinions, whereas the
noun discordancy seems to be frequently employed with its plural form
meaning controversies and involving repeatedness.
On the other hand, there are three English nouns used for the Romanian
noun ntrerupere: discontinuance, discontinuation, discontinuity. The first is
used with the meaning cessation (ntrerupere, ncetare): e.g. business
discontinuance. The second and the third are used in American English. The
noun discontinuation is related to a breach in ones activity: e.g.
discontinuation of work, whereas discontinuity refers to some gap or break
in something (surface): e.g. major discontinuities on the surface of the moon.
In addition, there are a lot of pairs and groups of words which are easily
confused both by natives and by translators because their forms are
misleading.
These confusion-generating forms may be considered at the
phonological level, on the one hand, and at the morphological level, on the
other.
Morphologically, there are differences between past participle forms such
as certified - certificated, packaged - packed, not to mention the basic
differences between such forms as drunk drunken, or sunk-sunken. They
are usually pointed out when discussing the differences between pairs or

48

groups such as gold-golden, rot-rotten, wood wooded wooden , and woolwoolen- wolly.
From a different perspective, one cannot ignore the other meanings of the
word fly. Thus, it may seem very interesting to consider the polysemy of fly,
especially its figurative meanings in idiomatic phrases such as fly on the
wheel[2] a person who overestimates their influence, fly on the wall[3] an
unnoticed observer of a particular situation, or in idiomatic collocations such
as a fly in the ointment[4] a minor irritation spoiling ones enjoyment of
something and fly in amber a curious relic of the past[5].
In addition to the denotative meanings of the verb fly, its figurative
meanings are also obvious in such phrases as fly a kite[6] try something out
in order to test opinions a sonda terenul, a ncerca s vad de unde bate
vntul[7], fly off the handle (fam).lose ones temper unexpectedly a-i iei
din srite/ pepeni/ ni; a-i sri mutarul/ bzdcul/ andra; a se aprinde
brusc; a i se sui piperul la nas[8], fly the nest (fam) leave ones parents in
order to live on ones own a-i lua zborul, a se descurca singur, a tri pe
cont propriu, fly the pit (humourous) to move unexpectedly without paying
the rent a o terge, a zbura din colivie[9].
Such expressions are used in both common core English and in functional
languages:
e.g. a fly-by- night peeson trector, pasager; (ec.)
insolvabil[10], fly the eagle (pol. Am. E) a ine un discurs bombastic
propvduind idei expansioniste[11]. Special attention has to be devoted to
words such as flyweight (box) categoria musc, and flywheel volant,
which are not collocations but one-word compounds[12].
However, in spite of its polysemy, the word fly is not included in
dictionaries of troublesome words and phrases. It is worth mentioning,
though, as an example of polysemy.
Moreover, it can be considered troublesome in the collocational idiomatic
patterns referred to above which may be included among confusables as
translation traps.
3.6.1. Culture specific confusables are some of the greatest translation
traps. Some examples of such confusables are:
assure ensure - insure, cafe cafeteria, canteen cantina, carline
car line, centenary centennial, cheveret chevret - chevrette, chillichilly, commisar commisary, commissionaire commissioner,
commutator commuter, comprehansible comprehensive, council
counsel, dobby- dobie, dom-dome, doolie dooly, dragon- dragoon.

The explanations concerning the cultural differences are given either in

brackets, like the indications of grammatical status, modality, register, variety
of English, or as a cultural note. For example:
council 'kansl n. (+ sing./ pl. v.) 1. a group of people appointed or elected
to make laws, or to take decisions: The matter was debated in the Security
Council (fig.) There was a family council to decide what to do with the land : consiliu.
2. (esp. BrE) the group representing local government in a town: The council
have told them to clean the streets: consiliu local/ municipal. 3. be on the
council: to be an elected member of it: Her husband is on the council : a fi
membru (ales) n consiliu.

49

Cultural note In British English council is used for local government authority.

It is not very common in the US, where the system of local government varies
from state to state. That is why the Americans use the collocations: city
council, town council, county council.

n. 1.(law) a lawyer (in Britain a barrister) defending

someone in law court: Neither of the parties were represented by counsel (=
counsel 'kansl

neither of them had lawyers). The judge called the defence counsel to set forth
evidence: avocat. 2. (formal, or literary) advice: The president took counsel from
some clever specialists: sfat. 3. to keep one's own counsel: to keep one's
opinions, or intentions secret: He had been known to be a man who used to keep
his own counsel: a nu-i spune secretul, a nu-i face cunoscute planurile,
inteniile.
comprehensible ,kmpr'hensbl adj. (to) (formal) that can be made out:
It was a short, comprehensible speech appreciated by everybody. This document is
comprehensible only to specialists; care se poate nelege, inteligibil, clar.
comprehensive ,kmpr'hensv adj. 1. thorough, minute: There had been
comprehensive inspection of the whole factory. This article gives a comprehensive
knowledge of the subject: minuios; cuprinztor, vast. 2. (no comp. BrE.) (of
education) teaching pupils of different abilities over the age of 11: She goes to
the local comprehensive (school).
Cultural note. The comprehensive system, introduced in 1965, replaced the

old system of grammar schools and secondary moderns, which took pupils
depending on whether they had passed or failed an exam called the elevenplus. Over 80% of British pupils attend comprehensive schools.
Children are often put in groups according to their level of ability at a
comprehensive: We didnt want to send our son to a public school, we thought of
the local comprehensive.

Consequently, besides the explanations referring to the differences in

meaning between confusable words, knowledge of troublesome words or
confusables is very useful as regards usage, pronunciation, spelling, the
contextualizations being as essential as their translation because they
reinforce the meaning and show how words are used in context.

3.7. Non-equivalence situations in translating idioms

50

There is no equivalent in the TL.

There is a similar counterpart in the TL but a different context of
use.
A SL idiom may be used in both its literal and idiomatic senses.
There are different contexts of use in SL and TL.

There is no equivalent in the TL:

e.g. Carry coals to Newcastle
Merry Christmas
Idioms and fixed expressions which contain culture-specific items are not necessarily
untranslatable. It is not the specific items an expression contains but rather the meaning
it conveys and its association with culture-specific contexts which can make it
untranslatable or difficult to translate. (Fernando and Flavell 1981: 85, emphasis added).
There is a similar counterpart in the TL but a different context of use:
e.g. to sing a different tune to say or do sth that signals a change in opinion
because it contradicts what one has said or done before a cnta pe voci /tonuri diferite
to go to the dogs - lose ones good qualities (about a person, place) a se duce de rp /
pe apa Smbetei;
to skate on thin ice act unwisely
A SL idiom may be used in both its literal and idiomatic senses:
e.g. poke ones nose into othersprivate affairs a-i bga nasul n
treburile altora / a se amesteca
Ill cut off my (right) arm (right used for emphasis)
Pigs might fly
The play on idiom cannot be successfully reproduced in the TL if there is no
corresponding idiom.
There are different contexts of use in the SL and TL:
e.g. get up and go
(a car) after your own heart
get going in/to
show what you are made
its a lot more than just a pretty face
its just the ticket
Such situations are frequent in English advertisements, promotional materials and in the
tabloid press. They are rather rare in news reports.
It is a real fact that [U]sing idioms requires that the translator should be not only
accurate but also highly sensitive to the rhetorical nuances of the language (Fernando
and Flavell 1981: 85, emphasis added).
51

The cross-cultural differences deeply affect discourse practices at the verbal level. It
is usually difficult for the translators to mediate these differences which may be latent
and prone to misunderstanding and misinterpretation, on the one hand, and verbally
constructed in specific ways from one culture to another, on the other hand. In order
to avoid communicative breakdown, the translator has to make up for the mismatches
between the two language cultures, thus creating that famous bridge between them.
The translators choices will depend on the knowledge of the cultural codes embedded in
the two languages and cultures, especially of the differences between them.

3.8. Non-equivalence situations and traps in translating literary texts

3.8.1. Like any kind of communication, translation is recipient /reader oriented.
Starting from this idea, it is the intended purpose of the target text (TT) i.e.translation
skopos (Reiss and Vermeer, 1984), that imposes the translation methods, techniques and
strategies. Unlike the functional or specialized translations that have to consider the end
user and have to meet with certain exact requirements such as conciseness, exactness
and objectivity, the literary translations need careful investigation of the cultural, social
and historical contexts of the source text (ST) and target text (TT). Besides the
extralinguistic factors, they need psycholinguistic, linguistic and pragmatic knowledge of
both languages and cultures in which the translator operates, the Translation Operator
(TO) being a mediator between the two languages and cultures in contact.
In translating literary texts, both the translation theory and practice, on the one hand,
and translation criticism, on the other, have to consider a series of criteria for the analysis
of the ST and TT important in interpreting and translating the text. Among the most
important coordinates of literary translations, intentionality determines the translators

52

choices, the authors intention being as important as the recipient that defines the
communicative situation and the function of the text.
According to the functional pragmatic approach, translation criticism focuses on the
product of the translating process, i.e. the TT, comparing it to the ST. A critical analysis of
the ST and TT version(s) is made in terms of accuracy, adequacy and effect. Style, which
is a property of language users in particular kinds of settings (Hatim and Mason
1992:10) is also extremely important both in translating literary texts and in comparing
the ST and TT version(s).
The ideal to touch in translating literary texts consists in expressing the whole
universe of ideas of the source language text (SLT). In a wider sense, this ideal means
the re-creation of the SLT in the TL by different means, which reminds us of R.
Jakobsons likeness in fundamental difference (Jakobson 1959).The literary translation
helps the reader go ,by way of comprehension, up to the authors universe of ideas and
feelings, as Schleiermacher put it. Re-creating the SLT means decoding the authors
universe, rendering the denotations and the connotations in the TL, rendering the
message, as well as identifying, on the one hand, with the authors universe in the TL
system and with the TL reader, on the other.
3.8.2. One of the most important semantic aspects of translation is the semantic
content of a word which consists of: a) the general meaning of the linguistic notion; b)
the occasional meaning , i.e. the general meaning in a certain situational context; c) the
general representation of the notion as a result of all the occasional uses or
occurrences; d) the secondary representations, i.e. subjective associations; e) feeling
tones, i.e. connotations.
Therefore, distinction must be made between the primary linguistic aspect, based on
the cognitive experience and including the denotative meaning usually described by
means of referential definitions, and the secondary linguistic aspect which includes the
specific overtones related to the cultural context or to a certain individual experience ,
i.e. connotations.
Eugene Nida distinguishes between the referential or cognitive meaning, related to
the extralinguistic object in its cultural context, and the emotive meaning, related to the
53

subjective relations. The former is possible, though sometimes difficult to translate, but it
can be exactly rendered to a certain extent, whereas the latter is very difficult to translate.
These feeling tones are real traps for translators of literary texts.
A translator of literary texts should never forget one of the fundamental translation
principles, namely that the translation should accurately reflect the meaning of the
original text and that nothing should be added or removed arbitrarily, though,
occasionally, part of the meaning can be transposed.
The so-called loaded words and phrases, with underlying implications, as well
as the words and phrases whose dictionary meanings are not the most suitable ones, are
frequent traps for literary translators.
In order to illustrate various types of difficulties a translator has to overcome in
translating literary texts, a series of examples will be provided out of many others found
in investigating a very large corpus, prepared for study with a group of students within
the master programme in the Translation and interpretation specialization.
In discussing such traps which cover many types of difficulties, we considered both
the extralinguistic or extratextual factors (socio-cultural and historical background,
author, the authors intention, the place and the time the ST was written in function of the
ST/TT, and the ST / TT reader), on the one hand, and the linguistic or intratextual factors
(subject matter, content, presupposition - as carriers of semantic information - , as well as
composition, lexis, sentence structure both surface and deep structure and
suprasegmental features ), all of them bearing stylistic implications.
All these factors are very useful in the correct interpretation of the ST within a
Translation Oriented Text Analysis (TOTA), and in producing the TT.
3.8.3. A number of translation difficulties found in the corpus studied were classified
according to the following criteria:
1) Connotations difficult to render in the TT;
2) Different contextual distributions in the TL;
3) Collocabillity;

54

4) Shifts or transpositions;
5) Different syntactic structures from SL to TL.
Studying the connotations found in the corpus, three types were obvious: a)
connotations derived from the primary dictionary meaning or denotation; b) connotations
derived from one of the secondary dictionary meanings; c) (a) different connotation(s) in
the TT in terms of the co text.
3.8.3.1. Among the three types of connotations mentioned above, the first one was the
most frequent in translating five of the fragments included in the corpus. An interesting
example may be the noun consecration in the structure consecration of its loneliness (in
the fragment from Jane Eyre), rendered by sfinenia singurii: I saw the fascination of
the locality. I felt the consecration of its loneliness Descopeream fascinaia tinutului.
Simeam sfinenia singurtii acestei aezri

In this context, the noun consecration cannot be translated by its first meaning, i.e.
dedication to the service and worship of God (Webster), but it has to be given a
connotative meaning in terms of the co text, as well as in terms of its collocabillity with
the verb to reverence:
I liked to read what they liked to read;what they enjoyed delighted me;what they
approved I reverenced mi plcea s citesc ceea ce le plcea i lor; ceea ce pentru
ele era o bucurie, pentru mine era o ncntare; preuiam tot ceea ce ele apreciau
Another example is the verb to shield in the syntagm to shield his life from the eyes of
men, in the fragment from The Landscape Painter: For five years, accordingly,he
managed to shield his life from the eyes of men n consecin, a reuit timp de cinci
ani s triasc departe de privirile celor din jur
This verb cannot be translated by its primary dictionary meanings, i. e. a-i proteja /ai feri viaa de, because they are not specific to the TL; besides, the Romanian phrase de
ochii lumii has fully different connotations and matches different contexts. Therefore, a
phrase specific to Romanian has to be used.

55

The adjective outside in the structure the outside world (in the fragment from Picture of
Dorian Gray) was rendered by cei care nu-l cunoteau prea bine/ care l cunoteau mai
puin in terms of the co-text,in contrast with Society cei apropiai:
At half past twelve next day Lord Henry Wotton strolled from Curzon Street
over to the Albany to call on his uncle, Lord Fermor, a genial if somewhat rough
mannered old bachelor, whom the outside world called selfish because it derived no
particular benefit from him, but who was considered generous by Society as he fed the
people who amused him A doua zi la dousprezece i jumtate, lordul Henry Wotton
porni agale din strada Curzon spre Albany pentru a-i face o vizit unchiului su, lordul
Fermor, un burlac btrn i vesel, dei oarecum lipsit de maniere despre care cei ce l
cunoteau mai puin spuneau c este un egoist, cci nu trgeau nici un folos de pe urma
lui dar considerat generos de cei apropiai deoarece le ddea de mncare celor care l
amuzau.
Considering the co text (including the reference to Lord Fermor), it becomes obvious
that the noun Society does not refer here to the whole body of individuals living as
members of a community, but to one social class only, that of the wealthy, prominent and
fashionable persons (Webster: 1351); moreover, it is spelt with a capital letter.
Consequently, involving the emphasis that Lord Fermor was part of that social class and
that he knew almost all its remarkable representatives, the translators final choice was
cei apropiai in contrast with cei ce l cunoteau mai puin.
More examples of such connotations could be found in the fragment from Typhoon, e.
g. pitch, suck, tunnel: Her lurches had an appalling helplessness; she pitched as if taking
a header into a void, and seemed to find a wall to hit every time At certain moments,
the air streamed against the ship as if sucked through a tunnel with a concentrated solid
force of impact that seemed to lift her clean out of the water and keep her up for an
instant with only a quiver running through her from end to end. Zbuciumul lui
[vasului] dovedea o neputin nspimnttoare: disprea n talazuri ca i cum ar fi
plonjat n gol i de fiecare dat prea c se izbete de un zidn rstimpuri, curenii de
aer loveau vasul de parc l-ar fi tras n jos printr-o plnie uria cu o cumplit fora de
impact care izbea vasul cu nverunare i care prea c l ridic cu totul din ap i l ine

56

astfel pre de o clip, strbtut doar de un tremur de la un capt la altul. The verb pitch
was translated by disprea n talazuri, due to the impossibility of translating it by its first
dictionary meaning, i.e. to fall suddenly and heavily in a particular direction (LDCE).
Its synonyms, a se avnta/ azvrli/ arunca/ afunda/ prbui/ pica do not collocate with the
noun vas in order to describe the movement of the ship. The elliptical comparative clause
as if sucked through a tunnel was interpreted in terms of the context, as the noun tunnel
could not be translated by tunel/ canal/ coridor/ eav/ galerie, none of them collocating
with either cureni de aer or cumplita for de impact; the final choice was made for the
Romanian equivalent to have the same effect on the reader. Consequently, in order to
preserve the stylistic effect of the verb suck, the Romanian variant tras n jos printr-o
plnie uria was the best choice; furthermore, the epithet uria emphasises the contrast
between the size of the ship and the unleashed forces of nature the ship fought against.
3.8.3.2. The connotations derived from one of the secondary dictionary meanings are
also very frequent and difficult to render in the TL. For example, the substantivized
adjective the impertinent (in the fragment from The Landscape Painter) was rendered by
celor indiscrei, because it was interpreted to have a connotation derived from the
secondary dictionary meaning, i.e. nepotrivit. The use of the adjective curioi in the
published version is also a good choice. The noun spots (in the fragment from What
Maisie Knew)

was translated by its connotation, i.e. imperfeciuni, because it was

associated with brilliancy of a ladys complexion translated by strlucirea obrazului unei

doamne

and with the structure the mothers character: The father, who, though

bespattered from head to foot, had made good his case, was,[] appointed to keep her;it
was not so much that the mothers character had been more absolutely damaged as that
the brilliancy of a ladys complexion []might be more regarded as showing the spots
Tatl, dei mprocat cu noroi din cap pn-n picioare, i pledase bine cauza,[..] fu
numit susintorul legal, nu att pentru faptul c reputaia mamei a fost iremediabil
compromis, ct pentru faptul c strlucirea obrazului unei doamne [] ar putea fi
privit mai mult ca o imperfeciune.
A very interesting example may be the syntagm of all the moods and tenses of the
ocean (in the fragment from The Landscape Painter):

57

I am enamoured of all the moods and tenses of the ocean Snt ndrgostit de capriciile
i toanele oceanului
This final choice was made because these connotations preserve the stylistic effect of
the hendyadis in the ST.
3.8.3.3. In studying the types of connotations and the ways of rendering them in the
TL, a lot of words were found in the source texts with different connotations in the TTs
in terms of the co- text. The structure mutually entertained (in the fragment fom Jane
Eyre) was rendered by simindu-ne bine mpreun, because the transitive a distra pe
cineva has different connotations in the TL: Thus occupied, and mutually entertained,
days passed like hours, and weeks like days Avnd astfel de preocupri i simindu-ne
bine mpreun, zilele treceau ca orele, iar sptmnile ca zilele.
A very interesting example is with her full complement of limbs (in The Landscape
Painter) that cannot be rendered by cu braele ntregi, which would miss the stylistic
effect of the original. The variant n deplintatea formelor ei would be wrong, and
nainte de a fi mutilat would mean more than the authors intention and would even
alter the original: I used to hear that her lover was fond of comparing her to Venus of
Milo; and, indeed, if you can imagine the mutilated goddess with her full complement of
limbs [] you may obtain a vague notion of Miss Josephine Leary. Auzeam adesea c
iubitului ei i plcea foarte mult s-o compare cu statuia lui Venus din Milo; i ntr-adevr,
dac v-ai imagina-o pe zei avnd i braele ntregi [], atunci v-ai face o idee vag
despre nfiarea domnioarei Leary.
Consequently, this final choice is considered to match the original better in terms of
adequacy
In the same text, the structure of heroic proportions cannot be given a literal
translation, because the effect would be rather hilarious. More than that, there is no
reference to size, but it is her beauty that is meant, comparison being drawn to the statue
of Venus:
When he walked about with his betrothed it was half a matter of surprise that he
should have ventured to propose to a young lady of such heroic proportions Cnd se

58

plimba alturi de logodnica lui, era oarecum surprinztor faptul c ndrznise s cear
n cstorie o domnioar de o asemenea frumusee statuar.
3.8.4. The contextual distribution of every lexical item is specific to each of the two
languages in contact. Such may be the case of the noun portions (in What Maisie Knew)
translated by cele doua jumti considering the determiner used with its anaphoric
function, as well as the fact that it does not collocate with the verb a mpri. There is
repetition in the published version, besides the use of the verb a tia even if it is used in
its connotation:
She was divided in two and the portions tossed impartially to the disputants. Ea a
fost mprit n dou, iar jumtile au fost aruncate fr prtinire celor care i-o
revendicau.
The Romanian equivalents of the noun simpleton have different contextual
distributions. In the fragment from Pride And Prejudice it was translated by nerod, not by
ntru, although, according to a semantic translation, it would render the meaning of the
original better (V.Breban: ntru care pricepe greu). However, ntru/ prost/ bleg
/imbecil have different contextual distributions in Romanian:
If I can perceive her regard for him, he must be a simpleton indeed not to discover it
too. Dac eu mi pot da seama de admiraia ei pentru el, atunci el trebuie s fie chiar
nerod s nu observe acest lucru.
Another interesting example can be found in one of H. James titles, i.e. papers, in The
Aspern Papers, rendered by nsemnri not by documente, although it is used with the
meaning of a document establishing or verifying identity, status, or the like: citizenship
papers (Webster: 1044). It cannot be translated as such because of the different
contextual distribution: papers refers to someones personal notes diary.
3.8.5. One of the major problems which a translator has to face is to use appropriate
collocations in the TLT. He has to overcome the danger that SL interference may escape
unnoticed and an unnatural collocation may occur in the TT. Translating collocations
requires the translators competence because they provide powerful evidence of
intentionality and text type focus. They can point to the intended meaning, which is not

59

made explicit by other means. For example, the collocation odd justice (in What Maisie
Knew) was translated as acest mod de a face dreptate prea ciudat, not by the collocation
dreptate ciudat, which is not accepted in Romanian. Moreover, it refers to the manner in
which justice was done: This was odd justice in the eyes of those who still blinked in the
fierce light projected from the tribunal a light in which neither parent figured in the
least as a happy example to youth and innocence. Acest mod de a face dreptate prea
ciudat n ochii celor care nc mai clipeau orbii de lumina necrutoare ce venea
dinspre tribunal lumina n care nici unul din prini nu aprea ctui de puin ca un
exemplu fericit pentru o fiin fraged i nevinovat.
There are TL collocations in which neither the primary nor the secondary dictionary
meanings of the SL noun can be used, and the translator has to find a synonym accepted
by the TL. For example, the noun congeniality in the collocation congeniality of tastes,
sentiments and principles (in Jane Eyre) has to be rendered by potrivire to collocate with
all the three nouns: de gusturi, sentimente i principii: There was a reviving pleasure in
this intercourse, of a kind now tasted by me for the first time - the pleasure arising from
perfect congeniality of tastes, sentiments and principles. n acest fel de prietenie,
gseam o plcere care m nsufleea i pe care o simeam pentru prima dat plcerea
care izvora din potrivirea perfect de gusturi, sentimente i principii.
An interesting example that may seem striking to the reader just because it creates a
special stylistic effect is the collocation a concentrated solid force of impact

(in

Typhoon). It could not be rendered by a symmetrical collocation in the TT, i.e. fora
masiv compact/ fora solid de impact cumplit/ fora concentrat de impact, because
none of these structures is appropriate in terms of collocability in Romanian. Therefore, it
was translated as cumplita for de impact in order to render the meaning of concentrated
as well: At certain moments the air streamed against the ship as if sucked through a
tunnel with a concentrated solid force of impact that seemed to lift her clean out of the
water [] n rstimpuri, curenii de aer loveau vasul de parc l-ar fi tras n jos printro plnie uria cu o cumplit for de impact care izbea vasul cu nverunare i care
prea c l ridic cu totul din ap [].

60

Such rare and apparently unacceptable collocations are called marked collocations.
They strike the reader because they involve deliberate confusion of collocational ranges
to create new images. They may seem untypical in the common language, but they are
often used in literary prose and poetry.
The differences in the collocational patterning of the SL and TL create potential
pitfalls and can be real traps for literary translators who sometimes get quite engrossed
in the source text and may produce the oddest collocations in the target language for
no justifiable reason (M.Baker 1992: 54). Translating collocations often involves a
tension a difficult choice between what is typical and what is accurate. Consequently, it
is the collocational patterning of a word that determines its different meanings.
According to the principle that translation conveys more or less than the original
(Croitoru 1996: 40), the TL equivalent epithet may not be sufficient to render the
semantic content and the stylistic effect of the SL word. For example, the epithet fierce in
the collocation fierce light (in What Maisie Knew) was translated by necrutoare not by
puternic/ orbitoare that would mean less than fierce in the original.
Consequently, interpretation during the translating process concentrates on finding
the appropriate expression to convey a given meaning [] in a given context, and
involves the identification of relevant concepts and their rewording in another language
so that the SL and TL wordings may correspond in their temporary meaning in a given
speech performance (Croitoru 1996 :39).
3.8.6. Shifts (Catfords term) or transpositions (Vinay and Darbelnets) are frequent
translation procedures which involve changes in the grammar from SL to TL. One of the
most frequent cases is the use of a long syntagm to render a noun. For example, the noun
sweetness (in What Maisie Knew) was translated as gustul dulce al succesului, because
the TL lacks an equivalent in such a context:
Attached, however, to the second pronouncement was a condition that detracted, for
Beale Farange, from its sweetness an order that he should refund to his late wife the
twenty-six hundred pounds down by her [] Cu toate acestea, la a doua pronunare sa adugat o clauz care i lua lui Beale Farange din gustul dulce al succesului

61

hotrre prin care trebuia s restituie fostei sale soii cele dou mii ase sute de lire
sterline, pltite de ea[..].
For communicative purposes, in the published version it was translated by s
primeasc hotrrea cu mai putin entuziasm covering the whole syntactic structure the
predicate included. In the same fragment, the noun sider was translated by a very long
syntagm including an attributive clause, i.e. cei care erau de partea unuia sau a celuilalt:
There had been sides before, and there were sides as much as ever; for the sider too
the prospect opened out, taking the pleasant form of a superabundance of matter for
desultory conversation Fusesera i nainte pri adverse, dar acum erau unul
mpotriva celuilalt mai mult ca niciodat / Erau i acum, ca i nainte,prti adverse; iar
celor care erau de partea unuia sau a celuilalt li se ofereau noi prilejuri ce cptau
forma placut a numeroaselor/ ce se concretizau n numeroase subiecte pentru
conversaii ocazionale i inutile.
Another example is the noun wellwishers also rendered by an attributive clause,
because it could not be translated by any of the synonyms susintori/ simpatizani/
partizani/ doritori de bine that have different contextual distributions: That most popular
with Locksleys wellwishers was that he had backed out [] Cel mai frecvent
comentariu printre cei care erau de partea lui Locksley era ca el fusese cel care
renunase []
The verbal adjective is most frequently rendered into Romanian by a whole clause,
usually an attributive clause. For example, reviving in the collocation reviving pleasure
(in Jane Eyre) was translated by the attributive clause care m nsufleea: There was a
reviving pleasure in this intercourse, of a kind now tasted by me for the first time - the
pleasure arising from perfect congeniality of tastes, sentiments, and feelings. n acest
fel de prietenie, gseam o plcere care m nsufleea i pe care o simeam pentru prima
dat plcerea care izvora din potrivirea perfect de gusturi, sentimente i principii.
In the published version, it was translated by the adjective mare +attributive clause,
i.e. o mare bucurie pe care o gustam ntia oar which is considered to be a semantic
loss.

62

3.8.7. Differences in the grammatical structures of the SL and TL may often bring
about some change in the information content of the message. Two of the most frequent
and most obvious changes are those taking the form of addition (i.e. adding to the TT
information that is not expressed in the ST), or of omission (i.e. omitting information
specified in the ST).
Here are some of the most frequent syntactic structures found in the texts analysed and
translated:
3.8.7.1. SL noun: a) TL noun +adjective (breezes aerul rcoros);
b) TL noun + det. + adj. (extravagance cheltuielile mele
extravagante):
a) And we, the weary pilgrims of the London pavement, were beginning to think of
the cloud shadows on the corn fields, and the autumn breezes on the sea shore.
Iar noi, istovii pelerini ai strzilor Londrei, ncepeam s ne gndim la umbrele norilor
deasupra lanurilor de gru i la aerul rcoros de toamn la malul mrii.
b) And my extravagance now limited me to the prospect of spending the autumn
economically between my mothers cottage at Hampstead and my own chambers in
town. Iar cheltuielile mele extravagante nu-mi lsau acum dect posibilitatea de a-mi
petrece toamna ntr-un mod mai chibzuit ntre csua din Hampstead a mamei i
apartamentul meu din ora.
3.8.7.2. SL adj. + adj. TL adv. + adj. (a charm both potent and permanent
pururea irezistibil): I, too, in the gray, small, antique structure [] found a charm both
potent and permanent. i eu, la rndul meu, gseam un farmec pururea irezistibil n
csua aceea cenuie i veche [].
3.8.7.3. SL noun + verb + noun: a) TL verb + adv. ( thought fitted thought
gandeam la fel );
b) TL verb (a avea )+ det. + noun (opinion met
opinion aveam aceleai preri ): Though fitted thought; opinion met opinion; we

63

coincided, in short, perfectly. Gndeam la fel; aveam aceleai preri; pe scurt, ne

nelegeam perfect.
3.8.7.4. SL noun + prep. + noun:
a) TL verb + direct object clause (claims to distinction pretindeau c se
deosebesc prin ceva: Both parties possessed

certain claims to distinction . Ambele

pri pretindeau c se deosebesc prin ceva anume.

b) TL noun + adj. (the blackness of the clouds norii ntunecai; effect of
quietness efect linititor):
And on this dazzling sheet, spread under the blackness of the clouds [], Captain
MacWhirr could catch a desolate glimpse of a few tiny specks black as ebony [] i
pe aceast ntindere strlucitoare de sub norii ntunecai [], cpitanul MacWhirr reui
s deslueasc nite puncte mici, rzlee, negre ca abanosul[].
And he heard that voice, forced and ringing feebly, but with a penetrating effect of
quietness in the enormous discord of noises, as if sent out from some remote spot of
peace[] i din nou auzi glasul acela slab, dar care ncerca s se fac auzit, cu un
puternic efect linititor n vacarmul acela asurzitor, venind parc din vreun loc
ndeprtat , dintr-o oaz de linite [].
c) TL noun + prep. + (det./ pron.) noun + prep. + noun ( [ remote] spot of
peace loc [ ndeprtat] dintr-o /vreo oaz de linite ) (see above).
Sometimes the TL grammatical structure is different in terms of relevance. For
example, the verb to find is irrelevant in the sentence She seemed to find a wall to hit.
Consequently, the translation was Prea c se lovete de un zid (in Typhoon,see above).
The subtle choices in point of relevance may differ significantly from one translator
to another, which would affect the quality and accuracy of the translation. On the other
hand, failure to correctly render the SL structures will result in very unnatural texts.
d) TL noun marked for the plural corresponding to the ST singular. For
example, the nouns in the structure wave and rock and cloud are marked for the plural in

64

the TL in order to preserve the stylistic effect of the original: Never before have I seen
such a pretty little coast never before have I been so taken with wave and rock and
cloud. Niciodat nu am mai vzut un col de lume att de frumos pe rmul mrii,
niciodat nu am mai fost att de fascinat de valuri, de stnci i de nori.
The coordinating conjunction and in the ST is replaced by the preposition de in the TT
in order to give the TT sentence the same rhythm and musicality of the ST one.
Therefore, the literary translator has to overcome the restrictions imposed by certain
features of the SL structures and has to make the TT sound natural.
To conclude, the content of a message in the SL cannot always be matched by an
expression with exactly the same content and the same structure in the TL. What must be
expressed is a problem as difficult as that of how it can be expressed. Following SL
norms may involve insignificant changes in the overall meaning. On the other hand,
deviations from typical TL patterns may result in a translation that will sound foreign.
It is obvious that the literary translator has to be competent in handling the SL patterns in
order to correctly render the message in the TL and to produce a TT which will read
naturally and smoothly

65

CHAPTER 4

TRANSLATION STRATEGIES

4.1. Views related to translation shifts and frames of reference

4.1.1. A near revelation in the late nineteen - sixties was that translation involves shifts
(Popovi 1970), a view still debated by many translation theorists. The prevailing idea in
the mid-eighties was that translation entails manipulation of the source-text (Hermans
1985). The way is not very long from P. Newmarks 1981 distinction between semantic
and communicative translations M.A.K. Hallidays (2001) and D. Katans (2001) metaposition of the translator. Thus, P.Newmark (1981:39) points out that the communicative
66

translation is reader-oriented, pragmatic and functionally oriented, whereas with semantic

translations, the translator may translate less important words by culturally neutral third
of functional terms but not by cultural equivalents (Newmark 1988:46). With semantic
translations, the translator is faithful to the ST ignoring the real world of the target culture
(TC). M.A.K. Halliday (2001:15) considered three vectors to be the most relevant:
stratification (ordered strata: phonetic, phonological, lexico- grammatical, semantic and
contextual), meta-function (content strata; i.e. lexicogrammar and semantics, in three
functional components: ideational, interpersonal and textual), and rank (formal strata in a
hierarchy from clause to morpheme). He also referred to equivalence at different strata
carrying different values: the higher the strata or ranks, the higher the values. The
ideational equivalence (on the basis of which translation equivalence is defined)
belonging to the meta-function, is the most important of all: a TT has to match its ST
ideationally.
Taking into consideration the task of the translator as a chooser of alternatives
(Bennett 1993: 62, quoted in Katan 2004: 124), D. Katan and F. Straniero Sergio (2001:
220-221, Katan 2001b) suggest the translators meta-position: a translator is not only
able to mindshift and associate with both the ST and the virtual TT, but is also able to
take a third perceptual position [the meta-position] which is dissociated from both
cultures.
4.1.2. Long before, P. Newmark (1988:163) pointed out the importance of the
cultural context besides the linguistic context, referential context and individual context,
the idiolect of the writer.
H. J. Vermeer (1983, quoted in G. Garzone 2003: 56) also distinguished between
paraculture, i.e. the culture of large national, ethnic groups, and diaculture, which
corresponds to the sociological concept of sub-culture, characterizing restricted social
groups.
G. Hofstedes (1984, 1991) model is also very important for the bi-polar
dimensions given to culture: individualism collectivism, masculinity feminity, high
low uncertainty avoidance, high-low power distance.

67

A. Neubert and G. M. Shreve (1992:48) share the cognitive psychology point of

view according to which text comprehension only occurs when the comprehender
actively conjectures or projects the semantic content contained in the text.
G. Tourys (1995: Part 4) laws refer to the existence / non-existence of certain
features in translated products, the relationships between the products and their source
texts, determining factors (cognitive, cross-linguistic, textual, text-typological, sociocultural (including all kinds of ideology) and their translation-specific or not influence on
the translators behaviour, as well as their interaction.
Translators need profound cultural knowledge, in order to evaluate another
cultures way. Differences of cultural values are very important in understanding a series
of related terms. In such situations, substitutes are incomplete, unclear and often
misleading. (Katan 2004)
The translator is not a faithful reproducer of the ST but an inventive re-creator. He
is a re-writer who determines the implied meanings on the TL text. In the act of rewriting, he also re-determines the meaning of the original (Alvarez and Vidal 1996:4).
Thus the role of the translator has changed from that of faithful reproducer to an inventive
interventionist. (Holman and Boase - Beier 1999:14).
In many contexts, it is important to determine the meanings of terms on the basis
of contrasts and comparisons with the meanings of related words within the same
paradigmatic set. (Nida 2001:36) In determining the meanings of words, the role of the
context is maximized, whereas the role of any focal element is minimized, which means
that the context actually provides more distinctiveness of meaning than the term being
analysed (id., ibid.)
The translator has his hierarchies of aims which constrain and colour the recreated text. (Holman and Boase-Beier 1999: 9).
The translators skill consists in finding the appropriate level of adjustment, in
order to avoid conveying the wrong message. As M. Baker (1992:250) puts it, In
translation, anything that is likely to violate the target readers expectations must be
carefully examined and, if necessary, adjusted in order to avoid conveying the wrong
implicatures or even failing to make sense altogether.

68

4.1.3. The translator has to solve the differences of perception and interpretation.
We are in favour of the interpretive translation. Interpretation is a stage of the translating
process (Croitoru 1996), consists in clarifying or explaining the meaning, construing
significance, clearing up intentionality, representing the spirit or meaning of the ST. Thus,
the literary translator has to make it easier for the target reader (TR) to understand the
authors intention and the text function.
K. Reiss, one of the founders of the Skopos functionalist theory, also agrees that a
successful translation depends on identifying the source-text typologies, including the
texts appeal or aim, and reconstructing those elements in the receiving culture (in
Gentzer 2001:72).
This opinion is also shared by R. Bell (1991) and Newmark (1981, 1988) who
consider that the translator makes sense of the new text by understanding the text type.
For this purpose, the translator makes use of translation strategies such as
compensation, paraphrase, reduction or expansion (Newmark 1988:88-90), explicitation
(Blum-Lulka 1986, Croitoru 2006), modulation (Newmark 1988, Salkie 2003, Croitoru
2006), deletion, distortion, deviation, manipulation, some of them being part of the MetaModel (Katan 2004, Croitoru forthcoming), and other forms of active interpretation.
4.2. Interpretation as a creative act and translation strategies
4.2.1. Interpretation a creative act
Interpretation is a creative act carried out by every translator. M. Holman and J.
Boase-Beier (1999:15) consider that [] even when stylistic devices do not provide
obvious gaps to be filled or obvious patterns to be complied with or creatively subverted,
the translator cannot be free from the unconscious act of creative interpretation. However,
they consider that although the translators art is creatively controlled in many different
ways, he cannot be genuinely creative.
Therefore, in rendering the message of the ST, the translator is subject to the
model of the SLT on the one hand, and to the constraints imposed by the context of TLC.
The fact should be mentioned that the demands of the TL linguistic and cultural

69

environment are paid special attention. Thus, the translator is the constraining and the
enabling filter (ibid.)
In order to arrive at a correct interpretation, careful reading is a prerequisite to
translation (Newmark 1988:21, Bell 1991:161), also called reading for translation
(Neubert and Shreve (1992:49), the translator being a critical reader. He has to read to
access frames in order to understand the meta-message and arrive at the virtual
translation. In this respect, D. Katan suggests the procedure of chunking1 as a first step
in mind shifting from one cultural reality to another (Katan 2001b, 2002, 2004). He
argues that this is an essential prerequisite for the translator as cultural mediator.
Chunking up, chunking down and lateral chunking are essential for the translator
in establishing the wider and narrower frames of reference of the ST, and for the
translation environment (Mathiessen 2001)
Chunking up, above the two different cultures involved, and lateral chunking
(chunking sideways), i.e. finding comparable frames in the TC, are very useful in cultural
mediation, while chunking down is closely related to contextualizing translation in
lexicogrammar (Mathiessen 2001), and to the Meta-Model (Katan 2004, Croitoru
forthcoming).
4.2.2. Local and global interpretation
Distinction has to be made between local and global interpretation. It is the wider
context, that of global interpretation, or the meta-message that helps a successful
translation. Local2 interpretation may be misleading due to the influence of the
lexicogrammar of the ST. In order to avoid interpretation according to the surface
structure of the ST, i.e. misleading local interpretation, the strategies of explicitation
(addition of an explicit cue), or deletion (the deletion of the distorting element), or
modulation (Croitoru and Dumitrascu 2006) are used.

The term chunking, taken from computing, and basically meaning to change the size of a unit, is also
essential in Neuro -Linguistic Programming. In NLP it demonstrates that meaning not only depends on
context or frame, but is also a turning from sub-atomic to universal, and that the language of sensory-based
real world is linked to general, vague and metaphorical concepts (OConnor and Seymour 1993:146-148,
quoted in Katan 2004:199).
2
Local interpretation was first dealt with the Brown and Yule (1983:59). They suggested the Principle of
Social Interpretation which instructs the hearer not to construct a context, any larger than the needs to
arrive at an interpretation. It resembles Sperber and Wilsons (1988:140). Relevance. Theory.

70

Global interpretation is made conscious by chunking, which will help the

translator produce a more TC oriented or a SC-oriented translation. Thus, if he uses
chunking up and lateral chunking, i.e. cultural equivalents, the translation will be TCoriented. The more he chunks up and sideways, the less culture specific the words.
Therefore, the translator is in a meta-position which is dissociated from both
cultures (Katan and Straniero Sergio 2001:220-221, Katan 2001b).
4.2.3. Matching the two cultural systems
The translator needs the ability to understand and match the two systems
involved, the contexts of culture and situation, the intelligibility of the linguistic choices
expressed in the message, and the intentionality of the message. Thus, he has to explore
the intentionality of the message and find the adequate means of expressing it. Moreover,
he has to make intelligible the linguistic choices expressed in the message and decide
upon the appropriate translation strategy.
In order to adequately express the message, there are a number of implicit points
that have to be made explicit []; this strategy makes the frames available to the SC
reader and equally accessible to the TC reader (Katan 2004:175).
In other words, the strategy of explicitation will enable the TC readers to access
the same frame as easily and naturally as the SC readers. As cultural interpreter and
mediator, the translator needs to account for information that is implicit in the context of
culture, which can be perceived at a number of different levels, from environment (i.e.
institutions) to beliefs and values (cultural orientation) and identity (ibid.)
At the lowest level (environment), as Hatim and Mason explain (1990:94), it is
already common practice to add or delete according to the accessibility of the frame.
The cultural gaps have to be filled in by adding information. On the contrary,
what is explicit in the ST may create unexpected and undesired associations when
translated into the target context of culture. In such situations, mediation is achieved
through omission or deletion.
4.2.4. Deletion
Deletion is sometimes a very useful solution in technical translations which focus
on transferring the what, i.e. the context from one language to another.

71

As far as the recurrence of lexical items is concerned, the translators decision

depends on many factors. Firstly, he has to be aware of them. Secondly, the translator
has to consider whether the recurrence opens important value frames (individual or
cultural), or whether the recurrence is due to a cultures orientation to such rhetorical
features as repetition. Simple behavioural rules regarding when and where it is
appropriate to delete cannot be given (Katan 2004:185). In J. Dodds (1994) opinion,
repetitions should be rigorously maintained in translation.
P. Newmark (1993:69) is in favour of deletion when the language may be taken as
offensive (e.g. in advertisements). The decision for deletion is often made by publishers
in order to safeguard themselves from any adverse publicity or possible legal action
(Katan 2004:187). Sometimes deletion can be a publishers wise move to help sell a text
(e.g. Umberto Ecos Il nome della rosa was consciously abridged for the American
market; it consisted in reducing the Latin content by about 10 per cent so as not to scare
off the less erudite reader).
4.2.5. Distortion
Distortion is a way of directing the addressee to what the speaker or writer
considers important. Distortion does not give us an objective picture of reality but
functions like a zoom lens allowing the reader to focus on certain aspects, while leaving
other aspects in the background (Katan 2004:188).
The differences between languages at the lexico-grammatical level in showing
what is thematic, what is in focus and what is emphasized may bring about distortion of
the message. This is a surface level distortion also called prominence. Another cause of
distortion of the message may be a faithful, literal translation. Explicitation, i.e. making
explicit what is implicit in the ST, is also a cause of distortion.
Foregrounding is also a frequent distortion of the message, i.e. bringing into the
foreground frames that were in the ST background. Sometimes, it is a conscious way of
increasing the contextual effects in the TT.
The rendering of the message in the TLC is closely related to the norms of the
respective TLC. According to G. Garzones (2003:74) definition of deviation from the
norms of the base language, for each language and culture there should be a norm,
coinciding with the standard communicative behaviour of the native speaker.

72

Deviousness can occur in any translation. It may occur, like any other conscious
manipulation of the text, in faithful translations.
Manipulation, as part and partial of the translating process (ibid), has been
referred to by some translation theorists since the 70s: A. Popovi (1970), J. Holmes
(1973), S.,Blum-Kulka (1986), M.Snell Hornlsy (1988), S. Bassnett (1991), R. Bell
(1991), A. Lefevere (1992), E. Gentzler (2001), S. Sarevi (2001). A. Popovi (1970)
adapted the term shifts in translation to account for the losses, gains and changes
inherent to the translation process.
On the other hand, Blum-Kulka (1986) dealt with shifts of cohesion and
coherence in translation used to observe the norms and constraints of the TL and adjust to
the TC values. M. Snell Hornby (1988:23) agrees to admitted manipulation but not to
intended equivalence. S. Bassnett (1991:30) argues that sameness cannot exist between
two languages, and agrees to the existence of losses and gains in translation, her
opinions being shared by R. Bell (1991) who considers equivalence to be a chimera.
S. Sarevi (2001:49, quoted in Katan 2004), referring to legal translations, argues
that the goal of the translators should not be fidelity to the ST but fidelity to the single
instrument [of law] and to ones own language. In addition, with the language of
negotiations, the verbs facilitate (to make easier, assist the progress of), and mediate (to
resolve differences by mediation, to be in a middle or intermediate position) are preferred
to the verb manipulate.
Deviation is closely related to the target cultural context: [] and the extent to
which deviation is perceived will vary according to the cultural context in which the TT
is to be embedded. Sometimes there are political or social reasons for the apparent
freedom of the translation as compared to the original (Holman and Boase-Beier
op.cit:13).
Deviations are also called deviances (Neustupny 1985). According to Neustupnys
model referring to the language of negotiations, in oral interpreting, there are five types
of deviances; 1) propositional deviance (the inability to formulate or comprehend a
proposition); 2) presentational deviance (the inability to communicate about the
speakers attitude, intention or personality); 3) performance deviance (the inability of
speakers or hearers to perform a message according to norms specific to TL situations);

73

4) correction deviance (the inability to correct ones mistakes and misunderstandings); 5)

discord deviance (the inability to match a foreign feature of the situation with a native
means of communicating it or vice-versa) (Neustupny 1985, quoted in Garzone 2003:75).
4.2.6. The translation strategies suggested by Cay Dollerup (2006):

Direct transfer
Cultural adaptation
Calque translation
Hyperonymy and hyponymy
Explicitation
Additions
Non-realization / omissions
Compensation

Direct transfer consists in using the same word or expression in the TT, the
result being a literal translation.
Cultural adaptation will lead to a free (or creative) translation. It is TLCoriented and consists in using a word/expression specific to the TLC.
Calque translation is used for compounds or phrases which are rendered
element for element in the TT (most calques derive from E and Am originals).
Hypernymy and hyponymy consist in using either the general or the specific
word:
- hyperonym - the general word used for the specific one (e.g. plant for
flower/lily);
- hyponym - the specific word for the general one (e.g. lily for flower)
Hyperonymy is frequent, whereas hyponymy is rare.
Explicitation consists in using an explanatory tag for the TRs and entails
text internal expansions in various degrees. It is the most frequent
translation strategy.

74

 Additions consist in using: - footnotes

- endnotes
- glossaries
- translatorprefaces/postscripts
Being text external: they are not part of the text and include commentaries of
specific features. They are primarily literal, being guided by the source text and culture
(Dollerup 2006: 152).
Prefaces are free - created by the translator as part of his/her role of a mediator
between the two LCs. They are meant only for the TRs / target audience.
Non-realization / omissions seem to be illogical since a text cannot omit
anything (Dollerup 2006: 152).
Non-realization situations are those situations in which the translator assumes the
original word, phrase, sentence or passage will be incomprehensible to the TRs, and will
require too long an explanation. Words and passages may be skipped by accident or
deliberately (id., ibid., emphasis added).
Compensation consists in inserting something similar/approximate at
another place in the TT, which is related to the cultural dimension of the
context. It is used for words/expressions that cannot be rendered in the
TLC. Compensation is also closely related to equivalence: it is, to a certain
extent, literal (like non-realization, it is a free strategy).
4.2.7. The translation strategies suggested by Mona Baker:

75

Translation by a more general word (superordinate) one of the

commonest translation strategies in nonequivalence situations, with
propositional meaning
Translation by a more neutral / less expressive word
Translation by cultural substitution
Translation using a loan word or a loan word plus explanation
Translation by a paraphrase using a related word
Translation by a paraphrase using unrelated words
Translation by omission
Translation by illustration

Translation by a more general word (superordinate) one of the

commonest translation strategies in nonequivalence situations, with propositional
meaning:
e.g. The cream is easy to apply.
This shampoo is easy to put on the hair.
Wash the hair with this shampoo.
This is a dry area.
Translation by a more neutral/less expressive word:
e.g. mumble (a mormi, ndruga, bolborosi)
home / house + synonyms and the Romanian equivalents
- modifiers: sweet home, big house
Translation by cultural substitution consists in replacing a culture-specific
word /expression with a TL word that does not have the same propositional meaning. It
will have the same impact on the TRs since they will be able to identify something
familiar.
On an individual level, the translators decision to use this strategy will largely
depend on:
a) how much licence is given to him/her by those who commission the translation
b) the purpose of the translation. (Baker 1992: 31)

76

On a more general level, the decision will also reflect, to some extent, the norms
of translation prevailing in a given community. Linguistic communities vary in the extent
to which they tolerate strategies that involve significant departure from the propositional
meaning of the text. (id., ibid., emphasis added)
e.g. cream tea has no equiv. in other cultures (an afternoon meal; tea and scones
with jam and clotted cream; it can also include sandwiches and cakes; a very approximate
equiv.: the Italian pastry only a type of food).
bitch! It. porca (literally, the female of swine for women: unchastity
(expressive meaning)
conservatory green house (Morning coffee is served in the conservatory
(emphasis on the evoked meaning, not on the propositional one).
The translator uses the loan word on its own, without an explanation, for the
educated TR who knows the E cream-tea custom.
Equivalents in a back translation (Baker 1992):
- English style tea saloon (from a French text)
- cream cakes and tea (from a Japanese text)
Such questions as the following may arise: Are they really equivalents? Do they
have the same meaning?
Translation using a loan word or a loan word plus explanation is possible
with culture specific words, modern concepts and buzz words. The fact should be
mentioned that if the loan word is repeated, it is used on its own: e.g. cream tea

Translation by a paraphrase using a related word is performed when a very

frequent word in the SL is lexicalized in a different form in the TL:
e.g. related to - have a kinship relation
terraced gardens - gardens created in a terrace?

Translation by paraphrase using unrelated words when the SL word expresses a

concept which is not lexicalized at all in the TL. It consists in modifying a superordinate
and in unpacking the meaning of the SL word:
e.g. have a totally integrated operation carry out all steps of production
(Baker 1992: 39)
interact causally influence each other mutually

77

areas most accessible to where human beings enter most easily

(Baker 1992: 40)
The main advantage of the paraphrase strategy is that it achieves a high level of
precision in specifying propositional meaning. One of its disadvantages is that a
paraphrase does not have the status of a lexical item and therefore cannot convey
expressive, evoked, or any kind of associative meaning. Expressive and evoked meanings
are associated only with stable lexical items which have a history of recurrence in
specific contexts. A second disadvantage is that it is cumbersome and awkward to use
because it involves feeling a one-item slot with an explanation consisting of several
items. (Baker 1992: 40, emphasis added)
Translation by omission is recommended: a) when the meaning conveyed by a
word or expression is not very important and distracts the reader with very long
explanations; b) when it does not affect fluency and readability. Mention should
be made that this strategy will bring about some loss of meaning.
Translation by illustration is preferred when a SL word referring to a physical
entity which can be illustrated does not have an equivalent in the TL.
4.2.8. Strategies used in translating idioms (Baker 1992):

Using an idiom of similar meaning and form

Using an idiom similar in meaning but with a different form
Translation by paraphrase
Translation by omission
Translation by compensation

Using an idiom of similar meaning and form consists in using a TL

idiom which conveys roughly the same meaning as the SL idiom and including lexical
equivalent items. Such a match is rarely possible:
e.g. to poke ones nose into other peoples business
force the hand of (the president)

78

Using an idiom similar in meaning but with a different form has a high
frequency in the language:
e.g. one good turn deserves another
(Such a species) is very much at home in this area.
feel the force of ones fist
to make things hot for smb
Translation by paraphrase is the most common strategy. It is used
when a match cannot be found in the TL or when it seems inappropriate to use
idiomatic language in the TT because of the differences in stylistic preferences of the
SL and TL (Baker 1992: 74, emphasis added):
e.g. to push a (another) pony past the post favour another candidate (in a
back translation from French); help another competitor to reach the end of a race (in a
back translation from Arabic)
to get a handle on to master
Translation by omission is referred to by Baker (1992: 77) to be used
when an idiom
a) has no close match in the TL
b) its meaning cannot be paraphrased
c) for stylistic reasons.
Translation by compensation consists in either omitting or playing
down the feature of idiomacity where it occurs in the text and making up for it
somewhere else in the TT.
Translating idioms depends on:
the existence of an idiom with a similar meaning the TL;
the significance of the specific lexical items making up the idiom;
the appropriateness or inappropriateness of using idiomatic language in a given
register in the TL;
the context in which a given idiom is translated.
The main result will be that using the typical phraseology of the TL its natural
collocations, its own fixed and semi-fixed expressions, the right level of idiomacity, and
so on will greatly enhance the readability of your translations. Getting this level right

79

means that your TT will feel less foreign and, other factors being equal, may even pass
for an original (Baker 1992: 78, emphasis added).
4.3. The strategy of explicitation
4.3.1. Definition of explicitation
Explicitation is defined in terms of both translation process and translation product.
In terms of process, it is a translation technique involving a shift from the ST in structure
or meaning and a technique of resolving ambiguity, improving and increasing
cohesiveness of the ST and of adding linguistic and extra-linguistic information (Ppai
2004: 145). In terms of product, explicitation is a text feature contributing to a higher
level of explicitness in comparison with non-translated texts (id., ibid.).
The term explicitation was first used by Vinay and Darbelnet (1958, 1995) as a
translation technique involving the insertion in the TL of information which is only
implicit in the SL, but retrievable from the context. The amplification of the original
semantic elements is most frequent. Additions are used to render them explicit in the TT.
Blum-Kulka (1986: 19) first considered explicitation to be a feature of translation. It is
used due to the constraints imposed by the translating process, on the one hand, and to the
interpretation performed by the translator on the ST, on the other. Like all the other
strategies, it may exert a stronger effect than the stylistic preferences specific to the two
languages in contact.
The explicitation hypothesis (EH) was put forward by Blum-Kulka (1986: 21). This
hypothesis points out the idea that the rise in the level of explicitness in the TT may be a
universal strategy, used in any kind of language mediation, translation included. This
hypothesis postulates an observed cohesive explicitness from SL to TL texts regardless
of the increase traceable to differences between the two linguistic and textual systems
involved (id., ibid.).It may apply to both written and oral translation. The essential idea is
that the translator/interpreter renders implicit forms more explicitly (Shlesinger 1995:
210).
Most theorists (Blum-Kulka 1986, Klaudy 1996, Baker 1995, 1996, Shlesinger
1995, vers 1998, Olohan and Baker 2000) consider that explicitation is used to make
shifts in the cohesive ties, render ambiguous TT items by disambiguated TT items. Thus,

80

the TT will be easy to understand, disambiguated, better structured and better organized.
Consequently, it will be more readable.
vers enriches the linguistic notion of explicitation as it has been proposed by
Blum-Kulka on the basis of limited ST and TT analyses. She considered a variety of
factors which can make explicitation necessary: 1) the shifts caused by the differences
between ST and TT un terms of grammatical rules; 2) the need for a higher level of
explicitness at the syntactic level; 3) collocability; 4) the shifts resulting from culturebound translation norms; 5) the shifts required by the constraints of the mediating process
of translation (comparative analysis, e.g. omission or insertion of some items, preference
for the use of certain items, preference for certain forms etc.).
In analysing a translated text, i.e. studying translation as a product, entirely in the
TL environment, suggestions can only be brought forward regarding the possible causes
that may have determined the choice of certain patterns. Considering the structural
differences between English and Romanian, the translation process involves explicitation
strategies.
In the translating process, the aims of the translated text, the context in which it was
produced, and the readership it addresses are to be considered first. Thus, a translated text
is normally constrained by a fully developed and articulated text in another language
(Baker 1996: 177).
4.3.2. Nature and forms of explicitation
Explicitation has been considered a professional strategy or a by-product of
language mediation (Blum-Kulka 1986, Shlesinger 1995, Baker 1996, Olohan and Baker
2000), on the one hand, and in terms of sentence length (Baker 1996), cohesive ties
(Blum-Kulka 1986, Baker 1996, Shlesinger 1995, Olohan and Baker 2000), logical ties
(Shlesinger 1995, Baker 1996), better readability (Toury 1995), punctuation and theme
relation, on the other. It has also been discussed in terms of topic (Sguinot 1988) and
optional that (Olohan and Baker 2000).
Among the text festures, cohesive devices are most frequently investigated. They offer
insights into the nature of explicitation. The number of cohesive links is considered to be

81

much higher with technical and scientific texts. As a result, the degree of explicitness in
such texts is higher than that of literary texts.
4.3.3. Explicitation strategies
Klaudy (1996, 1998) identifies four categories of explicitation strategies: 1)
obligatory explicitations, required by the structural differences between languages; 2)
optional explicitations, required by the differences in text-building strategies and stylistic
preferences; 3) pragmatic explicitations, required by the cultural differences between ST
and TT; 4) translation-inherent explicitations which are necessary in the translating
process.
Among the explicitation strategies, additions and specifications lead to increased
cohesion. Additions are referred to as the insertion in the translation of grammatical or
lexical items not present in the ST, which renders the TT more explicit. Specifications are
the expansion or substitution in the translation of grammatical and lexical items present in
the ST, which results in greater explicitness.
There are shifts from substitution to lexical repetition. The translator may not rely on the
anaphoric reference of substitution although it is a source of cohesion with what has
gone before (Halliday and Hasan 1976: 90). For stylistic effect, (s)he may replace it by a
stronger cohesive tie, or may make use of a combination of the two (see Appendix).
Lexical repetition is thought to be one of the translation universals (Baker ed. 1998:
288). Translators use lexical repetitions to establish or strengthen cohesion in ST.
However, there are situations when lexical repetition may lead to redundancy (BlumKulka). Repetition may also be avoided in order to create a clear TT sentence. All thus us
un accordance with the fact that cohesion is part of the system of the language [] and
is built into the language itself (Halliday and Hasan 1976: 5).
Therefore, shifts occur in each type of cohesive devices in the ST. They are replaced
by different cohesive ties in the English translated text (ETT). Besides, the shifts in
punctuation marks can be part of a subconscious strategy to make things easier, simpler,
by making them more clear-cut (Baker 1996: 182). In other words, it is possible that the
translators ultimate aim is to make things clear-cut and more cohesive.

82

Consequently, a simpler and easier-to-read text is the consequence of this strategy

(Ppai 2004: 151). Furthermore, additional linguistic and extralinguistic information is
given by the translator to make comprehension easier. Ambiguous ST items are rendered
by disambiguated TT items. Thus, the ST is modified by the translator so as to
disambiguate and me the TT easy to understand, better structured and more readable,
taking into consideration the TL norms.
4.3.4. Methods
The corpus selected for our investigation consists of two sub-corpora published in
different epochs: M. Sadoveanus novel Baltagul, a masterpiece of the Romanian
literature and an exceptional poem of nature and of mans soul, written in 1933, and its
translation, The Hatchet, produced by a professional translator, Eugenia Farca, in 1983.
Therefore, there were two sub-corpora: 1) the sub-corpora of the original Romanian novel
(ORC), and 2) the sub-corpora of its translation into English (TEC), produced by an
established publishing house.
One of the criteria for selecting this novel was the existence of an English
translation of another novel written by M. Sadoveanu, i.e. Creanga de aur The Golden
Bough, also produced by the same professional translator, in 1981. Another criterion was
the comparison of the two translated novels that represented two English comparable
corpora (ECC). As a matter of fact, the last step of our analysis focused on the degree of
explicitness as manifested in the textual features of the two translated novels.
In selecting the texts for investigation, the overall intention and the first theoretical
consideration was to illustrate more explicitation strategies. Space will allow for 9 texts
only consisting of 32 sentences yielding over 700 running words.

4.3.5. Discussion
In the first stage of our analysis, the explicitation strategies were detected, i.e. the
types of shifts made by the translator not only as regards the shifts in cohesion but also
the additions made, consisting in additional linguistic and extralinguistic information.

83

They were analysed on a text-to-text basis, i.e. the analysis was made on the two parallel
sub-corpora. The basic idea was to find the modifications of the ST.
Explicitation strategies detected in the two parallel corpora (REC)
1.

Levels
Shifts
Logical 1. punctuation (TT2, 3, 4, 6, 7)

Argument/ Features
- TL style

reasons

a) addition of punctuation marks

- conscious strategy

2. lexico-

b) modification of punctuation marks

2. collocability (TT1, 5, 6, 8, 9)

- specific Sl vs TL structures

grammatical

3. lexical repetitions (TT4, 6)

4.

non-symmetrical

grammatical

structures (TT1, 4, 5, 6, 7)
3. syntactic

5. gap filling (filling elliptical structures)

6. additions of conjunctions (a higher

- structural non-equivalence

frequency of connectives) (TT3, 4, 6, 7, 9)

between SL and TL

7.

conversion

of

subordinate

into

syntactic

differences

coordinate clauses and viceversa (TT5, 6, 7)

between SL and TL

8. longer sentences (TT4, 5, 6, 7, 8)

- making explicit in the TT

9. explanatory syntagms (TT5, 7, 8, 9)

what was implicit in the ST

4. textual

10. shifts in the type of cohesion markers

- conscious strategies
- adjustment to the

5. extralinguistic

to achieve greater transparency (TT3, 6, 7)

conventions

11. improved topic-comment links (TT6)

- matching the TL genre/style

12. lexical explanation (TT1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8)

dimensions

13. amplifications/ situational information

- conscious strategies

TL

(TT3)
14. additions of information to explain the
culture-specific elements (TT8)

Additions, repetitions and disambiguation strategies used for a higher level of

explicitness and readability of the TT:
1. insertion of words which are absent in the St expansion of the TT (TT2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8);
2. insertion of explanations (TT1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8);
3. expansions of condensed passages (TT3);
4. addition of modifiers and qualifiers to achieve the required effect (TT6);
84

5. addition of conjunctions for greater transparency (TT4, 6, 7, 9);

6. use of interjections: a) to express the characters thoughts; b) for emphasis (TT3);
7. addition of background information in the TT to fill in a cultural gap (TT3, 8);
8. repetition of previous details for the purpose of clarity (TT4);
9. repetition or the use of a synonym (TT4);
10. precise renderings of implicit vague data (TT3, 7)
11. more accurate descriptions (TT2, 3, 6, 7, 8);
12. disambiguation of pronouns with precise forms of identification (TT7).
In the second stage, explicitness was analysed as manifested in the TTs. In the third
stage, explicitness of these TTs was analysed on the whole of the two comparable
corpora, i.e. The Hatchet and The Golden Bough. Patterns were identified which are
specific to English irrespective of the SL, as well as patterns specific to Romanian which
have no English symmetrical equivalent and are rendered by a higher number or words.
The types of additions were analysed: 1) additions and modifications of punctuation
marks (TT2,3,4,6,7); 2) additions of conjugations (TT3,4,6,7,9); 3) additions of adverbs (TT5); 4)
additions of interjections (TT3,4); 5) additions of relative pronouns (TT2,5); 6) additions of
attributive clauses, either marked (TT2) or unmarked (TT4); 7) additions of information to
explain the culture-specific elements (TT8).
The analysis of strategies at the lexico-grammatical level is based on Halliday and
Hasans (1976) typology of cohesive devices. The type of grammatical parallel structures
was established in analysing the two sub-corpora.

4.3.6. Findings
The findings suggested that the shifts in cohesive ties consisted in replacing them
by different (in some situations very different) cohesive ties in the English TTs on the
same level.
The shifts also included elliptical structures, substitutions and lexical repetitions
(TT4), or avoidance of lexical repetition (TT4) which might lead to redundancy.
Expansions were very frequent in all texts, especially in TT1,2,5,6,7,8.

85

Such shifts may be triggered by a number of factors such as the translators

conscious or unconscious explicitation strategy, style, genre conventions, translation
norms etc.
To sum up, the shifts in the cohesive ties, the additions and the expansions used by
the translator made the sentence in the ETTs much longer than those in the ROTs. The
number of running words is much higher in the ETTs 2,6,7, almost double in the ETTs 3,4,8.
The addition of extralinguistic information to explain the Romanian culture-specific
elements was very useful, making the text much easier to understand. The consequence
was a better structured and more readable text.
Therefore, the relationship between explicitness and readability was relevant for the
analysis.
To conclude, the explicitation strategies lead to a higher level of explicitness in the
ETT. This also means that explicitation is a universal feature of translated texts.

Appendix: The texts selected to illustrate the explicitation strategies

Baltagul
de Mihail Sadoveanu
ST1: ntorcea un zmbet frumos ca de fat i
abia ncepea s-i nfiereze mustcioara []
ST2: Afar se vedea pdurea uor nins, subt un
cer albastru i nsorit de moin []
ST3: Am gsit stuh nalt i voinic. Am durat
perdele ca pe trei ierni. Am spat bordeie.
Dinspre partea banilor am mpcat pe toat
lumea. Acolo nc nu-i iarn i oile mai gsesc
verdea n bahn.
Disnpre stpnii locului unii fceau gur, da
Alexa baciul a tiut ce s le rspund, cci el e
om purtat i se gsete a cincizeciicincea oar
la Jijia i la Prut.
ST4: Eu le-am scris n condic la mine. Iar mo
Alexa rdea. Zice c de cnd e el n-a vzut oi
scrise n condic.
Fata ndrzni de pe scunaul ei.

The Hatchet
translated by Eugenia Farca
TT1: His smile was as charming as a young
girls and his moustache was just beginning to
show. []
(2.2 2.4. 4.12 ; 2)
TT2: Outside, the wood could be seen, covered
with a slight sprinkling of snow that was
thawing in the sun under a blue sky. []
(1.1b 4.12; 1, 2, 11)
TT3: I found tall, strong sedge and the shelters I
made are likely to last for three winters. And I
dug mud-huts, I satisfied everybody, giving each
his due. Winter has not come there as yet and the
sheep still find something to graze on in the
swamps.
Some of the meadow owners made difficulties
but the shepherd Alexa answered them fittingly,
for hes a knowing man and has seen much
[] why this is the fifty-fifth time he has seen to
the Jijia and the Pruth.
(1.1a, 1.1b, 4.12 4.13; 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11)
TT4: I wrote down their number in my book. Old
Alexa laughed, for he said he had never in all
his living days seen sheep entered in a book.
The girl still seated on her stool made bold to
ask:

86

- Ce fel de oameni sunt pe acolo?

- Oameni ca toi oamenii, rse flcul.
- Hori sunt?
- Sunt. -apoi m-am suit n tren -am mers, -am
mers, pn la Piatra. []
ST5: Sttea ntre ei o ntrebare crncen.
Vitoria ls s-i treac valul care o nbuea i
zise ncet []
ST6: N-ar mai fi nevoie, cum m sftuiete ea, s
cerce vrji i semne asupra mogldeelor de
cear, s le mpung ochii i inima ca s
rspund mpunstura n ochii i inima aceleia.
Visul meu e semn mai greu. []
- Cum nu tii, biete, aa s nu te tie
nacazurile i bolile.
Griesc i eu ca i cum a fi singur. mi
nchipuiesc c tiu i alii. Cci i ziua i noaptea
eu m gndesc la alta.

ST7: Asta era o mare mhnire. Poate se atepta

la dnsa. Totui va gsi un mijloc ca mintea ei s
ajute i braul lui s lucreze. Fiina ei ncepea s
se concentreze asupra acestei umbre, de unde
trebuia s ias lumin. []

ST8: Timpul sttu. l nsemna totui cu vinerile

negre n care se purta de colo-colo, fr hran,
fr cuvnt, cu broboada cernit peste gur. []
Urrile de Anul Nou, capra i cluul i toat
zvoana i veselia cotlonului aceluia din munte le
respinsese de ctr sine.
ST9: [] stpniri se schimbaser, limbile se
prefcuser, dar rnduielile omului i ale
stihiilor struiser; aa nct se cuvenea ca i
copiii s aib partea lor.

And the men, what kind are they in those

parts?
Oh, the usual kind, the young fellow
answered with a laugh.
And do they have dances?
Why, yes. And then I went on a train and
travelled all the way to Piatra []
(1.1b 2.3 2.4 3.6 3.8; 2, 5, 9)
TT5: A question that burned in their hearts
stood between them
When she had overcome her feelings, Vitoria
said slowly []
(2.2 3.8 3.9 4.12 2.4 3.7 ; 1,2)
TT6: Theres no need to try charms and to work
on waxen figures as she advises; to pierce eyes
and heart, that the stabs might be felt in that
womans eyes and heart, My dream is a weightier
sign. []
(2.2 2.3 2.4)
Bless your innocent heart, my boy, and may
you always be as innocent and free of troubles
and disease.
I speak as if to myself, and imagine that
everybody knows what I know, for I think of
nothing else day and night.
(2.4 3.6 3.7 4.10 4.11 1, 4, 11 1.1b
3.6 3.8 5)
TT7: This was a great sorrow, although she had
never really hoped for assistance from the
quarter. Yet, she should find a way. Her mind
would plan and the boys arm would carry out
that plan. Her schemes were still confused but
she would concentrate upon them and light
would surely break.
(1.1.b 2.4 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.10 4.12
1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 12)
TT8: Time seemed motionless, And yet she had
landmarks on those Fridays when she fasted,
went without food and drink and never uttered a
word, walking aimslessly, a black kerchief
drawn over her mouth. []
The New Years greetings, the symbolic goat and
horse and all the merry-making in that out-ofthe-way mountain settlement she rejected.
(2.2 3.8 3.9 5.12 5.14 1, 2, 7, 11)
TT9: [] the masters were now different and
the language had changed, the men, customs
and elements were still the same; it was
therefore fitting that the children should enjoy
the festivity.
(2.2 3.6 3.9 5)

the brackets include the types of shifts, additions etc.

Conclusions.
A point of view shared by most translation theorists is that the translating process
is a transformation one; it consists in rendering the spirit, the meaning and the style of

87

the original in the TL, and in adapting, it to a new linguistic and cultural matrix. That
means finding the best equivalents at the grammatical, lexical, semantic and stylistic
levels, at the time observing the TLC norms. This implies adjustment to the target
readers expectations. A translation will be perceived as wrong by a TR if it does not fit
the image that the reader prefers to associate with the original text (Holman and Boase
Beier 1991:5). Free adaptation consists in achieving equivalence by a transformation
process which preserves the spirit of the original, on the one hand, but alters the level
of the content, and semantic relations between words, as well as the formal level
(structure, organization), on the other.

CHAPTER 5

IDENTITY THROUGH TRANSLATION

IN

88

LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY

5.1. Identity and (un)translatability

5.1.1. Identity and equivalence

Identity was questioned in the 1980s by Frawley (1984) starting from the notion of equivalence. He considered
the identity between the source text (ST) and the translated/target text (TT) whether the identity is construed as
empirical (absolute synonymy based on reference), [] or as linguistic (universals of language). [] There is
information only in difference so that translation is a code in its own right, setting its own standards and structural
presuppositions and entailments, though they are necessarily derivative of the matrix information and target
parameters (Frawley 1984, qtd. in Venuti 2000, p.216, emphasis in the original).
An opinion which is worth mentioning is the poststructuralists one. They consider translation not as transforming
the foreign text, but as being deconstructive, as Derrida (1979, p. 93) puts it. In Derridas opinion both the ST
and the TT are derivative and heterogeneous, consisting of diverse linguistic and cultural materials which
destabilize the work of signification, making meaning plural and divided, exceeding and possibly conflicting with
the intentions of the foreign writer and the translator. Translation is doomed to inadequacy because of irreducible
differences, not just between languages and cultures, but also within them (Derrida 1979, qtd. in Venuti 2000, p.
218, emphasis added).
Poststructuralist theorists reformulate the concept of equivalence not only in linguistic, but also in
cultural, historical, ethical and political terms.
In Bermans (1995) opinion, a good translation takes into consideration the linguistic and cultural
differences of the ST by establishing a correspondence that enriches the target language (TL).
As regards identity across languages, three arguments are now set forth. The first argument is referential, equating
identity with semantic exactness or absolute synonymy. It accounts for equivalence in translation. The second
argument is conceptual and is in favour of identity across languages due to the fact that all humans cognize the
world they live in almost the same way. The third argument is related to the universals of language that make
identity possible, that is there are characteristics shared by all languages.
Nevertheless, the identity entailed by the universals of language is a matter of linguistic competence, whereas
translation is a matter of linguistic performance. The basic difference is that universals are absolute, whereas

89

translation is uncertain because of the structural mismatches between the two languages (codes). Therefore,
identity seems to be antithetical to the notion of translation. Consequently, translation is not only the rendering of
the semantic essence in another language. For one thing, that semantic essence is only a small bit of the total
information available in the matrix code; any interlingual translation that seeks to transfer only semantics has lost
before it has begun. For another thing, placing that semantic information under the constraints of another semiotic
code (literally double-coding it) inevitably binds it to that new code and hence the interlingual translation, long
steeped in the preservation of something (meaning, content, etc.), actually gains from the recoding since there is
information only in difference, and the differential coding, the recoding, is what allows the interlingual translation
to produce any information at all (Venuti 2000, p. 257).
According to Hall (1996, qtd. in Irimia 2003, p. 74), identities are constructed within, not outside the discourse,
therefore we need to understand them as produced in specific historical and institutional sites within specific
discursive formations and practices by specific enunciative strategies.
Languages differ essentially in what they must convey, and not in what they may convey (Venuti 2000,
p. 114, Hatim and Munday 2006, p. 126). Moreover, the translator has to render exactly not only what is said, but
also how it is said, i.e. both the content and the style have to be considered. According to Gutt (1991, 2000), this
can be made possible with various degrees of approximation. The main idea is that the essential relationship
between the ST and the TT is based on the resemblance of their intended interpretations. In Jakobsons
(1959/2000, qtd. in Venuti, 2000, p. 113) opinion, on the level of interlingual translation, there is ordinarily no
full equivalence between code-units, while messages may serve as adequate interpretations of alien code-units or
messages.
The relativity of the concept of equivalence was pointed out by Koller (1995). In his opinion, equivalence is a
relative concept in several respects: it is determined, on the one hand, by the historical-cultural conditions under
which texts are produced and received in the target culture, and on the other, by a range of sometimes
contradictory and scarcely reconcilable linguistic-textual and extralinguistic factors and conditions (Koller
1995:191). Such factors include: 1) the structural properties, possibilities and constraints of the SL, on the one
hand, and of the TL, on the other; 2) the linguistic and stylistic properties of the ST, on the one hand, and of the
TT, on the other, observing the norms of the SL and of the TL context, respectively; 3) the different realities and
the ways of representing them in the TL; 4) comprehensibility of the TT the TRs perception of the translation
product; 5 intelligibility, fluency and readability of the TT; 6) the translators understanding of the ST; 7) the
translators competence and creativity; 8) the purpose of the translation.
Considering all these factors, it is obvious that translation equivalence is conditioned by a double-linkage: the link
with the ST, on the one hand, and the link with the communicative conditions of the TRs, on the other.
Equivalence is also conditioned by the degree of observing the requirements of the relational frameworks. Thus, it
is proved by the correspondence between the ST translational units and the TL equivalents. In other words, both

90

the similarities and the differences between the units in the SL and their TL equivalents result from the degree to
which the values assigned to the relational frameworks are preserved (Koller 1995, p. 194, Hatim and Munday
2006, p. 171).
Thus, equivalence as difference (Jakobson 1959/2000) is the problem of language and the main concern
of linguistics.
5.1.2. Comprehensibility and (un)translatability
It is generally accepted that any comparison of two languages implies an examination of their mutual
translatability. In this respect, bilingual dictionaries, as well as comparative-contrastive grammars are needed
which should define what unifies and what differentiates the two languages.
Equivalence relations are considered by Beaugrande (1978, p. 88) in terms of the translation being a
valid representative of the original in the communicative act in question. Or, as Koller puts it, between the
resultant text in L2 (the TL text) and the ST in L1 (the SL text) there exists a relationship which can be designated
as a translational3, or equivalence, relation (Koller 1995, p. 196, our emphasis).
In all the processes of maintaining and transmission of identity, language is the main vector of
communication because studies of language use reveal how all forms of culture emerge from everyday linguistic
interactions that are shaped by socio-cultural formations (see Appendix). On the one hand, linguistic features can
be power levers in themselves, as Fairclough (1995, p.2) puts it. In addition, a discursive event is shaped by
language feeds into it, shapes and restructures it (Ibid, p. 10), and so are the discoursal practices specific to the
SL and TL.
On the other hand, it is from aspects of language that the debates on (un)translatability and
comprehensibility start (see Appendix).

The idea that translatability and comprehensibility have to be considered in relative terms has
lately gained ground. The two principles are in conflict, one excluding the other. That is to say, if the
translator insists on full translatability, the TT will be incomprehensible, confusing. On the other hand, if
the translator insists on full comprehensibility, this will mean that the translation is on an equal footing
with the ST, or that the TT may be considered original.
With situations of untranslatability, the translator tries to find an adequate equivalent, or may
replace it with a paraphrase to render its meaning in the TL or may even drop it on condition this does
not affect the meaning of the sentence in the ST. As Eco says, [] if, out of ten or twenty terms, one

translational is opposed to original writing

91

proves absolutely untranslatable, I authorize the translator to drop it: a catalogue is still a catalogue,
even if there are only eighteen terms instead of twenty (Eco 2003, p. 43).
The three important criteria, i.e. efficiency, comprehension of intent and similarity of response
can never be separated from one another and are essential in understanding and evaluating translations
(see Appendix).
The relationship between the ST and the TT is very much influenced by the communicative
requirements of the text receiver and by the purpose of the translation (see Appendix). This relationship
is closely related to translatability and comprehensibility raising questions of equivalence: dynamic and
formal. Formal equivalence is considered a contextually motivated method of translation (i.e. a
procedure purposefully selected in order to preserve a certain linguistic rhetorical effect) (Hatim and
Munday 2006, p. 42, emphasis in the original). The translator has a good reason to make his choice in
favour of formal equivalence which will bring the TRs nearer to the linguistic or cultural preferences
of the ST (ibidem, emphasis added).
Nevertheless, it may often happen that a form is not transparent enough for the TRs to
understand it, hence, the TT comprehensibility is affected. In such cases, the translators intervention is
necessary by adjustments to which explanations are added. In this respect, dynamic equivalence opposes
formal equivalence or structural correspondence, and is related to the contextual values and effects
which a literal translation compromises. Kollers (1995) model of equivalence is variable and flexible in
accounting for relationships between comparable elements in the SL and TL.
Furthermore, textual equivalence is obtained not between the languages themselves at the level
of the linguistic system, but between real texts at the level of text in context.
I agree with Hatim and Munday (2006) that the most concrete set of criteria applied to the
decision-making process in order to make it effective seems to be grounded in text-type. Moreover, the
decision-making is partially subject to system criteria such as grammar, and partially to contextual
factors surrounding the use of language in a given text (ibid, p. 55).
As far as the process of restructuring is concerned, it is much more difficult than the SLT
analysis, because it depends on the structures of the TL, on the one hand, and on the stylistic level at
which it has to be performed, on the other.
Thus, shifts from one of the three principal alternatives, i.e. formal, informal and technical, to
another are the result of misunderstanding the original intent of the message and lead to mistranslation
(see Appendix). In addition to its formal dimension, restructuring also has a functional or dynamic

92

dimension which is related to impact. The impact of the TT is crucial, because a translation is judged to
be adequate only when and if the response of the TRs is satisfactory (ibid, p. 163). Thus, translation is
reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the message of the source
language, first in terms of meaning, and second in terms of style (ibidem, emphasis added).
5.2. Identity, constraints and creativity
Considering the idea that there is no land without constraints, translation seems to be seen as
more heavily constrained than original writing. Both original writing and translation are often
constrained by the need to preserve illusion, though this is not a characteristic of all writing: Brecht,
Joyce, Meredith, Shakespeare and many others have specifically drawn attention to the text itself and
thus to its status as an instrument for creating the illusion of reality (Holman and Boase-Beier 1999, p.
5).
The more complex the translating process and the type of text, the greater the number of
constraints. The constraints are caused, on the one hand, by mismatches at the levels of grammar, lexis,
semantics, pragmatics, discourse, stylistics, culture, and by failure in balancing freedom with fidelity
and the translators knowledge, beliefs and background, on the other. All these constraints determine the
translator to find solutions to overcome them and give rise to his creativity. The word constraint has
negative connotations: compulsion, lack of freedom, lack of permission to express individuality, and
submission to external pressure. However, there is no discipline, balance, measure without restrictions
or constraints, which is the other side of the coin, the positive one, presupposing art, creativity.
There is a close connection between creativity and the constraints which both mould and
engender it. There are also differences consisting in the linguistic, cultural, social and political
constraints generally specific to translation, on the one hand, and in the special type of creativity
specific to re-writing the original in the TLC, on the other, since it is the constraints themselves that give
rise to new creativity. Therefore, constraints are essential in achieving a creative translation.
To put it differently, creative writing would not be possible without formal constraints. Thus, the
relationship between the writers creative achievement and the translators creativity is discussed in
terms of constraints. However, these constraints are different: the writer is subject to constraints
imposed by literary tradition, political views, linguistic characteristics of the speech community, social

93

views, textual constraints, etc., whereas the translator is subject, on the one hand, to the model of the
SLT and to the constraints imposed by the TLC and its environment, on the other.
In addition, the translators hierarchy of aims will constrain and colour the re-created source
language text (ibidem). Furthermore, creativity is not seen merely as a force or flow of energy which
is channelled and formed by constraint, but rather as something whose existence is indissolubly tied to
the existence of formal constraint (ibid, p. 7).
We have to consider all this closely connected with the intelligibility, fluency and readability of
the TT. As regards the criterion of intelligibility, it requires that the TT should be understood by the TRs
in accordance with the intention of the ST. That is to say, from the TRs perspective, the significance of
the information in the ST should be clearly recognizable (criterion of visibility), easy to grasp
functionally and contextually (decodification criterion) and to render it accurately (criterion of
relocatability).
Finally, the fluency and readability of the TT remind us of Nidas naturalness of expression,
who, three decades and a half ago, suggested the concept of dynamic equivalence: a translation of
dynamic equivalence aims at complete naturalness of expression (Nida, 1964, p. 159). This is to
produce in the TRs a similar response (Nida, 1964, p. 163, Venuti 2008, p. 16).
To conclude, the translator has to discover the TRs interests and needs and look for creative
options to satisfy the requirements of both texts, at the same time preserving identity.
Translating identity should observe certain standards which surpass language and national
boundaries, on the one hand, and cultural barriers, on the other (see Appendix Identity and
(un)translatability).

APPENDIX - IDENTITY AND (UN)TRANSLATABILITY

ST surface
structures

(un) translatability

Differences between
SL and TT structures

Language - an identity
indicator (interactional

94

Restructuring
Use of TL specific
structures and linguistic forms
Linguistically
constructed

ST

intentionality
message content
and package

use of discursive
communicative practices)

identity

Translation strategies
Meaning equivalence
Efficiency
Comprehension of intent
Similarity of response
SLC

constraints

The translators linguistic

and cultural competence

Culturally
constructed
identity

background
The translators role of a mediator,
localizer, and culturalizer
Cultural adaptation/
Adjustment domestication

constraints
background

Translation shifts
TLC

communicative
requirements
purpose of the
translation
TRs

expectations
needs
comprehensibility
the end user
the next-user

function and
readership
TT

creativity
intelligibility

fluency
readability

95

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Jakobson, Roman (2000). On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. 1959. pp 113119. Translation Studies Reader. (2nd Edition). L. Venuti. New York: Routledge.
Munday, Jeremy(2009). The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies. Taylor
& Francis e-Library.
Venuti, Lawrence (2000). The Translation Studies Reader. (2nd Edition). New
York: Routledge,

96

 Ricoeur, P. (2006). On Translation. Trans. by Eileen Brennan, London: Routledge.

Alvares, R. and M.C.A. Vidal (1996), Translating: A Political Act, in Alvarez, R. and M.C. A
Vidal (eds.), Translation, Power, Subversion, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Baker, M. (1992), In Other Words, London: Routledge.
Bassnett, S. (1991), Translation Studies, London: Routledge.
Bell, R. (1991), Translation and Translating, London: Longman.
Bennett, M. J. (1993), Towards Ethnorelativism: A Developmental Model of Intercultural
Sensitivity in.M. R. Paige (ed.) Education for the Intercultural Experience, Yarmouth, Maine:
Intercultural Press, pp. 22-73.
Blum-Kulka, Sh. (1986), Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation, in Interlingual and
Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language
Acquisition Studies, S. Blum-Kulka and J. House (eds.) Tbingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 17-35.
Brown, G. and G. Yule (1983), Discourse Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croitoru, E. (1996), Interpretation and Translation, Galati: Editura Porto-Franco.
Croitoru, E. (2006), Explicitation in Translation, in the vol. of the International Conference
Fellowship of Cultural Rings, Bucuresti, Editura Didactic si Pedagogic, R. A., pp. 146-155.
Croitoru, E. and A. M. Dumitrascu (2006), Modulation A Translation Strategy, in vol.
Translation Studies: Retrospective and Prospective Views, Galati, Editura Fundatiei Universitare
Dunrea de Jos, pp. 24-31.
Croitoru, E. and A. M. Dumitrascu (forthcoming), The Meta-Model in Translation.
Dodds, J. (1994), Aspects of Literary Text Analysis and Translation Criticism, Udine: Campanotto
Editore.
Garzone, G. (2003), Domain Specific English and Language Mediation in Professional and
Institutional Settings, Milano: Arcipelago Edizioni.
Gentzeler, E. (2001), Contemporary Translation Theories, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Halliday, M.A.K. (2001), Towards a theory of good translation, in A. Rothkegel and J. Laffling,
pp. 13-19.
Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations. Software of the mind, London: McGraw-Hill.
Holman, M. and J. Boase-Beier (1999), Introduction. Writing, Rewriting and Translation Through
Constraint to Creativity, in J. Boase-Beier and M. Holman (eds.), The Practices of Literary
Translation Constraints and Creativity, U.K: St. Jerome Publishing, pp. 1-19.
Holmes, J. (1988), Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies,
Approaches to Translation Studies 7, Amsterdam: Rodopi.
House, J. (2001), How do we know when a translation is good ? in A. Rothkegel and J. Laffling
(eds.), Text, Translation and Computational Processing, 3, Exploring Translation and Multilingual
Text Production: Beyond Content, Berlin. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 127-161.
Katan, D. and F. Straniero Sergio (2001a), Look Whos Talking: The Ethics of Entertainment in
Talk Show Interpreting, in The Translator: The Return to Ethics, a Pym (ed.), Special Issue,
2001:2, pp. 213-238.
Katan, D. (2001b), When Difference is not dangerous: Modelling Intercultural Competence for
Business, in Textus XIV, G. Cortese and D. Hymes (eds.), 2, pp. 287-306.
Katan, D. (2004), Translating Cultures. An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and
Mediators, Manchester, U.K. and Northampton MA: St. Jerome Publishing.
Mathiessen, M. I. M. (2001), The environments of translation, in A. Rothkegel and J. Laffling
(eds.), Text, Translation, Computational Processing, 3. Exploring Translation and Multilingual
Text Production: Beyond Content, Berlin. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 41-127.
Neubert, A. and G.M. Shreve (1992), Translation as Text, Kent, Ohio: The Kent State University
Press.
Neustupny, J.V. (1985), Problems in Australian- Japanese Contact Situations, in J.B. Pride (ed.)
Cross-Cultural Encounters: Communication and Miss-Communication, Melbourne River Seine,
pp. 44-64.
Nida, Eugene, A. (1976), A Framework for the Analysis and Evaluation of Theories of
Translation, in Translation: Applications and Research, R. Brislin (ed.), New York: Gardner
Press, pp. 47-92.
Newmark, P. (1981), Approaches to Translation, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Newmark, P. (1988), A Textbook of Translation, Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.

97

Newmark, P. (1993), Paragraphs on Translation, Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Nida, Eugene, A. (2001), Contexts in Translating, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson, (1995), Relevance, Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed., Oxford:
Blackwell.
Stolze, R. (1992), Hermeneutiches bersetzen, Tbingen: Narr.
Toury, G. (1995), Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Venuti, L. (1995), The Translators Invisibility. A History of Translation, London: Routledge.
Vermeer, H. J. (1983), Aufstze zur Translationsthoerie, Heidelberg.

Baker, Mona (1992) In Other Words: a Coursebook on Translation, London:

Routledge.
Nida, Eugene A. (1964) Towards a Science of Translating, Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Nida and Taber (1982) The theory and practice of translation, Leiden: Brill
Leonardi, Vanessa (2000) Equivalence in Translation: Between Myth and Reality,
Translation Journal,
(http://translationjournal.net/journal/14equiv.htm)
Munday, Jeremy (2001) Introducing Translation Studies, London: Routledge

Venutti, Laurence (2000) The Translation Studies Reader, London: Routledge

Baker, M. 1992. In Other Words.
Croitoru, E. 1999. Translating Idioms. In British and American Studies.
Croitoru, E. 2009. Idiomatic Expressions with and as Modalizers, in Interstudia,
Dollerup, C. 2006. Basics of Translation Studies.
Fernando, C. and Flavell, R. 1981. On Idiom: Critical Viws and Perspectives.
Universiry of Exeter.qtd. in M. Baker. In other Words

References
Baker, Mona (1993). Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies. Implications and Applications.
In M. Baker, G.Francis, & E.Tognini-Bonell (Eds.), Text and Technology in Honour of John
Sinclair (pp. 233-250), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Baker, Mona (1996). Corpus-based translation studies: the challenges that lie ahead. In H. Somers
(Ed.), Terminology, LSP and Translation: Studies in language engineering in Honour of Juan C.
Sager (pp. 175-186), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Baker, Mona (1998). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London/New York:
Routledge.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (1986). Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation. In Interlingual
and Intercultural Communication. Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language
Acquisition Studies, J. House and S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), 17-35, Tbingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Halliday, Michael A.K., & Hasan, Ruqaiya (1976). Cohesion in English. London/New York:
Longman.

98

Klaudy, Kinga (1996). Back Translation as a Tool for Detecting Explicitation Strategies in
Translation. In K. Klaudy, J. Lambert, & A, Sohr (Eds.), Translating Studies in Hungary (pp. 99114). Budapest: Scholastica.
Olohan, Maeve, & Baker, Mona (2000). Reporting that in Translated English. Evidence for
Subconscious Processes of Explicitation? Across Language and Cultures, 1(2), 141-158.
vers, Linn (1998). In Search of the Third Code. An Investigation of Norms in Literary
Translation. Meta, 43(4), 571-588.
Ppai, Vilma (2004). Explicitation. In A. Mauranen and P. Kujamki (Eds.), Translation
Universals, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing House.
Sguinot, Candice (1988). Pragmatics and the Explicitation Hypothesis. TTR Traduction,
Terminologie, Rdaction, 1(2), 106-114.
Shlesinger, Miriam (1995). Shifts in Cohesion in Simultaneous Interpreting. The Translator, 1(2),
193-214.
Toury, Gideon (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Corpus:
Sadoveanu, Mihail (1971). Baltagul, Bucureti, Ed. Minerva.
Sadoveanu, Mihail (1981). Creanga de aur The Golden Bough, ediie bilingv, Bucureti,
Minerva Publishing House.
Sadoveanu, Mihail (1983). The Hatchet, Bucureti, Minerva Publishing House.

References
Beaugrande, Robert de (1978), Factors in a Theory of Poetic Translation, Assen: Van Gorcum.
Berman, Antoine (1995), Pour une critique des traductions: John Donne, Paris: Gallimard, in L. Venuti (ed.) (2000), The
Translation Studies Reader, London and New York: Routledge.
Derrida, Jacques (1979), Living on Border Lines, trans. J. Hulbert in Deconstruction and Criticism, New York: Continuum,
pp. qtd. in Lawrence Venuti (ed.) (2000) , The Translation Studies Reader, London and New York: Routledge.
Eco, Umberto (2003), Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation, London: Phoenix.
Fairclough, Norman (1995), Critical Discourse Analysis. The Critical Study of Language, Harlow: Longman.
Frawley, William (1984), Translation: Literary, Linguistic, and Philosophical Perspectives, New York: University of Delaware
Press
Gut, Ernst -August (1991), Translation and Relevance, Oxford: Blackwell.
Gut, Ernst, August (2000), Translation and Relevance. Cognition and Context, Manchester and Boston: St. Jerome Publishing.
Hall, Stuart (1996), Who Needs Identity? from Cultural Identity, Stuart Hall and Paul du Gay (eds.), London: Sage, pp. 23-76,
qtd. in Mihaela Irimia (ed.) (2003), Cultural Identity Between Anchorage and Embeddedness, Bucuresti, Premier.
Hatim, Basil and Jeremy, Munday (2006), Translation, London and New York: Routledge.
Hollman, Michael and Jean Boase Beier (1999), Introduction: Writing, Rewriting and Translation through Constraints and
Creativity in J. Boase Beier and M. Hollman (eds.) The Practices of Literary Translation. Constraints and
Creativity, UK: St. Jerome Publishing, pp. 1-19.
Irimia, Mihaela (ed.) (2003), Cultural Identity between Anchorage and Embeddedness, Bucuresti: Premier.
Jakobson, Roman (1959/2000), On Linguistic Aspects of Translation in On Translation, R. A. Bower (ed.) New York: Oxford
University Press, pp. 232-239.
Koller, Wermer (1995), The Concept of Equivalence and the Object of Translation Studies, in Target 1 (2), 191:222.
Nida, Eugene, A. (1964), Towards a Science of Translating, Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Venuti, Lawrence (2000), Translation, community, utopia in L. Venuti (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader, London:
Routledge, pp. 468-488.

99

 Balliu, C. 1996. Foreword in E. Nida The Sociolinguistics of Interlingual Communication, Bruxelles: Les Editions du
Hazard.
Bonvillain N. 2003. Language and Communication. The Meaning of Messages, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Cronin, M. 2003. Translation and Globalization, London and New York: Routledge.
*** Dictionary of the English Language, 2000 fourth edition, USA: Houghton Miffin Company.
Dollerup, K. 2006. Basics of Translation Studies, Iai: Institutul European.
Eco, U. 2003. Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation, London: Phoenix.
Holliday, A., M. Hyde and J. Kullman 2006. Intercultural Communication, London and New York: Routledge.
Hymes, D. 1974. Foundations of Sociolinguistics, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Katan, D., 2004. Translating Cultures. An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and Mediators, Manchester, UK and
Northampton MA: St. Jerome Publishing.
Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Leech G. 1983. Pragmatics, Cambridge: CUP.
Milroy, L. and J. Milroy 1978. Change and variation in an urban vernacular in Sociolinguistic Pattern in British English,
P. Trudgill, (ed.), London: Edward Arnold, pp 19-36.
Milroy, L. and J. Milroy 1992. Social network and social class: Towards an integrated sociolinguistic model in Language
and Society 21: 1-26, qtd. in Bonvillain 2003: 3.
Nida, E. 1964. Towards a Science of Translating, Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Nida, E. 1996. The Sociolinguistics of Interlingual Communication, Bruxelles: Les Editions du Hazard.
Corpus:
Creang, I. 1996. Amintiri din copilrie, ediie bilingv, traducere de Ana Cartianu i R.C. Johnston, Sibiu, Editura
Universitii Lucian Blaga, Societatea Academic Anglofon din Romnia.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES
Baker, M., In Other Words. A Coursebook On Translation, Routledge, London and New York, 1992.
Banta, A., Levichi, L., Dicionar englez-romn, Editura Teora, Bucureti.
Banta, A., Nedelcu, C., Murar, I., Bratu, A., Dicionar romn-englez, Editura Teora, Bucureti, 2000.
Bassnett, S., Translation Studies, Routledge, London and New York, 1992.
Breban, V., Dicionarul limbii romne moderne, Editura tiinific i Enciclopedic, Bucureti, 1980.
Catford, J.C., A Linguistic Theory of Translation, Oxford University Press, London, 1969.
Croitoru, E., Interpretation and Translation, Porto-Franco, Galai, 1996.
Hatim, B. and Mason, I., Discourse and the Translator, Longman, London and New York, 1992.
Jakobsen, A.L., quoted after S. Bassnett-McGuire, 1991.
Jakobson, R., On Translation, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1959.
Nida, E. Contexts in Translating, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, 2001.
Reiss, K. and Vermeer, H., Grundlegung einer Allgemeinen Translationstheorie, Niemeyer, Tubingen,
quoted after A.L.Jakobsen (1983), 1984.
Vinay J.-P., Darbelnet, J., Comparative Stylistcs of French and English: A Methodology for Translation,
translated and edited by Juan C. Sager and M.J.Hamel, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam,
1995.
CORPUS
Austen, J., Pride and Prejudice, Penguin Classics, London, 1993.
Austen, J., Mndrie i prejudecat, trad. Al. Petrea, Ed. pentru literatur, Bucureti, 1968.

100

Austen, J., Mndrie i prejudecat, trad. A. Almgeanu, Ed. Eminescu, Bucureti, 1970.
Brnte, Ch., Jane Eyre, Penguin Classics, London, 1996.
Brnte, Ch., Jane Eyre, trad. P.B. Marian, D. Mazilu, Ed. Minerva, Bucureti, 1970.
Brnte, Ch., Jane Eyre, trad. P. Marian, Societatea Domaco S.R.L., Bucureti, 1996.
Collins, W., The Woman in White, Penguin Classics, London, 1988.
Conrad, J., Typhoon, Penguin Classics, London, 1986.
Croitoru, E., Popescu, F., Dima, G., Culegere de texte pentru traducere, vol. I, Ed. Evrika!, Brila, 1996.
Croitoru, E., Popescu, F., Dima, G., English Through Translations, Editura Fundaiei Universitare Dunrea
de Jos, Galai, 2004.
James, H., The Landscape Painter and Other Tales. 1864-1874, Penguin Books Ltd., London, 1991.
James, H., The Aspern Papers, Penguin Books Ltd., London, 1994.
James, H., Ce tia Maisie, trad. De t. Stoenescu, Ed. Univers, Bucureti, 197.
Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, Gramercy Books, New York,
1996.
Wilde, O., Portretul lui Dorian Grey, trad. De D. Mazilu, Ed. pentru literatur, Bucureti, 1967.
Wilde, O., The Picture of Dorian Grey, Penguin Classics, London, 1985.

101