Equivalence and (un)translatability: Instances of the transfer between Romanian and English

1 Introduction

By its very nature, translation involves two languages, each of them having its own grammatical and lexical particularities and its specific manner of expressing various experiences and of reflecting the material and the spiritual culture. Considering the differences between the two languages in contact, it is natural that any translated text should be characterized by a certain degree of distortion or loss in comparison to its original. There have been translation theorists, such as Friedrich Schleiermacher, Jose Ortega y Gasset, or George Steiner (cf. Dimitriu 2006, 36–8), who consider that texts which involve too much loss are actually “untranslatable.” Rejecting this idea, the present article brings theoretical and practical evidence in favour of the hypothesis that, even if it is impossible to achieve absolute identity between a certain text and its translated variant, this does not mean that it is impossible to establish a relation of equivalence between them. More exactly, translatability is always possible, but the translator has to decide in each particular case on the type of equivalence relation that he/she intends to establish between the source and the target texts. In line with the functionalist and the descriptive theorists, I consider that the translator’s decisions in this respect should not be guided only by the linguistic format of the original text, but also by a series of constraints imposed by the target context, such as the rules of the target-language system, the norms valid in the target culture in the case of each particular genre or type of texts, the purpose of translation, and the specific features of the translation audience. The main objective of this article is to argue for the usefulness of adopting a target-oriented concept of equivalence, considering that such a concept excludes the idea of untranslatability. To achieve this objective, I will present, first of all, the evolution of the notion of equivalence in the translation theory, then I will discuss some means by which equivalence can be achieved in practice, and, in the end, I will illustrate some situations that are considered to raise difficulties in the translation from Romanian into English.

2 On equivalence and other notions of correctness in the translation theory

Ever since the earliest attempts at reflecting on their activity, translators have been interested in the factors that contribute to the realization of a good or well-formed translation (cf. Schäffner 1997, 2–3, Venuti 2000, 5, Imre 2013, 85). Even if this interest has been constant throughout the years, the terms in which the notion of accuracy or correctness has been discussed in the theory of translation vary to a great extent, as they depend on what was understood by translation at a particular time or within a particular approach. Commenting on this aspect, Hermans (1996, 25) notes that the concept of “fidelity,” which initially played a central part, was later replaced by “equivalence” as a theoretical and methodological concept in the approaches to translation. Starting with the 1980s, “equivalence” too has been progressively questioned and even rejected, largely in favour of the concept of “norms.” A brief presentation of the evolution undergone by the notions denoting correctness in translation will be offered below.

For centuries on end, the accuracy of the translated text was approached in terms of the relation of fidelity or faithfulness existing between a translation and its source. This relation represented a matter of dispute between the supporters of a literal translation, who considered that translators should be consistent with the actual wording of the original text, and those of a free translation, who claimed that the most important element is the content of the source text and the message that it conveys (cf. Venuti 2000, 122, Bassnett 2002, 47, Dimitriu 2006, 41). Initially, this dispute resulted into a vast body of theoretical contributions on the subject of translation, which were not based on any elaborate theoretical perspective. Such contributions were mainly represented by comments made by translators on their own work, as it was the case of the ancient Rome writers, like Cicero and Quintilian, who advocated free translation, or the Bible’s first translators, who recommended the word-for-word type of translation (cf. Dimitriu 2006, 42); additionally, there were philosophical reflections on the question of translatability, a relevant example in this respect being Schleiermacher, who, according to Bassnett (2002, 72–3) made, in 1813, a serious attempt at discussing translation on a more theoretical basis.

Starting with the second half of the twentieth century, when translation studies emerged as an academic discipline, translation research and theory started acquiring a more systematic character. As Malmkjœr (2018, 15) notes, at that time, many theorists interested in translation or interpreting looked to linguistics for theoretical input, because linguistics was perceived as the most appropriate discipline to inform the study of translation. In this context, translation was considered to be a linguistic phenomenon, a process of transcoding between the two languages in contact, and, consequently, the standards of accuracy and correctness were set in terms of sameness of meaning at the level of the translation units, which was the level of the word or the phrase in the case of the linguistic approaches, and the level of the text, in the case of the textlinguistic approaches. Halverson (1997) points out that the theorists with linguistic orientation addressed various aspects specific to the equivalence relation: some of them aimed at defining the units between which equivalence could be achieved (e.g. Catford 1965, Reiss 1989), while others focused on the qualities which define the nature of the equivalence (e.g. Nida 1964, Koller 1989).

The concept of equivalence started to lose ground once the theorists of the field embraced the idea that translators always deal with a text in a situation and in a culture. This idea was developed, with special focus on the purpose of the text, by the functionalist approaches. The representatives of these approaches (e.g. Vermeer 1989, Nord 1997) consider that the starting point for any translation is not the linguistic structure of the original text, but the purpose (skopos) that the translated text is meant to achieve in the target culture. This is the reason why their view of a correct, adequate translation is related to a somewhat less strictly defined set of criteria than the traditional linguistic ones. The functionalists’ target orientation does not imply that the source text has little relevance. On the contrary, Nord argues that the construction of the target text is based on a thorough source-text analysis. The role of this analysis is to guide the translation process by providing “the basis for decisions about (a) the feasibility of the translation assignment, (b) which source-text units are relevant to a functional translation, and (c) which translation strategy will lead to a target-text meeting the requirements of the translation brief.” (Nord 1997, 62). This means that the source-text elements must be adapted to the target-language conventions according to the target-text skopos.

If in the linguistic, textlinguistic, and to a certain extent, the functionalist approaches the production of an appropriate translation was generally discussed in close connection to factors such as linguistic correctness and textual conventions, the descriptive translation studies focus on the socio-cultural dimension of the act of translating. The major effect of this focus was that the concept of norms became the new standard of accuracy and correctness.

The concept of translational norms as it is understood in the theory of translation today has been greatly influenced by the contributions made by Toury (1980, 1995) and Hermans (1996). In Toury’s (1995, 55) definition, norms represent “the translation of general values or ideas shared by a certain community – as to what is right and wrong, adequate and inadequate – into performance-instructions appropriate for and applicable to particular situations.” Translation, which is viewed as a norm-governed type of behaviour, has its own norms, and the role of these norms is to help the translator deal with the differing constraints exerted by the source text and language on the one hand, and by the target language and culture, on the other. It can be stated that, according to the descriptive translation studies theorists, the decisions made during the translation process are mainly determined by the translational norms and not only by the two language systems in contact. As Toury (1995, 57) explains, even the various shifts that occur as result of the translation process may be regarded as a type of equivalence that reflects target norms at a certain historical moment. In Halverson’s (1997, 216) view, the adoption of a norm-based theory of translation focused the scholars’ attention on “regularities of translation behaviour (norms) and the situational/cultural features which may account for these regularities.” This fact has proved extremely beneficial especially in the case of translation research, for which it has opened up a series of new possibilities.

As illustrated in the present section, the discussion of the notions denoting translation correctness and well-formedness indicates that, in translation studies, “the focus of conceptual debate is the quality in terms of which the sameness is defined” (Halverson 1997, 209–10). In time, “sameness” evolved from a relation existing between the linguistic formats of the original and its translation to a complex notion that involves linguistic, pragmatic, and cultural factors on both the source and the target sides. But how can equivalence be actually achieved in the practice of translation? Section 3 will try to offer some answers in this respect.

3 Means of achieving translation equivalence

In the discussion of the means by which equivalence can be achieved, I must mention, first of all, the significant contribution made by Venuti (1995), who introduced the key concepts of domestication and foreignization, concepts which denote two opposed translation methods. In Venuti’s view, domestication reveals the translators’ orientation towards the target culture, entailing the reduction of the foreign text to the target-language cultural values, while foreignization involves their concern for the preservation of the source-culture specificity, resulting in a target variant which registers the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text (Venuti 1995, 20). These two concepts represent essential elements in the practical part of this study, as they set the extremes between which equivalence is discussed in the case of the examples offered there.

Trying to help translators deal with the problems with which they may be faced as part of their work, several theorists have proposed taxonomies of procedures, strategies, or techniques that can be used to this end. Maybe the best-known example in this respect is represented by the seven procedures of translation suggested by Vinay and Darbelnet (1958/2000) on the basis of a comparison of the lexical and syntactic structures of English and French. The procedures in question are: borrowing (which is the simplest translation method and is used mostly for the creation of a stylistic effect), calque (when each of the elements in a borrowed expression are translated literally), literal translation (the word-for-word translation), transposition (the replacement of one word class with another word class), modulation (a variation in the form of the message, due to a change in the point of view), equivalence (or total syntagmatic change, like in the case of idioms, cliches, proverbs, etc.), and adaptation (when the situation referred to by the original message is unknown in the target culture, and therefore, the translator must create an equivalent situation).

The important fact is that the terminology used by Vinay and Darbelnet in the case of these translation procedures has proved to be very influential and has been frequently mentioned in the later literature of the field (for example by Newmark 1981, 1988 or by Chesterman 1997). Thus, Newmark (1988, 45–7) considers that translation methods range across a continuum between the emphasis on source language at one end, and the emphasis on target language at the other, and proposes eight such methods: word-for-word translation (with the strongest emphasis on the source language), literal translation, faithful translation, semantic translation, communicative translation, idiomatic translation, free translation, and adaptation (with the strongest emphasis on the target language). Similarly, Chesterman (1997, 88) claims that strategies are used as solutions for a translation problem related either to the text as a whole or to some segment in it, and consequently, they represent means of conforming to norms. Chesterman (1997, 92) makes a basic distinction between comprehension strategies, on the one hand, which have to do with the whole nature of the translation commission, and production strategies, on the other, which concern the manner in which the translator manipulates the linguistic material to produce an appropriate target text. Focusing on the latter category, Chesterman (1997, 94–112) offers a comprehensive classification of the possible changes to which translators might resort when they are not satisfied with the target variant that immediately comes to their mind. More specifically, he discusses 30 translation strategies that are divided into syntactic strategies (which primarily manipulate form), semantic strategies (which have to do with lexical semantics and with aspects of clause meaning), and pragmatic strategies (which regard the selection of information in the target text).

There have also been theorists who devise classifications related specifically to the treatment of the culture-specific items. Olk (2013, 348–51), for instance, suggests seven categories of procedures, ranking from a foreignizing to a domesticating scale: transference, transference + explicitation, transference + explanation, target-language expression referring to the source culture, neutral explanation, omission, and the substitution of a source-text cultural element by one specific to the target culture. Following the same line which involves maximal distance from the target reader at one end and minimal distance at the opposite end, there is Marco’s (2018, 3–4) classification of translation techniques for culture-specific items, including borrowing, which may be pure or naturalized, literal translation, neutralization (under the form of description or generalization/particularization), amplification/compression, intracultural adaptation (the original culture-related item is replaced by another source-culture item which is more familiar to target readers), intercultural adaptation (a target culture item is substituted for the source-text item), and omission.

As we can see, the ways in which the translator can conform to notions of correctness are variously labelled as “procedure,” “method,” “strategy,” and “technique.” A thorough attempt to delimit the reference of these terms was made Molina and Hurtado Albir (2002), and, in line with their terminology, I will use the term “techniques” in the sense of operations materializing solutions for certain problematic translation units. More specifically, in my study, techniques represent the analytical tools that allow me to study the manner in which the result of the translation process functions in relation to its corresponding source-text unit. As for the typology of translation techniques used in the process of analysis, it is the one proposed by Molina and Hurtado Albir (2002, 509–5011): adaptation, amplification, borrowing, calque, compensation, description, discursive creation, established equivalent, generalization, linguistic amplification, linguistic compression, literal translation, modulation, particularization, reduction, substitution, transposition, and variation.

4 Translating the “untranslatable”: A few examples specific to the transfer from Romanian to English

5 Conclusions

The evidence of theoretical and practical nature presented in this article supports the idea that translation equivalence is a relative concept, because not all theorists and practitioners of this field use the same criteria in judging or in applying it. For some of them, it is crucial to render the source-text information with exactness, others aim at preserving the style of the original author, while others take into account the socio-cultural context of the target language. What translators must be aware of is that the type of equivalence relation that they are supposed to achieve is very much dependent on the specific features of each translation situation. The identification of the potential translation problems in correlation with the features of the translation situation is essential for the subsequent selection of the appropriate techniques, and for their effective application during the translation process.