Anemona Ptrulescu Equivalence and Non-equivalence
in Clinescus Enigma Otiliei
Anemona Ptrulescu
Equivalence and Non-equivalence
in Clinescus Enigma Otiliei
Editura SITECH Craiova, 2012
Corectura aparine autorului. 2012 Editura Sitech Craiova Toate drepturile asupra acestei ediii sunt rezervate editurii. Orice reprodu-cere integral sau parial, prin orice procedeu, a unor pagini din aceast lu-crare, efectuate fr autorizaia editorului este ilicit i constituie o contra-facere. Sunt acceptate reproduceri strict rezervate utilizrii sau citrii justifi-cate de interes tiinific, cu specificarea respectivei citri. 2012 Editura Sitech Craiova All rights reserved. This book is protected by copyright. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, including photocopying or utilised any information storage and retrieval system without written permision from the copyright owner. Editura SITECH din Craiova este acreditat de C.N.C.S.I.S. din cadrul Mi-nisterului Educaiei i Cercetrii pentru editare de carte tiinific. Editura SITECH Craiova, Romnia Aleea Teatrului, nr. 2, Bloc T1, parter Tel/fax: 0251/414003 E-mail: [email protected]
ISBN 978-606-11-2290-5
5
Contents
FOREWORD .................................................................... 7 Chapter I Equivalence defines translation ....................................... 10
1.1. Defining equivalence ............................................ 10 1.2. Several theories upon translation .......................... 15 1.3. The Critique of Equivalence ................................. 34 1.4. The importance of equivalence in translation ..... 37
Chapter II Non-equivalence in the Translation Field ...................... 40
2.1. Non-equivalence between source text and target text ..................................................................... 40 2.2 Available translation procedures ........................... 42
Chapter III The Challenging World of George Clinescus Translation Enigmatic Otilia ........................................... 54
3.1. TEXT CORPUS ................................................... 54 3.2. Text Analysis ........................................................ 63
Conclusions ................................................................... 131 Bibliography .................................................................. 133
7
The present volume addresses a readership interested in the field of literary translations. The main purpose of the book
is to develop basic notions concerning equivalence and non-
equivalence in translation, and then emphasize them in
practice. Accordingly, both equivalence and non-equivalence
are analyzed from the point of view of traditional and modern
theories elaborated within the field of translation theories.
Translation as a product has come to interest an ever-
increasing readership of non-native speakers of English who
need rapid access to information and who depend on the
professional work of translators. Thus I have tried to underline
in this book not only the importance of the theoretical concepts
but also to sustain them with clear examples provided by
George Clinescus challenging book.
The first part reveals the fact that a translation has to
stand in some kind of equivalence relation to the original,
which means that equivalence in translation is not an isolated
FOREWORD
8
quality; it is a functional concept that can be attributed to a
particular translational situation. It is worthwhile mentioning
that the contextualization of each and every meaning is of
outmost importance. It will help to disambiguate meanings, and
to be able to choose the context which the confusable words
and phrases match.
The second part comes to prove that equivalence always
implies the possibility of non-equivalence. The question of
whether particular words are untranslatable is often debated.
They are only words and these words are more or less hard to
translate depending on their nature and the translators skills.
Thus the translators should resort to various translation
procedures (shifts, borrowing, adaptation etc.) when
encountering such difficulties in translation. They will make
their final choices in terms of grammatical correctness, lexical
and semantic acceptability, text typology, style, register, as
well as in terms of translation equivalence and adequacy.
The third part comes to sustain all the theory presented
in the previous parts through practical application. It offers the
flavour of the book since all the conclusions about the topic
should be drawn from the analysis I have provided. When
translating, the translator encounters many traps and he should
know to overcome them. In discussing such traps which cover
9
many types of difficulties we have to consider both the extra
linguistic factors (authors intention, the place and the time
where ST was written, function of the ST/TT reader) and the
linguistic factors (subject matter, content, lexis, sentence
structure) all of them bearing stylistic implications.
A very important aspect when translating, interpreting
and analyzing a text, as well as in comparing it with the
original text is that the specific flavour of a text, the genius
of a language, the richness of a culture are ideologically
charged labels which finally leads to the conclusion of
untranslatibility. One of the most fundamental requirements
is the need of referring to each particular translation situation
as regards the use of connotations. So when translating the
translator has to enhance himself to a Sisyphean work, to go
through the painful process of creation in rendering a text from
one language to another.
Finally, the end-user will come to know if Moses had
horns or rays on his forehead.
10
Chapter I Equivalence defines translation
1.1. Defining equivalence
The notion of equivalence is undoubtedly one of the
most problematic and controversial areas in the field of
translation theory. The term has caused, and it seems quite
probable that it will continue to cause, heated debates within
the field of translation studies.
This term has been analyzed, evaluated and extensively
discussed from different points of view and has been
approached from many different perspectives. The first
discussions of the notion of equivalence in translation initiated
the further elaboration of the term by contemporary theorists.
The difficulty in defining equivalence seems to result in the
impossibility of having a universal approach to this notion.
Equivalence has been extensively used to define
translation, but few writers have been prepared to define
equivalence itself. Indeed, it is quite possible that the term in
11
question means all things to all theorists: since it is usually
taken to be the result of successful translating, its content as a
theoretical term is probably nothing more or less than the
theory according to which successful translating is defined.
Equivalence thus perhaps means whatever the ideal
translator should set out to achieve. Yet this is a mere
tautology: equivalence is supposed to define translation, but
translation would then appear to define equivalence.
Historical research is of little avail here. The brief
survey offered by Wilss (1982, 134-135) simply presents that
the English term "equivalence" entered translation studies from
mathematics, that it was originally associated with research
into machine translation, and that it has or should have a
properly technical sense. But Snell-Hornby has used comparative
historical analysis to argue against the possibility of any such
technical sense, claiming to have located some 58 different types
of equivalence referred to in German translation studies (1986,
15). Moreover, even if one could locate substantial common
factors underlying all these variants, there is surely no guarantee
that history or etymology alone will lead to the most fruitful
future definition. A slightly more creative approach is required. In
what follows, I want to suggest that equivalence-based definitions
of translation are fundamentally correct.
12
Despite all the problems with historical usages of the
term, despite recently fashionable attempts to ignore it
altogether, I believe that equivalence in its most unqualified
form definitionally ideal equivalence - does indeed define
translation. But to reach this conclusion, to discover what is
being said but not heard, it is necessary to discard several false
or inadequate notions of equivalence. We must disregard the
way structuralist linguistics once used the term to suggest a
symmetry of "equal values" between discrete systems; we must
turn to the economics of exchange in order to distinguish
equivalence from assumptions of natural use values or
functions; we must see how equivalence can actually operate
within a dynamic translational series based on the primacy of
exchange value; and finally, we must appreciate that equivalence
is not a predetermined relation that translators passively seek, but
instead it works as transitory fiction that translators produce in
order to have receivers somehow believe that translations have
not really been translated. In all, if equivalence is ideal to define
translation, we must take steps to redefine ideal equivalence. I
should stress that my subject in this chapter is neither more, nor
less than equivalence as an ideal.
The following are fairly representative equivalence-
based definitions of translation:
13
"Interlingual translation can be defined as the
replacement of elements of one language, the domain of
translation, by equivalent elements of another language, the
range [of translation]." (A. G. Oettinger 1960, 110).
"Translation may be defined as follows: the
replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by
equivalent material in another language (TL)." (Catford 1965,
20)
"Translating consists in reproducing in the receptor
language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language
message." (Nida and Taber 1969, 12); cf. Nida
195 "[Translation] leads from a source-language text to a
target-language text which is as close an equivalent as possible
and presupposes an understanding of the content and style of
the original." (Wilss 1982, 62)
Many further definitions could be added to this vein.
But the main variants in any further listing would tend to
concern more the nature of what is supposed to be equivalent
("elements", "textual material", "functions", "communicative
effect", etc.) than the nature of equivalence itself, which, within
this decidedly twentieth-century tradition, is simply assumed to
exist. It might of course be assumed that the term means
exactly what it says: a relation of equal values. But in all the
14
above definitions, the term "equivalent" is used to describe
only TTs, the products resulting from the translating process. It
is not used to describe the ST, the abstractly initial material, the
textual material as it arrives in the place of the translator. This
one-sided use implies an asymmetry that must be considered at
least odd if associated with a relationship of presumed equality.
The verbs employed or implied ("replace", "reproduce",
"lead to", etc.) not only refer to processes, but are decidedly
unidirectional in nature. Translating goes from ST to TT, and if
the process is reversed it is called "back-translation", as a kind
of underhand reversal of the correct way of the word. The
described processes are also peculiarly subjectless: it is obvious
that somebody or something must be doing the "replacing" or
"reproducing", but this person or thing appears to have no
expressed place in the translational process. Although there
must be at least some notion of location implied in terms like
"replacement" and "lead to", the subjectless nature of this place
suggests that no one particularly cares who or what is doing the
work.
Taking all of this together, we find that the term
equivalence is commonly associated with the final result of
translating as a one-way process occurring in an apparently
subjectless place. Equivalence is directional and subjectless. I
15
believe that these distinctive features are highly useful for the
definition of translation.
1.2. Several theories upon translation
The aim of this subchapter is to review the theory of
equivalence as interpreted by some of the most innovative
theorists in this fieldVinay and Darbelnet, Jakobson, Nida
and Taber, Catford, House and finally Baker. These theorists
have studied equivalence in relation to the translation process,
using different approaches, and have provided fruitful ideas for
further study on this topic. Their theories will be analyzed in
chronological order so that it will be easier to follow the
evolution of this concept. These theories can be substantially
divided into three main groups. The first group reunites those
translation scholars who are in favor of a linguistic approach to
translation and who seem to forget that translation in itself is
not merely a matter of linguistics. In fact, when a message is
transferred from the SL to TL, the translator is also dealing
with two different cultures at the same time. This particular
aspect seems to have been taken into consideration by the
second group of theorists who regard translation equivalence as
being essentially a transfer of the message from the SC to the
16
TC and a pragmatic/semantic or functionally oriented approach
to translation. Finally, there are other translation scholars who
seem to stand in the middle, such as Baker for instance, who
claims that equivalence is used 'for the sake of convenience
because most translators are used to it rather than because it
has any theoretical status' (quoted in Kenny, 1998:77).
1.2.1. Vinay and Darbelnet and their definition of
equivalence in translation
Vinay and Darbelnet view equivalence-oriented
translation as a procedure which 'replicates the same situation
as in the original, whilst using completely different wording'.
They also suggest that, if this procedure is applied during the
translation process, it can maintain the stylistic impact of the
SL text in the TL text. According to them, equivalence is
therefore the ideal method when the translator has to deal with
proverbs, idioms, clichs, nominal or adjectival phrases and the
onomatopoeia of animal sounds. With regard to equivalent
expressions between language pairs, Vinay and Darbelnet
claim that they are acceptable as long as they are listed in a
bilingual dictionary as 'full equivalents' (ibid.:255). However,
later they note that glossaries and collections of idiomatic
17
expressions 'can never be exhaustive' (ibid.256). They
conclude by saying that 'the need for creating equivalences
arises from the situation, and it is in the situation of the SL text
that translators have to look for a solution' (ibid. 255).
Indeed, they argue that even if the semantic equivalent
of an expression in the SL text is quoted in a dictionary or a
glossary, it is not enough, and it does not guarantee a
successful translation. They provide a number of examples to
prove their theory, and the following expression appears in
their list: Take one is a fixed expression which would have as
an equivalent French translation Prenez-en un. However, if the
expression appeared as a notice next to a basket of free samples
in a large store, the translator would have to look for an
equivalent term in a similar situation and use the expression
chantillon gratuity.(ibid.256)
1.2.2. Jakobson and the concept of equivalence in
difference
Roman Jakobson's study of equivalence gave new
impetus to the theoretical analysis of translation since he
introduced the notion of 'equivalence in difference'. On the
basis of his semiotic approach to language and his aphorism
18
'there is no signatum without signum' (1959:232), he suggests
three kinds of translation:
Intralingual (within one language, i.e. rewording or
paraphrase)
Interlingual (between two languages)
Intersemiotic (between sign systems)
Jakobson claims that, in the case of interlingual
translation, the translator makes use of synonyms in order to
get the ST message across. This means that in interlingual
translations there is no full equivalence between code units.
According to his theory, 'translation involves two equivalent
messages in two different codes' (ibid.233). Jakobson goes on
to say that from a grammatical point of view languages may
differ from one another to a greater or lesser extent, but this
does not mean that a translation cannot be possible, in other
words, that the translator may face the problem of not finding a
translation equivalent.
He acknowledges that 'whenever there is deficiency,
terminology may be qualified and amplified by loanwords or
loan-translations, neologisms or semantic shifts, and finally, by
circumlocutions' (ibid.234). Jakobson provides a number of
examples by comparing English and Russian language
structures and explains that in such cases where there is no a
19
literal equivalent for a particular ST word or sentence, then it is
up to the translator to choose the most suitable way to render it
in the TT.
There seems to be some similarity between Vinay and
Darbelnet's theory of translation procedures and Jakobson's
theory of translation. Both theories stress the fact that,
whenever a linguistic approach is no longer suitable to carry
out a translation, the translator can rely on other procedures
such as loan-translations, neologisms and the like. Both
theories recognize the limitations of a linguistic theory and
argue that a translation can never be impossible since there are
several methods that the translator can choose. The role of the
translator as the person who decides how to carry out the
translation is emphasized in both theories. Vinay and Darbelnet
as well as Jakobson conceive the translation task as something
which can always be carried out from one language to another,
regardless of the cultural or grammatical differences between
ST and TT. It can be concluded that Jakobson's theory is
essentially based on his semiotic approach to translation
according to which the translator has to recode the ST message
first and then s/he has to transmit it into an equivalent message
for the TC.
20
1.2.3. Nida and Taber: Formal correspondence and
dynamic equivalence
Nida argued that there are two different types of
equivalence, namely formal equivalencewhich in the second
edition by Nida and Taber (1982) is referred to as formal
correspondenceand dynamic equivalence.
Formal correspondence 'focuses attention on the
message itself, in both form and content', unlike dynamic
equivalence which is based upon 'the principle of equivalent
effect' (1964:159). In the second edition (1982) of their work,
the two theorists provide a more detailed explanation of each
type of equivalence. Formal correspondence consists of a TL
item which represents the closest equivalent of a SL word or
phrase. Nida and Taber make it clear that there are not always
formal equivalents between language pairs. They therefore
suggest that these formal equivalents should be used wherever
possible if the translation aims at achieving formal rather than
dynamic equivalence. The use of formal equivalents might at
times have serious implications in the TT since the translation
will not be easily understood by the target audience (Fawcett,
1997).
Nida and Taber themselves assert that 'Typically, formal
21
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'
(ibid.201). Dynamic equivalence is defined as 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 TC audience as the original
wording did upon the ST audience. They argue that
'Frequently, the form of the original text is changed; but as
long as the change follows the rules of back transformation in
the source language, of contextual consistency in the transfer,
and of transformation in the receptor language, the message is
preserved and the translation is faithful' (Nida and Taber,
1982:200). One can easily see that Nida is in favor of the
application of dynamic equivalence, as a more effective
translation procedure. This is perfectly understandable if we
take into account the context of the situation in which Nida was
dealing with the translation phenomenon, that is to say, his
translation of the Bible. Thus, the product of the translation
process, that is the text in the TL, must have the same impact
on the different readers it was addressing. Only in Nida and
Taber's edition it is clearly stated that 'dynamic equivalence in
translation is far more than mere correct communication of
22
information' (ibid:25). Despite using a linguistic approach to
translation, Nida is much more interested in the message of the
text or, in other words, in its semantic quality. He therefore
strives to make sure that this message remains clear in the
target text.
1.2.4. Catford and the introduction of translation shifts
Catford's approach to translation equivalence clearly
differs from that adopted by Nida since Catford had a
preference for a more linguistic-based approach to translation
and this approach is based on the linguistic work of Firth and
Halliday. His main contribution in the field of translation
theory is the introduction of the concepts of types and shifts of
translation. Catford proposed very broad types of translation in
terms of three criteria:
1. The extent of translation (full translation vs. partial
translation);
2. The grammatical rank at which the translation
equivalence is established (rank-bound translation vs.
unbounded translation)
3. The levels of language involved in translation (total
translation vs. restricted translation).
23
We will refer only to the second type of translation,
since this is the one that concerns the concept of equivalence,
and we will then move on to analyze the notion of translation
shifts, as elaborated by Catford, which are based on the distinction
between formal correspondence and textual equivalence. In
rank-bound translation an equivalent is sought in the TL for
each word, or for each morpheme encountered in the ST. In
unbounded translation equivalences are not tied to a particular
rank, and we may additionally find equivalences at sentence,
clause and other levels. Catford finds five of these ranks or
levels in both English and French.
Thus, a formal correspondence could be said to exist
between English and French if relations between ranks have
approximately the same configuration in both languages, as
Catford claims. One of the problems with formal
correspondence is that, despite being a useful tool to employ in
comparative linguistics, it seems that it is not really relevant in
terms of assessing translation equivalence between ST and TT.
For this reason we now turn to Catford's other dimension of
correspondence, namely textual equivalence which occurs
when any TL text or portion of text is 'observed on a particular
occasion ... to be the equivalent of a given SL text or portion of
text' (ibid.:27). He implements this by a process of
24
commutation, whereby 'a competent bilingual informant or
translator' is consulted on the translation of various sentences
whose ST items are changed in order to observe 'what changes
if any occur in the TL text as a consequence' (ibid.:28). As far
as translation shifts are concerned, Catford defines them as
'departures from formal correspondence in the process of
going from the SL to the TL' (ibid.73). Catford argues that there
are two main types of translation shifts, namely level shifts,
where the SL item at one linguistic level (e.g. grammar) has a
TL equivalent at a different level (e.g. lexis), and category
shifts which are divided into four types:
1. Structure-shifts, which involve a grammatical change
between the structure of the ST and that of the TT;
2. Class-shifts, when a SL item is translated with a TL
item which belongs to a different grammatical class, i.e.
a verb may be translated by a noun;
3. Unit-shifts, which involve changes in rank;
4. Intra-system shifts, which occur when 'SL and TL
possess systems which approximately correspond
formally as to their constitution, but when translation
involves selection of a non-corresponding term in the
TL system' (ibid.80). For instance, when the SL
singular becomes a TL plural.
25
1.2.5. House and the elaboration of overt and covert
translation
House (1977) is in favor of semantic and pragmatic
equivalence and argues that ST and TT should match each
other in function. House suggests that it is possible to
characterize the function of a text by determining the
situational dimensions of the ST. In fact, according to her
theory, every text in itself is placed within a particular situation
which has to be correctly identified and taken into account by
the translator. After the ST analysis, House is in a position to
evaluate a translation; if the ST and the TT differ substantially
on situational features, then they are not functionally
equivalent, and the translation is not of a high quality. In fact,
she acknowledges that 'a translation text should not only match
its source text in function, but employ equivalent situational-
dimensional means to achieve that function' (ibid.:49). Central
to House's discussion is the concept of overt and covert
translations. In an overt translation the TT audience is not
directly addressed and there is therefore no need at all to
attempt to recreate a 'second original' since an overt translation
'must overtly be a translation' (ibid.:189). By covert
translation, on the other hand, it is meant the production of a
26
text which is functionally equivalent to the ST. House also
argues that in this type of translation the ST 'is not specifically
addressed to a TC audience' (ibid.:194). House (ibid.203) sets
out the types of ST that would probably yield translations of
the two categories. An academic article, for instance, is
unlikely to exhibit any features specific to the SC; the article
has the same argumentative or expository force that it would if
it had originated in the TL, and the fact that it is a translation at
all need not be made known to the readers. A political speech
in the SC, on the other hand, is addressed to a particular
cultural or national group which the speaker sets out to move to
action or otherwise influence, whereas the TT merely informs
outsiders what the speaker is saying to his or her constituency.
It is clear that in this latter case, which is an instance of overt
translation, functional equivalence cannot be maintained, and it
is therefore intended that the ST and the TT function
differently.
House's theory of equivalence in translation seems to be
much more flexible than Catford's. In fact, she gives authentic
examples, uses complete texts and, more importantly, she
relates linguistic features to the context of both source and
target text.
27
1.2.6. Baker's approach to translation equivalence
New adjectives have been assigned to the notion of
equivalence (grammatical, textual, pragmatic equivalence, and
several others) and made their appearance in the plethora of
recent works in this field.
An extremely interesting discussion of the notion of
equivalence can be found in Baker (1992) who seems to offer a
more detailed list of conditions upon which the concept of
equivalence can be defined. She explores the notion of
equivalence at different levels, in relation to the translation
process, including all different aspects of translation and hence
putting together the linguistic and the communicative
approach.
She distinguishes between:
Equivalence that can appear at word level and above
word level, when translating from one language into
another. Baker acknowledges that, in a bottom-up
approach to translation, equivalence at word level is the
first element to be taken into consideration by the
translator. In fact, when the translator starts analyzing
the ST s/he looks at the words as single units in order to
find a direct 'equivalent' term in the TL. Baker gives a
28
definition of the term word since it should be
remembered that a single word can sometimes be
assigned different meanings in different languages and
might be regarded as being a more complex unit or
morpheme. This means that the translator should pay
attention to a number of factors when considering a
single word, such as number, gender and tense (ibid.11-
12).
Grammatical equivalence, when referring to the
diversity of grammatical categories across languages.
She notes that grammatical rules may vary across
languages and this may pose some problems in terms of
finding a direct correspondence in the TL. In fact, she
claims that different grammatical structures in the SL
and TL may cause remarkable changes in the way the
information or message is carried across. These changes
may induce the translator either to add or to omit
information in the TT because of the lack of particular
grammatical devices in the TL itself. Amongst these
grammatical devices which might cause problems in
translation Baker focuses on number, tense and aspects,
voice, person and gender.
Textual equivalence, when referring to the equivalence
29
between a SL text and a TL text in terms of information
and cohesion. Texture is a very important feature in
translation since it provides useful guidelines for the
comprehension and analysis of the ST which can help
the translator in his or her attempt to produce a cohesive
and coherent text for the TC audience in a specific
context. It is up to the translator to decide whether or
not to maintain the cohesive ties as well as the
coherence of the SL text. His or her decision will be
guided by three main factors, that is, the target
audience, the purpose of the translation and the text
type.
Pragmatic equivalence, when referring to implicatures
and strategies of avoidance during the translation
process. Implicature is not about what is explicitly said
but what is implied. Therefore, the translator needs to
work out implied meanings in translation in order to get
the ST message across.
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.
30
1.2.7. Another equivalence typology
As we can observe in the theoretical considerations
presented above that there are several kinds of equivalence,
however, with different implications and effects. While many
different authors use different terms regarding the problem of
equivalence, I would better choose to use the terms cultural,
conceptual and structural equivalence. It should be noted that
these concepts should be viewed independently of one another
as, for example, you can have structural equivalence without
having conceptual equivalence and vice-versa.
Cultural Equivalence
The most fundamental problem in developing
instruments for cross-cultural research or foreign language
instruments is that the translator needs not only to translate
language but culture as well. The most common difficulty in
translation occurs when the target language lacks a certain
word or concept which we generally take for granted in
Western culture, but which does not exist or is viewed
differently in other cultures.
Examples of this are our concept of time, names of
colors, seasons, not to mention concepts associated with
Western standards, values, and morals. In some cases a word in
31
English may have a highly compressed meaning which in
translation may require several sentences or even paragraphs to
express. This is almost always the case when translating into
Spanish and more often than not into almost any other
language. In other cases there may be no alternative but to
eliminate items because a counterpart does not exist or would
be of too uncertain equivalence in another culture.
Conceptual Equivalence
Conceptual equivalence refers to the absence of
differences in meaning and content between two versions of an
instrument. A problem common in the translation process is
that of frequency of usage of a certain word. Often, although a
word may be an adequate literal translation, the words will not
have meaning equivalence for survey purposes if there is a
discrepancy in the frequency of usage of a word in two
cultures. Still, the most serious problem in this regard is that of
connotation and secondary meanings.
Words are focal points of complex networks of
meaning and receive shades of significance from varied and
unexpected sources. Another problem is that of non-
equivalence of terms. There are times when it may be
impossible to find a term that is the exact equivalent in another
language. Yet another problem occurs when the target
32
language has several synonyms and definitions for a single
word. Which should be used? It is in relation to these two
problems that the translator becomes extremely important. A
frequently attempted solution to this problem is the use of
several words in the target language to try to convey an idea or
concept expressed by one word in the source language.
(Example: ice cream = helado / nieve; cake = pastel / torta /
queque / biscocho). Both the researcher and the translator need
to have considerable knowledge of the target culture and
language in order to gain cultural and conceptual equivalence.
Questionnaires that attempt to preserve the exact form
of questions in the original language, especially pre-coded
ones, can lead to major errors. Although it might seem that one
should avoid the use of idiomatic language in constructing
instruments, failing to do so can have the effect of producing a
highly stilted form of discourse that may be unsuitable for the
population surveyed. Additionally, more and more of the
literature and current research indicate that this may be the best
approach.
This approach essentially attempts to gain conceptual
equivalence with regard to the information the researcher wants
to elicit, instead of with the form of the question used to elicit
this information. Put another way," instruments should offer
33
psychological equivalence to respondents and not apparent
objective equivalence to the investigator. To pose the same
form of question to two people who are different may require
posing that question in two different forms." (Robinson,
1984:163).
Structural Equivalence
Structural equivalence refers to equivalence in syntax,
spelling, and punctuation. In this regard equivalence problems
arise from the fact that languages differ widely in their
grammars and syntax's and these in turn affect meaning in
translation. Perhaps the most common grammatical problem in
translation is achieving equivalence between verb forms. This
becomes more problematic in longer passages than in shorter
ones. There are techniques for making an instrument more
"translatable" from a structural perspective, however. One can
predict the translatability of an instrument to a certain degree.
Some content areas produce fewer difficulties than others, just
as some languages are easier to be translated than others. In
developing an instrument one will want to know the upper
level of difficulty of the original English that can be expected
to translate well.
Furthermore, one can produce an easily translatable
version of an instrument by: 1)using simple sentences; 2)
34
repetition of nouns rather than pronouns; 3) avoiding metaphor
and colloquialisms; 4) avoiding English passive tense; 5)
avoiding hypothetical phrasings or subjunctive mood; 6)
adding context to ideas and redundancy to sentences; 7)
avoiding too much detail.
1.3. The Critique of Equivalence
Catford was one of the authors very much criticized for
his linguistic theory of translation. One of the most scathing
criticisms came from Snell-Hornby (1988), who argued that
Catford's definition of textual equivalence is 'circular', his
theory's reliance on bilingual informants 'hopelessly inadequate',
and his example sentences 'isolated and even absurdly
simplistic' (ibid.:19-20).
She considers the concept of equivalence in translation
as being an illusion. She asserts that the translation process
cannot simply be reduced to a linguistic exercise, as claimed by
Catford for instance, since there are also other factors, such as
textual, cultural and situational aspects, which should be taken
into consideration when translating. In other words, she does
not believe that linguistics is the only discipline which enables
people to carry out a translation, since translating involves
35
different cultures and different situations at the same time and
they do not always match from one language to another.
Mary Snell-Hornbys integrated approach of 1988
sought to bring together and systematize the work that had
been done to that date. One of the most remarkable aspects of
this integrative exercise was the list of effectively excluded
approaches. Snell-Hornbys peremptory style dismissed two
thousand years of translation theory as an inconclusive heated
discussion opposing word to sense. Not surprisingly, she also
forcefully discarded equivalence as being unsuitable as a basic
concept in translation theory None of the excluded
approaches, said Snell-Hornby, have provided any substantial
help in furthering translation studies The interesting thing
about these exclusions is that, unlike Toury or Vermeer, Snell-
Hornby tried to indicate precisely where the equivalence
paradigm had gone wrong. This is where translation studies
could have become truly upsetting.
Some of the things Snell-Hornby says about
equivalence are perceptive and stimulating. For example, she
finds that in the course of the 1970s the English term
equivalence became increasingly approximate and vague to
the point of complete insignificance, and its German
counterpart was increasingly static and one-dimensional.
36
This difference curiously maps onto the strategies of Toury and
Vermeer as outlined above, suggesting that there was in fact no
radical rupture between those who talked about equivalence
and those who preferred not to (Toury accepted the English-
language trend; Vermeer fell in with the German-language
usage of the term). Summing up a very meandering argument,
Snell-Hornby concludes that the term equivalence, apart from
being imprecise and ill-defined (even after a heated debate of
over twenty years) presents an illusion of symmetry between
languages which hardly exists beyond the level of vague
approximations and which distorts the basic problems of
translation. Some kind of equivalence could be integrated into
its appropriate corner (technical terminology), but the
equivalence paradigm should otherwise get out of the way.
Snell-Hornby did not care that notions of equivalence
had been strategically useful against theories of
untranslatability, nor that they had effectively achieved a
degree of institutional legitimation for translation studies. Hers
was a different historical moment, with different strategies and
goals. But even given the new context, at least one sleight of
hand should be pointed out. If the term equivalence were
really so polysemous - Snell-Hornby elsewhere claims to have
located fifty-eight different types in German uses of the term
37
(1986: 15) The term apparently means nothing except this
illusion. And yet none of the numerous linguists ever
presupposed any symmetry between languages. Since Snell-
Hornby gives no citation supporting her reduction of the term,
this description of equivalence looks like hers. Of little import
whether the idealized symmetry between languages belonged
more to the word/sense debate, Snell-Hornby strangely thinks
the notion of equivalence had been born to overcome. Indeed,
had she looked a little further, Snell-Hornby might have found
that concepts like Nidas dynamic equivalence presuppose
substantial linguistic asymmetry.
Snell-Hornbys Integrated Approach has indeed had
influence, and may yet find more. It was the right title at the
right time, lying in wait for the massive growth of translator-
training institutions that took off at the end of the decade.
1.4. The importance of equivalence in translation
Although the 1980s critiques of equivalence opened up
new possibilities of interpreting equivalence, they mostly failed
to understand the logic of the previous paradigm. Little attempt
was made to objectify the subjective importance of equivalence
38
as a concept. It is one thing to argue that substantial
equivalence is an illusion, but quite another to understand why
anyone should be prepared to believe in it.
A translation has to stand in some kind of equivalence
relation to the original, which means that equivalence in
translation is not an isolated quality, it is a functional concept
that can be attributed to a particular translational situation.
Equivalence is crucial to translation because it is the unique
intertextual relation that only translations, among all
conceivable text types, are expected to show.
The minority return to equivalence discovers a problem
that the previous usages of the term had played down. It could
even be drawing out the critical potential of something like
Tourys initial acceptance of equivalence. Rather than force
any translator to become an equivalence-seeker, or assume
any rational recovery of original meaning, the above writers
emphasize that the translator is an equivalence producer, a
professional communicator working for people who pay to
believe that, on whatever level is pertinent, B is equivalent to
A. In so doing, the recent references to equivalence are
objectifying the subjective, recognizing but not necessarily
condoning a socially operative belief that enables translations-
and translators to work.
39
The linguistics-derived concept of equivalence was an
expression of what translation ideally represented for certain
people, notably translators organizations in search of higher
social status, readers in search of translated information,
European politicians in search of reliable transcultural
communication,
and academics in search of authoritative science.
It expressed certain ideals of translation as a contemporary
social practice. Theories that now project little substantial
equivalence - whether or not they use the term - should
nevertheless be able to recognize and objectify the subjective
interests that make translation work as a social practice.
Translation studies cannot just put texts under linguistic
microscopes. It must also objectify the beliefs - the current but
uncritical term is norms - that condition the way translations
are received and thus the way translators tend to work. Such
subjective beliefs obviously include the illusions that remain
operative on the level of theory.
40
Chapter II Non-equivalence in the
Translation Field
2.1. Non-equivalence between source text and target text
Equivalence no matter what definition it figured in
during the bad old days, always implied the possibility of non-
equivalence, of non-translation of a text that was in some way
not fully translational.
A translators choice is much more difficult to make
with the non-equivalence situations when the translator cannot
find a direct equivalent in the target language (TL) for a certain
word in the source-language (SL).
The types and the degrees of translation difficulties are
as various as the type of non-equivalence and their study is as
interesting as useful for translators. There must be added the
fact it is almost impossible to establish absolute criteria of
studying the different types of non-equivalence. The translator
has to use strategies which differ from one situation to another,
and which may be more or less complex and difficult to
41
explain. It is the type of non-equivalence, on the one hand, and
the context as well as translation goal, on the other hand, that
determine the translators choice of the type of strategy (Baker
1992: 24). The question of whether particular words are
untranslatable is often debated, with lists of "untranslatable"
words being produced from time to time. These lists often
include words such as saudade, a Portuguese word (also used
in Spanish) as an example of an "untranslatable". It translates
quite neatly however as "sorrowful longing", but has some
nuances that are hard to include in a translation; for instance, it
is a positive-valued concept, a subtlety which is not clear in
this basic translation.
Some words are hard to translate only if one wishes to
stick to the same grammatical category. Journalists are
naturally enthusiastic when linguists document obscure words
with local flavour, and are wont to declare them
"untranslatable", but in reality these incredibly culture-laden
terms are the easiest of all to translate, even more so than
universal concepts such as "mother". This is because it is
standard practice to translate these words by the same word in
the other language, borrowing it for the first time if necessary.
For example, an English version of a menu in a French
restaurant would rarely translate pt de foie gras as "fat liver
42
paste", although this is a good description. Instead, the
accepted translation is simply pt de foie gras, or, at most,
foie gras pt. The more obscure and specific to a culture the
term is, the simpler it is to translate.
Contrary to popular belief, words are not either
translatable or untranslatable. They are only words, and these
words are more or less hard to translate depending on their
nature and the translator's skills. Quite often, a text or utterance
that is considered to be "untranslatable" is actually a lacuna, or
lexical gap, that is to say that there is no one-to-one
equivalence between the word, expression or turn of phrase in
the source language and another word, expression or turn of
phrase in the target language. A translator, however, can resort
to a number of translation procedures to compensate.
2.2 Available translation procedures
2.2.1. TL longer structures rendered into a SL word
One of the most frequent cases is that of a word
(usually a noun) rendered by a longer syntagm. e.g. That most
popular with Locksleys wellwishers was that he had backed
out[...] ( Henry James, The Landscape Painter).
43
In this example the underlined word is translated by cea
mai rspndit opinie printre cei care erau de partea lui
Locksley era c acesta renunase[...] because the TL lacks an
equivalent in most of the contexts.
The noun sweetness in the syntagm detracted for him
from its sweetness is translated by gustul dulce al succsesului
also because the TL does not have an equivalent for 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 put down by her , some three years
before , in the interest of the childs maintenance[...] Cu
toate acestea, la a doua pronunare a fost adugat o clauz
care diminua pentru Beale Farange gustul dulce al succesului
o hotrre conform creia trebuia s restituie fostei sale soii
cele dou mii ase sute de lire sterline, bani pein pltii de ea,
cu vreo trei ani n urm, pentru ntreinerea copilului (H.
James, What Maisie Knew). Non-equivalence also includes the
situations in which more words are rendered by only one word.
For example the collocation a wilderness of heath is translated
by the noun pustietate in the following example: e.g. They
clung to the purple moors behind and around their dwelling- to
the hollow vale into which the pebbly bridle-path leading from
44
their gate descended, and which wound between fern-banks
first, and then amongst a few of the wildest little pasture-fields
that ever bordered a wilderness of heath [...]Erau foarte legate de mlatinile roiatice care le nconjurau casa- de valea
adnc n care cobora poteca acoperit cu prundi care
pornea de la poarta lor i care erpuia mai nti printre tufele
de ferig apoi printre cele mai slbatice puni care au
mrginit vreodat pustietatea[...] ( Ch. Bronte, Jane Eyre )
2.2.2. Shifts or transpositions
Such shifts or transpositions are frequent translation
procedures which involve changes in grammar from the SL to
the TL. For example the verbal adjective is most frequent
rendered into Romanian by a whole clause, usually an
attributive one.
e.g. There was a reviving pleasure in this
intercourse, of a kind now tasted by me for the first time[...]
In acest fel de prietenie, gseam o plcere care m nsufleea i pe care o simeam pentru prima dat... (Ch Bronte, Jane
Eyre). In the published version, it was translated by o mare
bucurie pe care o gustam ntia oar, which could be
considered a semantic loss.
45
But the differences in the grammatical structures of the
SL and TL may often bring about some changes in the
information content of the message. Two of the most frequent
and obvious changes are those which may take the form of
adding to the TT information which is not expressed in the ST,
or those which may be in the form of omitting from the TT
information specified in the ST.
Here are some of the most frequent syntactic structures
in the SL and in the TL, in our case English and Romanian:
SL noun
TL noun+adj. (breeze aerul rcoros)
TL noun+det.+adj. (extravagance-
cheltuielile mele extravagante )
SL adj.+ adj.
TL adv.+adj. ([a charm both] potent and
permanent- pururea irezistibil )
SL
noun+v+noun
TL v+adv. (thought fitted thought- gndeam
la fel )
TL v(a avea)+det.+noun (opinion met
opinion-aveam aceleai preri)
Even if languages may possess the same concepts, they
lack in some cases a perfect parallelism in the grammatical
structure. This shortcoming has to be solved by the translator
46
who will provide an apparently transformed version which in
fact ensures the clarity of the TT. Thus such a sequence like
noun+prepositional+group may be rendered through very
simple word combinations, or even much more complicated
structures such as the last example in the following table:
SL
noun+prep.+noun
TL v+DO clause ([possessed certain]
claims to distinction pretindeau c
se deosebesc prin ceva
TL noun+adj. (the blackness of the
clouds norii ntuneci; effect of
quiteness efect linititor)
TL noun+prep.+noun+prep.+noun
[remote] spot of peace loc ndeprtat
dintr-o oaz de linite
Since both the TL and the SL have their own
peculiarities, the translator should also consider those situations
where words relevant in one language may be absolutely
irrelevant in the other one. This is the case with She seemed to
find a wall to hit Prea c se lovete de un zid, where the
verb to find is irrelevant.
The subtle choices in point of relevance may differ
signficantly from one translator to another, which would affect
the quality and accuracy of the translation.
47
Another case of non-equivalence is that of using the
plural for SL singular. Thus the nouns in wave and rock and
cloud are marked for the plural in 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 n-am mai vzut un loc
att de frumos pe rm- niciodat n-am fost att de fascinat de
valuri, de stnci i de nori. ( H. James, The Landscape Painter )
The coordinating conjunction and in the ST is replaced
by the preposition de in the TT in order to give the TT sentence
the rhythm and musicality of the ST one.
Thus, the literary translator has to overcome the
restrictions imposed by certain features of the SL structures
and has to make the TT sound natural.
One point that has to be kept in mind is that the content
of a message in the SL cannot always be matched by an
expression with exactly the same content in the TL , and what
must be expressed is a problem as difficult as that of how it can
be expressed. Following SL norms may involve minimal
change in the overall meaning. On the other hand, deviations
from typical TL patterns may result in a translation which will
sound foreign.
To conclude, it is obvious that the literary translator has
48
to be competent in handling the ST pattern in order to correctly
render the message into the TL and to produce a TT which will
read naturally and smoothly.
2.2.3. Adaptation
An adaptation, also known as a free translation, is a
translation procedure whereby the translator replaces a social,
or cultural reality in the source text with a corresponding
reality in the target text; this new reality would be more usual
to the audience of the target text.
For example, in the Belgian comic book The
Adventures of Tintin, Tintin's trusty canine Milou, is translated
as Snowy, in English and Bobby in Dutch; likewise the
detectives Dupond and Dupont become Thomson and
Thompson in English, Jansen and Janssen in Dutch, Schultze
and Schulze in German, Hernndez and Fernndez in Spanish,
the Spanish examples not being quite so faithful translations
since the pronunciation of the two names is different, and not
just the spelling.
Adaptation is often used when translating poetry, works
of theatre and advertising.
49
2.2.4. Borrowing
Borrowing is a translation procedure whereby the
translator uses a word or expression from the source text in the
target text. Borrowings are normally printed in italics if they
are not considered to have been naturalized in the target
languages.
2.2.5. Calque
Calque is a translation procedure whereby a translator
translates an expression (or, occasionally, a word) literally into
the target language, translating the elements of the expression
word for word.
2.2.6. Compensation
Compensation is a translation procedure whereby the
translator solves the problem of aspects of the source text that
cannot take the same form in the target language by replacing
these aspects with other elements or forms in the source text.
For example, many languages have two forms of the second
person pronoun an informal form and a formal form (the
50
French tu and vous, the Spanish t and Usted, the German du
and Sie, to name but three), while most modern-day dialects of
English no longer recognize the T-V distinction, and have
retained the you form only. Hence, to translate a text from one
of these languages into English, the translator may have to
compensate by using a first name or nickname, or by using
syntactic phrasing that are viewed as informal in English (I'm,
you're, gonna, dontcha, etc.)
2.2.7. Paraphrase
Paraphrase, sometimes called periphrasis, is a
translation procedure whereby the translator replaces a word in
the source text by a group of words or an expression in the
target texts. An extreme example of paraphrase can be found in
the BBC reports of June 22, 2004 of the identification of the
'most untranslatable' word. The word chosen is Ilunga, a word
supposedly from a language in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. The BBC article states that "Ilunga means 'a person
who is ready to forgive any abuse for the first time, to tolerate
it a second time, but never a third time'." Here, the report
proves that this word is not in fact untranslatable, as it provides
an English translation by way of the periphrasis.
51
2.2.8. Translator's note
A translator's note is a note (usually a footnote or an
endnote) added by the translator to the target text to provide
additional information pertaining to the limits of the
translation, the cultural background or any other explanations.
Some translations allow or demand such notes. Despite this,
resorting to notes is normally seen as a failure by many
translation professionals.
2.2.9 Culture specific elements
The translator is a mediator between intercultural
situations of communication. This is based on his personal
perception of the cultural equation and on cultural competence.
The translator has to detect the personal elements in the text of
the culture concerned. Each cultural element is not simply seen
in respect of the language culture1 ( LC1) but viewed as being
the ground of a potential difference, distinction, because the
cultural features are central in the translation theory and
practice. The translator explores the LC2 in order to find the so-
called equivalent to a certain word in the LC1. He may be faced
with three unsatisfactory options:
52
- to keep the LC1 references but to produce a virtually
incomprehensible LC2 text;
- to find equivalent LC2 references, but to miss the
reference to a certain thing;
- to insert a simple passive reference to a certain thing,
which would entail missing the overall coherence of the
image.
Translators of literary texts often complain about the
lack of expressiveness, purity of LC2, and consider that the
genius of the original has to be maintained at any cost even at
the cost of the non-comprehension of the LC2 reader.
As Leon Levitchi pointed out when dealing with such
elements the translator can either preserve them as such or
provide them with an approximate equivalent in the TL. For
example the noun phrase an English Blue Book designates a
reality specific to the British culture, i.e. a British
parliamentary or other publication bound in a blue cover
(Webster 1996: 162 ); that is why it was given in translations a
word-for-word rendering and it was not replaced by a target
culture specific term which might be considered a possible
equivalent.
In translating the English corn fields a translator should
pay attention to the so-called false friends or deceptive
53
cognates because the term corn can be translated as grau,
grane, cereale in British English, as porumb in American
English or ovaz in Scottish or Irish.
In Romanian, the appelative neica is a variant of nene,
having the same meaning, that of termen de respect cu care se
adreseaz cineva unui brbat sau unui frate mai mare. Being a
culture specific element it could not be rendered into TL by a
similar word. And the examples could go on.
All these examples point out the importance of the
cross-cultural knowledge for the translator as a mediator
between cultures. His attention must be drawn to the LC1
specific elements of the text as his reading is always situated at
the level of difference. He will pay special attention to
certain elements which take on a particular importance when
considering the text from the LC2 perspective.
Consequently, the translators competence is measured
by his ability to analyse, compare and convert two cultural
systems.
54
Chapter III The Challenging World of George
Clinescus Translation Enigmatic Otilia
3.1. TEXT CORPUS
Text 1
Judecata era de o nedreptate scandaloas i se vedea c
nu vine dect din rutate. Pascalopol ncerc s mblnzeasc
situaia.
- Cucoan Aglae, azi eti ru dispus. Domnioara Otilia
cnt minunat, e o artist.
Aurica ls capul n jos, strngndu-i buzele ntre dini.
- Aa eti dumneata, galant, mai arunc Aglae o
neptur. Mai bine mi-ai spune ce s fac cu Titi c sunt foarte
suprat. L-a lsat corigent iar... l persecut fiindc el e timid,
nu e ndrzne ca alii... a fost i bolnav. Poate cunoti pe
cineva, s pun o vorb bun la toamn.
- Punem, punem, cum s nu se oferi Pascalopol,
55
ntotdeauna ndatoritor dar eu zic c pn atuncea s-l
prepare cineva, ca s fim mai siguri.
Felix edea pe o banc n apropierea chiocului, n btaia
luminii nehotrndu-se s plece ct vreme Otilia se afla prin
preajm. Deodat auzi glasul fr densitate al Aurichii, voit
persuasiv.
- Putem s rugm pe domnul Felix, mam, cred c n-are
s ne refuze
- Chiar c s-ar putea, dac-ar vrea dumnealui.
Felix se nvoi bucuros, i puin dup aceea, cnd i se pru
mai priincios, ddu bun seara i se retrase.
Cnd ajunse n geamalcul de sus, care privea spre
grdin, vzu pe Otilia stnd la o fereastr deschis.
Conversaia de jos i incidentul cu pianul o indispusese
probabil, i acum se refugiase aici, fr s ias din raza lui
Pascalopol.
Zrind pe Felix, Otilia l chem n oapt.
- Ce faci? Vino aici!
Cnd Felix se rezem de canatul ferestrei, Otilia i spuse
tot ncet:
- Nu tii ce viper e tanti Aglae asta! Uf!
Ca i cnd ar fi bnuit o inimiciie, Aglae, care-i zrise n
treact sub sclipirile lunii, zise tare de jos:
56
- Otilio, s-l aduci mine pe dumnealui la noi!
- Da tanti rspunse cu o miere teatral Otilia, fcnd o
strmbtur cu neles lui Felix are s-i par foarte bine lui
Titi!
ns numaidect adug ncet lui Felix:
- S vezi ce prost e!
Pascalopol implor pe Otilia s se coboare; Aglae, ca s
nu supere prea mult pe moier, se asocie i ea, conciliant:
- Vino jos, Otilia ce stai acolo?
Otilia fcu un semn de adio lui Felix, care intr n odaia
lui i se culc. Trziu de tot, cnd se trezi o clip din somn,
ntunericul se subia crepuscular i un coco cnta. Lui Felix i
se pru c aude trosnitura uii gotice de la intrare i, puin dup
aceea rostogilirea roilor unei trsuri.
(Enigma Otiliei, Chapter II pages 31-32)
The remark/opinion was scandallously unfair and had
clearly come out of spite / ill-will. Pascalopol tried to calm
things down
Youre in a bad mood today, Madam / Madame Aglae.
Miss Otilia plays wonderfully, she is an artist.
Aurica looked down biting her lips.
Youre being courteous as usual, came Aglaes new
57
stinger. Youd better tell me what to do about Titi because Im
very upset. They failed him again they are persecuting him, as
hes shy, he isnt so forward as others are hes also been ill.
Maybe you know someone who could put in a good word this
autumn.
We will by all means, Pascalopol offered himself to
help, obliging as always but I think someone should tutor
him, just to make sure.
Felix was sitting on a bench near the kiosk, in the
moonlight and couldnt make up his mind and leave as long as
Otilia was still around. All of a sudden he heard Auricas
hollow voice purposely persuasive.
We can ask Mr. Felix, mother, I think he wont turn us
down.
He might really help us, if he would.
Felix gladly agreed and, a little bit later, when he felt it
was the right time, he said good-night and left.
When he reached the glass verandah, which looked out
into the garden, he could see Otilia sitting at an open window.
The conversation downstairs and the incident about the piano
must have irritated her and now she had taken refuge there,
without Pascalopol losing sight of her.
Catching sight of Felix, Otilia whispered him to get closer:
58
What are you doing? Come here!
When Felix leaned against the wing of the window, Otilia
also whispered:
You dont have the slightest idea of what a viper this
aunt Aglae of mine is! Uf!
As if she had suspected Otilias hostility, Aglae,
catching a glimpse of them under the moonlight, said loudly
from downstairs:
Otilia, bring him tomorrow to visit us
Yes, auntie answered Otilia with faked hypocrisy /
unctuously, making faces to Felix Titi would be very glad.
But immediately she whispered to Felix:
Youll see how dull he is / Just wait to see how dull he
is / You should see how dull he is
Pascalopol begged Otilia to come downstairs; for fear
the landowner might get upset, Aglae, joined him compromisingly:
Come down, Otilia, why on earth are you sitting there?
Otilia waved good-bye to Felix, when he entered his
room and went to bed. Very late at might, when he suddenly
woke up, the darkness seemed to fade away little by little and a
rooster was singing. Felix seemed to hear the crack of the front
Gothic door and, shortly afterwards the rolling down of the
wheels of carriage
59
Text 2
A doua zi la mas, Otilia fu tot att de senin, seara
nu veni deloc. O mhnire mare cuprinse pe Felix, o sil de
toate i prin cap i trecur idei extravagante. Se gndea s lase
totul balt, s fug undeva n lume, ca fochist pe un vapor. Ii
nchipuia consternarea Otiliei, regretul ei de a-l fi fcut s
sufere i s plece, o vede plngnd. Melodrama asta
inexorabil i mica toate fibrele sufletului i prefcu
descurajarea ntr-o mare durere consolatoare. i chinuia totui
mintea cu fel de fel de ipoteze: Otilia a gsit scrisoarea, dar n-a
bnuit de la cine este, i-a nchipuit c e vreo glum, vreo
hrtie veche a lui Felix; a gsit-o i, distrat, a aruncat-o fr s-
o desfac; n-a gsit-o deloc, scrisoarea cznd undeva printre
lucruri; a citit-o dar nu-l iubete pe Felix. Ipoteza din urm
aprindea gelozia n inima lui Felix.
(Enigma Otiliei, chapter VIII page 104 )
Next day at lunch time Otilia was as serene as before;
in the evening she didnt come at all. Felix was seized with a
deep feeling of sorrow, feeling sick and tired of everything and
absurd ideas crossed his mind. He was thinking to drop
everything, run to some place of the world and be a stoker on a
60
ship. He could imagine Otilias perplexity, the regret of having
him suffer and of making him go away; he could see her
crying. This inexorable melodrama moved him deeply and his
disappointment became an intense comforting pain. All kind of
assumptions tortured his mind. Otilia had found the letter but
she couldnt imagined who the sender might be; she thought it
was a joke, or an old paper of Felixs / belonging to Felix; or
she had found it but absent minded as she was she threw it
away without even opening it; maybe she didnt find the letter
at all since he letter could fall through her stuff; or maybe she
had read it but she didnt have any feeling for Felix.The last
assumption made Felix jealous.
Text 3
Ceea ce l ntuneca pe Felix, dndu-i oarecare doz de
mizantropie era indiferena tuturor, chiar a colegilor de
universitate, pentru orice atitudine intelectual, pentru orice
nflcrare ce n-avea un scop imediat, terestru. La Iai, n
internat, discuta cu aprindere cu colegii, chiar n pat, dup
stingerea luminii, probleme pe care cteodat nu le nelegea
nimeni bine, dar care i mbtau dndu-le mndrii de filosofi.
Problemele erau formulate n chipul ntrebrilor? (ce e viaa?
61
ce e moartea?), aa cum le ntlneau prin brouri. Unul pusese
odat problema: ce e femeia, i toi se strduir s dea soluiile
cele mai extravagante, nimeni nu fcu nici cea mai mic glum
indecent i nici mcar vreo aluzie la problema sexualitii.
Erau unii care puneau mna pe reviste i-i scoteau din
ele teme necunoscute celorlali, pe care le dezlegau cu soluii
tot din revist, spre ciuda colegilor de disput, care voiau s
tie de unde furaser ideile. ntr-o noapte discutar despre
Dumnezeu. Afar ploua cu gleata i tuna, i unii din biei mai
fricoi i mai puin dialecticieni, tremurau de fric i chiar se
nchinau pe sub ptur, ncredinai c o astfel de discuie poate
fi primejdioas pe aa vreme.
(Enigma Otiliei, chapter XIV pages 225-226 )
What was making Felix gloomy and to a certain extent
misanthropical was everybodys indifference, even that of his
university colleagues/ college mates, towards any intellectual
attitude, any passion whose aim was hardly touchable,
material. In Iai, at the hostel he would argue with his room
fellows, even after they had switched off the light, about topics
which could never be well understood, but which made them
feel as proud as if they were philosophers. The topics
62
/problems were put in question form (what is life? what is
death?) as they had found them in leaflets.
One of them had once raised the question what is a
women? and everybody tried to come up with the most
extravagant solutions, but none of them made the least indecent
joke or even to hint at the problem of sexuality/ the slightest
remark to sexuality.
Some of them would get hold of different leaflets and
they took unknown topics from there, which they solved using
clues from the same papers, to their collegues spite who would
like to know where those solutions/ideas had been taken from.
One night they discussed about God. Outside it was raining
heavily and the thunder could be heard so some of boys,
frightened and less dialecticians were trembling and even they
were saying prayers/crossing themselves without being seen,
convinced that such a discussion might be perilous on a stormy
night/weather.
63
3.2. Text Analysis
Enigma Otiliei
de G. Clinescu
Judecata era de o
nedreptate scandaloas i
se vedea c nu vine dect
din rutate. Pascalopol
ncerc s mblnzeasc
situaia.
Enigmatic Otilia
by G. Clinescu
The remark/opinion was
scandallously unfair and had
clearly come out of spite / ill-
will. Pascalopol tried to calm
things down.
In translating each instance of a text we should first of
all observe the possible equivalence between the ST and TT.
The first word of the Romanian version judecata was translated
by the remark, not the judgement, because the latter would
match neither the meaning nor the register of the original. In
terms of pragmatic equivalence it means the opinion / remark
and not an act or an instance of judging. Translating it as The
judgement was unfair would have been a clear case of non-
equivalence at the semantic level of the context.
The Romanian era de o nedreptate scandaloas was
rendered through was scandalously unfair. Here we can speak
about a case of non-equivalence in point of grammar. The
64
noun + adjective structure in the original nedreptate
scandaloas was rendered by adverb + adjective in English.
A variant which I could also suggest for the sake of symmetry
between the two languages was the remark was of an
outrageous injustice. Outrageous is too strong as compared to
the original meaning and the choice of injustice is too formal if
we take into account the dictionary definition of this word: the
quality or fact of being unjust; inequity; violation of the rights
of others (Webster).
Even the Romanian verbal nucleus se vedea was
translated using an adverb in the TT. It is also a case of non-
equivalence. The meaning of the impersonal reflexive
construction in the ST was rendered in English by the adverb
clearly which I chose in order to match the register. If I had
used it was obvious instead of clearly this would be translated
as era evident. On the other hand, the use of one could see is
very formal and sounds definitional.
Another case of non-equivalence is to be discussed
here: c nu vine dect din rutate - it had come only out of
spite. Spite was chosen instead of other possible variants such
as malice (the desire or intention to deliberately harm someone:
Longman); Sadness i.e. the desire of causing problems or
doing harm; meanness unkindness or nastiness; ill-will
65
strong dislike or hostility. None of them matches exactly the
semantic and pragmatic dimension of the original. As far as the
choice of the tense is concerned, there is also a non-
equivalence because Past Perfect was used instead of Simple
Past, since the relationship of anteriority is obvious se vedea c
nu venise dect din rutate. Following also the rules of the
sequence of tenses I chose to translate it as it had come.
Even if we can not speak about total or perfect
equivalence, such a sample is to be found in rendering the
Romanian s mblnzeasc situaia in to calm things down. I
also wanted to translate it using to calm down the situation, but
this expresses a subjective state or feeling which does not
match the context.
Another option would be to calm down the spirits, but
the spirits refer to the individuals rather than to the
circumstances seen as a whole an individual as characterized
by a given attitude, disposition, character, action (Webster).
So the meaning of the word situaie used in STL is most
adequately rendered by things in TT.
66
- Cucoan Aglae, azi eti
ru dispus. Domnioara Otilia
cnt minunat, e o artist.
Aurica ls capul n jos,
strngndu-i buzele ntre dini.
- Aa eti dumneata,
galant, mai arunc Aglae o
neptur. Mai bine mi-ai
spune ce s fac cu Titi c sunt
foarte suprat. L-a lsat
corigent iar... l persecut
fiindc el e timid, nu e
ndrzne ca alii... a fost i
bolnav. Poate cunoti pe
cineva, s pun o vorb bun
la toamn.
Youre in a bad mood today,
Madam / Madame Aglae. Miss
Otilia plays wonderfully, she is an
artist.
Aurica looked down biting
her lips. Youre courteous as
usual, came Aglaes new
stinger. Youd better tell me
what to do about Titi because
Im very upset. They failed him
again they are persecuting
him, as hes shy, he isnt so
forward as others are hes
also been ill. Maybe you know
someone who could put in a
good word this autumn.
In the theoretical part of my paper I have discussed
about cultural equivalence. In this fragment I have dealt which
such an issue. Cocoan was translated as Madam, which is a
polite term of addressing a woman, formerly used to a woman
of rank or authority belonging to a high social class. It was
finally chosen instead of maam, which is too informal as a
consequence of the fact that formerly was used by the natives,
67
belonging to the lower classes after the family name; Madame
would be another choice but it is used as a title for a French-
speaking woman, especially a married one. Thus in this context
madam is a cultural equivalent.
The Romanian phrase Azi eti ru dispus was rendered
by Youre in a bad mood today. Other possible equivalents
would be: to be in low spirits (to be sad, less cheerful), to be
low-spirited, to be down in the mouth (informal-looking very
unhappy) or to be in a foul need (to be very angry or upset).
These would have been quite inappropriate because they have a
different contextual distribution. Mood refers to the way you
feel at a particular time, so to be in a bad mood means to be
annoyed, angry and matches the semantic dimension of the
original implying a case of semantic equivalence.
E o artist Shes an artist. Other variants suggested here can be: 1. Shes a real artist but this would be a semantic
gain. 2. Shes quite an artist, isnt she? due to the high
frequency of the question-tags in English, but it would change
the pragmatic dimension of the context. As for the other part of
the sentence Domnioara Otilia cnt minunat it has a clear
English equivalent plays wonderfully.
Non-equivalence is also found in the translation of ls
capul n jos rendered by looked down (in point of meaning),
68
because lower ones eyes better corresponds to i cobor
privirea which is the real meaning here.
Neither bend ones head (to curve), nor hang ones
head (to look ashamed and embarrassed) could be accepted as
equivalents because I think they match completely different
contexts.
Strngdu-i buzele ntre dini was rendered by biting
her lips, but it better corresponds to a-i muca buzele. It is a
case of idiomatic non-equivalence given that its primary
meaning is to try to keep calm and not show your feelings in a
situation when most people would become upset. My first
choice was squeezing her lips between her teeth because for
example Levichis Dictionary gives to squeeze, to press as
equivalents for the Romanian a strnge, but I think they cannot
be used with reference to ones lips. To squeeze means to
press something firmly inwards (Longman); to press means
to push something, to try to persuade somebody. None of
these match the Romanian meaning i muc buzele.
Galant translated as courteous seems to me quite an
equivalent translation since the English term means having
good manners and respect for the people. A confusable trap
would be here the use of courtly which means graceful and
polite.
69
Another case of non-equivalence is to be found in mai
arunc Aglae o neptur came Aglaes new stinger. In terms of adequacy and register, stinger is a very good
equivalent for neptur. Another variant is biting remark. As
we can see, both sting and biting remark collocate very well
with drop but the Romanian version was a arunca not a lsa
s-i scape, that is why to drop cannot be used here.
E.g. Aglae dropped a bitter/biting remark was a
possible version.
Another variant which I had in mind was gave a
sarcastic reply but the verbal phrase to give a reply belongs to
informal English whereas the adjective sarcastic better
matches the formal style so it could be a shift of register within
the same phrase.
In order to match the register I could use biting instead
of sarcastic, but it still wouldnt correspond to the original.
Reply is not a very good equivalent in terms of collocability as
well as in terms of the co-text; reply would make us think that
the remark/the stinger was addressed to Pascalopol, not to
Otilia.
The Romanian mai bine mi-ai spune which was
translated as youd better tell me seems to be quite adequate in
terms of register and semantics than the too formal variant with
70
suggest followed by analytical subjunctive that I had in mind
when translating:
E.g. I suggest that you should tell me, or you should tell me what where the modal should expresses the speakers
advice or recommendation. So in this case I used quite an
equivalent translation of the syntagm.
Suprat was translated by upset meaning unhappy
and worried because something unpleasant or disappointing
has happened (Longman). Other variants which I could
suggest were: angry with or angry about, sad, furious,
irritated, but none of them would match the semantic and
pragmatic dimensions of the context.
L-a lsat corigent iar... they failed him again. I preferred the transitive verb to fail somebody, used in its
connotative meaning (to declare a person unsuccessful in a test,
course of study) to the more formal and explanatory to have to
go in for a second examination given by Levichi. Moreover, I
consider to be a case of syntactic non-equivalence because the
agent is expressed in the singular and it has a rather vague
reference. I translated l-a by they used with an indefinite
value.
ndrzne was translated as forward because it implies
making oneself unduly prominent or bringing oneself to
71
notice with too much assurance bgcios, obraznic. In terms
of context is more appropriate as compared to bold suggesting
imprudence, shamelessness and immodesty neruinat; or
compared to brazen- imprudent suggesting the shame, together
with a defiant manner. Other suggested variants would be:
insolent meaning rude and disrespectful, contemptuously
impertinent, insulting impertinent, insolent; then presumptuous employing overconfidence, taking too much for
granted- ncrezut, ngmfat, obraznic; and cheeky- imprudent,
insolent which for sure would not match the context in terms of
register, belonging to informal English.
The Romanian s pun o vorb bun was rendered by
who could put in a good word. Other variants or possible
equivalents would be: speak up for somebody, or speak a good
word for somebody, which both imply actually uttering,
delivering a discourse, which is not the case in this context; or
the variants give somebody ones good word, or recommend
somebody which imply that the recommended person is of
confidence, consequently having a different distribution. Thus
the translation who could put in a good word would be just
fine.
72
- Punem, punem, cum s
nu se oferi Pascalopol,
ntotdeauna ndatoritor dar
eu zic c pn atuncea s-l
prepare cineva, ca s fim mai
siguri.
Felix edea pe o banc n
Top Related