G raduate School F o rm 9

(R evised 6/03)

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Thesis Acceptance

This is to certify that the thesis prepared

By Hanada A . A l-M asri________________________________________________________

Entitled Sem antic and C u ltu r a l L o sse s i n th e T r a n s la tio n o f L ite r a r y T ext

Complies with University regulations and meets the standards o f the Graduate School for originality
and quality

For the degree o f D octor o f P h ilo so p h y ___________ _______________________________

W
Signed by the final examining committee:

Victor Raskin
Chair
IE
Myrdene Anderson
EV
Salvatore Attardo

Shaun D.F. Hughes J l i . ' - / ' y Q U

PR

Approved by:
Head o f the Graduate Program

n is
This thesis is not to be regarded as confidential.
Major Professor

Format A pproved by:

or
Chair, Final Examining Committee Department Thesis Format Advisor

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 W
IE
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 SEMANTIC AND CULTURAL LOSSES
IN THE TRANSLATION OF LITERARY TEXTS

(j-a jttV 'll 'L a a .jp 2jWSMl j 2 \'l j ‘4 , 'I

A Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty

W
of
Purdue University
IE
by
Hanada Al-Masri
EV
PR

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree
of
Doctor of Philosophy

May 2004

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 UMI Number: 3150731

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy

W
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
IE
alignm ent can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
EV

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

PR

UMI
UMI Microform 3150731

Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 To My Beloved Parents: Your Dream Came True.

W
IE
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to my major advisor

Professor Victor Raskin for his constant support, input, and guidance which has helped to
write this dissertation.
I would also like to acknowledge the members of my committee: Professor
Myrdene Anderson, Professor Shaun Hughes, and Professor Salvatore Attardo whose
invaluable comments and suggestions contributed to the final production of this
dissertation.

W
Also my special thanks go to all the professors in Linguistics for being a great
source of enlightenment, and for making my learning experience in the United States
both pleasant and fruitful.
IE
Finally, I would like to thank my mother, father, brothers and sisters whose
continuous love, support, and encouragement helped me to go on, and fulfill their dream.
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................... vii

ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ viii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION................................................................................... 1

I. Statement of the Research Problem...................................................................... 1

W
II. Objectives of Research....................................................................................... 17

III. Significance of Research...................................................................................20

IE
IV. Methodology and Procedure............................................................................ 22

A. Data Collection.....................................................................................22
EV

B. Method of Analysis.............................................................................. 23

V. Organization of Dissertation............................................................................. 27
PR

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE..........................................29

I. Translation from a Linguistic Perspective......................................................... 29

II. Translation from a Cultural Perspective............................................................34

III Translation from a Semiotic Perspective......................................................... 43

A. The Semiotic Theory of Signs..............................................................44

B. Translation and Semiotics..................................................................... 51

IV. Translation from a Pragmatic Perspective...................................................... 61

V. The Theory and Markedness............................................................................. 68

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 V

Page

CHAPTER THREE: LINGUISTIC LOSSES:

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION......................................................................................... 74

I. Results...................................................................................................................75

II. Classification and Discussion of Cultural Losses............................................78

A. Tolerable Losses....................................................................................78

A.I. Tolerable Losses in Style.............................................................78

A.2. Tolerable Losses in Word Relations...........................................84

B. Serious Losses........................................................................................ 88

B .l. Loss of Pragmatic Connotations................................................. 89

W
B.2. Mistranslation of Meanings......................................................... 93
IE
B.3. Loss of Social Deixis.................................................................... 94

B.4. Loss of the Speaker’s Attitude.................................................... 97

EV

B.5. Loss of Cultural Expressions and Idioms................................... 98

B.6. Loss of Ellipsis..............................................................................99

C. Complete Losses....................................................................................99
PR

CHAPTER FOUR: CULTURAL LOSSES:

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION....................................................................................... 112

I. Results.................................................................................................................113

II. Classification and Discussion of Cultural Losses.......................................... 115

A. Explicit Losses..................................................................................... 118

B. Implicit Losses..................................................................................... 122

C. Modified Losses................................................................................... 132

D. Complete Losses.................................................................................. 135

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 vi

Page

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION...................................................................................146

BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................................................. 154

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Orthographic Conventions.............................................................163

Appendix B: Examples of Linguistic Losses...................................................... 164

Appendix C: Examples of Cultural Losses..........................................................169

VITA................................................................................................................................... 172

W
IE
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

Table 1: A Summary of the General Losses in Relation

to the Markedness Continuum......................................................................................... 109

Table 2: A Summary of the Detailed Losses in Relation

to the Markedness Continuum......................................................................................... 110

Table 3: A Summary of the Cultural Losses in Relation

to the Markedness Continuum......................................................................................... 144

W
IE
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 ABSTRACT

Al-Masri, Hanada. Ph.D., Purdue University, May 2004. Semantic and Cultural
Losses in the Translation of Literary Texts. Major Professor: Victor Raskin.

The present study investigates the nature and causes of semantic and cultural

losses occurring in translations of selected literary texts from Arabic to English.

Previous research showed that the losses resulted mainly from the lack of equivalence

W
between the source text and the target text. These losses were explained in terms of

the lack of functional equivalence and the focus on formal equivalence. The present
IE
study proposes, in addition, that losses result from the lack of a balanced equivalence
EV
on the semantic and cultural levels. In particular, it stresses the semiotic equivalence

approach that significantly accounts for both the semantic and pragmatic factors of

the source text. The results of the present study show that linguistic/semantic losses
PR

are losses of verbal signs that affect the source text seriously (blocking the

understanding of the source message), or moderately/tolerablely (affecting its

aesthetic values). Cultural losses, on the other hand, are losses of the hidden cultural

information that reflect the social norms, religious beliefs, and ideological attitudes of

the source text. Whereas semantic losses result from cases of mistranslation,

superficial interpretation of the semantic and pragmatic equivalents, and literal

translation, cultural losses result from the lack of pragmatic equivalence on the

surface level, and/or the deep level of the source text. The results also show that

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 semantic and cultural losses could be marginalized in translation by furnishing the

grounds and providing target readers with the background knowledge that facilitates

the decoding of source-language situations, and considers the cultural connotations

inherent in the source text. Accordingly, it is recommended that before actual

translation takes place, the translator should resolve the markedness of the linguistic

and cultural elements in the source text by rendering the unfamiliar familiar.

W
IE
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

I. Statement of the Research Problem:

Translation has always been recognized as an important genre of communication. It

plays a great role in breaking down the barriers between two different linguistic cultures,

and enables harmony and mutual understanding. For successful communication between

W
any two different linguistic codes to take place, there needs to be familiarity with the sets
IE
of values, and social/cultural realities that belong to a particular culture. The absence of

such understanding would pose problems in transferring the intended meaning from one
EV

language to another; accordingly, inevitable losses would occur. The translation process

should, therefore, ensure that the translated text presents the key elements of the source
PR

text by well incorporating it in the new product to produce the same effect as was

intended by the source text.

The problem with translation lies in its complexity. Most of the works on translation

theory begin with the limitation that translation is an interdisciplinary, and a multilevel

phenomenon. Schulte (1987: 1-2), for example, states:

Translators do not engage in the mere transplantation of words [...] their

interpretive acts deal with the exploration of situations that are constituted
by an intense interaction of linguistic, psychological, anthropological and
cultural phenomena.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 2

This emphasizes the fact that translation is not a mere transference of verbal signs

(words), but involves higher levels of semantic, textual and situational contexts, and other

extra-linguistic factors. This is probably why it has been hard for translation scholars to

agree on a unified theory of translation (cf. the essays in Hickey, 1998). In his evaluation

of the current translation theories, Holmes (1994: 97) states “the state of translation

theory is still not very powerful in the sense that it does not explain the phenomena to the

extent that we should like it to”. We can understand the complexity of the translation

process by comparing the reading process in both the source text, and the translated text.

In reading the source text, there is a direct interaction between the source-language author,

W
the text, and the source readers. In translation, however, the process is indirect and

reveals a series of interdependent relationships: it involves the relationship between the

IE
translator and the source author; between the translator and the source text; and between

the translator and his target audience. Translation, in this sense, is the process whereby a
EV

third party (translator) intervenes in the communication process by means of which the

source author conveys a message to the readers. The more efficient the translator, the less
PR

losses will the new reproduction have.

The existing literature on the theory, practice, and history of translation is huge

although the greatest bulk has been produced in the 20th century (cf. Bassnett-McGuire,

1980; and Hart, 1998). Such literature broadly defines the process as the matching

between the source text and the target text. Such sort of matching was given different

labels: “similarity”, “analogy”, “adequacy”, “invariance”, “congruence”,

“correspondence”, “transfer”, “relevance”, “equivalence” (Broeck, 1976; Bassnett-

McGuire, 1980; Larson, 1984; Hart, 1998; Pedersen, 1988; Newmark, 1991). As for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 3

translation process per se, it was given many various, and sometimes, overlapping

definitions. Newmark (1991) offered the labels “communicative” and “semantic”

translation to account for the various functions of translation. Koller (1972) proposed the

“equivalence effect Principle” (cited in Hart, 1998); Nida (1964): “dynamic

equivalence/formal equivalence”; Catford (1965): “cultural translation/linguistic

translation”; House (1981): “overt translation/covert translation”. The present study

adopts the term ‘equivalence’. As a working definition for the purpose of this study,

“equivalence” will refer to the sameness of effect that signs in the source and target texts

have on the audience for which they are intended (following Kruger, 2001).

W
Before proceeding to the objectives and significance of this study, it is worth

presenting, at this point, a brief history of translation. Translation researchers believe that
IE
the most important function of translation is to break down the barriers between different

cultures. This led to the dismissal of the Whorfian proposition, which holds that people of
EV

different cultures view the world differently; hence the impossibility of translation (Hart,

1998: 36). The function of translation has shifted over years. It first started with the
PR

translation of the bible; thus had a word-for-word, translation, or “literal” translation;

where translatability is concerned with linguistic “equivalence” of languages. Later on,

the focus shifted to the pragmatic transference of meaning. After the invention of

printing in the fifteenth century, the role of translation underwent significant changes.

“Functional/communicative translation” has served to assert national identity through

language revival. Accordingly, communicative translation was an attempt to transpose

ideas from an alien culture into the other. In addition, communicative translation was a

means of compensating for the lack of formal equivalence. Translators, accordingly,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 4

looked for one of two solutions: either import words from the foreign culture into the

target culture; or look for approximate equivalents in the target culture. This shift created

the debate between the so-called “literal” versus “free” translations; or what Bassnett-

McGuire (1980: 61) called “overfaithfulness”, and “looseness”. The following

paragraphs will give a brief summary of three of the central issues of debate among

translation researchers; namely translatability, equivalence, and free versus literal

translation. A detailed presentation will be discussed in chapter two within the framework

of different translation models.

Translatability is understood as the possibility of transferring the messages

W
intended in the source text to the target text. In this regard, Catford (1965: 99) offered

two types: linguistic untranslatability, and cultural untranslatability. On the linguistic

IE
level, untranslatability occurs when there is no lexical or syntactical substitute in the

target language for a source-language item. Cultural untranslatability, on the other hand,
EV

occurs when the target-language culture lacks a relevant situational feature for the source-

language text. Catford (ibid: 99) argues that linguistic source-language features are more
PR

absolute than cultural ones. Here, I share Pedersen’s (1988: 17) disagreement with

Catford because linguistic difficulties can be overcome when the translator is bilingually

competent. In the light of this, translatability can be looked at as a “relative” notion.

Pedersen (1988) holds an intermediate position between two extremes: that of the

Whorfian position, where nothing can be translated across linguistic and cultural barriers;

and that held by some Marxist theorists (e.g., Koller, 1972-cited in Pedersen) that

everything is translatable. Pedersen (ibid: 14) draws on the importance of situational

equivalence, and proposes translatability depends on the possibility of producing “not a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 5

text which is semantically identical with the original, but one which is situationally

equivalent to it”. Pedersen (1988: 44) holds that translation should necessarily change the

target language-text when expressing ideas unknown to the target language before the

translation in question. To this effect, Pedersen (ibid: 21) emphasizes the element of

adaptation particular to literary translation. That is, the translator should transfer the

effects meant by the source author by giving the target-language audience the best

impression possible of the foreign author.

Petrilli (2003) discusses the issue of translatability from a semiotic perspective.

She believes that there is no such thing as “untranslatability” because “translatability is

W
the very condition of the life of signs” (ibid: 42). She remarks “the problem of

translatability concerns the fact that, ultimately, the interpretant of a text can only be a
IE
verbal interpretant from another given language” (Petrilli, ibid: 44). It follows that

translation difficulties should not be attributed to resistance of some sort by the text in
EV

translation. Rather, these difficulties are due to the major focus on verbal signs and

ignoring the nonverbal signs. In this regard, Petrilli disagrees with Jakobson (1971)1, and
PR

argues the text can only be transferred from one language into another, not on the basis of

interlingual translation (that focuses on verbal signs); but on the basis of intersemiotic

translation (that focuses on both verbal and nonverbal signs). More importantly,

translatability, according to Petrilli (ibid: 50), depends on “explicitation of interpretants”

that connects the text to its communicative situation. Such “explication”—or what Petrilli

(2003: 28), sometimes called expressability—is the major criterion for translatability. i.e.,

1 Jakobson’s (1971: 261) three types o f translation are: interlingual translation, intralingual translation,
and intersemiotic translation (see chapter two for a detailed discussion).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 6

“can what is said in one historical-natural language be expressed in another?” Petrilli

(2003: 31) concludes her article by alluding to the advantages of translatability. She

proposes that translatability does not only signify the possibility of translation, but also

indicates an open relation between the source text and the translated one. Translatability

also has the advantage of openness. That is, the translated text may continue to be

translated (Petrilli, 2003: 31).

We will now turn our discussion to the issue of equivalence, which has been one

of the central and controversial issues in translation. Equivalence has been debated (from

a semiotic and non-semiotic view point) in varying degrees (cf. Bassnett-McGuire, 1980:

W
23-9; and Gorlee, 1994: 170).

According to Newmark (1991: 3), for translators to try to define equivalence it is

IE
“a common academic dead-end pursuit”. For the sake of generality, it could be argued

that equivalence was pursued along two lines in translation studies: the first lays
EV

emphasis on the semantic problems; hence the transfer of the semantic content from the

source language into the target language. The second explores equivalence in its
PR

application to literary texts (cf. Pedersen, 1988; and Bassnett-McGuire, 1980). Catford

(1965: 36) proposes that the issue of equivalence would be better dealt with in terms of

“relevance”. By this, Catford refers to the dependence of meaning on situation.

Relevance, to him, is the ability to communicate messages from the source-language text

into the target-language text. For Catford (ibid: 93-4), the basic concern of translation is

to ensure that all the “relevant” features of the source-language message are

communicated to and reflected in the target text. In cases where translation is read

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 7

outside of the source-language context, comprehension presupposes a certain amount of

shared extralinguistic background.

Neubert (1967)—cited in Bassnett-McGuire (1980: 27)—approaches equivalence

from the view point of the text. He postulates that equivalence must be considered a

semiotic category; comprising syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic components. According

to him, these components are arranged hierarchally, so that semantic equivalence takes

priority over syntactic equivalence, and pragmatic equivalence modifies both of the other

elements. Accordingly, Neubert (ibid) connects equivalence to semiotics, and proposes

that “equivalence overall results from the relationship between signs themselves, the

W
relationship between signs and what they stand for, and the relationship between signs,

what they stand for and those who use them”.

IE
Dinda Gorlee (1994: 170) criticizes the traditional (non-semiotic) view of

equivalence, where the source text and the translated text are ideally placed in a one-to-
EV

one correspondence. This means they are to be considered as “codifications of one piece

of information, as logically and/or situationally interchangeable”. Gorlee (ibid: 174-182)

PR

adopts Peirce’s (CP: 5,448, n, 1,1906) use of the term “equivalence”, which states: “two

signs whose meanings are for all possible purposes equivalent are absolutely equivalent”.

Based on Peirce’s universal categories (firstness, secondness, and thirdness), Gorlee (ibid:

174) proposed the term “semiotic equivalence”. It consists of three aspects termed

“qualitative equivalence”, “referential equivalence” and “significational equivalence”

(these types of equivalence will be discussed further in chapter two under the semiotic

perspective to translation). Kruger (2001: 183) postulates that the semiotic approach

offers the “full deployment of the meaning potential of the original sign (source text) in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 8

the translation”. According to Kruger, the semiotic approach sets by far the highest

standard for equivalence.

Another issue directly related to equivalence is the issue of methodology. There

are three types of translation methodology: literal or formal equivalence (focusing on

word-for-word translation); literary or dynamic equivalence (focusing on the transference

of meaning, rather than the form); and adaptive or functional translation (focusing on

recreation of the intention or signification of the source text) (cf. Hart, 1998; and

Pedersen, 1988). Following is a presentation of these methodologies as adopted by

different scholars.

W
Newmark’s (1991) main contribution to the general theory of translation lies in

introducing the concepts “communicative translation”, and “semantic translation”.

IE
According to Newmark (ibid: 10-13), equivalence in the two types of translation should

comply with the usually accepted syntactic correspondences for the two languages in
EV

question. The literal word-for-word translation is unnecessary; provided that the

equivalent effect is secured. Both semantic and communicative translations overlap

PR

widely. That is, a translation can be, more or less, semantic; more or less, communicative.

Accordingly, Newmark (ibid: 11) proposes “there is no reason why a basically semantic

translation should not also be strongly communicative”. Newmark sketches the features

of both types of translation as follows: in semantic translation, faithfulness is directed

towards word-for-word equivalence, i.e., accurate and exact. It is more author-centered

(i.e., pursues the author’s thought process), and so is source-language oriented. In

communicative translation, faithfulness is faithfulness to the effect of the message. It is

reader-centered; focuses on the object of the author’s intention, and so it is target-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 9

language oriented. In evaluating the two kinds of translation, Newmark {ibid.: 11)

proposes that semantic translation is usually “more awkward, more detailed, more

complex, but briefer”. Communicative translation, on the contrary, is “easy reading, more

natural, smoother, simpler, clearer, more direct, more conventional, conforming to

particular register of language, but longer”.

Newmark (1991: 106) believes that opponents of literal translation avoid it for

two reasons: either because they associate it with “translationese”, or they want to leave

their own mark on the translation, to be more colloquial, informal, or idiomatic than the

source text. Translationese: is the phenomenon of interference where a literal translation

W
of a stretch of the source language text (a) plainly falsifies its meaning, or (b) violates

usage for no apparent reason. Newmark (ibid: 78) defines the phenomenon as “an error
IE
due to ignorance or carelessness which is common when the TL [target language] is not

the translator’s language of habitual use, and not uncommon when it is”. To avoid such
EV

interference in translation, Newmark {ibid: 76) proposes the “principle of accuracy”,

which rests on the assumption that there is a limit to the areas of meaning of words as
PR

well as sentences, “every word of the original has to be accounted for though not

necessarily translated” (Newmark, ibid: 76).

Hart (1998) agrees with Newmark on the applicability of both types of translation

(formal, and dynamic), and adds that the choice of either is based on the value/ type of

text. Hart {ibid: 170) believes it is broadly sufficient to use mainly dominant formal

equivalence when the narrative consists of a series of universally shared stereotypes

which have basically truth-values. In this case, “the linguistic signs function more or less

on a literal, objective, and surface level with their original” (Hart, ibid: 170). This is due

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 10

to the fact that the corresponding frames exist already in the other culture and only the

labels have to be changed to conform to the new linguistic and cultural circumstances.

One the other hand, dynamic pragmatic equivalence is more sufficient when the text is

based on implicit values, where the linguistic signs per se do not reflect the whole truth

about the socio-cultural realities. In this regard, Hart (ibid: 171) postulates “the audience

must possess specific previous knowledge in order to understand the implicit sense of the

communication”. This knowledge enables the audience to perceive rapidly the contrast

between what is said and what is meant.

Gutt (1991: 102) is a supporter of communicative translation. He postulates that

W
the translation should bring together the contextual effects of the text to allow the

audience an adequate access to the translated text. He describes the process as follows:
IE
If we ask how the translation should be expressed, the answer is: it should
be expressed in such a manner that it yields the intended interpretation
[emphasis is added] without putting the audience to unnecessary
EV

processing effort. Hence considerations of relevance constrain both the

intended interpretation of the translation and the way it is expressed, and
since consistency with the principle of relevance is always context-
dependent, these constraints, too, are context-determined” (quoted in Hart,
1998: 50).
PR

Vermeer (1989) proposed the skopos theory of translation, which also

favors communicative translation. Vermeer (ibid: 182-3) describes his theory as
follows:
What the skopos states is that one must translate, consciously and
consistently, in accordance with some principle respecting the target text.
The theory does not state what the principle is: this must be decided
separately in each specific case...the skopos theory merely states that the
translator should be aware that some goal exists, and that any given goal is
only one among many possible ones, (quoted in Hart, 1998: 46).

The skopos theory allows for adaptation of the source text to be adequate to the needs and

ends prescribed for the target text. In this regard, Hart (1998: 46) comments:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 11

We should not presuppose or demand equivalence of a translation; the

value of the final text is its adequacy, that is, the appropriate choice of
linguistic signs at the correct semantic, syntactic and pragmatic levels,
with respect to the various characteristics of the circle of readers at whom
it is directed.

El-Shiyab (1999) calls for communicative translation in literary texts, and

supports approaching a literary text from a paralinguistic viewpoint. He (ibid: 208)

argues that the communicative value of the source text is more important than

faithfulness (literal translation). This allows the translator of a literary text a great degree

of freedom, as long as he adheres to the overall meaning of the source text. To this effect,

accuracy and faithfulness are not primary prerequisites like in other types of translation.

W
More importantly, the translator should be close to the mentality and thinking as well as

the experience of the source author (El-Shiyab, ibid: 208).

IE
Walter Benjamin (1968) wrote “The Task of the Translator”, one of the central

essays on theoretical translation. He argues against literal translation or “fidelity” in the

EV

translation of Art. Benjamin (ibid: 78) states, “What can fidelity really do for the

rendering of meaning? Fidelity in the translation of individual works can almost never
PR

fully reproduce the meaning they have in the original”. For Benjamin, the essence of

translation lies in the multiplicity of languages. In this regard, Benjamin (ibid: 78)

emphasizes;

A translation, instead of resembling the meaning of the original, must

lovingly and in detail incorporate the original mode of signification, thus
making both the original and the translation recognizable as fragments of a
greater language, just as fragments of a vessel.

Although it is important to recreate the mode of signification of the source text

into the translated one, as Benjamin suggested, I believe it is equally important to retain

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 12

the meaning of the source text. In the quotation above, Benjamin minimized the role of

meaning and viewed the product as a “fragment”. I believe that meaning/mode of

signification should go hand in hand in the translation process. Benjamin sums up his

view by stating: “real translation is transparent; it does not cover the original, does not

block its light, but allows the pure language...to shine upon the original” (Benjamin,

1968: 82).

Bamstone (1993) discussed the two types of translation from a semiotic

standpoint. He (ibid: 228) views the relation between the source-language text and the

target-language text as the relation of a sign to its object, or of signifier to signified.

W
According to Bamstone, the purpose of literal translation is referential. That is, to transfer

the meaning of the word as faithfully as possible, hence, “signifier A leads to signifier B”
IE
(Bamstone, ibid: 229). Free translation, on the other hand, is ‘metalingual’. Its purpose is

to “reinvent the formal qualities of the message, to ‘recreate’ dramatically the signifier
EV

itself’. That is to say, “signifier B conveys a visibly different version of signifier A”.

In sum, I share the view that “what we accept as a theory depends on what we
PR

want from the theory” (Neubert and Shreve, 1992: 33) Communicative translation would

be more appropriate, if we opt for a translation that is target-reader oriented; that informs

the reader effectively and appropriately; and that creates an effect on the target reader as

close as possible to that on the source reader. If, however the goal is to render

semantically, and syntactically equivalent text to that of the source language; then

faithfulness to the source text is essentially a feature of semantic translation. In literary

translation, the significance of the source-text message should be given priority over the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.