Herbert P.

Philips (in Nida, 1964:156) argues that ‘no statement of the principles of correspondence in translating can be complete without recognizing the many different types of translations’. As a result, the translator intends to begin the discussion with brief introduction in terms of developing the terms and bringing them down into the TL (Farsi/Persian) examples in order to assess and evaluate how applicable they are. ‘Traditionally, we have tended to think in terms of free or paraphrastic translations as contrasted with close or literal ones’; however, there are many other types of translation beside these popular expressions (Nida in Venuti, 2000: 153). Here, the main focus is on ‘Nida’s (1964) “dynamic” and “formal” varieties of “correspondence,” later replacing the term “dynamic” with “functional” (Nida and Taber 1969)’ (ibid: 147-148). The most translation theory discussed during these decades [1960s-1970s] is equivalence and in 1963 Georges Mounin argues that ‘equivalence is based on “universals” of language and culture questioning the notions of relativity that in previous decades made translation seems impossible. At the same time, the literature on equivalence is fundamentally normative,

aiming to provide not only analytical tools to describe translations, but also standards to evaluate them. The universal is then shaped to a local situation’ (Venuti, 2000:147). As a result, ‘since no two languages are identical, either in the meanings given to corresponding symbols or in the ways in which such symbols are arranged in phrases and sentences, it stands to reason that there can be no absolute correspondence between languages. Hence there can be no fully exact translations’ (Nida inVenuti, 2000: 153). In other words, equivalences perform contextually to convey and standardize the text close to the original same as ‘the most direct form of commentary’ as D.G. Rossetti stated in 1874 (Fang: 1953) on the basis of ‘relatedness’ between STL and TTL (ibid; Venuti, 2000:147). On the other hand, “there are, properly speaking, no such things as identical equivalents” (Bellac 1931 and 1931a:37) to identify the text in detail but to study the equivalences as analytical tools (Venuti, 2000:156; Nida, 1964:156). In fact, ‘Equivalence is submitted to lexical, grammatical, and stylistic analysis; it is established on the basis of text type and social function. By the end of the 1970s, so many typologies of equivalence have been devised that Werner Koller can offer a nuanced summary of the possibilities. Equivalence, he writes, may be “denotative,” depending on an “invariance of content”; “connotative,” depending on similarities of register, dialect, and style; “text-normative,” based on “usage norms” for particular text types; and “pragmatic,” ensuring comprehensibility in the receiving culture (Koller 1979:186–91; Koller 1989:99– 104)’ (Venuti, 2000:147). Having all this in mind, we are going to discuss the ‘relatedness’ between English (STL) and Farsi/Persian (TTL). As a matter of fact, ‘Persian language is one of the Iranian languages which form a branch of the Indo-European family and it is written in Arabic script with a number of additional characters to accommodate special sounds and in Iran it is generally referred to as Farsi’ (Katzner, 1986: 166-167). Therefore, not only differences of linguistic affiliation exist but also highly diverse cultures are between mentioned languages.


Despite the fact that, English structure order is subject-verb-object; In Farsi as Farzad (2012) mentions that the verb is always at the end of sentences. Obviously, if one intends to render a sentence into Farsi, he/she has to break the structure even if the purpose is to translate literally in order to make it intelligible1 and natural2 translation; however, ‘it is inevitable also that when source and receptor languages represent very different cultures there should be many basic themes and accounts which cannot be “naturalized” by the process of translating’ (Nida in Venuti, 2000: 164). Besides, the formality of the text also plays an important role. Sometimes, in informal texts, Iranian translator disregards grammatical rules and renders in (S) (V) (O) order which mostly applies in Farsi spoken language and informal written text.
1- Intelligible: ‘… human translations are more faithful and more intelligible than machine translation of that era’ (Somers, 2003: 229). That is to say, if you for instance, use Google translator to render a sentence from English into Persian (like interlinear renderings), the result is segments without any order and fragmented unintelligibly. 2- Natural: ‘A natural translation involves two principal areas of adaptation, namely. Grammer and lexicon. In general the grammatical modifications can be made the more readily, since many grammatical changes are dictated by the obligatory structures of the receptor language’ (Nida in Venuti, 2004: 163)

On the other hand, ‘differences between cultures cause many more severe complications for the translator than do differences in language structure’ (ibid: 157). Also, Nida (ibid: 163) argues that D-E translation contains three dimensions: ‘(1) equivalent, which points the source-language message, (2) natural: which points toward the receptor language and (3) closest, which binds the two orientations together on the basis of the highest degree of approximation. Basically, the word natural is applicable to three areas of the communication process; for a natural rendering must fit (1) the receptor language and culture as whole, (2) the context of the particular message, and (3) the receptor-language audience’. Therefore, an Iranian translator is not always sure how the English audience responds or supposed to respond and as a result, finding ‘dynamic equivalences’ is quite a challengeable task. For instance, to translate a particular text and find a ‘pragmatic equivalence’ I referred to my British neighbour to see how this line which is extracted from ‘The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole’ written by Sue Towesend would effect on him: ‘My father, Stick Insect and Maxwell

House’. He said: ‘this is the first time I heard such expression, but I think this wants to tell he was such a slim guy!’ In next paragraphs, the translator illustrated ‘dynamic equivalences’ through diverse contexts of texts (represented in appendix) on the basis of decoding ability of audiences and their potential interest, the nature of message and purpose of the author or the translator to produce the TT meeting these criteria: 1) making sense 2) conveying the spirit and manner of the original 3) having a natural and easy form of expression and finally, producing similar response and effect (ibid: 154; ibid: 160). As can be observed, abstract (1) is a poem in which the elements of visualization (white, whitness, colorless and blank) and free-verse are obvious. The semantic area of the poem as a whole idea is ‘the lightness of the feather and floating’. The translator keeps all mentioned elements through rendering to convey the message in the same mould/form and same content and esthetic appeal. Also, there is alliteration in the poem which transferred to the TT (English); [r/‫[ ,]ر‬p/‫ ]پ‬in ST to [v], [f] in TT. In addition, equivalences in TT are that reader friendly as in ST for the potential readership; here considered as young adults who can handle both oral and written messages with relative ease. WHITE Found freedom of the color of white And how flightless, have flown away To the whitness of dove’s wing White… White… Colorless…



Here I have landed But it is not this straightforward always. Abstract (2) has acrostic features which transferring them and finding co-suitable equivalences needs more creativity. As can be seen, per three line initials build the word L.S.D. and the poem typically is the trip of emotions, thought and experiences. No word in Farsi begins with the sound of ‘L’,’S’ and ‘D’ as in Farsi these sounds are produced by two units as ‘el/‫‘ ,’ال‬es/‫ ’اس‬and ‘di/‫‘ .’دی‬The ultimate goal of the translation, in terms of its impact upon its intended audiences, is a fundamental factor in any evaluation of translation’ (ibid: 158). Thus, to convey the message, the form of the poem plays a key role and to keep this element, the translator perfectly and strictly applied ‘dynamic equivalences’ to achieve this goal and make the same impression. In line (1) Goddess of bonds/‫ ,الهۀ وصل‬Line (2) Septet of mysteries/‫ ,اسرار هفتگانه‬Line (3) Observing your tomb/‫ ,دیدار گورت‬Line (4) Integration to the low/‫ , الحاق به پایین‬Line (5) Welcoming sea / ‫استقبال‬ ‫ ,دریا‬Line(6) own land/‫ , دیار خویشتن‬Line (7) afflatus from love/‫ ,الهامی از عشق‬Line (8) There is no bondage/‫ ,اسارتی نیست‬Line (9) Afterlife/ ‫ ,دیار باقی‬Line (10) I saw goddess/‫ ,الهه دیدم‬Line (11) Disposition of dreams/‫ ,استقرار رویا‬Line (12) Meeting of icons/ ‫ ,دیدار تمثال‬Line (13) the necessity of the key/ ‫ ,الزام مفتاح‬Line (14) Captivity of body / ‫ ,اسارت تن‬Line (15) Demon yelled/‫ ,دیوی نعره زد‬Line (16) the goddess Lucifer/ ‫ ,الهه شیطان‬Line (17) Colonized/‫,اسکان داده‬ Line (18) deep-rooted drug / ‫.دیرینه افیون را‬ Next, abstract (3) is a well-known poem by Edgar Allen Poe (1845) which is made up of eighteen stanzas of six lines each. Generally, the meter is trochaic tetrameter that tends to draw attention to the verses metricality, marking it off very clearly from ordinary speech and Poe (1809-49) wanted poetry to have a mesmeric quality which carries the reader in a nearly musical reverie, blurring the meaning of the words dreams. Thus, the poem bears a heavy

usage of alliterations ("Doubting, dreaming, dreary, …").The translator picked these last six lines which rendered as the same form in Farsi, using a plenty of alliterations of [r/‫ ]ر‬and [b/ ‫ ]ب‬and the rhymes pointed out in bold font with their underlined D-E translations in discourses; indirect qoutation in line three and six, for more naturalness and solving the problem of co-suitability(Nida in Venuti, 2000: 164; Wainwright, 2004: 76), while the other remained the same as in original in line five as direct quotation. ‫آنک این پرنده ی سیه چرده به فریب خیال غم انگیز مرا زد به لبخندی تقریب‬ ‫به هیبتی که به خود گرفته بود سنگین و باوقار‬ ‫خواندمش با چنان تاج صیقلی رخشا فرومایه ای نمی توانی بود هاشا‬ ‫آواره ی ساحل شبانه ای کالغ پیر و شوم دلهره آر‬ ‫چیست نام اعظمت بر کرانه ی آتشفشانی شب؟ بر زبان آر‬ ‫بفرموده کالغ، نه دیگر بار‬ Moreover, to render the title of Mayor’s (2003) book “Greek Fire, Poison Arrows & Scorpion Bombs” which obviously contains ancient history of weapons, the translator considers that the message should fit the receptor-language audience and the capacity for their decoding and decided to avoid anachronisms for ‘scorpion bombs’ to choose a co-suitable, dynamic equivalence and the result is ‘Balls of scorpions/‫.’گلوله های عقرب‬As the word ‘bomb’ always corresponded with mechanical explosion and this D-E translation avoids further misunderstandings whereas ‘balls’ have the same spirit and actual function. Furthermore, abstract (4) is a thriller novel, namely Black Sheep written by Arlent Hunt (2010). Basically a cop thriller without cops (!) And based in Ireland with Irish dialects and social classes. This is a conversation between two working class people. The translator applied the D-E equivalence for “a bit of craic” which is an Irish expression means “good time/fun” as following and implemented colloquialism based on TL receptor language ‘to have the same kind of indivisuality and personality as the author himself gave them in the

original message’(Nida in Venuti, 2000: 166):"‫ "منظورم اوناییکه اهل حالن‬This is an equivalence which has the same impression and value, manner and spirit. If the translator renders it literally now, it would not convey the same meaning and the back translation as F-E translation would not help in this regard – ‫ /اهل‬inhabitant of ‫ /حال‬present – But as a meaningful idiom it means “fun”. As has been pointed out, ‘when semantically exocentric phrases in the source language are meaningless or misleading if translated literally into the receptor language, one is obliged make some adjustments in a D-E translation’(ibid). For instance, in this metaphor "The rain came down in long knitting needles." Written by Enid Bagnold, namely National Velvet (1935) the children’s classic, the translator applied simile and idiomatic expression simultaneously as following and considering children’s capacity of decoding: ‫"باران مثل تیرهای‬ "‫ کوچک فرود می آمد‬means ‘the rain fell down like tiny arrows’. This dynamic equivalence is more familiar for the receptor language and also, reflects the point of view of the author emotionally. Next, this semantic phrase which is a proverb “Charity begins at home” has a D-E translation as ".‫ "چراغی که به خانه رواست به مسجد حرام است‬Literally means ‘the light which is allowed to

home, it is illicit to mosque’ and for “Blood is thicker than water” this proverb has nothing to do with measures of viscosity. The expression, meaning that family bonds are closer than those of outsiders which one must change from an exocentric to an endocentric type of expression "‫ "خون، خون رو می جوره‬which literally means “blood seeks blood.” Additionally, the translator aims at the more meaningful idioms in rendering in terms of conveying the message perfectly to the receptor. For example, the Farsi expression, "‫ /هوای گرگ و میش‬dusk” literally means ‘wolf and ewe climate” and the F-E translation is meaningless strings of words in English whereas the dynamic equivalence as ‘dusk’ convey the message, in contrast, the English expression of “butterflies in stomach” may mean nothing but ‘some insects in someone’s body’ if translated literally. To convey the message which implies ‘fluttery/nervousness’, the translator used the D-E which is also a Semitic

idiom in Farsi “‫ ”جوشیدن دل مثل سیر و سرکه‬which literally means ‘boiling of stomach like garlic and vinegar’. In terms of applying meaningful idiom compared to absolute intelligible term, the translator prefers to use “lonely Friday” instead of “lonely Sunday”. Because the people of the receptor language acquainted the week ended with Friday in Iran and as a result, Saturday is a working day for them and Friday plays the role that Sunday plays for British or better to say, western countries. The last but not the least, belongs to intraorganismic meanings which are the most challengeable parts of translation for they are depended on cultural contexts. For example, the words “son”, “lad” and “boy” they all only have one defined entry as “boy/‫ ”پسر‬in Farsi, while in English there is only one word “patience” for “‫ “شکیبایی “ ,”صبر“ ,”حوصله‬that all these words have different values of patience from less to more, respectively. In comparison, Eco who argues that ‘Equivalence in meaning cannot be taken as a satisfactory criterion for a correct translation’(Eco, 2001: 9), he clearly demonstrates that the ‘psychological sense’ of the text in terms of showing the cultural elements is more important than trying to keep lexical and referential faithfulness ( ibid:15-16). ‘The idea of translation as negotiation is developed by Eco (2003). Even in cases where a translation priority has already been established – for example, a translator may have decided to attempt to recreate in the translation the same effect as was intended in the original (dynamic equivalence)…’(Baker, M and Saldanha, G.,1998: 97). That is to say, However, Eco disagrees with term of ‘equivalences’, he considers the ‘effect’ which is the main characteristic of ‘dynamic equivalence’ in terms of same impression of the receptor. On the other hand, as Cary (1959) pointed out, ‘translating by literary artists, publishers, educators, and professional translators indicates clearly that the present direction in toward increasing emphasis on dynamic equivalences’ (in Venuti, 2000: 157); however, regarding to mentioned ideas and theories it remains some veiled aspects for those languages which have

completely different roots and cultures, but still applicable and important. For instance, when a text is too far from cultural, ideological, political or even topology contexts of the receptor language, the translator gets that confused to choose even if he/she has to use dynamic equivalence or not because the spirit and manner of the actual text will drown and the TT seems as a corpse and this is the moment that broad orientalism would happen, like The translator should keep in mind that the queen never tried ceremonial and traditional food plate of the receptor language (Persian)! As a result, this may work widely between European language translations or in contrast, Eastern language translations based on the relatedness. Nevertheless, as an Iranian translator, I think this cultural gap will be less through implementing Venuti’s theory of ‘foreignization’ postulated in 1988 to keep the effect and spirit of the original text and facilitate the familiarization of target readership with message and STL culture completely. According to the mentioned issues, sometimes it is better to hear from the readership saying “I have learned something new” rather than “that is just the way we would say it.” In other words, sometimes the degree of approximation of the two orientations is that low that it is like commonality of a tent and a castle. ‘it is inevitable also that when source and receptor languages represent very different cultures there should be many basic themes and accounts which cannot be “naturalized” by the process of translating’ (ibid: 164) For a good translation As ‘C.W. Orr (1941: 318) describes translating as somewhat equivalent to painting, for, as he says, the painter does not reproduce every detail of the landscape” – he selects what seems best to him. Likewise for the translator, It is the spirit, not only the letter, that he seeks to embody in his own version’ (ibid: 168).As a matter of fact, a good translation should be an overall concern of all theories and should meet the functional requirements of an accepted and adequate translation theory to facilitate and naturalize the task and transfer cultural elements from the SLT to the TLT as far as possible, and thus achieve the same effect on the target receptors as on the original ones.


References Bagnol, E., Jones, Lourian. (1935) National Velvet, New York: Avon Books Baker, M., Saldanha, G. (ed.) (2009) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 2nd edition, Abingdon/New York: Routledge Farzad, N. (2012) Complete Modern Persian (Farsi): Teach Yourself, London: Hachette Hunt, A. (2006) Black Sheep, London: Hodder Headline Katzner, K. (1977) The languages of the world, 2nd edition, London: Rountledge & Kegan Paul plc Mayor, A. (2009) Greek Fire, Poison Arrows, and Scorpion Bombs, 2nd edition, London: Overlook Press

Nida, E.A. (1964) Toward a Science of Translating, Leiden: E. J. Brill Somer, H.L. (ed.) (2003) Computers and Translation: A Translator's Guide, Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Shirzad, B. (2011) love poems of naked wires, Tehran: Kouleh Poshti Shirzad, B. (2008) L.S.D, [online], available: http://bahareshirzad.com/poems.htm [21 Apr 2012] Venuti, L. (2000) The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd edition, London: Routledge Wainwright, J. (2004) Poetry: The Basics, 2nd edition, Oxon: Routledge



‫)1( ‪Abstract‬‬ ‫سپید‬ ‫رهايي را به رنگ سپيد يافتم‬ ‫و چه بي بال و پر، پر كشيدم‬ ‫در سپيدي بال كبوتر‬ ‫سپيد...‬ ‫سپيد...‬ ‫بي رنگ...‬ ‫حال...‬

‫اينجا فرود آمدم ‪‬‬

‫بهاره شيرزاد‬

‫)2( ‪Abstract‬‬ ‫‪L.S.D‬‬ ‫‪Loyalty God‬‬ ‫‪Seven signs‬‬ ‫‪Dig a hole‬‬

Leave the edge See the sea Dive in me Love to be Set me free Doors of heaven Look at him Sketch your dream Divine brains remain Losing keys Suffering knees Demon said: Lucifer Sends Drugs

Bahareh Shirzad

Abstract (3) Edgar Allen Poe The Raven [First published in 1845] … Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling, By the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore, `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven. Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!' Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' …. Abstract (4) Black Sheep Arlent Hunt (2010)

... ‘How many girls we talking about?’ ‘Well say a couple of young ones that wouldn’t mind a bit of craic’ ‘A couple?’ ‘say five or six.’ ...


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful