1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………... 2

CHAPTER 1: LITERARY TRANSLATIONS……………..................... 4

An introduction to the translation of literary texts (functions and

methods)…………………………………………………………………… 4

Language functions in Peter Newmark’s View…………………... 12

Translation methods applied to Literary Texts.............................. 18

CHAPTER TWO: THE CONCEPT OF EQUIVALENCE IN

TRANSLATION STUDIES ………………………..…………………... 24

The Concept of Equivalence ........................................................... 24

Non-Specific Definitions of the Concept ........................................ 24

The Concept in Translation Studies ............................................... 27

The Dual status of equivalence ....................................................... 27

Typologies of equivalence ................................................................ 36

The nature of equivalence ............................................................... 37

CHAPTER THREE: ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSLATION OF A

PARAGRAPH FROM PRIDE AND PREJUDICE …………………... 39

CONCLUSIONS ………………………………………………………... 47

BIBLIOGRAPHY ………………………………………………………. 49

2

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this dissertation paper is to depict and analyse the translation

difficulties in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice.

The main reason in choosing this subject is the need and the

importance of knowing the main difficulties regarding literary translations,

as well as the functions and methods a translator has to keep in mind when

making a literary translation.

Also the concept of equivalence in translation studies and the

importance of this translation procedure when dealing with literary

translations is another important aspect of this paper because it is important

to establish whether or not total meaning and equivalence exist in literary

translation, if the equivalent in the target language covers all the aspects of

the corresponding term in the source language, especially between

languages that are not of the same linguistic family.

In the process of writing this paper, the first step was to gather as

much information about literary translations, then I sorted out the most

relevant theories and I presented it through the perspective of the text I

chose to analyse. In order to underline my analyse of the translation

difficulties, I translated a paragraph from Pride and Prejudice and I

compared my translation with an official one from a published book. Of

course for a better understanding of the text I first read it in English, it’s

3

original language and then I read a translated copy of the book (other than

the one that I chose to compare my own translation with).

The paper is structured in three main chapters, each and every one of

them dealing with the most important steps and aspects regarding literary

translations, and especially the difficulties which arise when dealing with

such a known and well-loved text as Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice.

4

CHAPTER 1: LITERARY TRANSLATIONS

An introduction to the translation of literary texts (functions

and methods)

Translation is often, though not by any means always, rendering the

meaning of a text into another language in the way that the author intended

the text. Common sense tells us that this ought to be simple, as one ought to

be able to say something as well in one language as in another. On the other

hand, it may seem complicated and artificial, since by using another

language a translator is pretending to be someone he/ she is not. Hence in

many types of text (legal, administrative, dialect, local, cultural) the

temptation is to transfer as many SL (Source Language) words to the TL

(Target Language) as possible. The pity is that the translation cannot simply

reproduce, or be, the original. And since this is so, the first business of the

translator is to translate. Peter Newmark (1988: 5)

According to Peter Newmark (1988: 5) any text may be pulled in

seven different directions, as follows:

- The individual style or idiolect of the SL author. When should it be

preserved? ;

- The conventional grammatical and lexical usage for this type of text,

depending on the topic and the situation;

- Content items referring specifically to the SL, or third language (i.e, not

SL or TL) cultures;

- The typical format of a text in a book, periodical, newspaper, etc., as

influenced by tradition at the time;

5

- The expectations of the putative readership, bearing in mind their

estimated knowledge of the topic and the style of language they use,

expressed in terms of the largest common factor, since one should not

translate down (or up) to the readership;

- What is being described or reported, ascertained or verified (the referential

truth), where possible independently of the SL text and the expectations of

the readership;

- The views and prejudices of the translator, which may be personal and

subjective, or may be social and cultural, involving the translator's group

loyalty factor, which may reflect the national, political, ethnic, religious,

social class, sex, etc. assumptions of the translator; Peter Newmark (1988:6)

Of course, there are many other tensions in translations, for example

between sound and sense, emphasis (word order) and naturalness

(grammar), the figurative and the literal, concision and accuracy, again

because every translator has his own view, or feel of the text.

In Peter Newmark’s view: „Translation is an instrument of education as well

as of truth precisely because it has to reach readers whose cultural and

educational level is different from, and often lower or earlier, than, that of

the readers of the original” (1988: 6).

Translation has its own excitement, its own interest. A satisfactory

translation is always possible, but a good translator is never satisfied with it.

It can usually be improved. There is no such thing as a perfect, ideal or

correct translation. A translator is always trying to extend his knowledge

and improve his means of expression; he is always pursuing facts and

words. He works on four levels: translation is first a science, which entails

the knowledge and verification of the facts and the language that describes

them- here, what is wrong, mistakes of truth, can be identified; secondly, it

6

is a skill, which calls for appropriate language and acceptable usage; thirdly,

an art, which distinguishes good from undistinguished writing and is the

creative, the intuitive, sometimes the inspired, level of the translation; lastly,

a matter of taste, where argument ceases, preferences are expressed, and the

variety of meritorious translations is the reflection of individual differences.

Peter Newmark (1988: 6).

Of course, if at some point a translator re-reads his own translations, he/ she

will find that some elements, word constructions or even other meanings of

the words could have been better used than the ones he had used.

Translation has been instrumental in transmitting culture, sometimes under

unequal conditions responsible for distorted and biased translations, ever

since countries and languages have been in contact with each other. Peter

Newmark (1988: 7)

A translator, perhaps more than any other practitioner of a profession, is

continually faced with choices, for instance when he/ she has to translate

words denoting quality, the words of the mental world (adjectives, adverbs,

adjectival nouns, e.g. good, well, goodness), rather than objects or events;

he/she always has to try to not be subjective in using the equivalents of

those qualities in the TL in order to render or to express the exact same

thing as the author did in the SL. In making his/ her choice, he/ she is

intuitively or consciously following a theory of translation, just as any

teacher of grammar teaches a theory of linguistics. Translation calls on a

theory in action; the translator reviews the criteria for the various options

before he/ she makes his selection as a procedure in his/ her translating

activity. But not always, sometimes a translator makes a choice based solely

on his/ her intuition and on the way he/ she thinks the original text wanted to

convey something. Peter Newmark (1988: 8)

7

Any translator should begin the translation process by reading the original

for two purposes: first, to understand what it is about; second, to analyse it

from a translator's point of view, which is not the same as a linguist's or a

literary critic's. He/ she has to determine its intention and the way it is

written for the purpose of selecting a suitable translation method and

identifying particular and recurrent problems.

Understanding the text requires both general and close reading. General

reading to get the feel of the text; here he/ she may have to read

encyclopaedias, textbooks, or specialist papers to understand the subject and

the concepts, always bearing in mind that for the translator the function

precedes the description, close reading is required, in any challenging text,

of the words both out of and in context. Peter Newmark (1988: 8)

In principle, everything has to be looked up that does not make good sense

in its context; common words to ensure they are not being used musically or

figuratively or technically or colloquially; neologisms – he/ she will likely

find many if translating a recent publication (for non-equivalent words);

acronyms, to find their TL equivalents, which may be non-existent (a good

translator should not invent them, even if he/she notes that the SL author has

invented them); figures and measures, convening to TL; names of people

and places, almost all words beginning with capital letters - encyclopaedia

words are as important as 'dictionary' words, the distinction being fuzzy-

(Words like always, never, almost have no place in talk about translation -

there are always exceptions.)

One can compare the translating activity to an iceberg: the tip is the

translation - what is visible, what is written on the page - the iceberg, the

activity, is all the work you do, often ten times as much again, much of

which you do not even use. Peter Newmark (1988: 11)

8

The intention of the text

In reading, one searches for the intention of the text, it cannot be

isolated from understanding it, they go together and the title may be remote

from the content as well as the intention. Two texts may describe a battle or

a riot or a debate, stating the same facts and figures, but the type of language

used and even the grammatical structures (passive voice, impersonal verbs

often used to disclaim responsibility) in each case may be evidence of

different points of view. The intention of the text represents the SL writer's

attitude to the subject matter, and a good translation has to provide a good

rendering of that intention in the TL as well. Peter Newmark (1988: 12)

A summary of this nature, which uses only a few key words from the

original, appears to be isolated from the language, simply to show what

happens in real life, and it is indispensable to the translator. But he/ she still

has to return to the text. He/ she still has to translate the text, even if he/ she

has to simplify, rearrange, clarify, slim it of its redundancies, pare it down.

Peter Newmark (1988: 12)

The intention of the translator

Usually, the translator's intention is identical with that of the author

of the SL- text. But he/ she may be translating an advertisement, a notice, or

a set of instructions to show his client how such matters are formulated and

written in the SL, rather than how to adapt them in order to persuade or

instruct a new TL reader-ship. And again, he/ she may be translating a

manual of instructions for a less educated readership, so that the explanation

in his translation may be much larger than the reproduction. Peter Newmark

(1988: 13)

9

Text styles

Following Nida (1975: 156), we distinguish four types of (literary or

non-literary) text:

a) Narrative: a dynamic sequence of events, where the emphasis is on the

verbs or for English, dummy or empty verbs plus verb-nouns or phrasal

verbs.

b) Description, which is static, with emphasis on linking verbs, adjectives,

adjectival nouns.

c) Discussion, a treatment of ideas, with emphasis on abstract nouns

(concepts), verbs of thought, mental activity (consider, argue, etc.), logical

argument and connectives.

d) Dialogue, with emphasis on colloquialisms and phaticisms.

The quality of the writing

One has to consider the quality of the writing and the authority of the

text, as being two critical factors in the choice of translation method. The

quality of the writing has to be judged in relation to the author's intention

and/ or the requirements of the subject-matter. If the text is well written, i.e.

the manner is as important as the matter, the right words are in the right

places, with a minimum of redundancy, you have to regard every nuance of

the author's meaning (particularly if it is subtle and difficult) as having

precedence over the reader's response - assuming they are not required to act

or react promptly; on the contrary, assuming hopefully that they will read

the translation at least twice. Peter Newmark (1988: 16)

Deciding what is good writing is sometimes criticised as subjective but it is

a decision, like many others, not subjective but with a subjective element

(the area of taste which a translator has to make, using any experience of

10

literary criticism he/ she may have had but bearing in mind that the criterion

here is meaning: to what extent does the web of words of the SL text

correspond to a clear representation of facts or images?). If a text is well

written, the syntax will reflect the writer's personality - complex syntax will

reflect subtlety - plain syntax, simplicity. Words will be freshly used with

unusual connotations. Peter Newmark (1988: 16) In this case the translator

has to pay a great deal of attention to the meaning he/ she gives to those

connotations, so that in the TL the text will preserve that fresh perception. A

badly written text will be cluttered with stereotyped phrases, recently

fashionable general words and probably poorly structured. In this case

language rules and prescriptions have nothing much to do with good

writing. What matters is a fresh reflection of the reality outside language or

of the writer's mind. Peter Newmark (1988: 16)

The authority of the text is derived from good writing; but also

independently, unconnectedly, from the status of the SL writer. If the SL

writer is recognised as important in his field, and he is making an official

statement, the text is also authoritative. The point is that expressive texts, i.e.

serious imaginative literature and authoritative and personal statements,

have to be translated closely, matching the writing, good or bad, of the

original. Informative texts, that relates primarily to the truth, to the real facts

of the matter, have to be translated in the best style that the translator can

reconcile with the style of the original. Peter Newmark (1988: 16)

Finally, one should underline all neologisms, metaphors, cultural

words and institutional terms peculiar to the SL or third language, proper

names, technical terms and untranslatable words. Untranslatable words are

the ones that have no ready one-to-one equivalent in the TL; they are likely

to be qualities or actions - descriptive verbs, or mental words -words

11

relating to the mind, that have no cognates in the TL, e.g. words like fuzzy,

murky, dizzy;

The purpose of dictionaries is to indicate the semantic ranges of words as

well as, through collocations, the main senses. Peter Newmark (1988: 17)

In principle, a translational analysis of the SL text based on its

comprehension is the first stage of translation and the basis of the useful

discipline of translation criticism. In fact, such an analysis is, an appropriate

training for translators, since by underlining the appropriate words they will

show they are aware of difficulties they might otherwise have missed. Thus

one can relate translation theory to its practice. A professional translator

would not usually make such an analysis explicitly, since he would need to

take only a sample in order to establish the properties of a text. To

summarise, one has to study the text not for itself but as something that may

have to be reconstituted for a different readership in a different culture.

Peter Newmark (1988: 18)

12

Language functions in Peter Newmark’s View

In A Textbook of Translation, (1988) Peter Newmark distinguishes six

language functions and gives a short description of what each and every

function entails when it comes to literary translations.

The expressive function

In his perception (Peter Newmark’s) the core of the expressive

function is to express feelings, while the focus is on the mind of the speaker,

the writer, the originator of the utterance. Experiences of the author, his/ her

knowledge about the world, his/ her feelings etc. are identified by others as

true or false when they are expressed. But the expression here has nothing to

do with such identification. He uses the utterance to express his feelings

irrespective of any response. For the purposes of translation, Peter Newmark

suggests the following characteristic expressive text-types:

(1) Serious imaginative literature. Of the four principal types -lyrical

poetry, short stories, novels, plays - lyrical poetry is the most intimate

expression, while plays are more evidently addressed to a large audience,

which, in the translation, is entitled to some assistance with cultural

expressions.

(2) Authoritative statements. These are texts of any nature which derive

their authority from the high status or the reliability and linguistic

competence of their authors. Such texts have the personal stamp of their

authors, although they are denotative, not connotative. Typical authoritative

statements are political speeches, documents etc.; statutes and legal

documents; scientific, philosophical and academic works written by

acknowledged authorities.

13

(3) Autobiography, essays, personal correspondence. These are expressive

when they are personal effusions, when the readers are a remote

background.

It is essential that one, as translator, should be able to distinguish the

personal components of these texts: i.e. unusual collocations; original

metaphors; untranslatable words, particularly adjectives of quality that have

to be translated one-to-two or -three; unconventional syntax; neologisms;

strange words (archaisms, dialect, odd technical terms)- all that is often

characterised as idiolect or personal dialect -as opposed to ordinary

language, i.e. stock idioms and metaphors, common collocations, normal

syntax, colloquial expressions and phaticisms - the usual tramlines of

language. The personal components constitute the expressive element (they

are only a part) of an expressive text, and you should not normalise them in

a translation. Peter Newmark (1988: 39)

The informative function

The central part of the informative function of language is external

situation, the facts of a topic, reality outside language, including reported

ideas or theories. For the purposes of translation, typical informative texts

are concerned with any topic of knowledge, but texts about literary subjects,

as they often express value-judgments, are apt to lean towards

expressiveness. The format of an informative text is often standard: a

textbook, a technical report, an article in a newspaper or a periodical, a

scientific paper, a thesis, minutes or agenda of a meeting. Peter Newmark

(1988: 40)

One normally assumes a modern, non- regional, non- class, non- idiolectal

style, with perhaps four points on a scale of language varieties: (1) a formal,

14

non- emotive, technical style for academic papers, characterised in English

by passives, present and perfect tenses, literal language, latinised

vocabulary, jargon, multi-noun compounds with empty verbs, no metaphors;

(2) a neutral or informal style with defined technical terms for textbooks

characterised by first person plurals, present tenses, dynamic active verbs,

and basic conceptual metaphors; (3) an informal warm style for popular

science or art books, characterised by simple grammatical structures, a wide

range of vocabulary to accommodate definitions and numerous illustrations,

and stock metaphors and a simple vocabulary; (4) a familiar, non-technical

style for popular journalism, characterised by surprising metaphors, short

sentences, unconventional punctuation, adjectives before proper names and

colloquialisms. Peter Newmark (1988: 40)

The vocative function

The aim of the vocative function of language is manipulating the

readership, the addressee to act, feel, think in a certain way. We use the term

Vocative in the sense of 'calling upon' the readership to act, think or feel, in

fact to 'react' in the way intended by the text (the vocative is the case used

for addressing your reader in some inflected languages). This function of

language has been given many other names, including conative (denoting

effort), instrumental, operative and pragmatic (in the sense of used to

produce a certain effect on the readership). Nowadays vocative texts are

more often addressed to a readership than a reader. Peter Newmark (1988:

41)

The first factor in all vocative texts is the relationship between the

writer and the readership, which is realised in various types of socially or

personally determined grammatical relations or forms of address, infinitives,

15

imperatives, subjunctives, indicatives, impersonal, passives; first and/or

family names, titles, hypocoristic names; tags, such as please, all play their

part in determining asymmetrical or symmetrical relationships, relationships

of power or equality, command, request or persuasion. Peter Newmark

(1988: 41)

The second factor is that these texts must be written in a language

that is immediately comprehensible to the readership. Thus for translation,

the linguistic and cultural level of the SL text has to be reviewed before it is

given a pragmatic impact. Few texts are purely expressive, informative or

vocative: most include alt three functions, with an emphasis on one of the

three. However, strictly, the expressive function has no place in a vocative

or informative text - it is there only unconsciously, as underlife. Most

informative texts will either have a vocative thread running through them (it

is essential that the translator pick this up), or the vocative function is

restricted to a separate section of recommendation, opinion, or value-

judgment; a text can hardly be purely informative, i.e objective. An

expressive text will usually carry information; the degree of its vocative

component will vary and is a matter of argument among critics and

translators, depending partly, at least, on its proportion of universal and

cultural components. The epithets expressive, informative and vocative are

used only to show the emphasis or thrust of a text. Peter Newmark (1988:

41)

The aesthetic function

Also called the poetical function this function is language designed

to please the senses, firstly through its actual or imagined sound, and

secondly through its metaphors. The rhythm, balance and contrasts of

16

sentences, clauses and words also play their part. The sound-effects consist

of onomatopoeia, alliteration, assonance, rhyme, metre, intonation, stress -

some of these play a part in most types of texts: in poetry, nonsense and

children's verse and some types of publicity (jingles, TV commercials) they

are essential. In many cases it is not possible to translate sound-effects

unless one transfers the relevant language units: compensation of some kind

is usually possible. In translating expressive texts - in particular, poetry -

there is often a conflict between the expressive and the aesthetic function (

truth and beauty) - the poles of ugly literal translation and beautiful free

translation. Peter Newmark (1988: 42)

Descriptive verbs of movement and action, since they describe a manner,

are rich in sound effect; e.g. race, rush, scatter, mumble, gasp, grunt, etc.,

bur not hard to translate, unless the word is simply missing in the other

language (lexical gap), as this is a universal feature of languages.

Metaphor is the link between the expressive and the aesthetic function.

Through images, it is also language's only link with four of the five senses;

by-producing tokens of smell (rose, fish), taste (food), touch (fur, skin),

sight (all images), as well as the sound (bird, bell) that language consists of,

metaphor connects the extra-linguistic reality with the world of the mind

through language. Thus original metaphor, being both an expressive and an

aesthetic component, has to be preserved intact in translation.

Whilst the preceding four functions may operate throughout a text, the

phatic and the metalingual are normally involved in only part of a text. Peter

Newmark (1988: 42)

17

The phatic function

The phatic function of language is used for maintaining a friendly

contact with the addressee rather than for imparting foreign information.

Apart from tone of voice, it usually occurs in the form of standard phrases,

or phaticisms, e.g. in spoken language, therefore, in dialogue, How are

you?, You know, Are you well?, Have a good week-end, See you tomorrow,

Lovely to see you, Did you have a good Christmas? and, in English, Nasty

weather we're having, What an awful day, Isn't it hot today?' Peter

Newmark (1988: 43)

Some phaticisms are universal, others (e,g. references to the weather)

cultural, and they should be rendered by standard equivalents, which are not

literal translations.

In written language, phaticisms attempt to win the confidence and the

credulity of the reader: of course, naturally, undoubtedly, it is interesting

important to note that, often flattering the reader: it is well known that. Peter

Newmark (1988: 43)

The metaligual function

Lastly, the metalingual function of language indicates a language's

ability to explain, name, and criticise its own features. When these are more

or less universal (e.g. sentence, grammar, verb, etc.) - though they may not

yet exist in languages which are only spoken or have had little contact with

others - there is no translation problem. However, if these items are

language-specific, e.g, supine, ablative, illative, optative, they have to be

translated in accordance with the various relevant contextual factors (nature

of readership, importance of item in SL, the SL and TL text, likely

18

recurrences in TL etc.) ranging from detailed explanations, example and

translations down to a culturally-neutral third term.

Also SL expressions signalling metalingual words, e.g. strictly speaking, in

the true (or full) sense of the word, literally, so called, so to speak, by

definition, sometimes known as, can also mean, have to be treated

cautiously, as the word following them in the SL would not usually have

precisely the same sense if translated one-to-one in the TL. Peter Newmark

(1988: 44)

Translation methods applied to Literary Texts

According to Peter Newmark (1988: 45): „the central problem of

translating has always been whether to translate literally or freely. The

argument has been going on since at least the first century BC up to the

beginning of the nineteenth century, many writers favoured some kind of

free translation: the spirit, not the letter; the sense not the words; the

message rather than the form: the matter not the manner”.

In A Textbook of Translation (1988), Peter Newmark distinguishes between

eight types of translation methods, from which four of them (word-for-

word, literal, faithful and semantic) have an emphasis on the SL, and the

other four (adaptation, free, idiomatic and communicative) have an

emphasis on the TL.

Word-for-word translation

This is often demonstrated as interlinear translation, with the TL

immediately below the SL words. The SL word-order is preserved and the

19

words translated singly by their most common meanings, out of context.

Cultural words are translated literally. The main use of word-for-word

translation is either to understand the mechanics of the source language or to

construe a difficult text as a pre-translation process. Peter Newmark (1988:

45). It is not recommended because the translation does not sound natural

in the target language, because of the linguistic features of each language.

Even though the meaning of the translated word is correct what it may

expres in the target language may be totally different from what it ie

expressed in the source language.

Literal translation

The SL grammatical constructions are adapted to their nearest TL

equivalents from the TL grammatical system, but the lexical words are

again translated singly, out of context. The translation is done out of control

which may indicate that are some problems to be solved and also the fact

that this method is not highly recommended for a good translation. Peter

Newmark (1988: 46)

Faithful translation

A faithful translation attempts to reproduce the precise contextual meaning

of the original within the constraints of the TL grammatical structures. It

transfers cultural words and preserves the degree of grammatical and lexical

abnormality (deviation from SL norms) in the translation. It attempts to be

completely faithful to the intentions, the style and the text-realisation of the

SL writer. Peter Newmark (1988: 46)

20

Semantic translation

Semantic translation differs from faithful translation only in as far as it must

take more account of the aesthetic value (that is, the beautiful and natural

sounds of the SL text, compromising on meaning where appropriate so that

no assonance, word-play or repetition might appear in the finished version.

The distinction between faithful and semantic translation is that the first is

uncompromising and dogmatic, while the second is more flexible, admits

the creative exception to 100% fidelity and allows for the translator's

intuitive empathy with the original. Peter Newmark (1988: 46)

Adaptation

This is the freest form of translation. It is used mainly for plays (comedies

and poetry; the themes, characters, plots are usually preserved, the SL

culture converted to the TL culture and the text rewritten. The deplorable

practice of having a play or poem literally translated and then rewritten by

an established dramatist or poet has produced many poor adaptations, but

other adaptations have rescued period plays. Peter Newmark (1988: 46)

This method may seem more approachable for translators, but in fact if the

translators is not a good writer his adaptation may be out of place and

considered by the readership terrible and so causing a big gap between the

original text and the tranlation.

Free translation

Free translation reproduces the matter without the manner, or the content

without the form of the original. Usually it is a paraphrase much longer than

the original, a so-called intralingual translation, often prolix and

21

pretentious, it changes context and is not translation at all. Peter Newmark

(1988: 47)

Idiomatic translation

Idiomatic translation reproduces the message of the original but it has the

tendency of distorting shades of meaning by preferring the usage of

colloquialisms and idioms where these do not exist in the original which can

make the translation appear as exagerated. Peter Newmark (1988: 47)

Communicative translation

The communicative translation attempts to render the exact contextual

meaning of the original in such a way that both content and language are

readily acceptable and comprehensible to the readership and has it’s focus

on naturalness. Peter Newmark (1988: 47)

Regarding these methods, I believe that only semantic and

communicative translation fulfil the two main aims of translation, which are

accuracy and economy.

A semantic translation is more likely to be economical than a

communicative translation, unless, for the latter, the text is poorly written.

In general, a semantic translation is written at the author's linguistic level

and the communicative at the readership's. Semantic translation is used for

expressive texts, communicative for informative and vocative texts. Peter

Newmark (1988: 47)

Semantic and communicative translation treat the following items

similarly: stock and dead metaphors, normal collocations, technical terms,

slang, colloquialisms, standard notices, phaticisms, ordinary language. The

22

expressive components of expressive texts (unusual syntactic structures,

collocations, metaphors, words peculiarly used, neologisms) are rendered

closely, if not literally, but where they appear in informative and vocative

texts, they are normalised or toned down (except in striking advertisements).

Peter Newmark (1988: 47)

Cultural components tend to be transferred intact in expressive texts,

transferred and explained with culturally neutral terms in informative texts,

replaced by cultural equivalents in vocative texts. Badly and/or inaccurately

written passages must remain so in translation if they are expressive,

although the translator should comment on any mistakes of factual or moral

truth, if appropriate. Badly and/or inaccurately written passages should be

corrected in communicative translation. Peter Newmark (1988: 47)

Semantic translation is personal and individual, it follows the

thought processes of the author, tends to over-translate, pursues nuances of

meaning, yet aims at concision in order to reproduce pragmatic impact.

Communicative translation is social, concentrates on the message

and the main force of the text, tends to under-translate, to be simple, clear

and brief, and is always written in a natural and resourceful style.

Theoretically, communicative translation allows the translator no

more freedom than semantic translation. In fact, it does, since the translator

is serving a putative large and not well defined readership, whilst in

semantic translation, he is following a single well defined authority, i.e. the

author of the SL text. Peter Newmark (1988: 48)

As for the process of translation, it is a bad decision to translate more

than a sentence or two before reading the first two or three paragraphs,

unless a quick glance through convinces you that the text is going to present

23

few- problems. In fact, the more difficult – linguistically or culturally, - the

text is, the more preliminary work one should do before starting to translate

a sentence, simply on the ground that one misjudged hunch about a key-

word in a text may force one to try to put a wrong construction on a whole

paragraph, wasting a lot of time before (if ever) realising that is foolish. This

is another way of looking at the word versus sentence conflict that is always

coming up. Peter Newmark (1988: 51)

24

CHAPTER TWO: THE CONCEPT OF EQUIVALENCE IN

TRANSLATION STUDIES

The Concept of Equivalence

As “equivalence” is a term which is also broadly used outside of the field of

enquiry at hand, it may be useful to start with a more general definition of

the concept before mentioning more specific ones. The necessity of

considering more general perceptions has been argued convincingly by

Snell-Hornby (1988, 1990), who maintains that the discrepancy between the

fuzziness of a more general understanding of the concept (its English usage)

and the stringency of a more specific definition is the origin of much of the

confusion surrounding its use today.

Non-Specific Definitions of the Concept

Equivalence is defined in the Collins Dictionary of the English Language

(1991: 526) as the state of being “equal or interchangeable in value,

quantity, significance, etc.” or “having the same or a similar effect or

meaning”. Similarly, Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1991:

421) defines the concept as the state of being “equal in force, amount or

value” or “like insignification or import”. It becomes immediately clear,

when considering these two definitions, that there are three main

components to both: a pair (at least) between which the relationship exists, a

concept of likeness/ sameness/ similarity/ equality, and a set of qualities.

25

Thus, equivalence is defined as a relationship existing between two (or

more) entities, and the relationship is described as one of likeness/

sameness/ similarity/ equality in terms of any of a number of potential

qualities. Furthermore, each of the three components outlined here can be

the focus of a discussion of the equivalence relationship. Sandra Halverson

(2006: 3)

The first, the specification of the entities between which the relationship

pertains, is by no means unproblematic. Establishment of such a relationship

requires that the two entities involved be, in same way, comparable. And the

issue of comparability is by no means straightforward. However, the

primary question has been the relevance of the various contenders for the

units chosen to be compared. Contending theories have chosen to focus on

units at different levels, ranging from units below word level to entire texts.

The second component of the concept, the idea of likeness/ sameness/

similarity/ equality, is also potentially problematic, though here the problem

is of a slightly different nature. In fact, there are actually two specific

aspects to the problem of sameness for the purposes of translation: its nature

and its degree. It should be immediately obvious that a question such as “the

nature of sameness” is open to various interpretations, and indeed this

question underlies the philosophical debate on meaning invariance. Sandra

Halverson (2006: 3)

The second aspect, or problem, related to sameness is the question of

degree: sameness is a scalar concept. In short, the concept implies

comparison of two or more entities using a given quality as the standard.

And if two (or more) entities can be compared, and if sameness is defined as

the presence of a specific quality, then for many qualities it may be shown

that different entities possess those qualities in varying degrees. This works

26

quite well where the units of comparison are agreed upon. In areas where

the units of comparison or the definition of sameness is less well-defined,

e.g. in language, the comparisons become more problematic. Even for

clearly delimited linguistic units like words, sameness of meaning is a

notoriously difficult concept. It is important to note, however, that the

question of degree is most of ten pertinent in situations involving a third

alternative (which is often the case in translation, either in the process itself,

i.e. the consideration of paradigmatic alternatives, or in criticism). The point

to be made here is that sameness is gradable. Sandra Halverson (2006: 4)

The third component of the concept of equivalence which can be, and has

been, the focus of conceptual debate is the quality in terms of which the

sameness is defined. As we have seen, entities which are being compared

must necessarily be compared in terms of same specific trait. The derivation

of types of qualities relevant for translation purposes has, perhaps, been one

of the most successful projects (Koller 1995). In short, any utilization/

operationalization of a concept of equivalence touches on several

fundamental philosophical problems, most notably the possibility/ necessity

of comparison and the nature of sameness. These problems underline much

of the debate on the overall relevance or utility of the equivalence concept

for translation studies.

The discussion above has also indicated where the problems might lie in the

application of this concept to the study of translation and translating, i.e. in

establishing relevant units of comparison, specifying a definition of

sameness, and enumerating relevant qualities. The contentious nature of the

concept thus lies in both the philosophical questions it implies, i.e.

comparison and sameness, and in the complexity of its definition and

27

application. Philosophical questions aside, the most problematic questions

remain: what entities are/ can be equivalent, how alike/ similar/ equal are

they and how do we define "alike/ similar/ equal", and in which feature are

they equivalent? Sandra Halverson (2006: 4)

The Concept in Translation Studies

The equivalence concept may be alternatively defined in a broad or a

narrow sense, and within the broader sense of the concept there are at least

three areas, or conceptual components, which should be (though they are not

always) specified in any application of the concept. Thus, use of the

equivalence concept may vary in either scope or focus. This is made quite

clear in Hartmann and Stork (1972: 713): texts in different languages may

be equivalent in different degrees (fully or partially equivalent), in respect

of different levels of presentation (equivalent in respect of context, of

semantics, of grammar, of lexis, etc.) and at different ranks (word-for-word,

phrasefor- phrase, sentence-for-sentence).

It is useful to keep in mind that various attempts at explication of the

concept may choose to focus on one or the other of these aspects.

The Dual status of equivalence

The equivalence concept serves as one of the lines of demarcation between

the two main schools of thought in translation studies. The work of the

linguistically oriented scholars represents an approach to the study of

translation in which equivalence is absolutely crucial. Indeed, Catford (who,

along with Nida and members of the “Leipzig school”, is often considered

28

representative of the “scientific” approach) states that: „The central problem

of translation practice is that of finding TL translation equivalents. A central

task of translation theory is that of defining the nature and conditions of

translation equivalence” (1965: 21). The view that the explication of

translation equivalence is the main objective of translation studies was

shared by the German scholars. However, the role of the concept is more

complex than that. Indeed, the significance of the equivalence relation for

the linguistic approaches lies in its dual status as the object of study and as a

standard for the delineation of translation from similar and related activities

which also produce derivative texts, e.g. paraphrase, adaptation, summary,

etc. In other words, the contention is that if the equivalence relationship is

sufficiently accounted for, then the limits of translation as an independent

phenomenon will become discernible. For these scholars, such delimitation

was utterly essential, as it was required by true “science”. As a consequence,

the equivalence relationship itself requires a status above and beyond that of

object of study. Sandra Halverson (2006: 7) The questions asked by the various researchers within the linguistic tradition

addressed various aspects of the complex equivalence relationship. Same

theoretical accounts attempted to define the units between which the

relationship could obtain. Catford, for example, whose derivation of

equivalence types was based on empirical analysis of text pairs, maintained

that "a textual equivalent is any TL text or portion of text which is observed

on a particular occasion,. . . to be the equivalent of a given SL text or

portion of text" (1965: 27). He stated that “macrotextual TE (beyond the

clause/ sentence border) is the aggregate of microtextual equivalents which

can empirically be ascertained …” (Wilss 1982: 147). Kade (1968), on the

other hand, whose work included special language translation and word-

29

level problems, focused on the distribution of semantic material. His

equivalence framework described lexical equivalence in terms of the

correspondence or lack of correspondence between the two languages’

lexical units. The result was four types of equivalence, namely: total

equivalence (one-to-one correspondence), facultative equivalence (one-to-

many), approximative equivalence (one-to-part-of-one) and null equivalence

(one-to-none). Several others also debated what the unit of equivalence

should be. Kade’s word-level relationships represented one end of the

spectrum, while others, e.g. Filipec (1971) and Reiss (1976, 1989),

emphasized text-level relationships.

Perhaps most influential were those scholars whose focus was on the

qualities or characteristics which define the nature of the equivalence.

Nida’s formal correspondence versus dynamic equivalence represents one

account. More comprehensive, in this respect, is Koller’ s approach (1989),

which was an attempt to describe a number of different qualities which ST

and TT elements might share. According to Koller, these might be

extralinguistic content, connotations, text and language norms, receiver

features, or formal- aesthetic features (1989: 100- 101), each of which

corresponds to a specific equivalence type. Koller also made explicit the

dual nature of the concept as a normative, theoretical one, and as a

descriptive, empirical one. In his theoretical explication of the concept,

equivalence implied a set of conditions to be met. In Wilss’ approach

(1982), on the other hand, translation equivalence was “an empirical

phenomenon which carries with it problems which presently can be solved,

if at all, only for each individual translation text” (1982: 145).

Theoretical explication of the equivalence concept encompassed variations

in focus and scope. Some scholars chose to focus on the unit of translation,

30

i.e. the basis for the comparison of potentially equivalent entities. Others

chose to focus on the qualities in terms of which equivalence could be

defined. Some moved freely among all of these, and chose to emphasize the

complexity of the relation and the implications of that complexity for both

terminological distinctions and theoretical foci. The various approaches

represented different aspects of the equivalence relationship, which,

naturally, led to a plethora of “equivalence types” (Wilss 1982: 135).

However, these were not so much different types of equivalence as varying

perspectives on a complex relationship.

Criticism of the linguistically oriented approach to translation and its focus

on equivalence of ten builds on the assumption that the large number of

“equivalence types” is in itself a problem, or on the assumption that a lack

of precision in definition is in itself grounds to reject the concept. Snell-

Hornby (1988: 22) rejects the concept as “imprecise and ill-defined”, as

well as a “distort[ion] of the basic problems of translation”. The former

argument addresses the nature of the concept and its status in research,

while the latter, that the concept fails to account for the “basic problems of

translation”, is dearly the motivation behind the rejection of the concept by

the scholars of the contending approach to translation studies, who maintain

that the most important translational phenomena are those which cannot be

accounted for within a strictly linguistic approach. They have chosen,

instead, to focus on features of the target culture and the effects these

features have on the translation process and/ or product.

The field of translation studies has been greatly influenced by an approach

to the subject which emphasizes the significance of the situation, and more

broadly, the culture in which translations are to be positioned. In general

terms, scholars working within this tradition are less interested in the

31

relationship between a target text and a source text and more concerned with

various features of the target culture, often described as interacting systems,

and the relevance of these features for translation. Sandra Halverson

(2006:9)

The dual role of the equivalence concept for the linguistically oriented

scholars was discussed with the emphasis on how the relationship between

target and source texts was considered to be the object of study, while at the

same time the task of theory was seen to be the development of an adequate

means of determining what translation is and what it is not.

For scholars working within a historical-descriptive approach, on the other

hand, the explication of equivalence is seen as an unfruitful enterprise

(Snell-Homby 1988, 1990). Furthermore, many of these scholars are, in

their own view, more interested textual “manipulation” in difference than in

sameness, and in the motivations underlying textual “manipulation”.

In order to fully appreciate the fall from grace of the equivalence concept,

an understanding of the role played by two basic assumptions of the

historical-descriptive scholars is essential. These two are target-orientation

and translation norms (or ‘norms and constraints’, as in Hermans 1985). It is

widely recognized that both of these assumptions imply a considerable

reduction in the status of the source text, and consequently in the

relationship that exists between the translation and its source text. But it is

also fundamental to our understanding of the equivalence debate that we

fully appreciate how these two assumptions are based on much more deep

seated philosophical belief.

Equivalence goes hand in hand with meaning. Are equivalents in translation

total or complete? Do the equivalents in the Target Language cover all the

32

aspects of the terms they are said to be equivalent to in the Source

Language? Is there total meaning in translation?

Equivalence is one of the procedures used in translation. It is said to occur at

word, grammatical, textual and pragmatic levels. Well, according to Hervey

and Haggins (2002: 18- 19), descriptively speaking, « ‘equivalence’ denotes

an observed relationship between ST utterances and TT utterances that are

seen as directly corresponding to one another…Prescriptively, ‘equivalence’

denotes the relationship between an SL expression and the standard TL

rendering of it, for example as given in a dictionary, or as required by a

teacher, or as consonant with a given theory or methodology of translation.»

One wonders whether or not total meaning and equivalence exist in

translation, if the equivalent in the target language covers all the aspects of

the corresponding term in the source language, especially between

languages that are not of the same linguistic family. Fewdays Miyada

(2007:46)

By examining some examples drawn from certain languages one discovers

that total meaning and equivalence in translation do not exist. Why is it so?

It is for the simple reason that meaning, especially, belongs to language and

culture. One also discovers that some languages use only one word there

where other languages use two or three words in order to refer to the same

concept.

Roman Jakobson in Theories of Translation (1992: 145) sees things this

way and says “Likewise, on the level of interlingual translation, there is

ordinarily no full equivalence between code-units, while messages may

serve as adequate interpretations of alien code- units or messages. This

means that equivalence in translation is almost always only partial.”

33

José Ortega Y Gasset in Theories of Translation (1992: 96) supports this

thought by saying “…Therefore, it is utopian to believe that two words

belonging to two different languages, and which the dictionary gives us as

translations of each other, refer to exactly the same objects. Since languages

are formed in different landscapes, through different experiences, their

incongruity is natural. Gasset refers to as landscape and experience is what

would ordinarily be referred to as culture and language community. This

brings us back to the issue of the mental representation each language

community gives to any term it uses.

Hervey & Higgins (2002:20) give their opinion concerning the issue of

equivalence to further confirm that total equivalence does not exist between

languages and say “…Indeed, it is used in this way in logic, mathematics

and sign-theory, where an equivalent relationship is one that is objective,

incontrovertible and – crucially – reversible. In translation, however, such

unanimity and such reversibility are unthinkable for any but the very

simplest of texts – and even then, only in respect of literal meaning”.

Bassnett (2002: 36) also confirms that there is no total equivalence in

translation, but only approximation when she says, “Equivalence in

translation, then, should not be approached as a search for sameness, since

sameness cannot even exist between two TL versions of the same text, let

alone between the SL and the TL version.” The fact that there is no

sameness means that there are aspects of the SL terms that are not covered

by the equivalent in the TL.

Roger. T. Bell (1991: 6) gives an almost conclusive remark on the nature of

equivalence when he says “It is apparent, and has been for a very long time

indeed, that the ideal of total equivalence is a chimera. Languages are

different from each other; they are different in form having distinct codes

34

and rules regulating the construction of grammatical stretches of language

and these forms have different meanings.

To shift from one language to another is by definition, to alter the forms.

Further, the contrasting forms convey meaning which cannot but fail to

coincide totally; there is no absolute synonymy between words in the same

language, so why should one be surprised to discover lack of synonymy

between languages?” What Bell is saying here is that even when we talk of

equivalents, we should realize that the equivalent term in the Target

Language will always leave something of the aspect of the term in the

Source Language.

Newmark (1991:100) also alludes to the fact that no equivalents are perfect,

but just approximations that serve for the convenience of transmitting

messages between two languages and says, “Secondly, no SL word and its

TL correspondent have perfect extracontextual translation equivalence …”

Why does he say the words do not have perfect extracontextual translation

equivalence? It is because between the two words that are deemed to be

correspondents, one always covers more ground in meaning than the other.

Catford (1965:50) also mentions the fact of equivalence being approximate,

which means the equivalent term in the TT may cover more or less ground

of meaning than the original term of which it is an equivalent, and says,

“Translational equivalence occurs when STs and TTs are relatable to at least

some of the same features of this extra linguistic reality, that is when ST and

TT have approximately the same referents.”

Equivalence is not only at word level, but it also extends to the effect a

Target Text should have on the TL audience. This implies that the translator

should guess what the reaction of the target audience is going to be. This

35

being the case, the translator has to come up with words s/he thinks will

have an equivalent effect on the Target Language audience that the Source

Text had on the SL audience. The translator’s equivalents are likely not to

be the true equivalents of the terms used in the Source Language Text

simply because the translator would like to have a similar effect on the

Target Language audience. Fewdays Miyada (2007: 54)

Meaning and equivalence in translation should not be considered as total,

but only partial due to the fact that equivalents in various languages do not

always cover all the aspects of the terms in the Source Language when

translated into the Target Language. Translators should acknowledge the

fact that each term in any given language covers a reality and aspects that

cannot be transferred into another language as meaning in any language is

based on the culture of the language in question.

As long as translators have to deal with two different languages in their

work, they should know that what are known as equivalents in any language

should always only be considered as partial and not total because of the

aspects they fail to cover that are represented by the terms in the Source

Language. This difference in languages also becomes evident in the mental

representations that speakers and users of various languages have of the

terms they use as a language community that can never be the same as those

of other languages. Fewdays Miyada (2007: 55)

Equivalence is a central concept in translation theory, but it is also a

controversial one. Approaches to the question of equivalence can differ

radically: some theorists define translation in terms of equivalence relations

(Catford 1965; Nida and Taber 1969; Toury 1980a; Pym 1992a, 1995;

Koller 1995) while others reject the theoretical notion of equivalence,

claiming it is either irrelevant (Snell- Hornby 1988) or damaging (Gentzler

36

1993) to translation studies. Yet other theorists steer a middle course: Baker

uses the notion of equivalence „for the sake of convenience – because most

translators are used to it rather than because it has any theoretical

status”(1992:5–6). Thus equivalence is variously regarded as a necessary

condition for translation, an obstacle to progress in translation studies, or a

useful category for describing translations.

In equivalence-based theories of translation, equivalence can be defined as

the relationship between a source text (ST) and a target text (TT) that allows

the TT to be considered as a translation of the ST in the first place.

Equivalence relationship are also said to hold between parts of STs and

parts of TTs. The above definition of equivalence is not unproblematic,

however. Pym (1992a:37), for one, has pointed to its circularity:

equivalence is supposed to define translation, and translation, in turn,

defines equivalence. Unfortunately, few attempts have been made to define

equivalence in translation in a way that avoids this circularity. Theorists

who maintain that translation is predicated upon some kind of equivalence

have, for the most part, concentrated on developing typologies of

equivalence, focusing on the rank at which equivalence is said to obtain, or

on the type of meaning that is said to be held constant in translation.

Typologies of equivalence

Following Koller (1979: 187–91, 1989: 100–4), equivalence is commonly

established on the basis of: the source language (SL) and target language

(TL) words supposedly referring to the same thing in the real world, i.e. on

the basis of their referential or denotative equivalence; the SL and TL words

triggering the same or similar associations in the minds of native speakers of

37

the two languages, i.e. their conotative equivalence; the SL and TL words

being used in the same or similar contexts in their respective languages, i.e.

what Koller (1989: 102) calls text-normative equivalence; the SL and TL

words having the same effect on their respective readers, i.e. pragmatic

(Koller 1989: 102) or dynamic equivalence (Nida 1964); the SL and TL

words having similar orthographic or phonological features, or formal

equivalence. Baker (1992) extends the concepts of equivalence to cover

similarity in ST and TT information flow and in the cohesive roles ST and

TT devices play in their respective texts. She calls these two factors

combined textual equivalence. Newman (1994:4695) stresses that not all the

variables in translation are relevant in every situation, and that translators

must decide which considerations should be given priority at any one time,

thus establishing a kind of functional equivalence.

The nature of equivalence

Writers who have addressed the problem of the nature of translation

equivalence include Catford (1965; 1994) and Pym (1992a). Catford posits

an extralinguistic domain of objects, persons, emotions, memories, history,

etc., features of which may or must achieve expression in a given language.

Translational equivalence occurs, he suggests, when STs and TTs are

relatable to at least some of the same features of this extralinguistic reality,

that is when ST and TT have approximately the same referents. Catford thus

relies on an essentialy referential theory of meaning, an approach that was

criticized, but very few alternatives have been put forward. The problem of

pinning down the essential nature of equivalence seems to be related to the

problem of pinning down the nature of linguistic meaning itself. Pym

38

(1992a) avoids this difficulty by moving away from the strictly linguistic to

view the translation as a transaction, and equivalence as equality of

exchange value. Equivalence becomes a negotiable entity, with translators

doing the negotiation.

39

CHAPTER THREE: ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSLATION

OF A PARAGRAPH FROM PRIDE AND PREJUDICE

In this chapter I want to present an analysis of the translation of one

of my favourite paragraphs in Jane Austen’s Pride and prejudice an official

Romanian translation, a translation of a printed copy of the book, from the

Adevărul Holding Publishing House, made by Corina Ungureanu, and also I

want to present a comparison of the said translation with my own version of

translation. The paragraph describing the moment when the wealthy Mr.

Darcy confesses his love for Elizabeth Bennet, a very intelligent and well-

educated young woman but who unfortunately came from a modest family.

This particular paragraph presents Mr. Darcy’s struggle to convince

Elizabeth of his feelings considering the manner in which he had treated her

so far.

‘In vain I have struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed.

You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you.’

Elizabeth’s astonishment was beyond expression. She stared, coloured,

doubted, and was silent. This he considered sufficient encouragement; and

the avowal of all that he felt, and had long felt for her, immediately

followed. He spoke well; but there were feelings besides those of the heart

to be detailed; and he was not more eloquent on the subject of tenderness

than of pride. His sense of her inferiority—of its being a degradation—of

the family obstacles which had always opposed to inclination, were dwelt on

with a warmth which seemed due to the consequence he was wounding, but

40

was very unlikely to recommend his suit. Jane Austen, Pride and prejudice

(1985: 286, 287)

Corina Ungureanu’s translation is the following:

– Zadarnic m-am luptat. N-am reușit. Sentimentele mele nu s-au

lăsat învinse. Trebuie să-mi îngăduiți să vă mărturisesc admirația și

dragostea mea arzătoare.

Uimirea lui Elizabeth fu de nedescris. Făcu ochii mari, se roși,

deveni suspicioasă și rămase tăcută. El luă totul drept o suficientă

încurajare și îi mărturisi, în continuare, tot ce simțea și simțise de mult

pentru ea. Vorbi frumos, dar, în afară de simțămintele inimii, mai erau și

altele de menționat și nu fu mai elocvent pe tema afecțiunii lui decât pe

aceea a mândriei. Conștiința inferiorității ei și a faptului că aceasta

însemna o degradare pentru el, obstacolele reprezentate de familie, care

pune întotdeauna rațiunea înaintea sentimentului, fură dezbătute cu o

căldură datorată parcă faptului că o rănea, dar foarte nepotrivită să-i

susțină cererea. Mândrie și prejudecată, Jane Austen, trad și note Corina

Ungureanu (2011: 212)

Starting from the fact that equivalence is not only at word level, but it also

extends to the effect a Target Text should have on the TL audience meaning

that the translator should guess what the reaction of the target audience is

going to be. This being the case, the translator has to come up with words

she thinks will have an equivalent effect on the Target Language audience

that the Source Text had on the SL audience. The translator’s equivalents

are likely not to be the true equivalents of the terms used in the Source

41

Language Text simply because the translator would like to have a similar

effect on the Target Language audience. For instance: for the phrase how

ardently I admire and love you Ungureanu’s chose to use: admirația și

dragostea mea arzătoare in order to achieve an equivalence between the ST

and the TT, an equivalence of meaning and effect over the readers

perception of the depth of Mr. Darcy’s feelings. Also she changed the main

meaning of the words: stared, coloured, doubted, and was silent in order to

embellish the translation in the TT because the accurate translation of this

words using their main meaning would be: se holbă, se coloră, se îndoi și

tăcu. But a translator, any translator, not only this one, whose translation is

under analysis, should use this methods to embellish their translation

because the author uses all sorts of metaphores to achieve a more sensitive

and emotional awareness from the reader, and so should a translation

convey even though total meaning equivalence is not achieved.

An example of the usage of artiffice in Corina Ungureanu’s translation is

the translation of to be detailed for which she used in Romanian: de

menționat, but the definition of detailed is: extended treatment of or

attention to particular items (according to the Merriam- Webster dictionary),

whereas the Romanian de menționat has the English equivalent to be

mentioned which is completely different from detailed because it lacks the

commitment that detailed implies.

Another good example in her translation where equivalence is not total is

were dwelt on which she translated as: fură dezbătute which is an obvious

interpretation on her part because if we take a look at the Merriam- Webster

dictionary again and search for the definition of TO DWELL ON we will

find that it is not the most fortunate translation because the definition is:

42

1: to remain for a time

2: a : to keep the attention directed —used with on or upon

b : to speak or write insistently —used with on or upon and has nothing to do with the term to debate which is the English

equivalent for the Romanian term a dezbate which also implies a heated

discussion between at least two parties, whereas in the paragraph presented

it is obvious that Mr. Darcy is the only one who is doing the talking, and

Elizabeth is just listening, she does not take action, which makes the

paragraph more like a monologue rather than a debate.

The following expression is another example of how the translator put her

own fingerprint on the text is: family obstacles which had always opposed

to inclination. In Romanian she translated it as: obstacolele reprezentate de

familie, care pune întotdeauna rațiunea înaintea sentimentului, which is

obviously a personal interpretation because according to the Merriam-

Webster dictionary the definition of INCLINATION is:

1 a: obsolete: natural disposition: character

b: a particular disposition of mind or character: propensity;

especially: liking

2: a tendency to a particular aspect, state, character

Nowhere in this definition is there a reference to reason before feelings, as

she has said in her translation. But in my opinion this sort of artifice is used

worldwide and I personally agree with its usage as you will see in my own

translation of the paragraph I also use it in order to make the reader feel

more connected with Mr. Darcy’s inner struggle.

43

The same principle applies in the usage of foarte nepotrivită să-i susțină

cererea for the English to recommend his suit because again according to

Merriam- Webster dictionary the definition of SUIT is:

1 a : recourse or appeal to a feudal superior for justice or redress

b : an action or process in a court for the recovery of a right or claim

2: an act or instance of suing or seeking by entreaty : appeal;

specifically : courtship

Again, nowhere in the definition there is no reference to a confession of

someone’s feelings or to a request of reciprocityof those feelings. So in this

case as well is just a way to embellish and to create a more romantic

atmosphere to the discussion presented in the paragraph.

Meaning and equivalence in translation should not be considered as total,

but only partial due to the fact that equivalents in various languages do not

always cover all the aspects of the terms in the Source Language when

translated into the Target Language. Translators should acknowledge the

fact that each term in any given language covers a reality and aspects that

cannot be transferred into another language as meaning in any language is

based on the culture of the language in question.

And now for the presentation, the analysis of my own translation of the

paragraph and the comparison with the translation made by Corina

Ungureanu:

”Zadarnic m-am zbătut. Nu a fost suficient. Sentimentele mele nu pot

fi controlate. Trebuie să îmi permiteți să vă mărturisesc ardoarea cu care

vă admir și vă iubesc.”

44

Uimirea lui Elizabeth fu de nedescris. Se uită în gol, se roși, se lăsă

cuprinsă de îndoieli și rămase tăcută. Pentru el tăcerea fu suficientă

încurajare; și urmă mărturisirea a tot ce simțea, și de când avea aceste

sentimente pentru ea. El vorbi frumos; dar erau și alte sentimente de

explicat pe lângă sentimentele dictate de inimă; și nu fu mai elocvent în

manifestarea tandreții decât în manifestarea mândriei. Felul în care era

conștient de inferioritatea ei – a faptului că aceasta era o degradare pentru

el– de obstacolele reprezentate de către familie care s-a opus mereu

direcției spre care se îndreptau sentimentele sale, fură exprimate cu o

căldură ce părea să fie o consecință a suferinței ei, dar care îi era puțin

probabil favorabilă în demersurile sale.”

As I pointed out when I was analysing Ungureanu’s translation, I too used a

deviation of meaning in the translation of some words or even some phrases,

for the same purpose, to try and render the feelings and the atmosphere of

tangible nervousness between the two characters in the same manner as it is

presented by Jane Austen in the ST, that is why I did not use the main

meaning for some words, or even created some new ones in order to make

the translation more suitable and more available to the reader’s grasp. There

are some differences between the words or the phrases that I used in my

translation and those used by the other translator, but I believe that the main

reason for those differences is personal understandig of the text and of the

way in which each of us relates to the feel of the text.

For instance she used zadarnic m-am luptat for in vain I have struggled

whereas I used zadarnic m-am zbătut because I consider that the Romanian

verb a zbate is more potent and it shows more power in Mr. Darcy’s

45

struggle than the verb a lupta; also in the translation of the phrase: It will not

do. My feelings will not be repressed there are some differences in the

words each of us saw fit to use. Ungureanu used: N-am reușit. Sentimentele

mele nu s-au lăsat învinse, whereas I used: Nu a fost suficient. Sentimentele

mele nu pot fi controlate because I feel that even though Mr. Darcy has

decided to express his feelings and try to get Elizabeth’s hand in matrimony,

he is still conflicted about the two worlds in which they belong and so I

believe that the usage of a present tense in Romanian is more appropriate

than the usage of a past tense.

For to be detailed I used de explicat rather than de menționat as she did

because I believe that the Romanian verb a explica is closer to the

Romanian equivalent of detailed which is detaliat, I did not want to use the

equivalent for fear of not looking like a word-for-word translation; but I did

not use mentioned because as I said before I consider that it does not express

the same level of commitment like detailed does.

Another significant difference between the two translations under analyse is

the manner in which I translated the family obstacles which had always

opposed to inclination, which is, obstacolele reprezentate de către familie

care s-a opus mereu direcției spre care se îndreptau sentimentele sale and

the translation made by Ungureanu: obstacolele reprezentate de familie,

care pune întotdeauna rațiunea înaintea sentimentului.

I chose to translate it the way I did because I wanted to keep at least one of

the meanings that Merriam- Webster dictionary gives to the word

INCLINATION and that would be: a tendency to a particular aspect, state.

Another example of how the two translations are different is the word

chosen for the translation of dwelt on. I used the Romanian exprimate, and

46

Ungureanu used dezbătute which I explained above why it is not a suitable

correspondent, at least in my opinion and based on it’s dictionary definition;

These are just some of the differences that occur between two translations

made by two different translators, it is my belief that had I subjected the

translation of the entire book to comparison there would have been much

more differences that resemblances because when it comes to literary

translations there are no standardized expressions as it is in other translation

fields or only one correct way of rendering the author’s feelings and

thoughts, it is all relative, it depends on the view of the translator, on how he

perceived the book when he/ she read it, it also depends on if the translator

is also a writer or not, because if he/ she is a writer than he/ she is more

prone to the usage of metaphores and other devices in order to make the

translation more intricate.

47

CONCLUSIONS

The main aim of this dissertation paper was that of underlining the

main difficulties in translating a literary text, namely Jane Austen’s Pride

and Prejudice based on the best known translation theories.

The first chapter is an introduction to the literary translation field,

presenting the language functions (expressive, informative, vocative,

aesthetic, phatic and metalingual), the translation methods (word-for-word,

literal, faithful, semantic, adaptation, free, idiomatic and communicative) in

Peter Newmark’s view and the procedures used in translating literary texts.

Also this first chapter offers a perspective over the intention of the text, the

intention of the translator, the text styles (narrative, description, discussion

and dialogue) distinguished by notorious theorists and the quality of the

writing.

In the next chapter I focused on a short presentation of the concept of

equivalence, by using some of the non-specific definitions of the concept,

then I turned my attention on the concept of equivalence in translation

studies because this is the field on which my paper is based on and I

presented, the dual status of equivalence by using definitions from different

points of view because of the two main schools of thought in translation

studies.

The dual role of the equivalence concept for the linguistically

oriented scholars was discussed with the emphasis on how the relationship

between target and source texts was considered to be the object of study,

48

while at the same time the task of theory was seen to be the development of

an adequate means of determining what translation is and what it is not.

Whereas for scholars working within a historical-descriptive

approach, on the other hand, the explication of equivalence is seen as an

unfruitful enterprise. Furthermore, many of these scholars are, in their own

view, more interested textual “manipulation” in difference than in sameness,

and in the motivations underlying textual “manipulation”.

And last but not least I presented the typologies of equivalence and

the nature of equivalence.

In the final chapter of this paper I translated, compared and analysed

a paragraph from Pride and Prejudice. From this chapter my final

conclusions were that Corina Ungureanu, the translator whose version I

chose to compare with my own translation has a different method of

translation from mine (she uses the expressive method) because she likes to

really embelish her translation in order to achieve the same level sensitive

and emotional awareness from the reader, even though total meaning

equivalence is not achieved. I on the other hand use the communicative

method by trying to render the exact contextual meaning of the original in

such a way that both content and language are readily acceptable and

comprehensible to the reader, because I believe that only this method can

fulfil the two main aims of translation, accuracy and economy.

49

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Austen, J., Pride and prejudice, London, Penguin Books, 1985.

Baker, M., Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. New York:

Routledge, 2001.

Bassnett, S., Translation Studies, London- New York, Routledge, 2000

Catford, J. C. A Linguistic Theory of Translations. An Essay in Applied

Linguistics, London: Oxford, 1965.

Halverson, S., The concept of equivalence in translation studies: Much ado

about something, 2006.

Hartmann, R.K.K. and F.C. Stork, Dictionary of Language and Linguistics,

Amsterdam: Applied Science, 1972.

Hermans, Theo, “Introduction: Translation Studies and a New Paradigm”,

1985.

Hervey, S. and I. Higgins. Thinking Translation – A Course in Translation

Method: French to English. London: Routledge, 1992.

Jakobson, R., Theories of Translation, 1992.

Koller, W, “Equivalence in Translation Theory”, Chesterman 1989.

The Merriam-Webster thesaurus, Springfield, Massachusetts, Merriam-

Webster, 1989.

Miyada, F., Total Meaning and Equivalence in Translation, NAWA Journal

of Language and Communication, 2007.

Newmark, P., A textbook of translation, New York- London-Toronto:

Prentice Hall International, 1988.

Nida, Eugene A. and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of

Translation 1969.

50

Ortega y Gasset, J., Theories of Translation, 1992.

Pym, A.. Translation and Text Transfer: An Essay on the Principles of

Intercultural Communication.Frankfurt an Main : Peter Lang, 1995.

Snell-Homby, M. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach.

Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1988.

Ungureanu, C. (trad.), Mândrie și prejudecată, București, Adevărul

Holding, 2011.