The problem of translatability

This problem has been the subject of heated discussions ever since translation practice appeared as a special kind of human activity. In the philosophy of language two radically opposed points of view have been asserted reflecting “relativist” and “universalist” orientations:

· “ relativist” orientation towards translatability

Adherents to this approach claim that translation is impossible. Such a skeptical opinion was expressed both by outstanding men-of-letters, and prominent linguists. It is sufficient to quote S.M.de Cervantes who compared translation to the wrong side of the carpet.

V.von Humboldt, one of the greatest figures in ethnography and linguistics, wrote in 1796 that any translation was doomed to be a waste of time, since it is an attempt to try to solve a task that cannot be solved. He argued that a translator either stays too close to the original, at the cost of taste and the language of his nation, or he adheres too closely to the characteristics peculiar to his nation, at the cost of the original. Such an approach was connected with his theoretical views on language, thought and reality. He looked upon language as an expression of the spirit of the nation hence each language embodies the world-view (Weltansicht) and shapes the reality for the people speaking a particular language as well as their mentality.

Similar ideas were later supported and developed by other German linguists, Humboldt’s followers, for example, L. Weisgerber who proposed the theory that our understanding is under the spell of the language which it utilizes.

In American linguistics the postulate of untranslatability is founded on the conviction that there can be no true symmetry, no adequate mirroring, between two different semantic systems. The tendency to identify language and thinking was started in the works of E. Sapir and B. Whorf, who developed the theory of linguistic relativity. Since thinking was practically equated with language the conclusion was that it is impossible to translate adequately from one language into another. In their opinion, different perception and mental organization of reality account for the existence of gaps between languages including terms specific to each language community. Concepts that are common to two or more linguistic communities nevertheless have different connotations in each of them. Besides, the difference in structuring reality by each linguistic community is done according to their own linguistic codes. This point of view is known as ‘monadist’ (G. Steiner) which implies that universal deep structures are either fathomless to logical investigation or too abstract and generalized. So it is argued that any universalist models are at best irrelevant and at worst misleading and concerning the problem of translatability it means that translation “is a convention of approximate analogies, a rough-cast similitude, just tolerable when the two relevant languages or cultures are cognate, but altogether spurious when remote tongues and far-removed sensibilities are in question” [Steiner 1977:74]. In Russia A.A. Potebnya shared similar ideas on restrictions of translatability.

· “universalist” orientation in translation studies

The supporters of the second approach to the solution of the problem of translatability stick to the opposite principle of absolute translatability which was proclaimed in the Age of Enlightenment. Prominent philosophers R. Descartes, G.W. Leibnitz and others proceeded from the assumption that different languages should be regarded as variants of a single language lingua universalis which express the same logical notions that are easy to translate from language to language. The emergence of such views goes back to antique grammars. The term grammatica universalis appeared in the Middle Ages (13^th century) after the publication of “Grammaire generale et raisonnee de Port-Royal” when the notion ‘universals’ acquired a linguistic basis. It was argued that all languages have a ‘universal’(‘rational’, ‘philosophic’) basis which enables to achieve absolute translatability.

Similar views were held in American linguistics by adherents to the generative approach (started in the work by N. Chomsky, 1976) who claimed that even the most complicated sentences can be described in terms of simple nuclear patterns which are easy to translate from language to language. From this it follows that the main task is to apply transformation rules which enable to turn nuclear structures into full sentences in TLT.

Both the ‘relativist’ and ‘universalist’ approaches to this key issue of translation studies should be qualified as extreme points of view that can hardly be accepted today. Their ideas run counter to the real practice of translation and are given up now as being one-sided and rigorous. And besides, the development of linguistics, the emergence of national languages outside the European continent have shown the futility of ideas connected with lingua universalis.

· modern views on translatability

As is usual in debates on controversial issues, the truth lies in the middle, and the solution to the problem of translatability has to be made on a different ground.

In polemics with adherents to the idea of absolute untranslatability it is argued that the long history of the practice of translation testifies to the opposite. The assumptions used by the authors are as follows:

a) thinking of any people is based on common laws of logic;

b) the basic units of logic are notions that are universal for all human beings;

c) all national languages possess not only culturally specific characteristics, but also a lot of universal features;

d) reality surrounding man exists by itself and is only reflected in the course of human activity by human mind and the results of human cognition are embodied in a language;

e) whatever is expressed in one language can always be translated into another language as all languages are rich in their resources.

At the same time the ‘universalist’ approach to the problem which proclaims absolute translatability cannot be accepted either although for different reasons. In contrast to the principle of absolute translatability which is practically unattainable, both Russian and foreign scholars advocate the solution of translatability in relative terms. Besides, they offer a more strict understanding and treatment of the term translatability.

In order to clarify the notion of translatability Prof. A.D. Shveitzer suggests distinguishing between two interpretations of the term: on the one hand, it is possible to understand translatability as the general basic underlying principle of translation activity. To such an understanding of translatability he gives a positive answer. At the same time it is possible to refer the notion of translatability to concrete language points and discover a lot of things that are hard or even impossible to translate. There are well-known books that collect language units that defy translation [Влахов, Флорин 1978]. As an example we can refer to the Russian word пошлость, which is impossible to translate adequately into English. The dictionary correspondences are cheap, sham, common, vulgar, commonplace, trivial, in bad taste, banal and some others (ORED). In the opinion of V. Nabokov, none of these correspondences can convey the idea of moral, spiritual and social criticism like the Russian pitiless word (cit [Вежбицкая 2001]).

Prof. L.S. Barkhudarov suggested a rather convincing solution to this problem as he believes that it is necessary to view this category on the level of a whole text, but not its parts and segments. He claims that though there may be units which are difficult to translate they should not undermine the principle of translatability established on the level of a text. As for textual elements that may be difficult or even impossible to translate they do not undermine the fact of translatability of a whole text.

Thus, to conclude it is necessary to stress that it is necessary to keep apart two aspects of this phenomenon: first of all, translatability as such which is established on the level of a text as a whole and secondly translatability of textual elements. Since from the above it follows that translatability as the basic theoretical assumption which is used in regard to a text is quite plausible and its validity cannot be questioned it is necessary to see some other aspects of translatability which arise on the level of textual elements.

The history of translation studies bears out that both Russian and foreign pioneers of LLT were concerned with textual elements and considered both linguistic and cultural differences between the respective codes conveying a certain message. In view of such discrepancies E. Nida discussed a variety of formal modifications which are especially needed in order to overcome cultural differences. Some authors (A. Martinet, H. Friedrich, etc) do not support the theory of translatability and viewing it in regard to textual elements they claim that the art of translation will always have to cope with the reality of untranslatable from one language into another.

In view of the cultural approach to language American linguist R. Lado, the author of the book “Linguistics across Cultures”, developed the notion of ‘cultural untranslatability’ [Ладо 1989]. He uses this term to refer to culturally unique terms such as cultural concepts, barbarisms, some terms, etc. It is clear from this that the author shifts the problem of translatability onto the level of textual elements rather than the level of a text.

It is with reference to problem areas of a SLT that J. Catford proposed a basic division between linguistic and cultural untranslatability:

· linguistic untranslatability is defined as a failure to find a TL equivalent which is due entirely to differences between the SL and the TL;

· cultural untranslatability occurs when a situational feature, functionally relevant for the SL text, is completely absent from the culture of which the TL is a part (e.g. the names of some institutions, clothes, food, abstract concepts, etc) [Катфорд 2004].

To illustrate linguistic untranslatability he refers to the category of gender which is relevant in Russian, but not in English, cf. Я пришла – I’ve arrived. – There are no special markers in English to render the Russian feminine gender as the latter is not an obligatory category in it.

Cultural untranslatability defined above offers great difficulties and the failure of a translator to deal with them properly can result in a cultural shock. The author proves this by the following example, cf. Они лежали на горячих верхних полках бани, вдыхая ароматный запах березовых веток. – They lay on the hot upper benches of the bathroom inhaling the aromatic scent of the birch twigs.

In connection with both types of translatability J. Catford speaks about limits and degree of translatability, both linguistic and cultural, so he refrains from using the terms absolute translatability and absolute untranslatability.

* * *

The attitude of modern foreign theoreticians of translation to the problem of translatability shows a more flexible and many-sided approach to its solution than that of their predecessors. As an example we can refer to P. Torop, the creator of the total approach to translation, who argues that it is necessary to establish various types and levels of translatability instead of trying to offer its more or less universal definition [Тороп 1995]. His theoretical assumption is that measuring the quality of translation should not be done only on the basis of language facts as a target text functioning as a secondary text in a receiving culture may prove to be quite valuable to that culture despite some linguo-stylistic faults. The problem of translatability has a number of aspects which should be considered as partially compatible dominants of translation activity.

The author distinguishes between three types of translatability depending on whether the dominant as the basis of conceptuality of translation activity refers to:

· a SLT,

· a translator or

· a receiving culture.

In the first case the source text dictates its own optimal translatability, in the second case the translator as a creative person realizes himself through the choice of the translation method which itself determines the degree of translatability and in the third case the translator takes into account a would-be reader or cultural norms, i.e. determines the degree of translatability by conditions of acceptance of a translation text.

Besides these types of translatability the scholar describes levels of translatability by considering sets of parameters that refer to translatability of culture. Translatability of culture is understood as a complex whole including:

· the parameter of language (grammatical categories, cultural terms, speech etiquette, world-view, associations),

· the parameter of time (historical and cultural time, the author’s and eventive time),

· the parameter of space (geographic space, psychological space),

· the parameter of a text (genre, the author’s lexis, expressive means used),

· the parameter of the work of art (additional metatexts which may be presuppositional, interpretative, the reader’s reaction),

· the parameter of social-political determinatedness (norms, prohibitions, evaluation of translation).

It is clear from the above that the problem of translatability in modern translatology is solved on a different theoretical basis as compared to the traditional approaches, therefore such a treatment of this notion exceeds the boundaries of language facts and brings to light a number of important factors including cultural signs and categories that are active when assessing different aspects of translatability:

o it not only proclaims the importance of culture, but actually investigates translation as part of culture viewing the entire phenomenon of translation as culture-bound;

o it takes into account functioning of a translation text in the receiving culture so the problem of translatability is closely linked with the acceptance of a translation version of a SL text in a receiving culture;

o it overcomes simplification of the problem studied and views translatability as a typology of complementary parameters which taken together can provide a solid ground for a comprehensive analysis of the total translation activity.

To sum up, modern approaches to languages and cultures adopted in cultural studies of a language develop views on language as determining medium of thought which structures experience according to its own particular lines and habits of cognition (see the works by A. Vezhbitzka, В.А. Маслова, С.Г. Тер-Минасова), so to a great extent we think and feel as our particular language impels and allows us to do. This may account for translation difficulties and non-translatable elements in languages. At the same time, there are some universal features of the semantic and formal systems that cannot be ignored. Common linguistic properties facilitate passage from one language into another ensuring success of a translator’s enterprise. Thus, the problem of translatability is realized as a complex phenomenon which should be studied accordingly.The practice of translation confirms that various translation strategies are constantly applied in order to bridge the gaps between languages and cultures and thus avoid losses which may result in the target text.