Translatio studies

1. Instructor
Muhammad Ahmad

2. Problems of Translation
• Translation is both linguistic and
cultural activity and it is
concerned with communication of
meaning. It is not merely lexical
equivalent of words of one
language to that of an other, but
much more. It is very difficult to
find full equivalence of an SL
word in another word in TL.

3. • To quote Cicero about
translator’s dilemma:
“If I tender word for word, the
result will sound uncouth and if
compelled by necessity I alter
anything in the order or wording.
I shall seem to have departed
from the function of a translator.”
• Total or Full translation is a
myth.

4. Problems
1. Language is largely culture oriented.
Socio-cultural matrix plays a vital role
in checking the nuances of the word
in both languages– SL and TL. e.g.
Colloquial expressions, culture-
words, slangs, proverbs.
2. The influence of L1/MT. Maintaining
the semantic compatibility along with
grammaticality gives tough time to the
translators. e.g. “I am feeling cold.” “I
feel cold.” “Heat and cold” , “garmi
aur sardi”.

5. 3. Homonyms: The same form
with different meanings in
different languages is also
problematic for the translators.
e.g. Razinama means
resignation in Marathi.
4. Food items: Certain food items
and words of common use in
everyday conversation based on
culture can not be translated.
e.g. Halva, puri, jalevi etc.

6. 5. Cultural words: culture words create
problems, as the impact of them gets
lost in the process of translation. e.g.
cousin, uncle, you, samdhi etc.
6. Syntax:
SVO, SOV, Masculine, Feminine.
e.g. “I have seen him last week.”
5. Translation of literature
i) Poetry
ii) Drama (Waiting for Godot)
iii) Prose

7. • Translation of poetry is the most
difficult mode of translation because it
bounds in figures of speech i-e
similes, metaphors, irony, paradox etc
and unprecedented phonological,
syntactic, and semantic patterns
such as rhyming alliteration,
versification, morphological and
syntactic parallelism, and above all
syntagmatic and paradigmatic
relations between words.

8. • Translation of dramatic texts pose
another kind of problem. Dialogues in
dialect of a language that is far removed
from the target language are very
difficult to translate. Apart from
language the thought-content of a
dramatic text couched in one culture
poses serious problems for the
translator. e.g. Shakespeare,s words:
Ripeness is all. Forget and Forgive.
Thou art soul in bliss. I’m bound upon
wheel of Fire. The rest is silence. Fair is
Foul and Foul is Fair. etc

9. • The translation of prose texts
including novels pose another kind
of problem. To quote Hilaire
Belloc’s six general rules for prose
translator:
1. He should go for sections instead
of word for word and sentence by
sentence, maintaining the sense of
SL text
2. He should go for contextual and
cultural idiom by idiom.

10. 3. He must render ‘intention by
intention’ bearing in mind the
emphasis or stress on a phrase.
4. He should avoid artificial word or
structures. e.g. demander, donator
etc.
5. He must ‘transmute boldly’ i-e the
essence of translating ‘ the
resurrection of an alien thing in a
native body.’
6. He should never embellish.

11. Loss and Gain Theory
Can we translate everything?
What do we mean by everything?
Can we translate culture?
Can we translate religious aspects?

12. Bell says…..
“the ideal of total equivalence is
chimerical. Languages are different
from each other; they are different in
form having distinct codes and rules
regulating the construction of
grammatical stretches of language and
these forms have different
meanings.[...]There is no absolute
synonymy between words in the same
language, so why should anyone be
surprised to discover a lack of
synonymy between languages?”

13. It is perhaps unanimously accepted that
complete symmetry or sameness can
hardly exist between languages
descending from the same family,
let alone those belonging to
remote origins, which results in
divergence on all planes. In fact,
the more divergent the languages are,
the more losses in translating from one
language into another result.

14. • THE SEVENTY-ONE-MILLION-DOLLAR WORD
• In 1980, 18-year-old Willie Ramirez was admitted to a
Florida hospital in a comatose state. His friends and
family tried to describe his condition to the paramedics
and doctors who treated him, but they only spoke
Spanish. Translation was provided by a bilingual staff
member who translated "intoxicado" as "intoxicated.
" A professional interpreter would have known that
"intoxicado" is closer to "poisoned" and doesn't carry the
same connotations of drug or alcohol use that
"intoxicated" does. Ramirez's family believed he was
suffering from food poisoning.
He was actually suffering from an intracerebral
hemorrhage, but the doctors proceeded as if he were
suffering from an intentional drug overdose, which can
lead to some of the symptoms he displayed. Because of
the delay in treatment, Ramirez was left quadriplegic. He
received a malpractice settlement of $71 million.

15. • YOUR LUSTS FOR THE FUTURE
• When President Carter traveled to
Poland in 1977, the State Department
hired a Russian interpreter who knew
Polish, but was not used to interpreting
professionally in that language. Through
the interpreter, Carter ended up saying
things in Polish like "when I abandoned
the United States" (for "when I left the
United States") and "your lusts for the
future" (for "your desires for the future"),
mistakes that the media in both
countries very much enjoyed.

16. • DO NOTHING
• In 2009, HSBC bank had to
launch a $10 million
rebranding campaign to
repair the damage done
when its catchphrase
"Assume Nothing" was
mistranslated as "Do
Nothing" in various
countries.

17. Losses occur on all language
levels:
1. Lexical
2. Syntactic
3. Semantic
4. Stylistic/rhetorical.

18. There are two kinds of losses:
First, inevitable loss: It occurs because of
the divergent systems of the two languages
regardless of the skill and competence of the
translator who can not establish equivalence
and therefore resorts to compensatory
strategies. Second is an avertable loss which
is attributed to translator’s failure to find the
appropriate equivalence. Both kinds of loss can
be seen on all levels.

19. 1.Lexical level
SL and TL mostly have different
morphological systems that may result in
avertable loss.
“‫”ﺁﭗ‬ of Urdu is used to show respect to the
second person and “‫”ﺖﻢ‬ is more informal.
But English equivalent is “You” only.
Again “‫”ﺁﭘﻨﮯ‬ is used for action sentences
in Urdu but English has only “you” for
that also.

20. 2. Syntactic Level
Losses at syntactic level are more
complex. Different sentence structures of
SL and TL makes is tough for the
translator to convey the same set of
meanings.
Urdu verbs show the gender of the doer
while English verbs can’t do.
Urdu: “Woh gaya.” = Boy, Woh gaye.” =
Girl
English: He went. She went.

21. 3. Semantic level
This kind of loss is very common and
often inevitable in translation as it is
a result of the lack of equivalence
in SL and TL.
English: He challenged me.
Urdu: Os ne muj par sawal uthaya.
Os ne muje muqabla ka kaha.
Os ne muje lalkaara.

22. Loss, mostly inevitable,
is expected in
translating a stylistically
sui generis text such
as the Qur’an, which
is matchless and
inimitable.

23. Denoting “clothing” in general in the
aya 187 in surat Al-Baqara . (The
Cow):
They ( referring to women) are
libaas to men, and you (men)
are libaas to them ( i.e. women).
What the translators would do with
“libaas”? Covering?

24. Some other translations:
- They are a comfort to you as you are to
them.
(Dawood : 343)
-They are raiment for you and ye are
raiment for them.
(Picklthall : 35)
--They are a garment for you, and you
are a garment for them.
(Ghali : 29)

25. Conclusion
Reading the original language poses a
problem to inexperienced or unskilled
translators. It is not just the verbal
fluency of a language that is required.
The skills to read and write it are
sometimes more important.
* The translator could have a problem in
comprehending the language too. This
could be because of lack of proficiency
in that language or complexity of the
language or the personal interpretation
of the translator.

26. Conclusion
• . * The translator sometimes brings in his own beliefs
and experiences in interpreting a document. This
could potentially harm the document's accuracy,
intent and effect. This is a natural problem to occur
with every translator but it must be fought against.
The focus of the translator must be on the client and
his needs.
* Lack of knowledge of the source language. The
translator should ideally be a native to that language.
That is the only way to ensure comprehensive
translation of the content, complete with colloquial
understanding of expressions, humor, slangs, hidden
meanings, culturally significant content, etc. Some
translators only deliver the word to word
translation or the superficial meaning of the text. This
leads to a loss of the text's core meaning.

27. Conclusion
In spite of the problems that threaten
the authenticity of translation and
undermine its position, the desire to
translate on the part of scholars and
translators has shown an upward
trend. Translation in the midst of all the
problems, continues to be rendered, is
something one should rejoice Ironically
enough, it is the problems that make
the art of translation challenging and
finally fascinating.

28. References
• A. H. Smith, ed., Aspects of Translation
(London: Seeker and Warburg, 1988)8.
• J. C. Catford, A Linguistic Theory of
Translation ( London: OUP, 1985)20.
• Theodore Savory, The Art of Translation
(London: Cape, 1957).
• Horst Frenz, “The Art of Translation” in
N.P. Stallknecht and H.Frenz (eds)
Comparative Literature: Method and
Perspective (Carbondale: South Illinois
University Press, 1961)72-96.

29. • Eugene Nida, Towards a Science
Science of Translating (Leiden: E.J.Brill,
1964).
• G.E. Wellworth, “Special considerations
in Drama Translation,” Translation
Spectrum: Essays in Theory and
Practice, ed. M.G. Rose (New York:
1981)143.
• Bassnett-McGuire, (1991) 71.
• Roman Jacobson, “ A Linguistic Aspects
of Translation,” On Translation ed. R.A.
Brower (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1966) 233.