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 Newmarks 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

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this dissertation paper is to depict and analyse the translation difficulties in Jane Austens 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, its

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 Austens Pride and Prejudice.

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;

- 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 Newmarks 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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

10

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)

11

Language functions in Peter Newmarks 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 Newmarks) 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.

12

(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,

13

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,

14

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 valuejudgment; 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

15

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)

16

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

17

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-forword, 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

18

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)

19

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

20

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 its 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

21

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

22

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 keyword 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)

23

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, Websters 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.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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-

28

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-tomany), approximative equivalence (one-to-part-of-one) and null equivalence (one-to-none). Several others also debated what the unit of equivalence should be. Kades 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. Nidas 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,

29

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. SnellHornby (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

30

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

31

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 anotherPrescriptively, 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.

32

Jos 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

33

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

34

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 translators 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

35

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(1992:56). 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: 18791, 1989: 1004), 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

36

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

37

(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.

38

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 Austens Pride and prejudice an official Romanian translation, a translation of a printed copy of the book, from the Adevrul 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 welleducated young woman but who unfortunately came from a modest family. This particular paragraph presents Mr. Darcys 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. Elizabeths 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 inferiorityof its being a degradationof 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

39

was very unlikely to recommend his suit. Jane Austen, Pride and prejudice (1985: 286, 287)

Corina Ungureanus translation is the following:

Zadarnic m-am luptat. N-am reuit. Sentimentele mele nu s-au lsat nvinse. Trebuie s-mi ngduii s v mrturisesc admiraia i dragostea mea arztoare. Uimirea lui Elizabeth fu de nedescris. Fcu ochii mari, se roi, deveni suspicioas i rmase tcut. El lu totul drept o suficient ncurajare i i mrturisi, n continuare, tot ce simea i simise de mult pentru ea. Vorbi frumos, dar, n afar de simmintele inimii, mai erau i altele de menionat i nu fu mai elocvent pe tema afeciunii lui dect pe aceea a mndriei. Contiina inferioritii ei i a faptului c aceasta nsemna o degradare pentru el, obstacolele reprezentate de familie, care pune ntotdeauna raiunea naintea sentimentului, fur dezbtute cu o cldur datorat parc faptului c o rnea, dar foarte nepotrivit s-i susin cererea. Mndrie i prejudecat, Jane Austen, trad i 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 translators equivalents are likely not to be the true equivalents of the terms used in the Source

40

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 Ungureanus chose to use: admiraia i dragostea mea arztoare 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. Darcys 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 holb, se color, se ndoi i tcu. 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 Ungureanus translation is the translation of to be detailed for which she used in Romanian: de menionat, but the definition of detailed is: extended treatment of or attention to particular items (according to the Merriam- Webster dictionary), whereas the Romanian de menionat 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: fur dezbtute 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:

41

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 ntotdeauna raiunea naintea 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. Darcys inner struggle.

42

The same principle applies in the usage of foarte nepotrivit s-i susin 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 someones 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 zbtut. Nu a fost suficient. Sentimentele mele nu pot fi controlate. Trebuie s mi permitei s v mrturisesc ardoarea cu care v admir i v iubesc.

43

Uimirea lui Elizabeth fu de nedescris. Se uit n gol, se roi, se ls cuprins de ndoieli i rmase tcut. Pentru el tcerea fu suficient ncurajare; i urm mrturisirea a tot ce simea, i de cnd avea aceste sentimente pentru ea. El vorbi frumos; dar erau i alte sentimente de explicat pe lng sentimentele dictate de inim; i nu fu mai elocvent n manifestarea tandreii dect n manifestarea mndriei. Felul n care era contient de inferioritatea ei a faptului c aceasta era o degradare pentru el de obstacolele reprezentate de ctre familie care s-a opus mereu direciei spre care se ndreptau sentimentele sale, fur exprimate cu o cldur ce prea s fie o consecin a suferinei ei, dar care i era puin probabil favorabil n demersurile sale.

As I pointed out when I was analysing Ungureanus 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 readers 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 zbtut because I consider that the Romanian verb a zbate is more potent and it shows more power in Mr. Darcys

44

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 reuit. Sentimentele mele nu s-au lsat nvinse, 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 Elizabeths 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 menionat 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 ctre familie care s-a opus mereu direciei spre care se ndreptau sentimentele sale and the translation made by Ungureanu: obstacolele reprezentate de familie, care pune ntotdeauna raiunea naintea 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

45

Ungureanu used dezbtute which I explained above why it is not a suitable correspondent, at least in my opinion and based on its 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 authors 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.

46

CONCLUSIONS

The main aim of this dissertation paper was that of underlining the main difficulties in translating a literary text, namely Jane Austens 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 Newmarks 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,

47

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.

48

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, MerriamWebster, 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.

49

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.), Mndrie i prejudecat, Bucureti, Adevrul Holding, 2011.

50