Chapter II The Problems of Translation
Chapter II The Problems of Translation
Chapter II The Problems of Translation
TheProblemsofTranslation
The process of translation is often hindered by structural, lexical and
contextual constraints. Rhythmical, alliterative and onomatopoeic aspects have
been hurdles at the lexical level. Cultural nuances of the language constitute
the congenital merits of any literary work. They tend to resist translation and
make translation unpoetic. Puns, equivocations and idioms constitute the
lexical problems that literary translators encounter. Most of the lexical
problems arise from the problems of equivalences. There are four types
of
equivalences:
(1)
one-to-one
equivalence;
(2)
one-to-many
66
67
Roman
Jakobson, Eugene Nida and Anton Popovic have contributed to the theory of
equivalence.
68
translator recodes and transmits the SL messages into TL messages and thus
translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes.
In Jakobsons discussion, the problem of equivalence focuses on the
differences in the structure and terminology of languages rather than on the
inability of one language to render a message written in another verbal
language. He emphasizes that the problem of equivalence is related to the
structure and syntax of the language.
The conventional terms such as literal, free and faithful translation
became outdated with the publication of Eugene Nidas two major works
Towards a Science of Translating (1964) and The Theory and Practice of
Translation (1969), which he co-authored with Taber. Nida, who has applied a
communication model for his theory of translation, distinguishes between
Formal equivalence and Dynamic Equivalence. Nida explains: Formal
Equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and
contentOne is concerned that the message in the receptor language should
match as closely as possible the different elements in the source
language (1964:159). Formal equivalence or formal correspondence is thus
oriented towards the SL structure. The most typical of this kind of translation is
gloss translation, with a close approximation to SL structure, often with
footnotes, to gain close access to the language and customs of the source
culture (Nida and Taber, 1969:24). In such a translation, a translator is
concerned with such correspondences as poetry to poetry, sentence to sentence,
69
and concept to concept. This kind of translation allows the reader to understand
as much of the source language context as possible.
Dynamic or functional equivalence is based on what Nida calls the
principle of equivalent effect, where the relation between receptor and
message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the
original receptors and the message (1964:159). Here the message is tailored to
the receptors linguistic needs and cultural expectations, aiming at complete
naturalness of expression. Nida defines the goal of dynamic equivalence as to
seek the closest equivalent to the source-language message (1964:166; Nida
and Taber 1969:12). This receptor oriented approach considers adaptations of
grammar, lexicon, and cultural references essential to achieve naturalness, to
minimize the foreignness of the SL setting. The emotive impact of the message
is the same for the audience irrespective of the fact that whether they belong to
the source culture or target culture.
Yet another theory of equivalence is mentioned by Anton Popovic, who,
in his Dictionary for the Analysis of Literary Translation (1976), identifies four
types of equivalence- Linguistic equivalence, Paradigmatic equivalence,
Stylistic or Translational equivalence and Textual or Syntagmatic equivalence.
In linguistic equivalence there is homogeneity on the linguistic level of both SL
and TL texts. It closely resembles word for word translation. Paradigmatic
equivalence aims at equivalence of the elements of a paradigmatic expressive
axis: elements of grammar which Popovic regards as a higher category than
lexical equivalence. .In stylistic equivalence, there is functional equivalence of
70
elements both in the source text and the translation, aiming at an expressive
identity with an invariant of identical meaning. When there is equivalence of
the syntagmatic structuring of a text, an equivalence of form and shape exists
and this is called textual equivalence. Translation is far more than replacement
of lexical or grammatical items; the process also involves discarding the basic
linguistic elements to achieve the expressive identity.
An important work on equivalence by Werner Koller, Einfubrung in die
Ubersetzungswissenschaft (1979), examines closely the concept of equivalence
and the linked term correspondence. According to him, correspondence falls
within the fields of contrastive linguistics, which compares two language
systems and describes the differences and similarities contrastively.
Its parameters are those of Saussures langue. Equivalence, on other hand,
relates to equivalent items in specific ST-TT pairs and contexts. Here, the
parameter is Saussures parole. Koller points out that while knowledge of
correspondences is indicative of competence in the foreign language,
knowledge and ability in equivalences are indicative of competence in
translation.
Koller describes five different types of equivalences. They are
Denotative equivalence, Connotative equivalence, Text-normative equivalence,
Pragmatic equivalence and Formal equivalence. The denotative equivalence is
related to the equivalence of the extra linguistic content of the text.
The connotative equivalence is related to the equivalence of the connotative
dimensions of a text. The text normative equivalence is related to text types,
71
syntactic substitute in language for the Source language item. This is the result
of the differences between the Source language and the Target language.
72
73
74
hello into any language, should first extract a core of meaning which is
applicable to his translation of the word hello. Jakobson has described this as
interlingual transposition, while Ludskanov, in his A Semiotic Approach to the
Theory of Translation, calls it Semiotic transformation. It is the replacement of
the signs encoding a message by signs of another code, preserving invariant
information with respect to a given system of reference. In the case of hello the
invariant is the notion of greeting.
Since language is a cultural construct, certain amount of cultural
untranslatability is implied in any process of translation. A word is a cultural
symbol which can suggest a particular image or dimension of meaning in the
mind of the reader of the SL. The difficulty with the TL readers is that they
react to such cultural items only in the context of their own cultural
environment. The translator is, therefore, forced to identify himself with the
cultural context of the original work in order to make his readers understand
the cultural elements in the work. For this, sometimes the translator has to use
appropriate techniques of adjustments like loan translations, explanations and
indications to suggest the cultural dimension of the meaning. Cultural problem
occurs mainly in the translation of socio cultural vocabulary: idioms and
proverbs, images, folk similies, myths, satire, humour and so on. The problem
of cultural translation occurs not only in the translation of folk literature but
also in the case of sophisticated literatures.
Translations are not made in a void. Translators function within the
spatio-temporal coordinates of a culture. They are influenced by the overtones
75
and underpinnings of their culture; they are often the product and the producer
of culture. Translators, through the subtle interplay of politics and power
structures in their translations, often tend to perpetuate the hierarchical patterns
perceived and preserved by their culture. They directly or indirectly sanctify
the cultural Othering practiced as a form of hegemonic oppression to drive
certain communication to the margins of the cultural space. Translation is a
process of negotiation and not a linguistic homogenization. Maintaining the
ethnic and cultural elements in the source language and producing an appeal of
transfer in the target language help to preserve the cultural identity of the
original.
Even when different theories have been put forward regarding the
central issue of equivalence, it is an obvious fact that complete textual
equivalence, both contextual and linguistic, is impossible. On a linguistic level,
there are cases where there is null equivalence and zero equivalence, when
translation is made from one language to another. For instance, when an
English SL text containing My father was a doctor was translated into French,
it sounded as Mon pere etait docteur and in Russian as otets u mena byl
docktor. Here the translation equivalent of the English indefinite article, a is
the French article zero. As Russian has no system of articles there is no
translation equivalent of the English indefinite article. So the Russian
equivalent of a in this text is nil.. Hence, equivalences can be established
only at a higher rank.
76
77
relationships but also constitute forms which correspond most closely with
those expressions that are likely to occur in the receptor language. In the
analysis stage, usually paraphrasing or back transformation is done for
convenience. Still, problems may arise in the case of certain phrases because of
the unexpected significance given to one of the elements. The grace of God is
understood by people as the gracious quality of God rather than what he does
for men. In that case Grace acts as an abstract rather than an event. So the
translator has also the duty to look into the figurative meaning of the word.
One of the remarkable features of language is the immense possibility
that can be explored in the use of words. In fact, in most of the instances, the
surrounding context points out clearly which of these basic meanings of word
is intended. A word usually derives its meanings through syntactic marking and
semotactic marking. When a particular meaning of a word is specified by the
grammatical construction in which it occurs, it is called syntactic marking.
For example, the term fox may occur in three different contexts- It is a fox; He
is a fox; She will fox him; with three quite different meanings. In the first
sentence, the presence of it identifies fox as an animal, because this is the only
sense of fox for which it is a legitimate substitute. The fox here belongs to the
same grammatical class as that of animal, mammal and so on. In the second
sentence, the presence of he forces us to take a sense of fox that applies to a
person. In this sense, fox is a legitimate substitute only for a class of terms,
including the man, that young fellow, that politician, and so on, and the only
sense of fox that applies to a person is cunning. In the third sentence, fox is a
78
verb, as it finds a position between the modal will and the object pronoun him.
The verbal sense of fox is deceive by clever means.Sometimes semotactic
environment of words is essential in differentiating the meaning. In the case of
the sentences: He bought a chair at the furniture; He was condemned to the
(electric) chair; and, Please address the chair: the word chair derives its
meaning through the environment in which it stands. The most common sense
is understood in the first sentence, and it would be recognized as a countable,
concrete object even in the absence of the word furniture, in the sentence. In
the second sentence, chair remains a concrete object, but the presence of the
verb condemned and (optionally) of electric forces us to a specialized meaning
of chair as an instrument of execution. In the third sentence, chair refers to a
subject (the person who occupies it) which can be addressed. So the generic
sense, specific sense and the patterns of overlapping, which commonly appear
in language should be distinguished before making translation. Otherwise,
semantic analysis may lead to utter confusion.
Words have not only referential meaning, but also emotional meaning
referred to as connotative meaning. The connotations of words are highly
individual. The linguistic setting, the speakers association with words, and the
circumstances of usage are the areas that lend connotation to the words.
The attitude of the speaker contributes largely to connotations. This means, for
example, that words used primarily by children or in addressing children are
considered childish speech not appropriate for adult usage. In British English,
there is the distinction between upper class speech (U) and lower class speech
79
(non U). An interesting example is that of the use of word napkin which is U,
as against the use of serviette which is non- U. The education levels, language
defining sex, technical usages, and religious usages and so on are highly
connotative.
Sometimes words used precisely by the same persons in different
circumstances carry quite different connotations. Damn used in church bears a
meaning different from the same word used in beer hall, even though it is
uttered by the same person. Similarly, words which tend to co-occur with other
words, acquire from them various connotations. For many persons, green
probably suffers from its occurrence in green with envy, green at the hills, and
green fruit. From such habitual association green acquires some unfavourable
features of emotive meaning. Though traditionally connotative meaning has
been associated with words or phrases, there are also units like pronunciation,
choice of words, forms of discourse and themes that have connotative value
lending great problem for the translator.
Words which assume different meanings in different social or cultural
contexts are likely to be misunderstood. If early translators mistranslate such
words, they may be mistranslated in subsequent version. This is especially true
in the translation of translations like the Bible translation. The English versions
of the Bible were translated from the Latin Vulgate, translated from Hebrew by
St.Jerome. In the English Bible Christ addressed his mother Woman in two
different contexts. The first situation was just before his first mystery: the
marriage of Kanav. Mary requested Him to help the host with adequate supply
80
of wine: And Jesus said to her, Woman, what concern is that to you and to
me? (St.John 2:4). The second situation was just before his crucifixion:
When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside
her, he said to his mother, Woman, here is your son. (St.John 19:26).On
metareference to the early versions, it can be seen that Aramiac, the language
spoken by Jesus and his disciples, has a one-to-many equivalence with Hebrew,
Latin and the Germanic languages. In Aramiac the same word is used for
woman and mother. The situation could have been misunderstood and the
meaning was mistranslated by the early translators. Another word mistranslated
by the early translators is the eye of a needle. It appears in a parable Jesus
narrated to the people who followed him: It is easier for a camel to go through
the eye of the needle than for someone who is rich to enter the Kingdom of
God (St.Mark10:25). This statement created the impression that the rich are
not entitled to the Heaven. The phrase eye of the needle was infact a
merchants slang. During Jesus times the synagogues were not only places of
worship but also places for barter of goods: He told those who were selling the
doves, Take these things out of here! Stop making my Fathers house a market
place (St.John 2:16). In ancient synagogues there were two gates: an open
gate for the congregation and a constricted one for merchants and their animals
carrying the loads of goods. A kind of tax/toll was levied for carrying goods
inside. Animals like camels had to try very hard to pass through the toll gate
which was narrow and constricted. This gate was known as eye of the needle
among the merchants and the tax collectors. This merchants slang was
81
82
praise the Lord with the lips, the shift is from figurative to
figurative. When the phrase to trust is changed as to lean on, the shift is from
non-figurative to figurative.
The most dangerous kind of modification occurs when the central
component of meaning is shifted. For example, the Greek word, devil
etymologically means slanderer, but this literal meaning means nothing in
another language. Here, an expression such as chief of demons will be more
accurate. Pleonastic expressions also seem quite awkward and unnecessarily
repetitious when transferred into a receptor language. For instance, in Job 33:2,
The tongue in my mouth speaks is rather ludicrous, for it asks where else one
can have his tongue. Epistolary formulas such as Romans 1:1 7, or
Ephesians I: 1 2 are also troublesome for the translator. The historical
significance of events and the religious symbolism involved in the text also
pose great problems for the translator. For example, in translating John 15, it is
83
not necessary that the people know about grape vines or that they understand
the precise methods of cultivating and pruning such plants. Here, the translator
can use a generic term which will designate almost any kind of plant having
similar types of growth and requiring pruning to produce better. On the other
hand, in the cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11:12. 14) and the fertilising of the fig
tree (Luke 13: 6. 9), special reference should be made to the figtree, since this
has the symbolic value of identifying the fruitfulness of the Jewish national
life.
As with the transfer of the semantic content, it is not obligatory that the
structural form must be preserved. There is nothing sacrosanct about such
feature as sentence length or phrase structure patterns. Too much effort to
reflect the source leads to overloading of communication. But when structural
adjustment is needed for intelligibility of translation, it may be used.
The structural adjustment affects the entire range of linguistic structure from
the discourse to the sound. One of the most common problems of adjustment in
discourse is the handling of direct and indirect discourses. Some languages
show a decided preference to one or another form and in such cases necessary
changes must be made. For example, instead of saying, They glorified God, one
must translate it as, They said, God is wonderful. The problem of discourse
structure frequently involves distinctive use of pronominal forms. This is
especially true of the case of third person pronouns when referring to the first
person. For instance, the Son of Man in discourse by Jesus must be modified as
I, who am the Son of Man. An even more important problem is the way in
84
85
86
Sabbath(Mark 2:27), it is to be translated as two practically combined positivenegative sentence: the Sabbath was made for the sake of helping people; people
were not made for the sake of honouring the Sabbath. This is because the
events which contribute to the benefit of man and Sabbath are different, and for
this reason implied terms like helping and honouring are to be used.
The grammatical and the morphological categories of words pose
problem for a translator while transferring the message. Usually, shifts from
noun to verb, noun and pronoun are made; but in some languages, like in
Maya, and, in order to, because of are all translated as possessed nouns. John
and Peter is transferred as John his-withness Peter. To show temporal
gradation of a word is easy. But in languages where there is no temporal
gradation, like, past time of a few minutes ago, past of earlier today, past of
yesterday, past time of a month to a year, the translator requires a good deal of
information concerning the form to be used. The translator should also be
aware of the places to use dead and alive suffixes. The various patterns of
honorifics constitute another difficulty for the translator. He should keep in
mind various terminologies to define high class, low class and speaking to
peers.
In the recasting of borrowed words, especially proper nouns, the
translator attempts to follow the phonological structure of the receptor
language. Hence Mark becomes Maliko and Peter becomes Petelo. If the name
or the borrowed word accidentally resembles another word in the receptor
language, the translator is in a threat. For instance, a systematic transliteration
87
Linguistic
variation occurs mainly to show age, sex, education, occupation, social class or
caste and religious affiliation. The situational levels of language force the
translator to choose whether the message obtained is formal, technical,
informal, casual or intimate. The geographical dialect causes problem, but the
cultural element involved in the dialect misleads the translator. The range and
magnitude of the dialect in a language leads the translator to the real problem.
The only practical and satisfactory solution to the problems of dialect is to
accept any one dialect as culturally more important and linguistically more
central form of speech and to translate exclusively in this dialect, thinking that
it will eventually supercede other dialects. The translator can also employ
forms which have the widest possible distribution among the various dialects
and which are at the same time acceptable to speakers of the principal dialect.
The registers in the source language must be translated into good and bad,
pedantic or normal, refined or colloquial, formal or ungrammatic, in the target
language dialect.
88
Before dealing with the type of the discourse to be used, the translator
must be aware of the universals of discourse for effectiveness. He should know
the markers for the beginning and the end of discourses: for example, once
upon a time to show clearly that one is beginning a story, and they lived happily
thereafter to indicate the end of a discourse. There are markers for internal
transitions. For instance, usages like On the other hand, however, then all of
a sudden, Now everything was changed, introduce new paragraph in a
discourse. Markers that show temporal relationships such as when, after,
sometimes, next year, and so on , spatial relationships such as in, on, around,
long way off, went, came, and logical relationships such as moreover, therefore,
although, should also be observed in a discourse, Markers of successive
references to the same objects like pronominal references, deictic references,
synonyms, must also be noticed. Above all these, author involvement in a
discourse is to be identified while restructuring. Back transformation,
separation of the various degrees of fore- grounding and back grounding into
primary, secondary, or tertiary structures, reduction of near kernels to their
most essential features, analysis of the extent of parallelism and contrast used,
diagrammatic lining up of the chains of participants and events, and treatment
of non- primary sets as dependent structure with their own internal
relationships are some of the techniques to be used for analyzing the discourse
structure of a passage.
A study of the problems of translation will not be complete unless the
translational problems of different genres of texts are not considered. In the
89
translation of different works, the translator is faced with choices which have
been traditionally defined as faithful translations, adaptations and free versions.
However, instead of treating these as autonomous choices, they can be treated
as points of departure from the original text on the sliding scale of translation.
The failure of many translators to understand that a literary text is made up of a
complex set of systems, existing in a dialectical relationship with other sets
outside the boundaries, has often led them to focus on particular aspects of a
text at the expense of others.
Translating poetry is considered more difficult than any other literary
mode. Andre Lefevere, in his work Translating Poetry, Seven Strategies and a
Blueprint (1975), catalogues seven different strategies employed by English
translators of Catalluss Poem64: phonemic translation, literal translation,
metrical translation ,poetry into prose translation, rhymed translation ,blank
verse translation, and, interpretation. He also distinguishes between versions,
where the substance of the SL text is retained but the form is changed, and
imitations where the translator produces a poem of his own which has only title
in common with the source text. From these categories, it is obvious that a
translator must first decide what constitutes the total structure and then decide
on what to do, when translating a type of poetry with a series of rules that are
non-existent in the TL. So the translator is engaged in the act of creative
transposition. While doing so, there are cases where the translation of poetry
becomes prosaic. He finds it difficult to translate poetic language which is
embedded in proverbs, epigrams, aphorism, and parallelism and so on. Problem
90
may arise not only in the recreation of the linguistic and formal structure of the
original but also in the spatial arrangement of words. Perhaps, the greatest
problem is to resurrect a text from a period remote in time. Here, not only the
poet and his contemporaries are dead but also the significance of the poem in
its context is irrelevant.
Poetry resists translation due to various reasons. It instantly evokes a
visual image in the mind of the reader. Poetry presents images to objectify
emotions. Poetic images have universal and cultural values. Poetry serves two
functions: expressive and aesthetic. The translator has to decide intuitively or
consciously which function is more important. He faces the twin problem of
transferring as well as translating. The structural constraints, cultural
incompatibility, allusive, satirical and ironic statements, puns, rhyme schemes,
rhythms, emotive and symbolic references, and stylistic techniques are the
major problems the translator faces in the translation of poetry. This is why
W.H.Auden reminds that poetry is that which is lost in translation.
Verse is an integral part of the poetic form. So versification is a
prerequisite for the translation of poetry which is a creative re-composition to
reflect the artistic reality of the original. A good translation of poetry captures
the sense and style of the original poem in the vital verse form. The translator
recreates the poetic work in the target language synthesizing the matter
and the manner of the original. In spite of the challenges of
untranslatability, translation of poetry remains a paradox of creative
imitation.
91
92
93
The translator of dramatic text has to decide whether to consider the text
as complete in itself or to treat it as incomplete since the completion of the
dramatic text will be realized only through its performance. The system of
language is only one component in the complex system of theatre. The drama
as a literary text is not self-contained. This is experienced when a drama is read
in the same way as a novel is read. It implies that there is the influence of
outside elements in every context. The dramatic text is only an outline. This is
expected to be filled up by the art of the actors and stage symbolism. A reader
cannot get full satisfaction from a play as he gets from a novel. This is because
its descriptions, explanations or personal comments exist outside the text.
The dialogue of a drama unfolds in space and time and it is
contextualized in extra-linguistic situation. The actual signification of the
dialogue depends on the context. The dialogue is characterized by rhythm,
intonation, pitch and loudness. Hence, the translator is expected to hear the
voice of the characters and take into account the gesture of the language.
Thus, the translator of the drama faces the problem of performativity.
This condition must be satisfied before translation. A text written with an
intention to performance contains distinguishable structural features that make
it performable. It is the task of the translator to determine these structures in
order to translate them into the target language. The problem of performativity
is complicated by the differing concepts of performance. The concepts and
conventions of theatre may be different in the source culture and target culture:
the form of the text, nature of language, the style of acting, the code of
94
performance may vary. In this context, the role of the translator and his
translation become important. The polyphonic nature of the play with
dialectical variation is a linguistic problem to the translator.
With theatre translation, the problems of translating literary text take on
a new dimension of complexity; for, the text is only one element in the theatre
discourse. The language in which the play is written serves as a sign in the
network of what Thadeus Kowzan calls auditive and visual signs. The text also
contains a set of paralinguistic systems. In addition, the play text contains
within it the undertext that determines the movements an actor speaking the
text can make. The translator has to clearly observe not only the importance of
the context but also the gestural patterning within the language. After selecting
the necessary style, the translator is bound to use formal and lexical features for
the sake of efficiency.
Each translation produces a new version of a given text, an effort to
reach an ideal, perfect translation. But each previous version, being context
bound, represents a reading accessible to the time in which it is produced.
Moreover, each text is so individualistic that an attempt to translate it will
obviously create metatexts. So, in this context, there is null equivalence in
translation; and therefore, the process of transfer from SL to TL can be better
called transcreation, a twin process of translation and recreation. Octavio Paz
calls all texts as translations of translation of translations (1971:9). He asserts
that all texts are original irrespective of the nature of its composition.
95
96
97
98
99
spirit of the Indian region. The translation becomes a success only when the
spirit of the original is recreated in the translation. The local colour of the
source text can be maintained by code mixing or code switching.
Translation is an attempt to carry the cultural identity implicit in the
source language to the target language. According to the Positivist scholar,
Hippolyte Taine, a literary work is the expression of the psychology of the
individual, which in turn is the expression of the milieu and the period in which
the individual lived and of the race which he belonged to. All human
achievement can be explained with reference to the causes summed up by
Taine in his famous three term formula: la race, le milieu, et le moment.
Literary scholarship, including translation takes as its object the causal
explanation of the literary text in relation to these three factors. The translators
task consists of transferring this explanation in the target language. This task is
minimum when the cultural gap between the two languages is the least. The
translator attempts this by subverting the spatio-temporal constraints in
translation. That is why Theodore Savy contends that translation includes the
bridging of time as well as bridging of space. Thus, translation is a means to
overcome the constraints of space and time in literary studies.
Inspite of its complexities, new translation is always encouraged in the
context of new historical and literary experiences. Sri Aurobindo remarks that a
scripture like The Gita means to be restated in every age in the contemporary
thought and idiom, because it embraces within itself the dialectical experience
of the temporal and the eternal. But with the changing concepts of nationalism
100
and the national languages, inter-cultural barriers are created in the art of
translation. So the translator becomes not a creative artist but an element in the
master- servant relationship with the SL text. Hence Dante Gabriel Rossetti
could declare that the work of the translator involves self-denial and repression
of creative impulses. He suggests: often would he avail himself of any special
grace of his own idiom and epoch , if only his will belonged to him ; often
would some cadence serve him but for his authors structure- some structure,
but for his authors cadence (1968:175-9). But, Edward Fitzgerald opposed
this view. He took an extreme position. In a letter to E.B. Cowell, he remarked:
It is an amusement to me to take what liberties I like with these Persians, who,
(as I think) are not Poets enough to frighten one from such excursions, and
who really do want a little Art to shape them(Bassnett,1991:3).These two
positions, the one establishing a hierarchical relationship in which the original
author acts as a feudal overlord exacting penalty from the translator, the other
establishing a hierarchical relationship in which the translator is absolved from
all responsibility to the culture of the SL text, led to the colonial, imperialistic
influence on translation.
Translation is a process of carrying across from one language to another,
from one culture to another. In the process of carrying across the peripheral
linguistic layers of the text, translation also carries across certain deep layers
wrought into cultural, ideological, and ethnographic and gender constraints.
Translation ceases to be a mere linguistic act, neutral and simple. Translation
101
is complex at every level of its execution. In this regard, the formalist Levy
comments:
A translation is not a monistic composition, but an interpretation
and a conglomerate of two structures. On the one hand there are
the semantic content and the formal contour of the original, on
the other hand the entire system of aesthetic features bound up
with the language of the translation. (Bassnett, 1991: 5-6)
Even at the linguistic level translation requires analysis based on semiotic,
formalistic and aesthetic perceptions. Besides, translation is a cultural
reconstruction with its own equations of power and dominance, centre and
margin. That is why translators function as cultural ambassadors among
language and culture.