Anemona Ptrulescu

Equivalence and Non-equivalence in Clinescus Enigma Otiliei

Anemona Ptrulescu

Equivalence and Non-equivalence in Clinescus Enigma Otiliei

Editura SITECH Craiova, 2012

Corectura aparine autorului. 2012 Editura Sitech Craiova Toate drepturile asupra acestei ediii sunt rezervate editurii. Orice reproducere integral sau parial, prin orice procedeu, a unor pagini din aceast lucrare, efectuate fr autorizaia editorului este ilicit i constituie o contrafacere. Sunt acceptate reproduceri strict rezervate utilizrii sau citrii justificate de interes tiinific, cu specificarea respectivei citri. 2012 Editura Sitech Craiova All rights reserved. This book is protected by copyright. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, including photocopying or utilised any information storage and retrieval system without written permision from the copyright owner. Editura SITECH din Craiova este acreditat de C.N.C.S.I.S. din cadrul Ministerului Educaiei i Cercetrii pentru editare de carte tiinific. Editura SITECH Craiova, Romnia Aleea Teatrului, nr. 2, Bloc T1, parter Tel/fax: 0251/414003 E-mail: sitech@rdslink.ro

ISBN 978-606-11-2290-5

Contents
FOREWORD .................................................................... 7 Chapter I Equivalence defines translation ....................................... 10 1.1. Defining equivalence ............................................ 10 1.2. Several theories upon translation.......................... 15 1.3. The Critique of Equivalence ................................. 34 1.4. The importance of equivalence in translation ..... 37 Chapter II Non-equivalence in the Translation Field ...................... 40 2.1. Non-equivalence between source text and target text ..................................................................... 40 2.2 Available translation procedures ........................... 42 Chapter III The Challenging World of George Clinescus Translation Enigmatic Otilia ........................................... 54 3.1. TEXT CORPUS ................................................... 54 3.2. Text Analysis ........................................................ 63 Conclusions ................................................................... 131 Bibliography .................................................................. 133
5

FOREWORD

The present volume addresses a readership interested in the field of literary translations. The main purpose of the book is to develop basic notions concerning equivalence and nonequivalence in translation, and then emphasize them in practice. Accordingly, both equivalence and non-equivalence are analyzed from the point of view of traditional and modern theories elaborated within the field of translation theories. Translation as a product has come to interest an everincreasing readership of non-native speakers of English who need rapid access to information and who depend on the professional work of translators. Thus I have tried to underline in this book not only the importance of the theoretical concepts but also to sustain them with clear examples provided by George Clinescus challenging book. The first part reveals the fact that a translation has to stand in some kind of equivalence relation to the original, which means that equivalence in translation is not an isolated
7

quality; it is a functional concept that can be attributed to a particular translational situation. It is worthwhile mentioning that the contextualization of each and every meaning is of outmost importance. It will help to disambiguate meanings, and to be able to choose the context which the confusable words and phrases match. The second part comes to prove that equivalence always implies the possibility of non-equivalence. The question of whether particular words are untranslatable is often debated. They are only words and these words are more or less hard to translate depending on their nature and the translators skills. Thus the translators should resort to various translation procedures (shifts, borrowing, adaptation etc.) when encountering such difficulties in translation. They will make their final choices in terms of grammatical correctness, lexical and semantic acceptability, text typology, style, register, as well as in terms of translation equivalence and adequacy. The third part comes to sustain all the theory presented in the previous parts through practical application. It offers the flavour of the book since all the conclusions about the topic should be drawn from the analysis I have provided. When translating, the translator encounters many traps and he should know to overcome them. In discussing such traps which cover
8

many types of difficulties we have to consider both the extra linguistic factors (authors intention, the place and the time where ST was written, function of the ST/TT reader) and the linguistic factors (subject matter, content, lexis, sentence structure) all of them bearing stylistic implications. A very important aspect when translating, interpreting and analyzing a text, as well as in comparing it with the original text is that the specific flavour of a text, the genius of a language, the richness of a culture are ideologically charged labels which finally leads to the conclusion of untranslatibility. One of the most fundamental requirements is the need of referring to each particular translation situation as regards the use of connotations. So when translating the translator has to enhance himself to a Sisyphean work, to go through the painful process of creation in rendering a text from one language to another. Finally, the end-user will come to know if Moses had horns or rays on his forehead.

Chapter I Equivalence defines translation 1.1. Defining equivalence

The notion of equivalence is undoubtedly one of the most problematic and controversial areas in the field of translation theory. The term has caused, and it seems quite probable that it will continue to cause, heated debates within the field of translation studies. This term has been analyzed, evaluated and extensively discussed from different points of view and has been approached from many different perspectives. The first discussions of the notion of equivalence in translation initiated the further elaboration of the term by contemporary theorists. The difficulty in defining equivalence seems to result in the impossibility of having a universal approach to this notion. Equivalence has been extensively used to define translation, but few writers have been prepared to define equivalence itself. Indeed, it is quite possible that the term in
10

question means all things to all theorists: since it is usually taken to be the result of successful translating, its content as a theoretical term is probably nothing more or less than the theory according to which successful translating is defined. Equivalence thus perhaps means whatever the ideal translator should set out to achieve. Yet this is a mere tautology: equivalence is supposed to define translation, but translation would then appear to define equivalence. Historical research is of little avail here. The brief survey offered by Wilss (1982, 134-135) simply presents that the English term "equivalence" entered translation studies from mathematics, that it was originally associated with research into machine translation, and that it has or should have a properly technical sense. But Snell-Hornby has used comparative historical analysis to argue against the possibility of any such technical sense, claiming to have located some 58 different types of equivalence referred to in German translation studies (1986, 15). Moreover, even if one could locate substantial common factors underlying all these variants, there is surely no guarantee that history or etymology alone will lead to the most fruitful future definition. A slightly more creative approach is required. In what follows, I want to suggest that equivalence-based definitions of translation are fundamentally correct.
11

Despite all the problems with historical usages of the term, despite recently fashionable attempts to ignore it altogether, I believe that equivalence in its most unqualified form definitionally ideal equivalence - does indeed define translation. But to reach this conclusion, to discover what is being said but not heard, it is necessary to discard several false or inadequate notions of equivalence. We must disregard the way structuralist linguistics once used the term to suggest a symmetry of "equal values" between discrete systems; we must turn to the economics of exchange in order to distinguish equivalence from assumptions of natural use values or functions; we must see how equivalence can actually operate within a dynamic translational series based on the primacy of exchange value; and finally, we must appreciate that equivalence is not a predetermined relation that translators passively seek, but instead it works as transitory fiction that translators produce in order to have receivers somehow believe that translations have not really been translated. In all, if equivalence is ideal to define translation, we must take steps to redefine ideal equivalence. I should stress that my subject in this chapter is neither more, nor less than equivalence as an ideal. The following are fairly representative equivalencebased definitions of translation:
12

"Interlingual translation can be defined as the replacement of elements of one language, the domain of translation, by equivalent elements of another language, the range [of translation]." (A. G. Oettinger 1960, 110). "Translation may be defined as follows: the replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent material in another language (TL)." (Catford 1965, 20) "Translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message." (Nida and Taber 1969, 12); cf. Nida 195 "[Translation] leads from a source-language text to a target-language text which is as close an equivalent as possible and presupposes an understanding of the content and style of the original." (Wilss 1982, 62) Many further definitions could be added to this vein. But the main variants in any further listing would tend to concern more the nature of what is supposed to be equivalent ("elements", "textual material", "functions", "communicative effect", etc.) than the nature of equivalence itself, which, within this decidedly twentieth-century tradition, is simply assumed to exist. It might of course be assumed that the term means exactly what it says: a relation of equal values. But in all the
13

above definitions, the term "equivalent" is used to describe only TTs, the products resulting from the translating process. It is not used to describe the ST, the abstractly initial material, the textual material as it arrives in the place of the translator. This one-sided use implies an asymmetry that must be considered at least odd if associated with a relationship of presumed equality. The verbs employed or implied ("replace", "reproduce", "lead to", etc.) not only refer to processes, but are decidedly unidirectional in nature. Translating goes from ST to TT, and if the process is reversed it is called "back-translation", as a kind of underhand reversal of the correct way of the word. The described processes are also peculiarly subjectless: it is obvious that somebody or something must be doing the "replacing" or "reproducing", but this person or thing appears to have no expressed place in the translational process. Although there must be at least some notion of location implied in terms like "replacement" and "lead to", the subjectless nature of this place suggests that no one particularly cares who or what is doing the work. Taking all of this together, we find that the term equivalence is commonly associated with the final result of translating as a one-way process occurring in an apparently subjectless place. Equivalence is directional and subjectless. I
14

believe that these distinctive features are highly useful for the definition of translation.

1.2. Several theories upon translation

The aim of this subchapter is to review the theory of equivalence as interpreted by some of the most innovative theorists in this fieldVinay and Darbelnet, Jakobson, Nida and Taber, Catford, House and finally Baker. These theorists have studied equivalence in relation to the translation process, using different approaches, and have provided fruitful ideas for further study on this topic. Their theories will be analyzed in chronological order so that it will be easier to follow the evolution of this concept. These theories can be substantially divided into three main groups. The first group reunites those translation scholars who are in favor of a linguistic approach to translation and who seem to forget that translation in itself is not merely a matter of linguistics. In fact, when a message is transferred from the SL to TL, the translator is also dealing with two different cultures at the same time. This particular aspect seems to have been taken into consideration by the second group of theorists who regard translation equivalence as being essentially a transfer of the message from the SC to the
15

TC and a pragmatic/semantic or functionally oriented approach to translation. Finally, there are other translation scholars who seem to stand in the middle, such as Baker for instance, who claims that equivalence is used 'for the sake of convenience because most translators are used to it rather than because it has any theoretical status' (quoted in Kenny, 1998:77). 1.2.1. Vinay and Darbelnet and their definition of equivalence in translation Vinay and Darbelnet view equivalence-oriented

translation as a procedure which 'replicates the same situation as in the original, whilst using completely different wording'. They also suggest that, if this procedure is applied during the translation process, it can maintain the stylistic impact of the SL text in the TL text. According to them, equivalence is therefore the ideal method when the translator has to deal with proverbs, idioms, clichs, nominal or adjectival phrases and the onomatopoeia of animal sounds. With regard to equivalent expressions between language pairs, Vinay and Darbelnet claim that they are acceptable as long as they are listed in a bilingual dictionary as 'full equivalents' (ibid.:255). However, later they note that glossaries and collections of idiomatic
16

expressions 'can never be exhaustive' (ibid.256). They conclude by saying that 'the need for creating equivalences arises from the situation, and it is in the situation of the SL text that translators have to look for a solution' (ibid. 255). Indeed, they argue that even if the semantic equivalent of an expression in the SL text is quoted in a dictionary or a glossary, it is not enough, and it does not guarantee a successful translation. They provide a number of examples to prove their theory, and the following expression appears in their list: Take one is a fixed expression which would have as an equivalent French translation Prenez-en un. However, if the expression appeared as a notice next to a basket of free samples in a large store, the translator would have to look for an equivalent term in a similar situation and use the expression chantillon gratuity.(ibid.256) 1.2.2. Jakobson and the concept of equivalence in difference Roman Jakobson's study of equivalence gave new impetus to the theoretical analysis of translation since he introduced the notion of 'equivalence in difference'. On the basis of his semiotic approach to language and his aphorism
17

'there is no signatum without signum' (1959:232), he suggests three kinds of translation:

Intralingual (within one language, i.e. rewording or paraphrase) Interlingual (between two languages) Intersemiotic (between sign systems) Jakobson claims that, in the case of interlingual

translation, the translator makes use of synonyms in order to get the ST message across. This means that in interlingual translations there is no full equivalence between code units. According to his theory, 'translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes' (ibid.233). Jakobson goes on to say that from a grammatical point of view languages may differ from one another to a greater or lesser extent, but this does not mean that a translation cannot be possible, in other words, that the translator may face the problem of not finding a translation equivalent. He acknowledges that 'whenever there is deficiency, terminology may be qualified and amplified by loanwords or loan-translations, neologisms or semantic shifts, and finally, by circumlocutions' (ibid.234). Jakobson provides a number of examples by comparing English and Russian language structures and explains that in such cases where there is no a
18

literal equivalent for a particular ST word or sentence, then it is up to the translator to choose the most suitable way to render it in the TT. There seems to be some similarity between Vinay and Darbelnet's theory of translation procedures and Jakobson's theory of translation. Both theories stress the fact that, whenever a linguistic approach is no longer suitable to carry out a translation, the translator can rely on other procedures such as loan-translations, neologisms and the like. Both theories recognize the limitations of a linguistic theory and argue that a translation can never be impossible since there are several methods that the translator can choose. The role of the translator as the person who decides how to carry out the translation is emphasized in both theories. Vinay and Darbelnet as well as Jakobson conceive the translation task as something which can always be carried out from one language to another, regardless of the cultural or grammatical differences between ST and TT. It can be concluded that Jakobson's theory is essentially based on his semiotic approach to translation according to which the translator has to recode the ST message first and then s/he has to transmit it into an equivalent message for the TC.

19

1.2.3. Nida and Taber: Formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal equivalencewhich in the second edition by Nida and Taber (1982) is referred to as formal correspondenceand dynamic equivalence. Formal correspondence 'focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content', unlike dynamic equivalence which is based upon 'the principle of equivalent effect' (1964:159). In the second edition (1982) of their work, the two theorists provide a more detailed explanation of each type of equivalence. Formal correspondence consists of a TL item which represents the closest equivalent of a SL word or phrase. Nida and Taber make it clear that there are not always formal equivalents between language pairs. They therefore suggest that these formal equivalents should be used wherever possible if the translation aims at achieving formal rather than dynamic equivalence. The use of formal equivalents might at times have serious implications in the TT since the translation will not be easily understood by the target audience (Fawcett, 1997). Nida and Taber themselves assert that 'Typically, formal
20

correspondence distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language, and hence distorts the message, so as to cause the receptor to misunderstand or to labor unduly hard' (ibid.201). Dynamic equivalence is defined as a translation principle according to which a translator seeks to translate the meaning of the original in such a way that the TL wording will trigger the same impact on the TC audience as the original wording did upon the ST audience. They argue that 'Frequently, the form of the original text is changed; but as long as the change follows the rules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual consistency in the transfer, and of transformation in the receptor language, the message is preserved and the translation is faithful' (Nida and Taber, 1982:200). One can easily see that Nida is in favor of the application of dynamic equivalence, as a more effective translation procedure. This is perfectly understandable if we take into account the context of the situation in which Nida was dealing with the translation phenomenon, that is to say, his translation of the Bible. Thus, the product of the translation process, that is the text in the TL, must have the same impact on the different readers it was addressing. Only in Nida and Taber's edition it is clearly stated that 'dynamic equivalence in translation is far more than mere correct communication of
21

information' (ibid:25). Despite using a linguistic approach to translation, Nida is much more interested in the message of the text or, in other words, in its semantic quality. He therefore strives to make sure that this message remains clear in the target text. 1.2.4. Catford and the introduction of translation shifts Catford's approach to translation equivalence clearly differs from that adopted by Nida since Catford had a preference for a more linguistic-based approach to translation and this approach is based on the linguistic work of Firth and Halliday. His main contribution in the field of translation theory is the introduction of the concepts of types and shifts of translation. Catford proposed very broad types of translation in terms of three criteria: 1. The extent of translation (full translation vs. partial translation); 2. The grammatical rank at which the translation equivalence is established (rank-bound translation unbounded translation) 3. The levels of language involved in translation (total translation vs. restricted translation).
22

vs.

We will refer only to the second type of translation, since this is the one that concerns the concept of equivalence, and we will then move on to analyze the notion of translation shifts, as elaborated by Catford, which are based on the distinction between formal correspondence and textual equivalence. In rank-bound translation an equivalent is sought in the TL for each word, or for each morpheme encountered in the ST. In unbounded translation equivalences are not tied to a particular rank, and we may additionally find equivalences at sentence, clause and other levels. Catford finds five of these ranks or levels in both English and French. Thus, a formal correspondence could be said to exist between English and French if relations between ranks have approximately the same configuration in both languages, as Catford claims. One of the problems with formal correspondence is that, despite being a useful tool to employ in comparative linguistics, it seems that it is not really relevant in terms of assessing translation equivalence between ST and TT. For this reason we now turn to Catford's other dimension of correspondence, namely textual equivalence which occurs when any TL text or portion of text is 'observed on a particular occasion ... to be the equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text' (ibid.:27). He implements this by a process of
23

commutation, whereby 'a competent bilingual informant or translator' is consulted on the translation of various sentences whose ST items are changed in order to observe 'what changes if any occur in the TL text as a consequence' (ibid.:28). As far as translation shifts are concerned, Catford defines them as 'departures from formal correspondence in the process of going from the SL to the TL' (ibid.73). Catford argues that there are two main types of translation shifts, namely level shifts, where the SL item at one linguistic level (e.g. grammar) has a TL equivalent at a different level (e.g. lexis), and category shifts which are divided into four types: 1. Structure-shifts, which involve a grammatical change between the structure of the ST and that of the TT; 2. Class-shifts, when a SL item is translated with a TL item which belongs to a different grammatical class, i.e. a verb may be translated by a noun; 3. Unit-shifts, which involve changes in rank; 4. Intra-system shifts, which occur when 'SL and TL possess systems which approximately correspond formally as to their constitution, but when translation involves selection of a non-corresponding term in the TL system' (ibid.80). For instance, when the SL singular becomes a TL plural.
24

1.2.5. House and the elaboration of overt and covert translation House (1977) is in favor of semantic and pragmatic equivalence and argues that ST and TT should match each other in function. House suggests that it is possible to characterize the function of a text by determining the situational dimensions of the ST. In fact, according to her theory, every text in itself is placed within a particular situation which has to be correctly identified and taken into account by the translator. After the ST analysis, House is in a position to evaluate a translation; if the ST and the TT differ substantially on situational features, then they are not functionally equivalent, and the translation is not of a high quality. In fact, she acknowledges that 'a translation text should not only match its source text in function, but employ equivalent situationaldimensional means to achieve that function' (ibid.:49). Central to House's discussion is the concept of overt and covert translations. In an overt translation the TT audience is not directly addressed and there is therefore no need at all to attempt to recreate a 'second original' since an overt translation 'must overtly be a translation' (ibid.:189). By covert translation, on the other hand, it is meant the production of a
25

text which is functionally equivalent to the ST. House also argues that in this type of translation the ST 'is not specifically addressed to a TC audience' (ibid.:194). House (ibid.203) sets out the types of ST that would probably yield translations of the two categories. An academic article, for instance, is unlikely to exhibit any features specific to the SC; the article has the same argumentative or expository force that it would if it had originated in the TL, and the fact that it is a translation at all need not be made known to the readers. A political speech in the SC, on the other hand, is addressed to a particular cultural or national group which the speaker sets out to move to action or otherwise influence, whereas the TT merely informs outsiders what the speaker is saying to his or her constituency. It is clear that in this latter case, which is an instance of overt translation, functional equivalence cannot be maintained, and it is therefore intended that the ST and the TT function differently. House's theory of equivalence in translation seems to be much more flexible than Catford's. In fact, she gives authentic examples, uses complete texts and, more importantly, she relates linguistic features to the context of both source and target text.

26

1.2.6. Baker's approach to translation equivalence New adjectives have been assigned to the notion of equivalence (grammatical, textual, pragmatic equivalence, and several others) and made their appearance in the plethora of recent works in this field. An extremely interesting discussion of the notion of equivalence can be found in Baker (1992) who seems to offer a more detailed list of conditions upon which the concept of equivalence can be defined. She explores the notion of equivalence at different levels, in relation to the translation process, including all different aspects of translation and hence putting together the linguistic and the communicative approach. She distinguishes between:

Equivalence that can appear at word level and above word level, when translating from one language into another. Baker acknowledges that, in a bottom-up approach to translation, equivalence at word level is the first element to be taken into consideration by the translator. In fact, when the translator starts analyzing the ST s/he looks at the words as single units in order to find a direct 'equivalent' term in the TL. Baker gives a
27

definition of the term word since it should be remembered that a single word can sometimes be assigned different meanings in different languages and might be regarded as being a more complex unit or morpheme. This means that the translator should pay attention to a number of factors when considering a single word, such as number, gender and tense (ibid.1112).

Grammatical equivalence, when referring to the diversity of grammatical categories across languages. She notes that grammatical rules may vary across languages and this may pose some problems in terms of finding a direct correspondence in the TL. In fact, she claims that different grammatical structures in the SL and TL may cause remarkable changes in the way the information or message is carried across. These changes may induce the translator either to add or to omit information in the TT because of the lack of particular grammatical devices in the TL itself. Amongst these grammatical devices which might cause problems in translation Baker focuses on number, tense and aspects, voice, person and gender.

Textual equivalence, when referring to the equivalence

28

between a SL text and a TL text in terms of information and cohesion. Texture is a very important feature in translation since it provides useful guidelines for the comprehension and analysis of the ST which can help the translator in his or her attempt to produce a cohesive and coherent text for the TC audience in a specific context. It is up to the translator to decide whether or not to maintain the cohesive ties as well as the coherence of the SL text. His or her decision will be guided by three main factors, that is, the target audience, the purpose of the translation and the text type.

Pragmatic equivalence, when referring to implicatures and strategies of avoidance during the translation process. Implicature is not about what is explicitly said but what is implied. Therefore, the translator needs to work out implied meanings in translation in order to get the ST message across. The role of the translator is to recreate the author's

intention in another culture in such a way that enables the TC reader to understand it clearly.

29

1.2.7. Another equivalence typology As we can observe in the theoretical considerations presented above that there are several kinds of equivalence, however, with different implications and effects. While many different authors use different terms regarding the problem of equivalence, I would better choose to use the terms cultural, conceptual and structural equivalence. It should be noted that these concepts should be viewed independently of one another as, for example, you can have structural equivalence without having conceptual equivalence and vice-versa. Cultural Equivalence The most fundamental problem in developing instruments for cross-cultural research or foreign language instruments is that the translator needs not only to translate language but culture as well. The most common difficulty in translation occurs when the target language lacks a certain word or concept which we generally take for granted in Western culture, but which does not exist or is viewed differently in other cultures. Examples of this are our concept of time, names of colors, seasons, not to mention concepts associated with Western standards, values, and morals. In some cases a word in
30

English may have a highly compressed meaning which in translation may require several sentences or even paragraphs to express. This is almost always the case when translating into Spanish and more often than not into almost any other language. In other cases there may be no alternative but to eliminate items because a counterpart does not exist or would be of too uncertain equivalence in another culture. Conceptual Equivalence Conceptual equivalence refers to the absence of differences in meaning and content between two versions of an instrument. A problem common in the translation process is that of frequency of usage of a certain word. Often, although a word may be an adequate literal translation, the words will not have meaning equivalence for survey purposes if there is a discrepancy in the frequency of usage of a word in two cultures. Still, the most serious problem in this regard is that of connotation and secondary meanings. Words are focal points of complex networks of meaning and receive shades of significance from varied and unexpected sources. Another problem is that of nonequivalence of terms. There are times when it may be impossible to find a term that is the exact equivalent in another language. Yet another problem occurs when the target
31

language has several synonyms and definitions for a single word. Which should be used? It is in relation to these two problems that the translator becomes extremely important. A frequently attempted solution to this problem is the use of several words in the target language to try to convey an idea or concept expressed by one word in the source language. (Example: ice cream = helado / nieve; cake = pastel / torta / queque / biscocho). Both the researcher and the translator need to have considerable knowledge of the target culture and language in order to gain cultural and conceptual equivalence. Questionnaires that attempt to preserve the exact form of questions in the original language, especially pre-coded ones, can lead to major errors. Although it might seem that one should avoid the use of idiomatic language in constructing instruments, failing to do so can have the effect of producing a highly stilted form of discourse that may be unsuitable for the population surveyed. Additionally, more and more of the literature and current research indicate that this may be the best approach. This approach essentially attempts to gain conceptual equivalence with regard to the information the researcher wants to elicit, instead of with the form of the question used to elicit this information. Put another way," instruments should offer
32

psychological equivalence to respondents and not apparent objective equivalence to the investigator. To pose the same form of question to two people who are different may require posing that question in two different forms." (Robinson, 1984:163). Structural Equivalence Structural equivalence refers to equivalence in syntax, spelling, and punctuation. In this regard equivalence problems arise from the fact that languages differ widely in their grammars and syntax's and these in turn affect meaning in translation. Perhaps the most common grammatical problem in translation is achieving equivalence between verb forms. This becomes more problematic in longer passages than in shorter ones. There are techniques for making an instrument more "translatable" from a structural perspective, however. One can predict the translatability of an instrument to a certain degree. Some content areas produce fewer difficulties than others, just as some languages are easier to be translated than others. In developing an instrument one will want to know the upper level of difficulty of the original English that can be expected to translate well. Furthermore, one can produce an easily translatable version of an instrument by: 1)using simple sentences; 2)
33

repetition of nouns rather than pronouns; 3) avoiding metaphor and colloquialisms; 4) avoiding English passive tense; 5) avoiding hypothetical phrasings or subjunctive mood; 6) adding context to ideas and redundancy to sentences; 7) avoiding too much detail.

1.3. The Critique of Equivalence

Catford was one of the authors very much criticized for his linguistic theory of translation. One of the most scathing criticisms came from Snell-Hornby (1988), who argued that Catford's definition of textual equivalence is 'circular', his theory's reliance on bilingual informants 'hopelessly inadequate', and his example sentences 'isolated and even absurdly simplistic' (ibid.:19-20). She considers the concept of equivalence in translation as being an illusion. She asserts that the translation process cannot simply be reduced to a linguistic exercise, as claimed by Catford for instance, since there are also other factors, such as textual, cultural and situational aspects, which should be taken into consideration when translating. In other words, she does not believe that linguistics is the only discipline which enables people to carry out a translation, since translating involves
34

different cultures and different situations at the same time and they do not always match from one language to another. Mary Snell-Hornbys integrated approach of 1988 sought to bring together and systematize the work that had been done to that date. One of the most remarkable aspects of this integrative exercise was the list of effectively excluded approaches. Snell-Hornbys peremptory style dismissed two thousand years of translation theory as an inconclusive heated discussion opposing word to sense. Not surprisingly, she also forcefully discarded equivalence as being unsuitable as a basic concept in translation theory None of the excluded approaches, said Snell-Hornby, have provided any substantial help in furthering translation studies The interesting thing about these exclusions is that, unlike Toury or Vermeer, SnellHornby tried to indicate precisely where the equivalence paradigm had gone wrong. This is where translation studies could have become truly upsetting. Some of the things Snell-Hornby says about equivalence are perceptive and stimulating. For example, she finds that in the course of the 1970s the English term equivalence became increasingly approximate and vague to the point of complete insignificance, and its German counterpart was increasingly static and one-dimensional.
35

This difference curiously maps onto the strategies of Toury and Vermeer as outlined above, suggesting that there was in fact no radical rupture between those who talked about equivalence and those who preferred not to (Toury accepted the Englishlanguage trend; Vermeer fell in with the German-language usage of the term). Summing up a very meandering argument, Snell-Hornby concludes that the term equivalence, apart from being imprecise and ill-defined (even after a heated debate of over twenty years) presents an illusion of symmetry between languages which hardly exists beyond the level of vague approximations and which distorts the basic problems of translation. Some kind of equivalence could be integrated into its appropriate corner (technical terminology), but the equivalence paradigm should otherwise get out of the way. Snell-Hornby did not care that notions of equivalence had been strategically useful against theories of untranslatability, nor that they had effectively achieved a degree of institutional legitimation for translation studies. Hers was a different historical moment, with different strategies and goals. But even given the new context, at least one sleight of hand should be pointed out. If the term equivalence were really so polysemous - Snell-Hornby elsewhere claims to have located fifty-eight different types in German uses of the term
36

(1986: 15) The term apparently means nothing except this illusion. And yet none of the numerous linguists ever presupposed any symmetry between languages. Since SnellHornby gives no citation supporting her reduction of the term, this description of equivalence looks like hers. Of little import whether the idealized symmetry between languages belonged more to the word/sense debate, Snell-Hornby strangely thinks the notion of equivalence had been born to overcome. Indeed, had she looked a little further, Snell-Hornby might have found that concepts like Nidas dynamic equivalence presuppose substantial linguistic asymmetry. Snell-Hornbys Integrated Approach has indeed had influence, and may yet find more. It was the right title at the right time, lying in wait for the massive growth of translatortraining institutions that took off at the end of the decade.

1.4. The importance of equivalence in translation

Although the 1980s critiques of equivalence opened up new possibilities of interpreting equivalence, they mostly failed to understand the logic of the previous paradigm. Little attempt was made to objectify the subjective importance of equivalence
37

as a concept. It is one thing to argue that substantial equivalence is an illusion, but quite another to understand why anyone should be prepared to believe in it. A translation has to stand in some kind of equivalence relation to the original, which means that equivalence in translation is not an isolated quality, it is a functional concept that can be attributed to a particular translational situation. Equivalence is crucial to translation because it is the unique intertextual relation that only translations, among all conceivable text types, are expected to show. The minority return to equivalence discovers a problem that the previous usages of the term had played down. It could even be drawing out the critical potential of something like Tourys initial acceptance of equivalence. Rather than force any translator to become an equivalence-seeker, or assume any rational recovery of original meaning, the above writers emphasize that the translator is an equivalence producer, a professional communicator working for people who pay to believe that, on whatever level is pertinent, B is equivalent to A. In so doing, the recent references to equivalence are objectifying the subjective, recognizing but not necessarily condoning a socially operative belief that enables translationsand translators to work.
38

The linguistics-derived concept of equivalence was an expression of what translation ideally represented for certain people, notably translators organizations in search of higher social status, readers in search of translated information, European and politicians in in search of of reliable transcultural science. communication, academics search authoritative It expressed certain ideals of translation as a contemporary social practice. Theories that now project little substantial equivalence - whether or not they use the term - should nevertheless be able to recognize and objectify the subjective interests that make translation work as a social practice. Translation studies cannot just put texts under linguistic microscopes. It must also objectify the beliefs - the current but uncritical term is norms - that condition the way translations are received and thus the way translators tend to work. Such subjective beliefs obviously include the illusions that remain operative on the level of theory.

39

Chapter II Non-equivalence in the Translation Field 2.1. Non-equivalence between source text and target text
Equivalence no matter what definition it figured in during the bad old days, always implied the possibility of nonequivalence, of non-translation of a text that was in some way not fully translational. A translators choice is much more difficult to make with the non-equivalence situations when the translator cannot find a direct equivalent in the target language (TL) for a certain word in the source-language (SL). The types and the degrees of translation difficulties are as various as the type of non-equivalence and their study is as interesting as useful for translators. There must be added the fact it is almost impossible to establish absolute criteria of studying the different types of non-equivalence. The translator has to use strategies which differ from one situation to another, and which may be more or less complex and difficult to
40

explain. It is the type of non-equivalence, on the one hand, and the context as well as translation goal, on the other hand, that determine the translators choice of the type of strategy (Baker 1992: 24). The question of whether particular words are untranslatable is often debated, with lists of "untranslatable" words being produced from time to time. These lists often include words such as saudade, a Portuguese word (also used in Spanish) as an example of an "untranslatable". It translates quite neatly however as "sorrowful longing", but has some nuances that are hard to include in a translation; for instance, it is a positive-valued concept, a subtlety which is not clear in this basic translation. Some words are hard to translate only if one wishes to stick to the same grammatical category. Journalists are naturally enthusiastic when linguists document obscure words with local flavour, and are wont to declare them "untranslatable", but in reality these incredibly culture-laden terms are the easiest of all to translate, even more so than universal concepts such as "mother". This is because it is standard practice to translate these words by the same word in the other language, borrowing it for the first time if necessary. For example, an English version of a menu in a French restaurant would rarely translate pt de foie gras as "fat liver
41

paste", although this is a good description. Instead, the accepted translation is simply pt de foie gras, or, at most, foie gras pt. The more obscure and specific to a culture the term is, the simpler it is to translate. Contrary to popular belief, words are not either translatable or untranslatable. They are only words, and these words are more or less hard to translate depending on their nature and the translator's skills. Quite often, a text or utterance that is considered to be "untranslatable" is actually a lacuna, or lexical gap, that is to say that there is no one-to-one equivalence between the word, expression or turn of phrase in the source language and another word, expression or turn of phrase in the target language. A translator, however, can resort to a number of translation procedures to compensate.

2.2 Available translation procedures

2.2.1. TL longer structures rendered into a SL word One of the most frequent cases is that of a word (usually a noun) rendered by a longer syntagm. e.g. That most popular with Locksleys wellwishers was that he had backed out[...] ( Henry James, The Landscape Painter).
42

In this example the underlined word is translated by cea mai rspndit opinie printre cei care erau de partea lui Locksley era c acesta renunase[...] because the TL lacks an equivalent in most of the contexts. The noun sweetness in the syntagm detracted for him from its sweetness is translated by gustul dulce al succsesului also because the TL does not have an equivalent for such a context: Attached , however, to the second pronouncement was a condition that detracted, for Beale Farange from its sweetness-an order that he should refund to his late wife the twenty-six hundred pounds put down by her , some three years before , in the interest of the childs maintenance[...] Cu toate acestea, la a doua pronunare a fost adugat o clauz care diminua pentru Beale Farange gustul dulce al succesului o hotrre conform creia trebuia s restituie fostei sale soii cele dou mii ase sute de lire sterline, bani pein pltii de ea, cu vreo trei ani n urm, pentru ntreinerea copilului (H. James, What Maisie Knew). Non-equivalence also includes the situations in which more words are rendered by only one word. For example the collocation a wilderness of heath is translated by the noun pustietate in the following example: e.g. They clung to the purple moors behind and around their dwelling- to the hollow vale into which the pebbly bridle-path leading from
43

their gate descended, and which wound between fern-banks first, and then amongst a few of the wildest little pasture-fields that ever bordered a wilderness of heath [...]Erau foarte legate de mlatinile roiatice care le nconjurau casa- de valea adnc n care cobora poteca acoperit cu prundi care pornea de la poarta lor i care erpuia mai nti printre tufele de ferig apoi printre cele mai slbatice puni care au mrginit vreodat pustietatea[...] ( Ch. Bronte, Jane Eyre ) 2.2.2. Shifts or transpositions Such shifts or transpositions are frequent translation procedures which involve changes in grammar from the SL to the TL. For example the verbal adjective is most frequent rendered into Romanian by a whole clause, usually an attributive one. e.g. There was a reviving pleasure in this intercourse, of a kind now tasted by me for the first time[...] In acest fel de prietenie, gseam o plcere care m nsufleea i pe care o simeam pentru prima dat... (Ch Bronte, Jane Eyre). In the published version, it was translated by o mare bucurie pe care o gustam ntia oar, which could be considered a semantic loss.
44

But the differences in the grammatical structures of the SL and TL may often bring about some changes in the information content of the message. Two of the most frequent and obvious changes are those which may take the form of adding to the TT information which is not expressed in the ST, or those which may be in the form of omitting from the TT information specified in the ST. Here are some of the most frequent syntactic structures in the SL and in the TL, in our case English and Romanian: SL noun TL noun+adj. (breeze aerul rcoros) TL noun+det.+adj. (extravagancecheltuielile mele extravagante ) SL adj.+ adj. TL adv.+adj. ([a charm both] potent and permanent- pururea irezistibil )

SL

TL v+adv. (thought fitted thought- gndeam TL v(a avea)+det.+noun (opinion met opinion-aveam aceleai preri) Even if languages may possess the same concepts, they

noun+v+noun la fel )

lack in some cases a perfect parallelism in the grammatical structure. This shortcoming has to be solved by the translator
45

who will provide an apparently transformed version which in fact ensures the clarity of the TT. Thus such a sequence like noun+prepositional+group may be rendered through very simple word combinations, or even much more complicated structures such as the last example in the following table: SL noun+prep.+noun TL v+DO clause ([possessed certain] claims to distinction pretindeau c se deosebesc prin ceva TL noun+adj. (the blackness of the clouds norii ntuneci; effect of quiteness efect linititor) TL noun+prep.+noun+prep.+noun [remote] spot of peace loc ndeprtat dintr-o oaz de linite Since both the TL and the SL have their own peculiarities, the translator should also consider those situations where words relevant in one language may be absolutely irrelevant in the other one. This is the case with She seemed to find a wall to hit Prea c se lovete de un zid, where the verb to find is irrelevant. The subtle choices in point of relevance may differ signficantly from one translator to another, which would affect the quality and accuracy of the translation.
46

Another case of non-equivalence is that of using the plural for SL singular. Thus the nouns in wave and rock and cloud are marked for the plural in the TL in order to preserve the stylistic effect of the original: Never before have I seen such a pretty little coast-never before have I been so taken with wave and rock and cloud Niciodat n-am mai vzut un loc att de frumos pe rm- niciodat n-am fost att de fascinat de valuri, de stnci i de nori. ( H. James, The Landscape Painter ) The coordinating conjunction and in the ST is replaced by the preposition de in the TT in order to give the TT sentence the rhythm and musicality of the ST one. Thus, the literary translator has to overcome the restrictions imposed by certain features of the SL structures and has to make the TT sound natural. One point that has to be kept in mind is that the content of a message in the SL cannot always be matched by an expression with exactly the same content in the TL , and what must be expressed is a problem as difficult as that of how it can be expressed. Following SL norms may involve minimal change in the overall meaning. On the other hand, deviations from typical TL patterns may result in a translation which will sound foreign. To conclude, it is obvious that the literary translator has
47

to be competent in handling the ST pattern in order to correctly render the message into the TL and to produce a TT which will read naturally and smoothly. 2.2.3. Adaptation An adaptation, also known as a free translation, is a translation procedure whereby the translator replaces a social, or cultural reality in the source text with a corresponding reality in the target text; this new reality would be more usual to the audience of the target text. For example, in the Belgian comic book The Adventures of Tintin, Tintin's trusty canine Milou, is translated as Snowy, in English and Bobby in Dutch; likewise the detectives Dupond and Dupont become Thomson and Thompson in English, Jansen and Janssen in Dutch, Schultze and Schulze in German, Hernndez and Fernndez in Spanish, the Spanish examples not being quite so faithful translations since the pronunciation of the two names is different, and not just the spelling. Adaptation is often used when translating poetry, works of theatre and advertising.

48

2.2.4. Borrowing Borrowing is a translation procedure whereby the translator uses a word or expression from the source text in the target text. Borrowings are normally printed in italics if they are not considered to have been naturalized in the target languages. 2.2.5. Calque Calque is a translation procedure whereby a translator translates an expression (or, occasionally, a word) literally into the target language, translating the elements of the expression word for word. 2.2.6. Compensation Compensation is a translation procedure whereby the translator solves the problem of aspects of the source text that cannot take the same form in the target language by replacing these aspects with other elements or forms in the source text. For example, many languages have two forms of the second person pronoun an informal form and a formal form (the
49

French tu and vous, the Spanish t and Usted, the German du and Sie, to name but three), while most modern-day dialects of English no longer recognize the T-V distinction, and have retained the you form only. Hence, to translate a text from one of these languages into English, the translator may have to compensate by using a first name or nickname, or by using syntactic phrasing that are viewed as informal in English (I'm, you're, gonna, dontcha, etc.) 2.2.7. Paraphrase Paraphrase, sometimes called periphrasis, is a translation procedure whereby the translator replaces a word in the source text by a group of words or an expression in the target texts. An extreme example of paraphrase can be found in the BBC reports of June 22, 2004 of the identification of the 'most untranslatable' word. The word chosen is Ilunga, a word supposedly from a language in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The BBC article states that "Ilunga means 'a person who is ready to forgive any abuse for the first time, to tolerate it a second time, but never a third time'." Here, the report proves that this word is not in fact untranslatable, as it provides an English translation by way of the periphrasis.
50

2.2.8. Translator's note A translator's note is a note (usually a footnote or an endnote) added by the translator to the target text to provide additional information pertaining to the limits of the translation, the cultural background or any other explanations. Some translations allow or demand such notes. Despite this, resorting to notes is normally seen as a failure by many translation professionals. 2.2.9 Culture specific elements The translator is a mediator between intercultural situations of communication. This is based on his personal perception of the cultural equation and on cultural competence. The translator has to detect the personal elements in the text of the culture concerned. Each cultural element is not simply seen in respect of the language culture1 ( LC1) but viewed as being the ground of a potential difference, distinction, because the cultural features are central in the translation theory and practice. The translator explores the LC2 in order to find the socalled equivalent to a certain word in the LC1. He may be faced with three unsatisfactory options:
51

to keep the LC1 references but to produce a virtually incomprehensible LC2 text; to find equivalent LC2 references, but to miss the reference to a certain thing; to insert a simple passive reference to a certain thing, which would entail missing the overall coherence of the image. Translators of literary texts often complain about the

lack of expressiveness, purity of LC2, and consider that the genius of the original has to be maintained at any cost even at the cost of the non-comprehension of the LC2 reader. As Leon Levitchi pointed out when dealing with such elements the translator can either preserve them as such or provide them with an approximate equivalent in the TL. For example the noun phrase an English Blue Book designates a reality specific to the British culture, i.e. a British parliamentary or other publication bound in a blue cover (Webster 1996: 162 ); that is why it was given in translations a word-for-word rendering and it was not replaced by a target culture specific term which might be considered a possible equivalent. In translating the English corn fields a translator should pay attention to the so-called false friends or deceptive
52

cognates because the term corn can be translated as grau, grane, cereale in British English, as porumb in American English or ovaz in Scottish or Irish. In Romanian, the appelative neica is a variant of nene, having the same meaning, that of termen de respect cu care se adreseaz cineva unui brbat sau unui frate mai mare. Being a culture specific element it could not be rendered into TL by a similar word. And the examples could go on. All these examples point out the importance of the cross-cultural knowledge for the translator as a mediator between cultures. His attention must be drawn to the LC1 specific elements of the text as his reading is always situated at the level of difference. He will pay special attention to certain elements which take on a particular importance when considering the text from the LC2 perspective. Consequently, the translators competence is measured by his ability to analyse, compare and convert two cultural systems.

53

Chapter III The Challenging World of George Clinescus Translation Enigmatic Otilia 3.1. TEXT CORPUS
Text 1 Judecata era de o nedreptate scandaloas i se vedea c nu vine dect din rutate. Pascalopol ncerc s mblnzeasc situaia. - Cucoan Aglae, azi eti ru dispus. Domnioara Otilia cnt minunat, e o artist. Aurica ls capul n jos, strngndu-i buzele ntre dini. - Aa eti dumneata, galant, mai arunc Aglae o neptur. Mai bine mi-ai spune ce s fac cu Titi c sunt foarte suprat. L-a lsat corigent iar... l persecut fiindc el e timid, nu e ndrzne ca alii... a fost i bolnav. Poate cunoti pe cineva, s pun o vorb bun la toamn. - Punem, punem, cum s nu se oferi Pascalopol,
54

ntotdeauna ndatoritor dar eu zic c pn atuncea s-l prepare cineva, ca s fim mai siguri. Felix edea pe o banc n apropierea chiocului, n btaia luminii nehotrndu-se s plece ct vreme Otilia se afla prin preajm. Deodat auzi glasul fr densitate al Aurichii, voit persuasiv. - Putem s rugm pe domnul Felix, mam, cred c n-are s ne refuze - Chiar c s-ar putea, dac-ar vrea dumnealui. Felix se nvoi bucuros, i puin dup aceea, cnd i se pru mai priincios, ddu bun seara i se retrase. Cnd ajunse n geamalcul de sus, care privea spre grdin, vzu pe Otilia stnd la o fereastr deschis. Conversaia de jos i incidentul cu pianul o indispusese probabil, i acum se refugiase aici, fr s ias din raza lui Pascalopol. Zrind pe Felix, Otilia l chem n oapt. - Ce faci? Vino aici! Cnd Felix se rezem de canatul ferestrei, Otilia i spuse tot ncet: - Nu tii ce viper e tanti Aglae asta! Uf! Ca i cnd ar fi bnuit o inimiciie, Aglae, care-i zrise n treact sub sclipirile lunii, zise tare de jos:
55

- Otilio, s-l aduci mine pe dumnealui la noi! - Da tanti rspunse cu o miere teatral Otilia, fcnd o strmbtur cu neles lui Felix are s-i par foarte bine lui Titi! ns numaidect adug ncet lui Felix: - S vezi ce prost e! Pascalopol implor pe Otilia s se coboare; Aglae, ca s nu supere prea mult pe moier, se asocie i ea, conciliant: - Vino jos, Otilia ce stai acolo? Otilia fcu un semn de adio lui Felix, care intr n odaia lui i se culc. Trziu de tot, cnd se trezi o clip din somn, ntunericul se subia crepuscular i un coco cnta. Lui Felix i se pru c aude trosnitura uii gotice de la intrare i, puin dup aceea rostogilirea roilor unei trsuri. (Enigma Otiliei, Chapter II pages 31-32) The remark/opinion was scandallously unfair and had clearly come out of spite / ill-will. Pascalopol tried to calm things down Youre in a bad mood today, Madam / Madame Aglae. Miss Otilia plays wonderfully, she is an artist. Aurica looked down biting her lips. Youre being courteous as usual, came Aglaes new
56

stinger. Youd better tell me what to do about Titi because Im very upset. They failed him again they are persecuting him, as hes shy, he isnt so forward as others are hes also been ill. Maybe you know someone who could put in a good word this autumn. We will by all means, Pascalopol offered himself to help, obliging as always but I think someone should tutor him, just to make sure. Felix was sitting on a bench near the kiosk, in the moonlight and couldnt make up his mind and leave as long as Otilia was still around. All of a sudden he heard Auricas hollow voice purposely persuasive. We can ask Mr. Felix, mother, I think he wont turn us down. He might really help us, if he would. Felix gladly agreed and, a little bit later, when he felt it was the right time, he said good-night and left. When he reached the glass verandah, which looked out into the garden, he could see Otilia sitting at an open window. The conversation downstairs and the incident about the piano must have irritated her and now she had taken refuge there, without Pascalopol losing sight of her. Catching sight of Felix, Otilia whispered him to get closer:
57

What are you doing? Come here! When Felix leaned against the wing of the window, Otilia also whispered: You dont have the slightest idea of what a viper this aunt Aglae of mine is! Uf! As if she had suspected Otilias hostility, Aglae, catching a glimpse of them under the moonlight, said loudly from downstairs: Otilia, bring him tomorrow to visit us Yes, auntie answered Otilia with faked hypocrisy / unctuously, making faces to Felix Titi would be very glad. But immediately she whispered to Felix: Youll see how dull he is / Just wait to see how dull he is / You should see how dull he is Pascalopol begged Otilia to come downstairs; for fear the landowner might get upset, Aglae, joined him compromisingly: Come down, Otilia, why on earth are you sitting there? Otilia waved good-bye to Felix, when he entered his room and went to bed. Very late at might, when he suddenly woke up, the darkness seemed to fade away little by little and a rooster was singing. Felix seemed to hear the crack of the front Gothic door and, shortly afterwards the rolling down of the wheels of carriage
58

Text 2 A doua zi la mas, Otilia fu tot att de senin, seara nu veni deloc. O mhnire mare cuprinse pe Felix, o sil de toate i prin cap i trecur idei extravagante. Se gndea s lase totul balt, s fug undeva n lume, ca fochist pe un vapor. Ii nchipuia consternarea Otiliei, regretul ei de a-l fi fcut s sufere i s plece, o vede plngnd. Melodrama asta inexorabil i mica toate fibrele sufletului i prefcu descurajarea ntr-o mare durere consolatoare. i chinuia totui mintea cu fel de fel de ipoteze: Otilia a gsit scrisoarea, dar n-a bnuit de la cine este, i-a nchipuit c e vreo glum, vreo hrtie veche a lui Felix; a gsit-o i, distrat, a aruncat-o fr so desfac; n-a gsit-o deloc, scrisoarea cznd undeva printre lucruri; a citit-o dar nu-l iubete pe Felix. Ipoteza din urm aprindea gelozia n inima lui Felix. (Enigma Otiliei, chapter VIII page 104 ) Next day at lunch time Otilia was as serene as before; in the evening she didnt come at all. Felix was seized with a deep feeling of sorrow, feeling sick and tired of everything and absurd ideas crossed his mind. He was thinking to drop everything, run to some place of the world and be a stoker on a
59

ship. He could imagine Otilias perplexity, the regret of having him suffer and of making him go away; he could see her crying. This inexorable melodrama moved him deeply and his disappointment became an intense comforting pain. All kind of assumptions tortured his mind. Otilia had found the letter but she couldnt imagined who the sender might be; she thought it was a joke, or an old paper of Felixs / belonging to Felix; or she had found it but absent minded as she was she threw it away without even opening it; maybe she didnt find the letter at all since he letter could fall through her stuff; or maybe she had read it but she didnt have any feeling for Felix.The last assumption made Felix jealous. Text 3 Ceea ce l ntuneca pe Felix, dndu-i oarecare doz de mizantropie era indiferena tuturor, chiar a colegilor de universitate, pentru orice atitudine intelectual, pentru orice nflcrare ce n-avea un scop imediat, terestru. La Iai, n internat, discuta cu aprindere cu colegii, chiar n pat, dup stingerea luminii, probleme pe care cteodat nu le nelegea nimeni bine, dar care i mbtau dndu-le mndrii de filosofi. Problemele erau formulate n chipul ntrebrilor? (ce e viaa?
60

ce e moartea?), aa cum le ntlneau prin brouri. Unul pusese odat problema: ce e femeia, i toi se strduir s dea soluiile cele mai extravagante, nimeni nu fcu nici cea mai mic glum indecent i nici mcar vreo aluzie la problema sexualitii. Erau unii care puneau mna pe reviste i-i scoteau din ele teme necunoscute celorlali, pe care le dezlegau cu soluii tot din revist, spre ciuda colegilor de disput, care voiau s tie de unde furaser ideile. ntr-o noapte discutar despre Dumnezeu. Afar ploua cu gleata i tuna, i unii din biei mai fricoi i mai puin dialecticieni, tremurau de fric i chiar se nchinau pe sub ptur, ncredinai c o astfel de discuie poate fi primejdioas pe aa vreme. (Enigma Otiliei, chapter XIV pages 225-226 )

What was making Felix gloomy and to a certain extent misanthropical was everybodys indifference, even that of his university colleagues/ college mates, towards any intellectual attitude, any passion whose aim was hardly touchable, material. In Iai, at the hostel he would argue with his room fellows, even after they had switched off the light, about topics which could never be well understood, but which made them feel as proud as if they were philosophers. The topics
61

/problems were put in question form (what is life? what is death?) as they had found them in leaflets. One of them had once raised the question what is a women? and everybody tried to come up with the most extravagant solutions, but none of them made the least indecent joke or even to hint at the problem of sexuality/ the slightest remark to sexuality. Some of them would get hold of different leaflets and they took unknown topics from there, which they solved using clues from the same papers, to their collegues spite who would like to know where those solutions/ideas had been taken from. One night they discussed about God. Outside it was raining heavily and the thunder could be heard so some of boys, frightened and less dialecticians were trembling and even they were saying prayers/crossing themselves without being seen, convinced that such a discussion might be perilous on a stormy night/weather.

62

3.2. Text Analysis

Enigma Otiliei de G. Clinescu Judecata era de o The Enigmatic Otilia by G. Clinescu remark/opinion was

nedreptate scandaloas i scandallously unfair and had se vedea c nu vine dect clearly come out of spite / illdin rutate. s Pascalopol will. Pascalopol tried to calm mblnzeasc things down. ncerc situaia. In translating each instance of a text we should first of all observe the possible equivalence between the ST and TT. The first word of the Romanian version judecata was translated by the remark, not the judgement, because the latter would match neither the meaning nor the register of the original. In terms of pragmatic equivalence it means the opinion / remark and not an act or an instance of judging. Translating it as The judgement was unfair would have been a clear case of nonequivalence at the semantic level of the context. The Romanian era de o nedreptate scandaloas was rendered through was scandalously unfair. Here we can speak about a case of non-equivalence in point of grammar. The
63

noun + adjective structure in the original nedreptate scandaloas was rendered by adverb + adjective in English. A variant which I could also suggest for the sake of symmetry between the two languages was the remark was of an outrageous injustice. Outrageous is too strong as compared to the original meaning and the choice of injustice is too formal if we take into account the dictionary definition of this word: the quality or fact of being unjust; inequity; violation of the rights of others (Webster). Even the Romanian verbal nucleus se vedea was translated using an adverb in the TT. It is also a case of nonequivalence. The meaning of the impersonal reflexive construction in the ST was rendered in English by the adverb clearly which I chose in order to match the register. If I had used it was obvious instead of clearly this would be translated as era evident. On the other hand, the use of one could see is very formal and sounds definitional. Another case of non-equivalence is to be discussed here: c nu vine dect din rutate - it had come only out of spite. Spite was chosen instead of other possible variants such as malice (the desire or intention to deliberately harm someone: Longman); Sadness i.e. the desire of causing problems or doing harm; meanness unkindness or nastiness; ill-will
64

strong dislike or hostility. None of them matches exactly the semantic and pragmatic dimension of the original. As far as the choice of the tense is concerned, there is also a nonequivalence because Past Perfect was used instead of Simple Past, since the relationship of anteriority is obvious se vedea c nu venise dect din rutate. Following also the rules of the sequence of tenses I chose to translate it as it had come. Even if we can not speak about total or perfect equivalence, such a sample is to be found in rendering the Romanian s mblnzeasc situaia in to calm things down. I also wanted to translate it using to calm down the situation, but this expresses a subjective state or feeling which does not match the context. Another option would be to calm down the spirits, but the spirits refer to the individuals rather than to the circumstances seen as a whole an individual as characterized by a given attitude, disposition, character, action (Webster). So the meaning of the word situaie used in STL is most adequately rendered by things in TT.

65

Cucoan Aglae, azi eti

Youre in a bad mood today, Otilia plays wonderfully, she is an Aurica looked down biting

ru dispus. Domnioara Otilia Madam / Madame Aglae. Miss cnt minunat, e o artist. strngndu-i buzele ntre dini. Aa eti Aurica ls capul n jos, artist. dumneata, her lips. Youre courteous as

galant, mai arunc Aglae o usual, came Aglaes new neptur. Mai bine mi-ai stinger. Youd better tell me spune ce s fac cu Titi c sunt what to do about Titi because foarte suprat. L-a lsat Im very upset. They failed him corigent iar... l persecut again they are persecuting fiindc el e timid, nu e him, as hes shy, he isnt so ndrzne ca alii... a fost i forward as others are hes bolnav. Poate cunoti pe also been ill. Maybe you know good word this autumn. cineva, s pun o vorb bun someone who could put in a la toamn. In the theoretical part of my paper I have discussed about cultural equivalence. In this fragment I have dealt which such an issue. Cocoan was translated as Madam, which is a polite term of addressing a woman, formerly used to a woman of rank or authority belonging to a high social class. It was finally chosen instead of maam, which is too informal as a consequence of the fact that formerly was used by the natives,
66

belonging to the lower classes after the family name; Madame would be another choice but it is used as a title for a Frenchspeaking woman, especially a married one. Thus in this context madam is a cultural equivalent. The Romanian phrase Azi eti ru dispus was rendered by Youre in a bad mood today. Other possible equivalents would be: to be in low spirits (to be sad, less cheerful), to be low-spirited, to be down in the mouth (informal-looking very unhappy) or to be in a foul need (to be very angry or upset). These would have been quite inappropriate because they have a different contextual distribution. Mood refers to the way you feel at a particular time, so to be in a bad mood means to be annoyed, angry and matches the semantic dimension of the original implying a case of semantic equivalence. E o artist Shes an artist. Other variants suggested here can be: 1. Shes a real artist but this would be a semantic gain. 2. Shes quite an artist, isnt she? due to the high frequency of the question-tags in English, but it would change the pragmatic dimension of the context. As for the other part of the sentence Domnioara Otilia cnt minunat it has a clear English equivalent plays wonderfully. Non-equivalence is also found in the translation of ls capul n jos rendered by looked down (in point of meaning),
67

because lower ones eyes better corresponds to i cobor privirea which is the real meaning here. Neither bend ones head (to curve), nor hang ones head (to look ashamed and embarrassed) could be accepted as equivalents because I think they match completely different contexts. Strngdu-i buzele ntre dini was rendered by biting her lips, but it better corresponds to a-i muca buzele. It is a case of idiomatic non-equivalence given that its primary meaning is to try to keep calm and not show your feelings in a situation when most people would become upset. My first choice was squeezing her lips between her teeth because for example Levichis Dictionary gives to squeeze, to press as equivalents for the Romanian a strnge, but I think they cannot be used with reference to ones lips. To squeeze means to press something firmly inwards (Longman); to press means to push something, to try to persuade somebody. None of these match the Romanian meaning i muc buzele. Galant translated as courteous seems to me quite an equivalent translation since the English term means having good manners and respect for the people. A confusable trap would be here the use of courtly which means graceful and polite.
68

Another case of non-equivalence is to be found in mai arunc Aglae o neptur came Aglaes new stinger. In terms of adequacy and register, stinger is a very good equivalent for neptur. Another variant is biting remark. As we can see, both sting and biting remark collocate very well with drop but the Romanian version was a arunca not a lsa s-i scape, that is why to drop cannot be used here. E.g. Aglae dropped a bitter/biting remark was a possible version. Another variant which I had in mind was gave a sarcastic reply but the verbal phrase to give a reply belongs to informal English whereas the adjective sarcastic better matches the formal style so it could be a shift of register within the same phrase. In order to match the register I could use biting instead of sarcastic, but it still wouldnt correspond to the original. Reply is not a very good equivalent in terms of collocability as well as in terms of the co-text; reply would make us think that the remark/the stinger was addressed to Pascalopol, not to Otilia. The Romanian mai bine mi-ai spune which was translated as youd better tell me seems to be quite adequate in terms of register and semantics than the too formal variant with
69

suggest followed by analytical subjunctive that I had in mind when translating: E.g. I suggest that you should tell me, or you should tell me what where the modal should expresses the speakers advice or recommendation. So in this case I used quite an equivalent translation of the syntagm. Suprat was translated by upset meaning unhappy and worried because something unpleasant or disappointing has happened (Longman). Other variants which I could suggest were: angry with or angry about, sad, furious, irritated, but none of them would match the semantic and pragmatic dimensions of the context. L-a lsat corigent iar... they failed him again. I preferred the transitive verb to fail somebody, used in its connotative meaning (to declare a person unsuccessful in a test, course of study) to the more formal and explanatory to have to go in for a second examination given by Levichi. Moreover, I consider to be a case of syntactic non-equivalence because the agent is expressed in the singular and it has a rather vague reference. I translated l-a by they used with an indefinite value. ndrzne was translated as forward because it implies making oneself unduly prominent or bringing oneself to
70

notice with too much assurance bgcios, obraznic. In terms of context is more appropriate as compared to bold suggesting imprudence, shamelessness and immodesty neruinat; or compared to brazen- imprudent suggesting the shame, together with a defiant manner. Other suggested variants would be: insolent meaning rude and disrespectful, contemptuously impertinent, insulting impertinent, insolent; then presumptuous employing overconfidence, taking too much for granted- ncrezut, ngmfat, obraznic; and cheeky- imprudent, insolent which for sure would not match the context in terms of register, belonging to informal English. The Romanian s pun o vorb bun was rendered by who could put in a good word. Other variants or possible equivalents would be: speak up for somebody, or speak a good word for somebody, which both imply actually uttering, delivering a discourse, which is not the case in this context; or the variants give somebody ones good word, or recommend somebody which imply that the recommended person is of confidence, consequently having a different distribution. Thus the translation who could put in a good word would be just fine.

71

- Punem, punem, cum s

We will by all means,

nu se oferi Pascalopol, Pascalopol offered himself to ntotdeauna ndatoritor dar help, obliging as always but eu zic c pn atuncea s-l I think someone should tutor prepare cineva, ca s fim mai him, just to make sure. siguri. apropierea chiocului, Felix was sitting on a n moonlight and couldnt make Felix edea pe o banc n bench near the kiosk, in the btaia luminii nehotrndu-se up his mind and leave as long s plece ct vreme Otilia se as Otilia was still around. All afla prin preajm. Deodat of a sudden he heard Auricas auzi glasul fr densitate al hollow Aurichii, voit persuasiv voice purposely persuasive.

In this part we have clear cases of non-equivalence. For example punem, punem, cum s nu was translated into English as we will by all means. It is a case of non-equivalence: the modal will was my option here as it clearly expresses willingness and determination, thus matching the context, but the repetition in the original text cannot be preserved because such a repetition as we will, we will is not common usage in English. However in order to preserve the emphasis of the ST, the syntagm by all means which is most frequently emphatically used, meaning certainly, was my final choice.
72

Another case of non-equivalence between ST and TT is in dar eu zic c pn atuncea s-l prepare cineva but I think someone should tutor him. The modal should was used to express the speakers suggestion or opinion. The verb tutor meaning to teach or instruct, especially privately (Webster) was a better option in my opinion than train or coach. Tutor, as a verb, refers (in all its distributions), exclusively to the different branches of learning and instruction, whereas the latter ones are frequently related to teaching in school and training athletes. A third case of non-equivalence is to be found in ca s fim mai siguri just for us to make sure. The Romanian dependent clause of purpose is rendered in the TT by an infinitive construction which is specific to the English language. Besides, the comparative in the original cannot be preserved because the adjective sure is not commonly used in the comparative in English. The Romanian nehotrndu-se s plece was rendered by and couldnt make up his mind to leave. It is again a case of non-equivalence. The gerund construction in the ST was rendered by a coordinate sentence in the TT. He couldnt make up his mind perfectly renders the idea of the original, that is
73

why I used it instead of another variant that I had in mind as: not having the heart to go which means lacking the necessary courage or callousness to do something (Webster) and which, in my opinion, does not render the idea of the ST, the difficulty in taking a decision, not lack of courage. I translated deodat by all of a sudden and not by suddenly, because it emphasizes the quickness of the action, of an occurrence for which there has been no preparation or gradual approach (Webster). Levichis dictionary gives as an equivalent all at once but I do not think it is a good equivalent because it can create confusion in the TT since it can also be used to express simultaneity, and unexpectedly, another variant emphasizes the lack of preparedness for what occurs (n mod neateptat) and unawareness (prin surprindere). Consequently none of them matches the semantic and pragmatic dimensions of the context. Glasul fr densitate al Aurichii was translated by Auricas hollow voice (not resonant, dull). I could use here neither of the following possible equivalents for the Romanian fr densitate: 1. flat which means monotonous, lacking variation in pitch (monoton); 2. faint which means lacking loudness (slab) nor 3. colourless which means lacking vividness or distinctive character, dull, but which is used
74

especially when speaking about colours (lipsit de culoare). They all match other different contexts. As the last syntagm is concerned, voit persuasiv was translated as purposely persuasive meaning with a particular purpose specified not deliberately which applies to what is done not hastily, but with full realization of what one is doing (voit, dinadins, gndit cu grij). Another possible variant is premeditatedly which applies to what has been planned long in advance (cu premeditare). With such an equivalent as purposely the stress is laid on the intention, whereas deliberately and premeditatedly refer to what is done not hastily, the stress being laid on the period of time it takes to plan something. Putem s rugm pe We can ask Mr. Felix, us down. He might really help us, if he would. Felix gladly agreed and, a domnul Felix, mam, cred c mother, I think he wont turn n-are s ne refuze Chiar c s-ar putea, dac-ar vrea dumnealui. Felix se nvoi bucuros, i

puin dup aceea, cnd i se little bit later, when he felt it pru mai priincios, ddu bun was the right time, he said seara i se retrase. good-night and left.

75

Two cases of non-equivalence can be found here. The first is in rendering the Romanian chiar c s-ar putea, dac-ar vrea dumnealui into the English counterpart he might really help us, if he would. Here the conditionals in the original were rendered by means of two modal verbs might in the main clause used with its value of possibility (which was preferred to the impersonal, more formal construction it could be possible) and would in the subordinate clause expressing a polite request. The second case of non-equivalence is in the translation of the Romanian sytagm cnd i se pru mai priincios when he felt it was the right time. Here the comparative mai priincios in the original was rendered by a subordinate clause it was the right time, which perfectly expresses the idea of the ST. As we can see during the translation process, the translator deals with many cases of non equivalence between Source text and Target text. Even the title of the work I have chosen to analyze contains such a case of non-equivalence. Enigma Otiliei which in Romanian represents a genitive construction was rendered by an adjective plus a noun Enigmatic Otilia. Following the English genitive structure a possible equivalent would be Otilias Enigma but such a translation does not have the same impact on the reader. Enigmatic Otilia also renders the semantic meaning of the
76

whole work because it refers to Otilias personality as Clinescu presents her: an enigmatic, mysterious woman. Another option for enigmatic would be puzzling but since it means confusing and difficult to understand or explain, thus not matching the semantic content of the text. Enigmatic is a better variant. Cnd ajunse n geamalcul When he reached the glass de sus, care privea spre verandah, which looked out grdin, vzu pe Otilia stnd into the garden, he could see la o fereastr deschis. Conversaia incidentul cu de jos pianul o Otilia sitting at an open i window. The conversation downstairs

indispusese probabil, i acum and the incident about the se refugiase aici, fr s ias piano must have irritated her din raza lui Pascalopol. and now she had taken refuge there, without Pascalopol losing sight of her. It is obvious that when translating you should pay attention to all the rules of both languages, you have to keep in mind the meaning of the text and also the target reader. Clinescu has a challenging style and it is very hard sometimes to follow the meaning behind the words. The work is as enigmatic as the personality of Otilia is.
77

In this fragment the Romanian geamalcul de sus was translated as the glass verandah. At a first reading it is a case of non-equivalence because in English the adverb of place is missing. In terms of register and adequacy verandah is not a perfect equivalent for geamalc since it means open porch, usually roofed extending along one or more sides of the ground floor of a dwelling (Macmillan Dictionary) or an open area with a floor and a roof that is built on the side of a house on the ground floor(Longman). But since the Romanian dictionary states that geamlc means perete format din geamuri fixate pe un schelet metalic sau de lemn; coridor, verand nchis spre exterior cu un astfel de perete, in this case the English verandah can be used together with the adjective glass. Otherwise it would have been a semantic loss. Another variant here would be the glass porch. In point of meaning there is not a clear difference between porch and verandah since the first means roofed, sometimes partly or totally enclosed area attached to and extending along a house, but verandah is closer to Clinescus style. So in point of register verandah is a better equivalent. The Romanian de sus can not be rendered as upstairs or the upper because they do not collocate with verandah in point of meaning. So it is here a case of semantic non-equivalence.
78

The Romanian care privea spre grdin was translated as which looked out into the garden. Another possible equivalent here is which looked on to the garden. The use of the verb to look matches both the semantic and pragmatic dimension of the text since it has the meaning to face in a certain direction or have a certain view (Macmillan). Even the Romanian context means care ddea nspre grdin so the verb look out into seems to be a good equivalent because it better collocates with the noun verandah than the second option look on to. A case of grammatical non-equivalence is to be discussed in the example vzu pe Otilia stnd la o fereastr deschis which was put in English as he could see Otilia sitting at an open window. The Romanian perfect simplu is not translated using a past tense equivalent but a modal verb could. It was used with its value of physical ability: He could see or distinguish Otilia; it refers to the visual perception of the woman. The stress is laid on the value the modal grants to the context that of clear perception, whereas translating using a past form he saw Otilia the stress is laid on action and this is not the case here. Another case of grammatical non-equivalence is to be found in the next sentence where I used another modal to render the meaning: incidentul cu pianul o indispusese
79

probabil the incident about the piano must have irritated her. The Romanian mai mult ca perfect was translated using a modal plus a perfect infinitive must have irritated which in Romanian could have the meaning trebuie s-o fi iritat / deranjat. I consider that the modal better renders the idea of the text because it is used with its value of expressing a present logical deduction about a past activity or state. The use of past perfect here wouldnt have matched the semantic and pragmatic dimension. Also the Romanian probabil is included in the use of must. Thus even if the structures are not equivalent grammatically, in point of meaning they are. i acum se refugiase aici translated as she had taken refuge there is a clear example of semantic and grammatical equivalence between English and Romanian. The tense is preserved according to its use in both languages. Another possible equivalent I had in mind was to shelter but it doesnt match the context since it means to provide cover or protection for; to take under ones protection; to find or take shelter. It is often associated with weather or different types of attack, not with human moods. As we can observe the translation encounters many cases of grammatical non-equivalence in order to render correctly the meaning. far s ias din raza lui Pascalopol was
80

rendered by without Pascalopol losing sight of her. From the grammatical point of view it is not an unusual structure: rendering the Romanian conjunctiv prezent into a gerund construction in English. This construction is required here because of the basic meaning of the Romanian sample. It means ca Pascalopol s n-o piard din vedere which has as an English counterpart to lose sight. Thus in point of meaning such a structure is perfectly accepted. Zrind pe Felix, Otilia l chem n oapt. Ce faci? Vino aici! Catching sight of Felix, Otilia whispered him to get closer: What are you doing? Come When Felix leaned against the wing of the window, Otilia also You dont have the slightest

Cnd Felix se rezem de here! canatul ferestrei, Otilia i spuse tot ncet: Aglae asta! Uf!

Nu tii ce viper e tanti whispered:

Ca i cnd ar fi bnuit o idea of what a viper this aunt inimiciie, Aglae, care-i zrise Aglae of mine is! Uf! n treact sub sclipirile lunii, zise tare de jos: pe dumnealui la noi! As if she had suspected Otilias hostility, Aglae,

Otilio, s-l aduci mine catching a glimpse of them under the moonlight, said loudly Da tanti rspunse cu from downstairs:
81

o miere teatral Otilia, fcnd Felix are s-i par foarte bine lui Titi! lui Felix: - S vezi ce prost e!

Otilia, bring him tomorrow Yes, auntie answered

o strmbtur cu neles lui to visit us Otilia with faked hypocrisy / Felix Titi would be very glad. But immediately she whispered to Felix: Youll see how dull he is / Just wait to see how dull he is / You should see how dull he is. As we can see the text abounds in examples of nonequivalence. In this new instance of text the Romanian Zrind pe Felix, Otilia l chem n oapt was translated as Catching sight of Felix, Otilia whispered him to get closer. It is a case of non equivalence when one word in source language is rendered using more words in the target language. The Romanian gerunziu zrind was put as catching sight of instead of seeing or observing because these variants would not match the pragmatic dimension of the context. It refers to a quick movement of the action whereas observing implies a close analyses of a person and seeing implies the visual perception of that person. Catching sight means not only seeing
82

ns numaidect adug ncet unctuously, making faces to

but also becoming aware of the presence of a person, thus better matching this context. The Romanian Otilia l chem n oapt was rendered by Otilia whispered him to get closer. It is another case where a syntagm in the source language is translated using a longer syntagm in target language. Whisper here is a better equivalent for l chem n oapt since it means to speak quietly or cautiously as in gossiping or conspiring (Macmillan Dictionary) than the other variant I had in mind called him whispering. None of the constituents of the Romanian syntagm could be rendered considering only its denotative meaning. The semantic features of to whisper which the Romanian a chema misses, are combined with those of the verb phrase to get closer, the result being the final variant in English whisper to get closer. Felix se rezem de canatul ferestrei was translated into the target language as Felix had leaned against the wing of the window. The problem here is how to render the Romanian word canatul into English; it means according to the Romanian dictionary fiecare dintre prile mobile din care este alctuit o u, poart ori fereastr; toc, pervaz de u. So as we can see even in Romanian that word is ambiguous because it has no reference to a window. The word wing was used instead of the
83

edge because the second would represent a semantic loss because edge means the part of an object that is furthest from its center thus not being an appropriate equivalent here. Another variant would be sash which refers to a frame, esp. a sliding one in which the panes of glass are set in a window or door (Macmillan) but its use would be again a semantic loss because it refers to the frame itself. So wing and its connotative meaning will match better this context. A clear case of lexical non-equivalence is to be found in Otilias reply: Nu tii ce viper este tanti Aglae asta which was translated as You dont have the slightest idea of what a viper this aunt Aglae of mine is!. First of all the Romanian verb a ti used in its negative form was rendered by the collocation to have the slightest idea because beneath the Romanian verb we can trace the meaning nici nu ai idee or nu ai nici cea mai vag idee, thus the English collocation matches the semantic dimension of the context. In terms of register it also represents a better equivalent than the simple use of the English verb to know you dont know what a viper this aunt Aglae of mine is. Secondly the English version also contains the pronoun of mine which the Romanian version lacks. This was introduced because it gives the context a personal touch: Otilias irony is better rendered using it.
84

In the lines to follow I faced again a grammatical case of non-equivalence. Ar fi bnuit o inimiciie was put in English she had suspected Otilias hostility. The noun in the Romanian language inimiciie following a transitive verb was rendered by a genitive structure Otilias hostility. In fact there is even in the source language a case of syntactic and semantic ambiguity because i tis not its common usage: inimiciie means ur, dumnie, vrajb. In order to avoid the ambiguity I replaced the noun with the syntactic genitive which can be also considered a semantic gain but it better renders the meaning. Other suggested variants here for hostility were the verbs: hate meaning to have an intense dislike for or detest, abhor, loathe; in this case the syntagm could be translated as As if she had suspected that Otilia hated her. Hate implies deep emotion and is often used to indicate personal animosity, so it could have been a good equivalent hare. Detest suggests an even stronger but less personal dislike and is often accompanied by a feeling of disdain; abhor implies a strong dislike of something to the point of repugnance or revulsion and loathe suggests total revulsion. So the last three variants could not be considered appropriate equivalents for this context. That is why the final choice was that of using the genitive instead of the noun
85

because it faithfully renders the meaning of the original and, at the same time, is clearer and easier to understand by the English reader: Otilia hated her aunt. Aglae, care-i zrise in treact sub sclipirile lunii was translated by Aglae, catching a glimpse of them under the moonlight. In the first part of this example the reader would find quite unappropriate the fact that the English verb catch replaces the Romanian a zri. In terms of register and adequacy glimpse was used because it means a sight of someone or something that you only have for a short time and that is not complete (Longman). It better matches the context and its semantics since the moon and its light witness the events. It is also a case of grammatical non-equivalence here because the TT makes use of a gerund construction to replace in ST a whole subordinate clause care-i zrise in treact... since it is absolutely necessary to make the sentence in the target language sound natural in English. The second case of grammatical non-equivalence is in rendering an adjective + noun from a genitive structure from the English language into a compound noun in the Romanian: sclipirile lunii moonlight. Such shifts or transpositions are frequent translation procedures bringing about some changes in the information context of the message. The use in this context of moonlight can be
86

considered a good choice since it means light shining from the moon; moonlit (Macmillan) even if in terms of stylistics it does not have the same impact on the reader as the Romanian counterpart has. As concerns sclipirile lunii, it was rendered as the moonlight to enhance the poetical effect of the text. Another case of grammatical non-equivalence is to be found in the following example: Otilio, s-l aduci mine pe dumnealui la noi which was translated Otilia, bring him tomorrow to visit us. The Romanian conjunctiv prezent was not translated by the English subjunctive. Instead an imperative form was used. The imperative better renders in English the idea of a request and why not of an invitation. However, to clarify the meaning of this instance of text for the TT reader, the translation aimed at bringing another referent to visit us which the English variant lacks. So la noi was rendered by to visit us because it better matches the semantic of the text. In the next line I faced a case of cultural equivalence. Tanti is a term of address to a woman that is your aunt; it is used with ordinary connotations and is always related to informal register. In Romanian it means mtu that is sora tatlui sau a mamei unor persoane; termen de respect cu care se adreseaz cineva unei femei n vrst (DEX). The English varints would be here aunt or auntie. Auntie was chosen as the
87

final choice because it matches better the informal register of the text. Miere teatral was a difficult and ambiguous term to be rendered into TT. The choice faked hypocrisy was considered to be the best out of a series which included lexical items such as: unctuously, forged, hypocritical, insinuating, which would not render the full meaning of the Romanian variant. Unctuous means too friendly and praising people too much in a way that seems very insincere (Longman); forged is too formal for this context; insinuating implies a sly, artful or oblique remark esp of a derogatory nature (Macmillan). Since hypocritical/ hypocrisy refers to the act or practice of presenting ones character, false feelings or beliefs, esp the feigning of virtue or piety (Macmillan) it seems that it betters matches not only the semantic and pragmatic dimensions of the context but also the idea of the text: Otilias attitude towards her aunt. The translation of idioms is a very interesting issue to focus upon, I may say. As a matter of fact, they are among the first cultural specific elements to be discussed when comparing the source-text with the target text. There is a special type of equivalence with idiomatic phrases. The Romanian fcnd o strmbtur cu ineles lui Felix was put in English as making faces to Felix. Obviously in English the syntagm is shorter than
88

in the original language but it is not the length of the idiom that matches but its meaning. It is also clear that the equivalence is achieved at the level of meaning: both the English and the Romanian idioms contain the same semantic feature [+ making signs with your face]. The Romanian Dictionary of idioms gives a series of variants for this idiom: to make a grimace which does not match the semantic charge of the text and does not collocate with the Romanian o strmbtur cu neles; to twist ones mouth; to make a wry face but again they do not render the meaning. The final choice was to make faces to which implies the idea of making signs with an intended meaning thus the English variant lacks the Romanian counterpart cu neles. The last issue which should be discussed related to this second instance of text is Otilias reply S vezi ce prost e! which offers us another case of non-equivalence at the grammar level. In translating it I suggested three variants and a final choice: Youll see how dull he is!; Just wait to see how dull he is and You should see how dull he is. It is interesting to notice that each time the Romanian conjunctiv prezent is rendered by a different structure: a future tense, an imperative and a modal verb, thus offering the co-text an ambiguous meaning. But in terms of register and adequacy the second
89

variant better matches because it implies not only Otilias irony but also the rhetoric of the text. In the same line prost was translated by dull whereas the other variants could have been: stupid, foolish, idiotic, brainless, retarded, tedious. Dull was preferred since it means lacking in intelligence or mental quickness; slow to learn and understand; lacking in perception, sensitivity (Macmillan). It better matches the informal style here and Titis personality is better rendered through it. Stupid would have been another appropriate variant since it refers to lacking ordinary intelligence; slow-witted; dumb; dull in ideas or expressions, inane; having ones faculties deadened or blunted (Macmillan Dictionary). Dull is thus more appropriate than stupid which is considered to be too informal for this context. Pascalopol implor pe Pascalopol begged Otilia landowner Aglae, might joined get him Otilia s se coboare; Aglae, ca to come downstairs; for fear s nu supere prea mult pe the moier, se asocie i conciliant: - Vino jos, Otilia ce stai acolo? Otilia fcu un semn de adio ea, upset,

compromisingly: Come down, Otilia, why on earth are you sitting there? Otilia waved good-bye to

lui Felix, care intr n odaia Felix, when he entered his

90

lui i se culc. Trziu de tot, room and went to bed. Very cnd se trezi o clip din somn, late ntunericul se at might, woke when up, he the subia suddenly

crepuscular i un coco cnta. darkness seemed to fade away Lui Felix i se pru c aude little by little and a rooster trosnitura uii gotice de la was singing. Felix seemed to intrare i, puin dup aceea hear the crack of the front rostogilirea trsuri. roilor unei Gothic door and, shortly afterwards the rolling down of the wheels of carriage. G. Clinescu continues to surprise us by the way he masters the language which makes the translation more and more challenging. Cases of non-equivalence appear all the time even if they are cultural, grammatical or lexical. Another case of such grammatical non-equivalence is to be found in this new instance of text even in the first line. Pascalopol implor pe Otilia s se coboare was translated as Pascalopol begged Otilia to come downstairs. The Romanian conjunctivul prezent/diateza reflexiv was rendered by the long infinitive in English. This structure was preferred because it matches the semantic dimension and to a certain extent it conveys the stylistic effect too. But this is better emphasized in the original through the fact that s se coboare is an unusual form even for
91

the Romanian language. It is the so called valoarea popular of that mood and tense. It is also specific to the informal style. Aglae, s nu supere prea mult pe moier, se asocie i ea conciliant was rendered by For fear the landowner might get upset Aglae joined him compromisingly. It is another case of non-equivalence: the Romanian clause of reason is rendered by using a modal verb. The insertion of the modal verb might was necessary in order to convey the illocutionary dimension of the utterance: the possibility that the landowner gets more upset. It seemed appropriate to select the modal might over its informal counterpart could, considered in their epistemic value of possibility. A for-clause was chosen because such a clause does not tell us why a certain action was performed or was on the point of being accomplished, but it only presents a piece of additional information. Therefore, in order to preserve the semantic features of the Romanian structure I chose to alter the word order of sentences, by assigning front position to the reason clause followed by the main clause in English. But this instance of text should be also commented from the point of view of cultural equivalence. Moier is a culture specific element to Romanian language meaning mare proprietar funciar; latifundiar (DEX). The English variants would be: landlord, landowner lessor. Landlord refers to a
92

landowner or lord of manor, who exacts rent or service for the use of his land whereas landowner means the one who owns land. Thus out of this series of synonyms the second one was chosen, being neutral in terms of register. We also notice that in the same sentence an adjective from the source language conciliant was rendered by the adverb compromisingly in the target language. It is a sort of a semantic loss since the Romanian adjective means mpciuitor; care se las uor nduplecat (DEX) whereas the adverb compromisingly refers to a situation in which you make it seem or prove that you have done something morally wrong or embarrassing (Longman). The adverb in the English variant was used in terms of the co-text since it helps the reader to get the whole meaning: Aglae wants to put off the conflict between her and Otilia at least for a short moment. Otilia ce stai acolo? was put in English as Otilia why on earth are you sitting there?. In such a case we can definitely speak about a semantic gain in point of grammar and lexis. The English why on earth has a personal reference; in the co-text it gives colour and makes the translation more vivid. We should further discuss a case of equivalence between the two languages. The Romanian Otilia facu un semn de adio lui Felix was rendered as Otilia waved good-bye to
93

Felix. The English verb wave has the meaning to signal, indicate or express by waving something, esp a hand, to gesture by moving the hand up and down, as in a greeting, farewell or signal(Macmillan Dictionary). It is obvious that both the English verb to wave and the Romanian verbal phrase have the same semantic feature [+ a sign made with the hand to greet somebody]. Thus the choice of to wave is considered a better one in this context since it maches the semantic and pragmatic dimension of the text. care intr n odaia lui i se culc was rendered as while he entered his room and went to bed. The only thing which should be discussed here is the use of while in English instead of the Romanian relative pronoun care. It is a case of semantic non-equivalence. The two relative pronouns have no common semantic features here. The Romanian care is [+ human] in this context as well as who in English; while has as a semantic feature [+ time]. The English variant seems not to be a perfect / good equivalent for its Romanian counterpart. But my final choice between who/while was while because it better collocates with the verb to wave. Both while and the verb in this sentence emphasize the idea of time. The stress is laid on the duration, on the moment the actions takes place i. e while entering the
94

room Otilia waves him good bye, and not on the person, not on Felix. Trziu de tot was rendered into English by very late at night. It is a case of non-equivalence. A shorter syntagm in the source language is translated by a longer one in the target language. From the semantic point of view we can speak about a semantic gain in the target language at night, which the Romanian text lacks. It closely emphasizes the moment of occurrence of the action, that is the moment when Felix wakes up in the middle of the night. The Romanian cnd se trezi o clip din somn was translated as when he suddenly woke up. It is a case of both semantic and grammatical non-equivalence. First of all a longer syntagm in the source language was translated by a single word in the target language: o clipa din somn suddenly. Suddenly was used instead of for a moment because it emphasizes the quickness of an occurrence for which there has been no preparatoin or gradual approach, without warning (Webster) brusc, dintr-o dat. There is also a semantic difference between the two variants since the Romanian text emphasizes the duration of the action: just for a single moment and the English text renders the way in which an action occurs: all of a sudden. Another suggested variant would be here
95

unexpectedly, but it shows the lack of preparedness and unawareness for what occurs. Consequently, neither for a moment nor unexpectedly matches the pragmatic and semantic dimensions of the context, so suddenly would be a good equivalent here since it renders how the action occurs. As we can see cases of non-equivalence are to be found all over Clinescus text and its translation. Another such case is to be found in the following example: ntunericul se subia crepuscular the darkness seemed to fade away little by little. Before discussing the translation itself we should clarify first the Romanian meaning of the context. Crepuscular means the moment before dawn perioad de timp nainte de rsritul soarelui, auror thus the meaning would be zorii se apropiau. The first variant I had in mind was to use a noun which should replace the Romanian verb se subia plus the adverb crepuscular: dawn was close. The variants here would be: dawn, twilight, break of day. The third variant is too informal and ordinary for the Romanian context, thus it will not be a good equivalent here; dawn means the time at the beginning of the day when light first appears and twilight is often associated with the end of a day, not with its beginning. Consequently these variants and the first structure I had in mind do not mach the semantic charge of the text, because it
96

wasnt the moment of dawn, it was still night. I used instead the English verb to fade away which emphasizes better the graduality of the process: to gradually disappear (Longman) and which collocates better with the noun darkness. Nonequivalence consists in the fact that I introduced the adverbial phrase little by little only to make the English variant sound better. In the Romanian version its meaning gradually is carried out by the verb se subiaz, as it would have been superfluous to have it in Romanian too: se subia puin cte puin. Thus in terms of register and adequacy the first variant would be a better counterpart for the Romanian sentence. The Romanian noun trosnitura was translated as the crack which appears to be a perfect equivalent here since it means a sudden loud very sharp sound like the sound of a stick being broken (Longman). Puin dup aceea was rendered as shortly afterwards because in the Romanian text puin has the meaning peste puin timp which, in English, is rendered by shortly, and afterwards means after an event or time that has already been mentioned. It shows a length of time but is more usual than later for example or after that. The final instance of translation which should be discussed here is the transposition of rostogolirea, a single
97

noun in the source language by the rolling down, a noun plus a preposition in TT. Thus it can be considered a case of nonequivalence. The noun rolling is often associated with a means of transport using wheels, thus it is a good equivalent in this context. By adding the preposition down, I created a nonequivalence between the two languages, but my intention was to intensify and to underline both the movement and the psychological impact that the sound of the wheels has upon Felix in the middle of the night. Thus I considered appropriate to use it in this context. A doua zi la mas, Otilia Next day at lunch time Otilia fu tot att de senin, seara nu was as serene as before; in the veni deloc. O mhnire mare evening she didnt come at all. cuprinse pe Felix, o sil de Felix was seized with a deep toate i prin cap i trecur idei feeling of sorrow, feeling sick extravagante. Se gndea s and tired of everything and lase totul balt, s fug absurd ideas crossed his mind. undeva n lume, ca fochist pe He un vapor. I i was thinking to drop nchipuia everything, run to some place of

consternarea Otiliei, regretul the world and be a stoker on a ei de a-l fi fcut s sufere i ship. He could imagine Otilias s plece, o vede plngnd. Melodrama perplexity, the regret of having asta him suffer and of making him go
98

inexorabil i mica toate away; he could see her crying. fibrele sufletului i prefcu This descurajarea ntr-o durere consolatoare. inexorable melodrama became an mare moved him deeply and his disappointment intense comforting pain. Step by step Clinescus text and the process of translation became more and more challenging. It is obvious now that a translators choice is much more difficult to be made with the non-equivalence situations when the translator can not find a direct equivalent in the target language for a certain word in the source language. Not only cases of non-equivalence are to be discussed in this present chapter but also those of possible equivalence between the two languages. For example the first sentence of this new instance of text represents an appropriate variant of the original counterpart. A doua zi la mas, Otilia fu tot att de senin, seara nu veni deloc was rendered into English language as Next day at lunch time Otilia was as serene as before; in the evening she didnt come at all. As we can see the word order in both variants was strictly respected. The English counterpart presents a slight difference because la mas was translated by lunch time taking into account the semantics of the co-text. i.e.
99

It was the lunch time when the events took place so, for a better understanding, I chose to use lunch time instead of only lunch. tot att de senin was rendered as as serene as before. Other suggested variants for senin which I had in mind were: calm, tranquil, unruffled. Calm refers to a quiet and without excitement, nervous activity or strong feeling(Longman), but it is often associated with nouns such as: sea, weather, lake, thus in this context it doesnt collocate with the proper noun Otilia. Tranquil means pleasantly calm, quiet and peaceful(Longman), but it is too formal for this context and also it collocates with nouns as countryside, village, landscape and finally unruffled means calm and not upset by a difficult situation(Longman), but it does not match the semantic of the text. The Romanian adjective senin as related to humans means care exprim linite, mulumire sufleteasc, netulburat, luminos, linitit, fericit. The English counterpart serene refers to someone who is very calm and relaxed, thus being more often associated with persons and beings. It better matches the semantic and pragmatic dimensions of the text, being my final choice. But cases of non-equivalence are to be found all over my translation since I was interested in rendering especially the message of Clinescus text.
100

O mhnire mare cuprinse pe Felix was rendered as Felix was seized with a deep feeling of sorrow. It is a clear case of gramatical non-equivalence. In order to render the idea of the original text I chose to use in target language a passive construction instead of an active one in the source language, because the passive is felt to be more natural in English than in Romanian. It was prefered to another variant suggested here A deep feeling of sorrow overwhelmed Felix which would sound a bit different and quite unnatural in this context. It must be mentioned the fact that only the grammatical structure is changed, whereas the message and the semantic content are very well preserved. When I translated mhnire I had also in mind some other variants such as: grief, sadness, anguish. Grief has too strong connotations for this context since it means extreme sadness especially because someone you love has died; something that makes you feel extremely sad; sadness is too informal thus it does not match in tems of register and adecquacy and anguish refers to mental or physical suffering caused by extreme pain or worry (Longman) and obviously it does not match the semantics of the text. So, out of a line of different synonyms sorrow was preferred since it better collocates in this context with the verb to seize. Sorrow means a feeling of great sadness because
101

something terrible has happened to you; an event or situation that makes you feel great sadness (Longman), whereas seize means to suddenly be affected by an extremely strong feeling. Thus both these two variants match better the semantic and pragmatic dimensions of the context. The Romanian o sil de toate was rendered by feeling sick and tired of everything. It is a case of morphological nonequivalence. A noun phrase in source language was translated by two adjectives in target language associated with the verb feeling, in order to avoid such a variant as a loathing of everything, which is unlikely to be frequently found in English and which would only copy the pattern making it sound Romanian. i prin cap i trecur idei extravagante was rendered by and absurd ideas crossed his mind. This can not be considered a case of non equivalence because English requires its specific word order. The only thing which should be discussed here is the transposition of the adjective extravagante by absurd in the target text. Absurd means contrary to reason, common sense, or truth; irrational, ridiculous (Macmillan Dictionary). Other suggested variants for this context would be: extravagant, inordinate. The first refers to something behind/beyond reasonable limits; unrestrained, and it often suggests economic
102

waste and thoughtless dissipation of what one has. Thus it does not match the semantics of the text. The second, inordinate means excessive, immoderate, another inappropriate equivalent for this context. Thus my final choice was absurd because it better collocates with the noun ideas and is a better equivalent in terms of register, semantics and adequacy of the text. The Romanian s lase totul balt has as an English counterpart to drop everything. It is case of idiomatic nonequivalence because a Romanian idiom was translated using a single English verb to drop plus an indefinite pronoun everything. The English idiom would be to leave all in the lurch, but it is too formal for such a context and it could be a semantic gain here. It can be considered also a case of grammatical non equivalence since the Romanian conjunctiv s lase, s fug was put into English using long infinitive because it is a more common structure for the target language. Drop is used here with its transitive value and it means to stop pursuing, treating or dealing with; cease to concern oneself with; abandon(Macmillan Dictionary), being my final choice since it better renders the meaning than the English idiom. Cases of non-equivalence seem to make the translation process more vivid and challenging. Another case of grammatical equivalence is to be found in the next analyzed
103

instance of text. i nchipuia consternarea Otiliei which was put as he could imagine Otilias perplexity. As we can see the verb i nchipuia was not translated simply by to imagine but using the modal could with its value of ability/intellectual ability, even deduction. The use of the modal verb renders better the meaning of the original. Consternarea was translated as perplexity since it refers to the feeling of being confused or worried by something you cannot understand (Longman Dictionary). Other suggested variants would be bewilderment and confusion; the first enphasizes a feeling of being very confused and although it renders the meaning and the style of the original is too emphatic and stylistically inappropriate, whereas the second wouldnt suit the semantic dimension of the original. It is not strong enough for this context. Thus my final choice was perplexity since the Romanian consternarea means uimire, nedumerire amestecat cu mhnire i cu indignare; surpriz neplcut, stupoare, consternaie (DEX) and the English counterpart matches better the pragmatic and semantic dimension of the original. O vede plngnd was rendered as he could see her crying. It is another case of non-equivalence because first of all a modal verb in the target text replaces a present verb form in
104

the original. The modal is used with the same value as in the example discussed above because I considered that it would be more appropiate in terms of rhetorical balance, grammar and register. Secondly the tense is changed: the present in the original becomes a past form in meaning in the target text o vede he could see (o vedea). Idiomatic non-equivalence appears again in the last sentence of the analyzed text. Melodrama asta inexorabil i mic toate fibrele sufletului was rendered by This inexorable melodrama moved him deeply. Again a Romanian idiom was used in English in a structure containing a verb to move and an adverb. The English idiomatic variant in this case would be to pull someone heart strings but it can not retain the flavour of the original, thus creating a semantic loss. So I chose to use instead of the idiom a verb plus an adverb which perfectly renders the same meaning of the original to make someone feel strong feelings, especially of sadness or symphathy as Longman Dictionary explains. Another variant I had in mind for this context was Felix was deeply moved by this inexorable melodrama which would be a passive variant for the active Romanian one. It would be also a better equivalent here since English readers are more accustomed with passive structures; but since I used another passive construction in the same
105

instance of text I chose to keep the active voice instead of replacing it. The Romanian prefcu descurajarea ntr-o mare durere consolatoare was put in English as his disappointment became an intense comforting pain. It is a case of syntactic nonequivalence because an accusative structure in Romanian was rendered by a nominative one in English. Keeping the accusative in English would make the sentence sound quite unnatural thus the nominative was preferred. The adjective mare was translated as intense since it better renders the deep feeling of pain and it collocates better with a noun denoting a feeling pain. i chinuia totui mintea cu All kind of assumptions fel de fel de ipoteze: Otilia a tortured his mind. Otilia had gsit scrisoarea, dar n-a bnuit found the letter but she couldnt de la cine este, i-a nchipuit imagined who the sender might c e vreo glum, vreo hrtie be; she thought it was a joke, or veche a lui Felix; a gsit-o i, an old paper of Felixs / distrat, a aruncat-o fr s-o belonging to Felix; or she had desfac; n-a gsit-o deloc, found it but absent minded as scrisoarea cznd undeva she was she threw it away printre lucruri; a citit-o dar nu- without even opening it; maybe l iubete pe Felix. Ipoteza din she didnt find the letter at all
106

urm

aprindea

gelozia

n since he letter could fall through her stuff; or maybe she had read it but she didnt have any feeling for Felix.The last assumption made Felix jealous.

inima lui Felix.

The Romanian i chinuia totui mintea cu fel de fel de ipoteze was translated as All kind of assumptions tortured his mind. It is a case of non-equivalence. In keeping with the different patterns of word order and focalization in the source language and target language, I chose to alter the syntactic structures of this introductory sentence in order to preserve the authors intentions regarding the element in focus; i.e. Felix was tormented by different assumptions. Therefore, the intonational focus in the source text placed on the noun phrase fel de fel de ipoteze was rendered syntactically by fronting it for emphasis, as the subject of the sentence. Besides the noun ipoteze was rendered by assumptions since it means something that you think is true although you have no proof (Longman Dictionary) since the other possible equivalents, i.e. supposition, suspicion, were considered inappropriate in the given context. But it is not only a syntactic non-equivalence but also a cultural one. A-i chinui mintea is a specific Romanian idiom which can not be translated using an
107

equivalent English idiom. Instead it was used the verb torture since its secondary meaning emphasizes severe physical or mental suffering and it better collocates with the English noun mind. Thus my final choice for i chinuia totui mintea was tortured his mind. dar n-a bnuit de la cine este was rendered into English as she had never imagined/couldnt imagine who the sender might be. It is also a case of non-equivalence because one part of speech in the source language de la cine was translated by a clause who the sender might be in the TT. The modal might was introduced here with its value of possibility; in fact it expresses doubt upon the identity of the sender. Since the communicative act implies the presence of a type of modality, I considered appropriate to use a modal verb. And this structure incorporates the meaning of the Romanian verb a bnui which refers to presupunere, bnuial, supoziie (DEX). Out of a long series of synonyms i.e. suppose, presume, suspect, imagine I chose the last one for rendering the Romanian a bnui because it collocates better with the modal used in the second part of the sentence. The other suggested variants were considered inappropriate in this context: suppose is used when saying what someone should or should not do, especially because of rules or what someone
108

in authority has said; presume means to think you can be sure of something because it is likely, although there is no proof (Longman) and suspect is too formal and tough for a literary text. Thus my final choice for this context was to imagine she had never imagined. i-a nchipuit was translated as she thought, first of all because imagine was already used in the example above and because there is a shade of meaning in the Romanian variant. i-a nchipuit c e vreo glum can be put as s-a gndit c e vreo glum which could explain my choice for the English counterpart she thought it was a joke. i distrat a aruncat-o fr s-o desfac was put into the target language as but absent-minded as she was threw it away without even opening it. It is a case of non-equivalence. First of all I replaced the coordinating conjunction i by the English conjunction but, which in target language, introduces the reason of what happened: because she was absent-minded Otilia threw the letter away. Second it is a case of nonequivalence because one word in the source language distrat was rendered by a clause in the target language absent-minded as she was which could be put in Romanian also as distrat cum era. Distrat was translated by absent-minded since it refers to mental attitude not to a mood.
109

Since the Romanian sentence was a complex and long one I chose to introduce into the English variant the adverb maybe which can be considered a semantic gain for the target text but which renders better the flow of the ideas and the stream of the Felixs consciousness. The Romanian scrisoarea cznd undeva printre lucruri was translated as since the letter could fall through her stuff. It is a case of non-equivalence since the Romanian gerunziu was rendered by a modal verb plus an infinitive. The modal was used here with its value of possibility because it is more common to English readers than the use of a gerund form which would not show the possibility of that action. In the same instance of text a plural Romanian noun lucruri was rendered by an English noun singular in form but plural in meaning. I preferred the noun stuff even if it is quite informal to the noun things since the fragment renders Felixs thoughts and can be considered an informal instance of text. Ipoteza din urm aprindea gelozia n inima lui Felix was put into target language in a shorter form the last assumption made Felix jealous which is quite natural for the English language as concerns the structure and the word order. It is also a case of non-equivalence since a longer syntagm in the source language is rendered by a shorter one in the target
110

language. This instance of text could be also considered a case of semantic and pragmatic ambiguity and non-equivalence since the English version does not keep the metaphorical meaning of the Romanian counterpart, and in a way it ruins the poetic effect of the original. But choosing here a word for word translation would be quite inappropriate because my first aim was to render the message of the text and then its form. So, in order to avoid making the sentence in the target text sound unnatural, even ambiguous I used a verb phrase made jealous. Thus the translator has to be ready to face different translation traps because likewise the product has not the same impact on the readers. Ceea ce l ntuneca pe What was making Felix was university mates, intellectual Felix, dndu-i oarecare doz gloomy and to a certain extent de mizantropie era indiferena misanthropical universitate, pentru orice that of his college any tuturor, chiar a colegilor de everybodys indifference, even atitudine intelectual, pentru colleagues/ orice nflcrare ce n-avea un towards n internat, discuta

scop imediat, terestru. La Iai, attitude, any passion whose aim cu was hardly touchable,material. aprindere cu colegii, chiar n In Iai, at the hostel he would pat, dup stingerea luminii, argue with his room fellows,
111

probleme pe care cteodat nu even after they had switched off le nelegea nimeni bine, dar the light, about topics which care i mbtau dndu-le could never be well understood, but which made them feel as as if they were mndrii de filosofi.

Problemele erau formulate proud viaa? Ce e moartea?), aa

n chipul ntrebrilor? (ce e philosophers. The topics /problems were cum le ntlneau prin brouri. put in question form (what is Unul pusese odat problema: life? what is death?) as they ce e femeia, i toi se strduir had found them in leaflets. s dea soluiile cele mai One of them had once raised extravagante, nimeni nu fcu the question what is a women? nici cea mai mic glum and everybody tried to come up indecent i nici mcar vreo with aluzie sexualitii. la the most extravagant problema solutions, but none of them made the least indecent joke or even to hint at the problem of sexuality/ the slightest remark to sexuality. This new instance of text which is analyzed in the pages to come appeared to me quite challenging from the very beginning. First of all because it is a very expressive text and it is already known that translators of literary texts often
112

complain about the lack of expressiveness. I consider that the genius of the original has to be maintained at any cost even at the cost of the non-equivalence between the two languages, the two texts. The translator has a difficult task in rendering one text into other language. Non-equivalence is to be found in this fragment even from the beginning. Ceea ce-l ntuneca pe Felix was put into target language as what was making Felix gloomy in which the Romanian verb ntuneca was translated by a verbal phrase was making gloomy. The word gloomy refers to a melancholic, depressed, dejected person when associated with humans thus I considered it to be quite an appropriate equivalent here for rendering Felixs mood. dndu-i oarecare doz de mizantropie was translated as to a certain extent misanthropical. It is a case of both syntactic and grammatical non-equivalence. First of all the noun in the source language doz de mizantropie was replaced in the target language only by an adjective misanthropical because English lacks such a structure o doz de..., but its original meaning is carried by the adverbial phrase to a certain extent which replaces in fact a shorter syntagm in the original dndu-i oarecare. There is no need to use a gerund form in English too since the meaning, the message is carried by the English
113

adjective and the adverbial phrase. There may be a slight semantic loss in the sense that it somehow makes the meaning of the English version a little ambiguous. pentru in this context was translated as towards since the real meaning in the Romanian text was fa de and towards points to this meaning moving, looking or pointing in a particular direction (Longman Dictionary). Even if pentru is repeated twice in the original I chose to use towards only once because a repetitive pattern would sound superfluous in English. Going on with my analysis I encountered another case of syntactic non-equivalence. The fragment pentru orice nflcrare ce n-avea un scop imediat, terestru was translated as any passion whose aim was hardly touchable, material. The noun in the original nflcrare was put as passion since it refers to a very strong, deeply felt emotion, especially of anger, or of belief in an idea or principle (Longman Dictionary). Other suggested variants here would be: ardor, fervor, enthusiasm. Ardor means very strong positive feelings but literarily used it is often associated with feelings of love. Fervor refers to a very strong belief or feeling but it is usually used with religious connotations, whereas enthusiasm is a strong feeling of interest and enjoyment
114

about something and an eagerness to be involved in it (Macmillan). None of the suggested equivalents matches the semantic and pragmatic dimensions of the text. At the syntactic level the relative pronoun in Romanian ce in the nominative case was rendered by a relative pronoun in genitive case whose because it sounds more natural in target language than the simple use of which. Then the negative form of the verb in the original was rendered by the use of the adverb hardly which meaning is almost not, barely not, not quite (Macmillan). Hardly is a negative adverb and it suggests scantiness or inadequacy. Barely and scarcely would not match this context since barely implies that there is an absence of appreciable margin whereas scarcely suggests an even narrower, almost imperceptible margin. Imediat was translated by touchable though at first sight it appears to be a semantic loss since it does not render the meaning of the original. But it could not be translated as immediate because this is not what the author wants to emphasize. It is a case of non-equivalence because a noun plus an adjective in the original were rendered by a clause in the target language scop imediatwhose aim was hardly touchable which better explains the hidden meaning of the sentence i.e. avea ca scop unul greu de realizat, de atins.
115

Touchable was used because it better collocates with the noun aim and with the negative adverb hardly. It refers, as Longman Dictionary puts it, to something which has a slight chance to modify or to improve, achieve something else. The word terestru is quite ambiguous even in the original. It is obvious that it is used in the Romanian variant with its connotative meaning ceva palpabil, evident, material. Thus it was translated by the adjective material since terrestrial would have been quite an inappropriate equivalent in this circumstance and it wouldnt match at all the semantic of the text. The Romanian discuta cu aprindere cu colegii was translated as he would argue with his room fellows. It is again a case of grammatical non-equivalence. The Romanian imperfect was rendered into English by would + verb since would can be used to express past habits and it is considered to be a literary form instead of the used to structure. The English verb argue renders the Romanian idiom discuta cu aprindere. English lacks such an idiom thus I chose the verb argue since its meaning is to disagree with someone in words, often in an angry way (Longman Dictionary). Another variant I had in mind was dispute but since it means to debate or quarrel about, discuss, oppose, resist
116

(Macmillan) I considered it too formal and technical for a literary context thus argue was preferred for this fragment. Colegii was rendered by his room fellows, a longer syntagm but the most usual one. Using only collegues or fellows would be a semantic loss since English offers such lexical structures as class mates; room collegues; room fellows and since the text refers to the collegues from his hostel room. chiar n pat, dup stingerea luminii was translated as even after they had switched off the light. The Romanian version is quite ambiguous and superfluous since the real meaning is hidden by a phrase chiar n pat which is inappropriate even for the original. The reader should notice that the meaning is chiar i dup ce se ddea stingerea or chiar i nainte de culcare. The English version is more expressive. None of the constituents of the Romanian version could be rendered considering only its denotative meaning. Thus I preferred the literal translation by providing a structure which should better render the message. This fragment should also be considered a case of grammatical non-equivalence since the noun phrase in the original stingerea luminii was replaced by a clause in the target text they had switched off the light. I had in mind another variant for this context i.e. after
117

they had put out the light but I considered it to be longer and more formal than the first. The Romanian probleme pe care cteodat nu le nelegea nimeni bine was rendered by about topics which couldnt be well understood. It is a case of non-equivalence since the active voice in Romanian version is replaced by passive voice in the target language. A passive structure is more common in English than in the Romanian language. The Romanian noun probleme was translated by topics because the text does not refer to problems as hard things or as difficulties but to different topics of discussion. The modal verb could was introduced here with its value of lack of ability, of mental ability since modality is usually rendered in English by a modal verb. Another variant here would be the active counterpart topics which nobody could well understand but since English prefers the passive structures I kept the first variant. dar care i mbtau dndu-le mndrii de filosofi was put as but which made them feel as proud as if they were philosophers. It is obvious that the connotative meanings are the hardest to be translated because the first step for the translator is to search the real meaning and to bring it to the surface. Thus the meaning here would be care i iluzionau fcndu-i s se simt filosofi. It seems that all the syntactic
118

patterns of the original are distorted in the target text. care i mbtau was put as which made them feel. It is a semantic nonequivalence since the two structures dont have the same meaning but the English variant was prefered taking into account the meaning of the co-text. The original phrase could not be rendered in Romanian by a word for word correspondent, that is why in preserving the semantic content of the original dndu-le mndrii in the original was translated by a comparative of equality of the adjective proud. This adjective collocates better with the verbal phrase to make somebody feel and it replaced a plural noun mndrii in the Romanian version. As for the last part of this fragment we should discuss other case of grammatical non-equivalence, since the noun phrase de filosofi was translated into the target language by a clause of result as if they were philosophers. I had to try hard to render at least part of the semantic content of this instance of text. Thus I preferred to distort the syntax but to preserve the meaning. Problemele erau formulate n chipul ntrebrilor was translated as the topics were put in question form which seems to be quite an appropriate translation since it keeps both the syntactic and grammatical pattern of the original but it also renders the semantic and pragmatic dimensions of the source text.
119

The Romanian aa cum le ntlneau prin brouri was translated by as they had found them in leaflets. It is a case of grammatical non-equivalence since the Romanian imperfect was translated by past perfect in English. In fact it is a good choice since behind the Romanian imperfect we can trace the Romanian mai mult ca perfect i.e. aa cum le ntlniser prin brouri which will explain my choice. Then the noun brouri was translated as leaflets since they refer to small pieces of printed papers giving information and advertising (Longman Dictionary). Another variant for brouri would be booklets but since it means a very short book that usually contains information (Macmillan Dictionary) and is not so common in usage, the first variant was preferred. Unul pusese odat problema was rendered as one of them had once raised the question/the problem. It is an instance of text where I have encountered a case of idiomatic equivalence. The Romanian idiom a pune problema can be translated as: to moot a question; to take up a question; to set a question; to pose/to raise a problem. As we can see the English language offers a wide range of possible equivalents and my task of rendering the form, the meaning and the grammatical pattern of the text was even more difficult. Taking into account that the semantic scope of the English idiom that I
120

have chosen seems to be the largest, and that even the original refers to a controversy regarding the status of women in that age, and not merely to a simple question what is a women? then my first choice would be appropriate in this context. The other possible equivalents are not so common in English, thus my final choice was to raise the problem for the Romanian a pune problema. The Romanian i toi se strduir s dea soluiile cele mai extravagante was rendered into the target language as and everybody tried to come up with the most extravagant solutions. It is a case of semantic equivalence since both the semantic and grammatical level were preserved in the target language. The verb a se strdui was translated as to try since strive wouldnt have been an appropriate equivalent here in terms of co-text i.e. to make a great effort to achieve something. It is too formal for this context. Besides the other verb to try collocates better with the phrasal verb to come up with a solution which renders very well the meaning of the original. Moreover the Romanian s dea soluii could not be rendered by one-word equivalent in English and consequently the idiomatic phrase was preferred. It also seemed more appropriate both in terms of register and meaning. nimeni nu fcu nici cea mai mic glum indecent i
121

nici mcar vreo aluzie la problema sexualitii was rendered into the target language but none of them made the least indecent joke or even a slightest remark to sexuality. This last sentence of the fragment could be interpreted in terms of both grammatical and semantic non-equivalence. The English variant introduces the conjunction but which the Romanian counterpart lacks. In point of meaning it is carried in Romanian by the use of the comma, but using this punctuation mark in English would make the translation sound a bit unnatural. But was introduced for the sake of clarity and cohesion. Then the negative pronoun nimeni was rendered by none of them i.e. (nici unul dintre noi), instead of nobody or no one. The last two possible equivalents were left out since they have a general meaning not even one of them whereas the first variant none of them points indirectly to each of the person involved in the fervent discussion from the hostel room. It emphasizes in a way each individual who took part in those discussions. In the last part of the same sentence the negative in the original was replaced by the affirmative in the target language since English does not accept double negation and it usually makes use of adjectives charged with negative meaning: least, slightest in this context. Thus nici cea mai mic glum indecent was put as the least indecent joke where the
122

adjective in the superlative form was used with the meaning of the smallest in number, amount or importance. It carries the negative meaning of the original as well as the slightest in the other context. nici mcar vreo aluzie la problema sexualitii or even the slightest remark to sexuality. The superlative was used here with the meaning of not even a single remark; not serious or not important remark. It was preferred in terms of collocability with the noun remark. For the noun aluzie I had in mind other two variants: allusion, hint but they were considered inappropriate since they dont match the pragmatic and semantic context. Remark was also preferred in terms of register and adequacy. And finally the Romanian noun phrase problema sexualitii was rendered by a single noun in target language sexuality preceded by the preposition to which is specific and sounds natural in English. Erau unii care puneau Some of them would get hold mna pe reviste i-i scoteau of different leaflets and they din ele teme necunoscute took unknown topics from there, celorlali, pe care le dezlegau which they solved using clues cu soluii tot din revist, spre from the same papers, to their ciuda colegilor de disput, collegues spite who would like care voiau s tie de unde to know where those solutions/
123

furaser ideile. ntr-o noapte ideas had been taken from. One discutar despre Dumnezeu. night they discussed about God. Afar ploua cu gleata i tuna, Outside it was raining heavily i unii din biei mai fricoi i and the thunder could be heard mai puin pe dialecticieni, so some of boys, frightened and sub ptur, and even they were saying crossing themselves tremurau de fric i chiar se less dialecticians were trembling nchinau ncredinai c o astfel de prayers/ pe aa vreme.

discuie poate fi primejdioas without being seen, convinced that such a discussion might be perilous on a stormy night/ weather. The last fragment to be analyzed offers new instances of translation procedures. The Romanian erau unii care puneau mna pe reviste was translated by some of them would get hold of different leaflets. The apparent semantic gain in the target language different leaflets is accounted for by the co-text, suggesting that, even if absent in the surface structure of the source text, the emphasis laid on the amount of leaflets used by the students exists in the deep structure, and consequently should be made explicit in the target text. Thus it can be considered a case of non-equivalence. The noun leaflets was preferred
124

instead of magazines or reviews since it has an academic reference which would make this word an appropriate equivalent here. Papers would have been another possible equivalent used under its plural form since its meaning could be related to pieces of writing containing different information about someones private life or information about a particular subject. But leaflets was chosen in terms of co-text and register. This fragment can be also considered a case of idiomatic non-equivalence given that the primary meaning of the Romanian a pune mna pe is a prinde. But this context refers to a face rost de which has as English counterparts a verb to procure and an idiomatic phrase to get hold of . The last one was preferred in terms of register and adequacy. Besides the verb to procure is too formal for such a context. The original phrase i-i scoteau din ele teme necunoscute celorlali was rendered by and they took unknown topics from there. This example can be considered a case of grammatical non-equivalence. The Romanian reflexiv was replaced by the indicative mood, active voice. i-i scoteau they took. The verb take was chosen in terms of co-text because it refers to the fact that the students got those topics and their solutions from the leaflets and they appropriated them. So the meaning of the Romanian reflexive construction was rendered
125

in the target language by an active verb which was chosen in order to match the register, because such a verb as appropriate is very formal and sounds definitional. The Romanian pronoun celorlali was not rendered by a specific English pronoun since its meaning is carried by the adjective unknown and by the context itself. Pe care le dezlegau cu soluii tot din revist was put into target language as which they solved using clues from the same papers. It is a case of non-equivalence since as far as the choice of the tense is concerned Past Tense Simple was used instead of the Romanian imperfect. Secondly a Romanian idiom a dezlega cu soluii was rendered by a single verb in English, because target language lacks such an idiom and the chosen verb to solve matches both the semantic and pragmatic dimensions of the text. Instead it was introduced the noun clues which refers to an object or piece of information that helps someone solve something. It also collocates better with the English verb. The noun revist was replaced by a plural English noun papers. Leaflets could not be used here since it appears twice in the same text. Papers was preferred in order to avoid repetition and because in terms of co-text it does not refer to a single leaflet. Thus the plural in English was preferred instead of the singular in the original.
126

The Romanian spre ciuda colegilor de disput was translated as to their colleagues spite. It is a case on nonequivalence: spite (rutate, ciud, pic) was chosen instead of other variants suggested as: malice which is the desire or intention to deliberately harm someone (Longman), but which doesnt match the semantics of the text, or envy which refers to the feeling of wanting something that someone else has which again not even by far represents an appropriate equivalent here. Care voiau s tie de unde furaser ideile was rendered into the target language as who would like to know where those ideas/solutions had been taken from. It is a case of grammatical non-equivalence since a passive construction replaces an active structure in the original. This is a common shift in translating from Romanian into English since the target language is more accustomed with passive constructions. The modal would was used here in order to express the idea of request even necessity in the subordinate clause. The line Afar ploua cu gleata i tuna was translated from the original by outside it was raining heavily and the thunder could be heard. It is again a case of non-equivalence since the impersonal verb both in Romanian a tuna and in English to thunder was replaced by a modal construction.
127

Could was introduced here with its value of physical ability and perfectly expresses together with the verb to hear the idea of the source text. As far as the idiom a ploua cu gleata is concerned the variants were numerous: to be pouring ; to be raining cats and dogs; to rain hard/fast; to fall in torrents. Out of this long line of synonyms to rain heavily was preferred since it matches the register and the semantics of the text. Some of the suggested variants are either too informal or not so common in point of usage. i unii din bieii mai fricoi was put into the target language as so some of the boys. The conective could not be rendered by and because it was already used in the same sentence and because it does not function as a coordinative linker here. Its real meaning in the original is iar unii din biei. I preferred the conjunction so for the final variant because it is used to give the reason why something happens, why someone does something. The Romanian tremurau de fric i chiar se nchinau pe sub ptur was rendered into English as were trembling and even they were saying prayers without being seen. At a first reading the English version would be considered a distortion of the original in point of meaning. We can speak here about a case of semantic non-equivalence. Se nchinau pe sub ptur
128

was put as they were saying prayers without being seen. It seems to be a semantic gain in target language since English lacks a proper equivalent which should render the figurative meaning of this phrase. The implied meaning of the Romanian idiom is connected with the idea of divine punishment, with the idea of fear. The English variant was chosen in order to preserve the rhetoric equilibrium and considering the pragmatic dimension of the context. The Romanian verb a tremura was translated by the verb to tremble, its meaning being to shake slightly in a way that you cannot control, especially because you are upset or frightened. Since this verb is often associated with human mood it perfectly matches the semantic and pragmatic dimensions of the context. Finally the Romanian instance of text ncredinai c o astfel de discuie poate fi primejdioas pe aa vreme was translated as convinced that such a discussion might be perilous on a stormy weather. The English version makes use again of a modal verb: might which followed by a present infinitive implies the value of predictability in the past. The adjective in the original primejdioas was put as perilous since it refers to very dangerous situation and it has especially literary usage. Another suggested variant would be dangerous but it is too
129

informal and it usually collocates with nouns such as situation; event. The Romanian noun phrase pe aa vreme was translated as on a stormy weather in terms of co-text i.e. Outside there was a storm which frightened the boys. Another possible equivalent was on such a weather, but taking into account that such was used in the same sentence, my final variant stormy weather would be appropriate in this context.

130

Conclusions

Working on G. Clinescus Enigmatic Otilia was a real challenge related not only to translation itself but also to the shift between the two languages and their grammatical, stylistic, semantic patterns. An important problem for the translation arises from the difference that exists between the syntactic systems of the two languages in contact. Clauses in English fall into a small number of patters; however there may be a great variation according to length, recursiveness and embedding. Therefore in translating, as my analysis shows, the translator must know how to handle the text-structure, being aware of the context in general, and on the text-type focus in particular. To conclude, in translating a text, everything depends on the translators knowledge of the type of text, on his linguistic and cultural knowledge, as well as on his capacity of handling the type of meaning in a certain context. Text analysis makes it obvious that the meaning of words are fixed and hold
131

valid by usage and context, and that dictionaries act like anchors in restricting changes of meaning. In analysing the Source text and the Target text, it is very interesting to study the translation losses and gains, the ways such losses are made up for, as well as the nonequivalence situations derived from the semantic and structural differences between the two languages and cultures in contact.

132

Bibliography
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. *** (1975) Dicionarul explicativ al limbii romne, Editura Academiei RSR, Bucureti. *** (1977) American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Dell Publishing Co., Inc., New York. *** (1988) Collins-Cobuild English Language Dictionar, Collins, London and Glasgow. *** (1996) Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, Gramercy Books, New York. *** (1997) Oxford Advanced English Learners Dictionary, Oxford University Press. *** (1998) Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Longman, London. Baker, M. (1992) In Other Words. A coursebook in translation, Routledge, London and New York. Bantas, A; Levitchi, I (1993) Bantas, A; Croitoru, E (1998) Editura Teora, Bucureti Bantas, A; Levitchi, I (1999) Dicionar englez-romn,
133

Dicionar Didactica

frazeologic traducerii,

romn-englez, Editura Teora, Bucureti.

Editura Teora, Bucureti 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Bantas, A; Nedelcu, C (2000) Dicionar romn-englez, Editura Teora, Bucureti Bassnett, Susan (1991) Translation Studies, Routledge, London and New York. Catford, J.C. (1969) A Linguistic Theory of Translation, Oxford University Press, London. Calinescu, G. (1961) Enigma Otiliei, Editura pentru Literatur, Bucureti. Croitoru, E (1996) Interpretation and Translation, PortoFranco, Galai Fawcett, P (1997) Translation and Language: Linguistic Theories Explained, Manchester: ST Jerome Publishing Hatim, B.; Mason, I (1992) Discourse and the Translator, Longman, London and New York. Hewson, L; Martin, J (1991) Redefining Translation. The Variational Approach, Routledge, London and New Yok. 19. 20. House, J (1977) A Model for Translation Quality Assessment, Tubingen: Gunter Narr. Kenny, D (1998) Equivalence in the Routledge Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies, edited by Mona Baker, London and New York, Routledge
134

21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

Jakobson, R (1959) On Translation, Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press. Kohn, I (1993) Virtuile compensatorii ale limbii romne n traducere, Editura Facla, Timioara. Levitchi, I (1994) Manualul traductorului de limba englez, Editura Teora, Bucureti. Nicolescu, A et al. (1967) Dicionar frazeologic englezromn, Editura tiinific, Bucureti. Newmark, P (1988) Approaches to Translation, Prentice Hall International English Language Teaching, Prentice Hall International Ltd, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

26. 27. 28.

Newmark, P (1991) About Translation, Multilingual Matters Ltd., Great Britain. Nida, E; Taber, C.R. (1982) The Theory and Practice of Translation, Leiden: E.J. Brill. Vinay, JP; Darbelnet, J (1995) Comparative Stylistics of French and English: a Methodology for Translation, Amsterdam, Philadelphia.

135

136