下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
Abstract：Translation is a field full of paradoxes.Translatability and untranslatability are one pair of them.The paradox is rooted in the inevitable contradictions and difficulties arising in the process of translating and caused by the differences between languages and cultures.This paper consists of four parts.In the first two parts，the existing discussions on translatability and untranslatability are listed respectively and organized chronologically.Then，the similarities between their arguments are pointed out.In the end，a clear trend of this field is concluded.
Key words：translatability；untranslatability；trend
Long ago，it was generally assumed that the source text and target text were opposite，and the translated text was attached to the source text.Since the last century，many linguists have started to explore this field.
1.Edward Sapir
Sapir was the first to bring the topic of cultural specificity into the realm of translatability in 1949.
In general，the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis，as a mould theory of language，states that language determines the way the speakers perceive and interpret the world，and the real world is，to a large extent，unconsciously built upon the language habits of the group，of which they are members.
2.Eugene Nida
Nida contributes a lot in communication among humankind.However，Nida（1964）doesn’t deny the fact that there exists differences among languages，and no 100 percent equivalence exists.So he thinks there are no 100 percent accurate translation.What we can do is to get close to the original.
3.Jacques Derrida
In 1985，as a deconstructionist，he holds that translation affects the way the original is perceived and is a rewriting of the original through translation.Deconstructionists question the definition of translation as the reproducer，transporter，and communicator of the meaning of the original text，creating the concept of transformation，a process of modifying the original instead of reproducing the original.From this perspective，translation is neither source-oriented nor target-oriented；it is a single mode of it own.
4.Andre Lefevere
As Lefevere said in 1992，“Perhaps the most productive insight generated by this school of translation studies is the conclusion that no perfect translation is possible .”（p.11）.The idea of total translation seems only like a wishful idea，especially when the translated piece contains information or knowledge that is particular to one culture and has rich connotations in cultural content that may not be fully conveyed.
5.Walter Benjamin
Benjamin（1992）thinks that if translation is a mode，translatability must be an essential feature of certain works.To comprehend it as a mode one must go back to the original，for that contains the law governing the translation：its translatability.He insists that translation is no the replica，explanation or imitation of the source text.There are no similarities between the source text and the translated text.The source text and the translated text are like fathers and sons.
6.Venuti Lawrence
Lawrence（2000）discusses that by virtue of its translatability，the original is closely connected with the translation.In fact，this connection is all the closer since it is no longer of importance to the original.We may call this connection a natural one，or，more specifically，a vital connection.
7.Wolfgang Iser
Since no two languages can be similar as to be considered as representative of the same social reality，the world in which societies of different language live is just not the same world with different label or signs.Therefore，in the process of language translation，both linguistic and cultural specificity in the original cannot be fully transferred to the target；100 percent precision in the re-coding from one culture to another is not possible due to differences in social，cultural，linguistic，climatic，or philosophical structures within the source and the target .“Translatability requires construing a discourse that allows for transposing a foreign culture into one's own”，as Iser（2000）argues.
8.Harish Trivedi
Trivedi（2005）gives an example when translating the word“God”to show that absolute translation is not possible.Christian missionaries wanted to spread the ideas of Christianity in cultures they encountered around the world where the beliefs of the people were very different from their own.For Christian missionaries in China，the difficulty started with translating the word“God”.At that time，the Chinese had more than one“God”.First，missionaries chose the Chinese word“Tian”（天）which literally meant“Heaven .”The result was that the Chinese thought the new religion was just another version of their religion.Some missionaries refused to translate the word“God”into a meaning that was related to the word the Chinese use for Heaven“Tian”（天）.Therefore，the Chinese who did not know what or who God was，did not know what the missionaries were talking about.The way Christian missionaries explained God held no meaning for the Chinese because God in the Christian context was unknown to them.When explained with Chinese words chosen by missionaries the word God was translated as Heaven，not to a superior or omnipotent being.So we can conclude that in neither case，the meaning of“God”was not totally translated.
From Plato to Hans-Georg Gadamer，the westerners have a theory system which regards translation as a kind of imitation.They all suppose that the imitation is the reflection of the source text，which means the translated text can never have the same significance of the source text.Many linguists，including Bassnett-McGuire，Catford，Lefevere，Sapir，Steiner and Whorf，have also discussed the difficulties of a full literacy and linguistic translation and believe that total translation is impossible.
With regard to inter-lingual translation，Catford and Popvie categorize two types of untranslatability：linguistic untranslatability and cultural untranslatability.
1.Linguistic Untranslatability
Linguistic untranslatability happens when“failure to find a Target Language equivalent is due entirely to differences between the source language and the target language”（Catford，p.98）.
Catford thinks total translation is dependent on cultural context in both the source and target language.In addition，words，contexts，or ideas may have significant meaning in the source and may not hold the same significance in the target language.
He gives an example of translating the English word“bank”into French.In English，bank has two distinctive meanings the bank or edge of a river，or a place where money is kept.The French equivalent includes banque or rive.Therefore，if someone says，“the bank is good looking”，it is difficult to tell if the word“bank”means a river bank or a bank where money is kept.The word is untranslatable when the ambiguity is itself a functionally relevant feature.
What's more，each Chinese character has a graphic shape and a sound，but one sound can be used for many different-shaped characters，each of which has various meanings.Thus，when translating English to Chinese，untranslatability very frequently occurs.
2.Cultural Untranslatability
（1）.J.C.Catford
Cultural untranslatability is“when a situational feature，functionally relevant for the SL text，is completely absent from the culture of which the TL is a part”，claims Catford（1965，p.99）.For instance，some concepts are non-translatable and Catford uses an example of the term“bath”to illustrate his point.The object of the word and the use of that object are not the same in English，Finnish，or Japanese contexts.In English，bath is normally a solitary activity，while Finnish and Japanese baths are public.In Finnish，“bath”does not involve hot water and washing the body；while hot water and washing the body are integral parts of the bath taking in English and Japanese contexts.Although the term“bath”is widely used，the concept and usage in different contexts do no share commonality.
Cultural untranslatability occurs not only in case of concepts，it can occur when translating names of some institutions，clothes，foods and abstract concepts，amongst others”（Catford，p.99）.For example，“naming”things can differ from culture to culture and language to language depending on the context to be conveyed.In America，the name of a building or an institution is given as a dedication or remembrance of someone，or named after its donor.In China，a name is mostly given to reflect the surrounding scenery or to express feelings.
（2）.Andre Lefevere
As Lefevere explains（1992，p.13），translators can use all the linguistic and hermeneutic techniques they have learned，but finally，their endeavor is the text as part of the culture，not the much vaunted struggle with the word，the sentence，or the line.On the micro level，translation is indeed acculturation.
（3）.Georges Mounin
Mounin argues that total translation is not possible.Translation is always restricted to certain range and level.He takes efforts to gain a thorough understanding of untranslatability（1993，p269）His endeavors are helpful in abandoning the extreme opinions—translation is omnipotent or untranslatable.
In general，according to what he argues，since the linguistic untranslatability depends on the physical attributes of language，it's no easy to translate SL into TL directly.In this case，it calls for the help of annotation.So we can see that compared with linguistic untranslatability，cultural untranslatability is more operational and convertible.In turn，linguistic untranslatability is more difficult to deal with.
（4）.George Steiner
As Steiner（1998）assumes that：“No two historical epochs，no two social classes，no two localities use words and syntax to signify exactly the same meanings，to send identical signals of valuation and inference”.Steiner's 4-step translation method illustrates the process of translation from the perspective of Hermeneutics.In After Babel，Steiner analyzed the arguments about translatability throughout history.The existence of untranslatability，from Steiner's perspective，is due to people's instinct of keeping privacy.
What's more，as Steiner（1998）supposes，there are some texts we cannot translate，but through linguistic transformation，elaboration methods of interpretation and so forth，these can be translatable.SL and TL affect each other，they are in a continuous double movement，and the mainstream direction is from untranslatability to translatability.
（5）.Wolfgang Iser
Based on Iser's 2000 concept of translatability in cultural studies in his book of The Range of Interpretation ，untranslatability means the original meaning of the source is lost in the target after trying to transpose a foreign culture into one's own（p.9）.A different problem appears when there are no longer any definable positions but only experiences of something whose existence appears incontrovertible but that exceeds knowability，such as God，the world，or humankind.Translating something immeasurable into language and even into terms of cognition requires a different mode of translation from those mentioned so far.
（6）.Peter Newmark
Peter Newmark（2003）distinguishes translation as“semantic”and“communicative”translation.Semantic translation is more like finding equivalence in the target source，while communicative translation is a cultural adaptation of the source so the readers in the target culture find it easier to read.He frankly admits the dilemma between semantic and communicative translation and agrees that these two can only be partially congruent.Therefore，translation fails，untranslatability occurs，when functionally relevant features of the original cannot fit into the contextual meaning of the TL text.In general，there is no guarantee that equivalents between the source and the target can always be found and that people would be able to totally understand one another.Peter Newmark supposes that everything，to some extent，has translatability，but at the same time，untranslatability exists.
1.Georges MouninVS.Walter Benjamin
If we say Mounin has laid a solid foundation for the research of“Translatability”，then Benjamin is one who searches for“afterlife”in translation in the efforts to criticize the traditional concept of translation and foster a new one.
2.Jacques Derrida VS.Walter Benjamin
There are similarities in their arguments.They both believe in no possibility of“replicating”source texts.And they both try to seek translatability in an effort to search for“afterlife”and“another fate”.
3.Edward Sapir VS.Benjamin Lee Whorf
Whorf is a student of Sapir，and it is Whorf who further complements his thought.The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was named after them.
4.Wolfgang Iser VS.George Steiner
On the issues of understanding and the translation，Steiner's opinions on translation and hermeneutics concur with Iser.s.
5.Consensus achieved
A consensus has been reached among the scholars.They all think translatability and untranslatability is a pair of contradiction，which embodies the general and individual characteristics of different languages.
The basic opinions about translatability and untranslatability are：Translation is feasible，but there is a limit.The existence of untranslatability，according to these scholars，doesn’t mean there is no possibility of translation.Furthermore，they believe translatability and untranslatability are relative concepts，and there is no absolute translatability and untranslatability.The matter of translatability and untranslatability is in fact the matter of degree of translatability rather than that of possibility of translating.
Differences among scholars
Translators and translation scholars differ on what the degree of equivalence should be.And they wonder if this concept should be abandoned because“equivalence”has become so vague that it hardly denotes anything anymore or，conversely，that it denotes all things to all people（Lefevere，1992）.
The problem of translatability and untranslatability is a long-debated issue in the translation field.Its history accompanies the development of translation theory and practice.In the early period of its history，the debate focuses on the possibility of translation；and with the development of translation theories，the focus becomes more subjective and shifts to the degree of translatability.The opinions of translation is omnipotent and useless have been abandoned.Now a relative consensus has been reached，which is translation is feasible，but there is a limit.
As people understand and study language and translation constantly，with further research in linguistics and translation studies，they have become less one-sided in stressing the possibility and impossibility of translation，and have shown a more sensible and practical attitude.On one hand，language should be translatable.Language is the carrier of culture as well as the tool of expressing ideas.Cultures and ideas can be understood and exchanged with each other.On the other hand，owing to the regional differences in cultural tradition，language structure and thinking model，sometimes language is not completely translatable，and it is even untranslatable.We cannot deny the existence of untranslatable elements in affirming that language is translatable，and we cannot take a passive attitude towards the elements which are difficult to translate when admitting the limit of translatability.We should realize that both translatability and untranslatability are relative.Neither of them is static，but a transformable dynamic process.With the development of society，the enlarging and deepening of cultural exchanges and translators’efforts，untranslatability can be transformed into translatability.
［1］Andre Lefevere.（1992）.Translating literature：Practice and theory in a comparative literature context.New York：The Modern Language Association of America.
［2］Eugene Nida.（1964）.Toward a science of translating.Leiden，Netherlands：E.J.Brill.
［3］George Steiner.（1975）.After Babel，Aspects of language and translation.3rd ed.Oxford：Oxford University Press.
［4］J.C.Catford.（1965）.A linguistic theory of translation.London：Oxford University Press.
［5］Peter Newmark.Translation today：Trends and perspectives.Clevedon：Multilingual Matters Ltd，2003.
［6］Wolfgang Iser.（2000）.The range of interpretation.Taipei：Institute of European and American Studies.
［7］.Willard van Orman Quine.（1960）.Word and Object.Cambridge Massachusetts：MIT press.
［8］.包惠南.（2001）.文化语境与语言翻译.中国对外翻译出版公司.
［9］.刘宓庆.（2005）.新编当代翻译理论.中国对外翻译出版公司.
作者信息：黄晓艺，中国石油大学（北京）外国语学院翻译硕士，拥有国家人事部二级笔译证和三级口译证。