Lost in Translation? – Challenging traditional beliefs

(1) understanding myths about Translation.

•Introduction

➤According to Walter Benjamin,

    Walter Benjamin, in his essay “The Task of the Translator,” challenges several common myths about translation. He rejects the idea that translation is a mere reproduction of the original text or that its sole purpose is to serve the reader. 

    According to Benjamin, translation is not secondary or inferior to the original; rather, it gives the original text an “afterlife” by allowing it to exist in new languages and cultures. He also questions the myth of perfect equivalence, arguing that languages do not mirror each other exactly. For Benjamin, translation is a creative and philosophical act that reveals the deeper relationship between languages instead of simply transferring meaning word for word.

Myths about Translation

1. Myth: Translation is just changing words from one language to another

   One common myth is that translation is simply replacing words of the source language with words of the target language. This view treats translation as a mechanical activity.

   In reality, translation involves understanding meaning, context, tone, and culture. Languages do not match word-for-word, so simple substitution often fails.

#Example:

English: “Break the ice”

Word-for-word translation gives no meaning.

Correct translation: “Baat-cheet shuru karna”

This shows that translation is about sense, not words.

2. Myth: A good translation is always literal

   Many believe that the more literal a translation is, the better it becomes. Literal translation is often seen as a sign of faithfulness.

   However, strict literalism can distort meaning and make the text unnatural. A good translation balances accuracy and readability.

#Example:

English: “He passed away.”

Literal translation may confuse readers.

Meaning-based translation: “Uski mrityu ho gayi.”

Thus, literal translation is not always good translation.

3. Myth: Translators are neutral and invisible

   There is a belief that translators do not influence the text and should remain invisible. This assumes that translation is an objective activity.

   In reality, translators make choices about words, tone, and cultural adaptation. These choices reflect their background, ideology, and purpose.

#Example:

A translator translating a text on women may choose stronger or softer terms depending on their perspective.

Hence, translators are active interpreters, not neutral machines.

4. Myth: Translation is less important than the original text

   Translation is often seen as inferior or secondary, while the original text is considered superior and creative.

   In fact, many texts become influential only through translation. Translation allows texts to travel across time, languages, and cultures.

#Example:

Indian epics, Shakespeare, and the Bible are known globally mainly through translations.

Therefore, translation plays a crucial cultural role and is not inferior.

5. Myth: Translation can achieve perfect equivalence

   This myth assumes that every word, phrase, or idea in one language has an exact equivalent in another language.

   In reality, perfect equivalence is impossible because languages differ in structure, culture, and worldview. Translators aim for approximate or functional equivalence.

#Example:

English word “privacy” has no exact equivalent in many Indian languages.

Translation is thus a process of negotiation, not exact matching.

6. Myth: Translation is a one-time, fixed process

   Some believe that once a text is translated, the job is complete forever.

   In reality, translation is ongoing and historical. Texts are retranslated to suit new audiences, times, and ideologies.

#Example:

There are many English translations of the Ramayana, each reflecting its time and culture.

Translation is therefore a continuous process, not a one-time act.

7. Myth: Translation should make the text completely familiar

   This myth suggests that a translation should remove all foreign elements and make the text feel entirely local to the target culture.

  While familiarity helps understanding, over-domestication can erase the original culture. Good translation often maintains a balance between familiarity and foreignness.

#Example:

Retaining words like “karma”, “yoga”, or “sari” in English translations preserves cultural identity.

Thus, translation should mediate, not completely erase difference.

•Conclusion

    These myths oversimplify translation and ignore its complexity. Translation is not mechanical, neutral, or secondary. It is a creative, interpretative, and culturally significant practice that evolves over time.

• My Test Paper:

(2) Concept of equivalence and the question of Translatability 

•Introduction

   The concepts of equivalence and translatability lie at the heart of translation studies. While equivalence deals with how meaning is carried from one language to another, translatability questions whether everything can be translated at all. Modern theorists have shown that translation is neither a perfect transfer nor an impossible task, but a negotiated process shaped by language and culture.

•Meaning of Equivalence

   Equivalence refers to the relationship between the source text (ST) and the target text (TT). A translation is considered equivalent when it conveys the same meaning, function, or effect, even if the words and structure differ.

Equivalence does not mean sameness. Instead, it means approximate correspondence based on context, purpose, and audience.

Example:

English: “How are you?”

Hindi: “Aap kaise hain?”

The words differ, but the communicative function remains equivalent.

•Types of Equivalence

Scholars have identified different types of equivalence:

1.Formal equivalence: Focuses on preserving form, grammar, and structure

2.Dynamic / functional equivalence (Eugene Nida): Focuses on producing a similar response in the reader

3.Semantic equivalence: Emphasizes meaning

4.Communicative equivalence: Emphasizes effect and readability

Example:

English idiom: “It’s raining cats and dogs.”

Formal equivalence fails, but functional equivalence translates it as “Bahut tez baarish ho rahi hai.”

•Cultural and Linguistic Challenges in Translation

   Languages are deeply shaped by culture, history, and social practices. Many words, expressions, and emotions do not have exact equivalents.

Challenges arise due to:

-Culture-specific terms

-Idioms and proverbs

-Religious and philosophical concepts

-Social customs

Example:

Words like “dharma”, “karma”, or “izzat” cannot be fully translated into English with a single word. Translators must explain or approximate meaning.

This shows the limits of equivalence.

•Scope of Untranslatability

   Untranslatability does not mean that translation is impossible. It means that certain elements resist full transfer. 

The scope of untranslatability is seen especially in:

-Poetry (sound, rhythm, rhyme)

-Wordplay and puns

-Cultural symbolism

Example:

A pun based on sound in one language often loses effect in another language. The meaning may be translated, but the wordplay is lost.

Thus, untranslatability is partial, not absolute.

•Roman Jakobson’s View on Translatability

  Roman Jakobson discusses translatability in his essay “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.” He identifies three kinds of translation:

1.Interlingua

2.Interlingual

3.Intersemiotic

   Jakobson argues that there is no absolute untranslatability. When direct equivalence is not possible, translators use explanation, paraphrase, or reformulation.

His famous idea is:

“Languages differ essentially in what they must convey and not in what they may convey.”

Example:

Grammatical gender may differ between languages, but meaning can still be communicated through other means.

•Jacques Derrida and the Question of Translatability

   Jacques Derrida takes a more philosophical approach. He argues that meaning is never fixed, even in the original text. Because meaning is unstable, translation can never be complete or final.

For Derrida:

-Translation is both necessary and impossible

-Meaning is always deferred 

-Every translation is an interpretation

Example:

A philosophical text may generate multiple translations, each revealing a different layer of meaning.

Thus, translatability is always open-ended.

•Georges Mounin’s Optimistic View

   Georges Mounin offers an optimistic and practical view of translatability. He rejects the idea that cultural or linguistic differences make translation impossible.

According to Mounin:

-Human experience is largely shared

-Cultural gaps can be bridged through explanation

-Translation is difficult but always possible

Example:

Even culture-specific words can be translated through footnotes, glossaries, or descriptive phrases.

Mounin believes that untranslatability is often exaggerated.

Example Combining Equivalence and Translatability

English proverb: “The early bird catches the worm.”

Literal translation fails.

Functional translation replaces it with a proverb expressing similar meaning in another culture.

This shows that:

-Perfect equivalence is impossible

-Translatability is achieved through adaptation

•Conclusion

   The concept of equivalence helps translators aim for similarity of meaning or effect, while the question of translatability reminds us of the limits imposed by language and culture. Theories from Jakobson, Derrida, and Mounin show that translation is neither perfectly equivalent nor completely impossible. It is a dynamic, interpretative process, where equivalence is approximate and translatability is always partial but achievable.

(3) Human Translators versus Machine Translation: Future balance

•Introduction

   With rapid advances in technology, translation has entered a new phase where machine translation (MT) exists alongside human translation (HT). Tools like Google Translate and AI-based systems have changed how translation is produced and consumed. This has raised an important question: Will machines replace human translators, or will a balance emerge in the future?

•Human Translation: Meaning and Features

Human translation is performed by trained translators who understand language, culture, emotion, and context. Human translators do not merely replace words; they interpret meaning and intention.

Human translation is especially strong in:

-Literary texts

-Poetry and drama

-Cultural and religious texts

-Legal and diplomatic documents

Example:

A human translator can understand irony, sarcasm, or emotional tone in a poem, which machines often fail to grasp.

•Machine Translation: Meaning and Features

  Machine translation uses software and algorithms to translate text automatically. Modern MT uses artificial intelligence and neural networks, making it faster and more accurate than earlier systems.

Machine translation is effective in:

-Technical manuals

-Everyday communication

-Travel and basic information

-Large-volume content

Example:

A sentence like “The meeting is postponed to tomorrow” is accurately translated by machines in seconds.

•Strengths of Machine Translation

Machine translation offers several advantages:

-Speed and efficiency

-Low cost

-Ability to process large data quickly

-Useful for real-time translation

Because of these benefits, MT has become widely used in the digital age.

•Limitations of Machine Translation

Despite improvement, machine translation has serious limitations. It struggles with:

-Idioms and metaphors

-Cultural references

-Emotional depth

-Contextual meaning

Example:

English idiom “kick the bucket” may be translated literally by machines, losing its actual meaning (“to die”).

This shows that machines process data, not experience.

•Human Translation vs Machine Translation

The key difference lies in interpretation.

-Humans understand why something is said

-Machines process what is said

  Human translators can adapt, explain, and creatively rewrite when needed. Machines cannot fully understand culture, ideology, or historical context.

•Future Balance: Humans and Machines Together

   Most scholars agree that the future lies not in replacement but in collaboration. Machine translation will assist humans rather than replace them.

In the future:

-Machines will handle routine and technical translation

-Humans will focus on creative, sensitive, and critical texts

-Post-editing by humans will refine machine output

-This balance increases efficiency without losing quality.

Example:

  In publishing, a machine may produce a draft translation, which a human translator edits for style, tone, and cultural accuracy.

•Ethical and Cultural Concerns

Relying entirely on machine translation can:

-Reduce cultural sensitivity

-Spread mistranslations

-Promote linguistic dominance

  Human translators play a crucial role in preserving cultural identity and linguistic diversity.

•Conclusion

   Human translation and machine translation serve different purposes. While machines offer speed and convenience, humans provide depth, creativity, and cultural understanding. The future of translation lies in a balanced partnership, where machines support human translators rather than replace them. Translation, at its core, remains a human-centered activity, even in the age of technology.

#citation:

   Information sourced from ChatGPT and general online resources including Google and Wikipedia.