Good evening everybody. First of all, I would like to thank Dr. Christopher Harris for inviting me to present this seminar on translation that I titled Dynamic Equivalence in Cross-Cultural Transfer. As Chris just mentioned, the purpose of this seminar is to analyse a number of cultural terms and the problems that they pose when they are going to be transferred into Spanish. These materials have been taken from my research M.A. titled The Translation of Culture-Specific Terms in Tourist Information Material, submitted in December 1993 at Dublin City University.

The choice of topic for this research thesis was determined both by its intrinsic importance and also by the need to develop a relatively understudied area within Translation Theory and Practice. To that end, i.e., to examine the aforementioned terminological items, it was essential to locate a literature which would reflect most clearly a country's features and idiosyncracies.

Tourist material is particularly interesting because of its importance in the area of international marketing. Furthermore, the profusion of cultural terminology in this type of literature and the fact that on most occasions tourist information brochures are very poorly translated influenced the decision to choose this type of text as a linguistic corpus.

At first sight, translation may simply appear to be the rendering of a source language text (SLT) into a target language text (TLT). However, socio-cultural parameters have to be considered in what has been defined by Richards as "probably the most complex type of event yet produced in the evolution of the cosmos" (Richards 1953:250).

One explanation for this complex type of event can be based on Vermeer's statement when he claims that "there are too many gaps in our knowledge about the functioning of cultures and languages" (Vermeer 1987:25). He claims that translation is more of an intuitive process than an empirical one, since there are no scientific rules to assess the correctness of a given translation. In other words, there are no precise facts which can be used to assess whether a translation is perfect or not. This situation led him to assert that "there is no science of translating, but a science of translation" (Vermeer 1987:25).

Translation belongs to the broader field of comparative linguistics. The Eastern European theorist Palma Zlateva has defined translation as: "a peculiar type of interlingual communication, involving representatives of two linguistically different cultures", or as Hatim and Mason state "all texts are seen as evidence of a communicative transaction taking place within a social framework", "translating (is therefore seen) as a communicative process which takes place in a social context". Sociolinguistics plays an important part in translation. This is because the different aspects and behaviours related to each of the cultures involved in the process have to be analysed. According to Rabadán, the parameters that take place in the process of translation are as follows (Rabadán 1991:50):

Pragmatic features inherent to any prototext are difficult to retain in any metatext and cultural aspects should on no account be underestimated when a proper transfer is to be attempted.

The first point to consider when attempting a translation of a given text or linguistic corpus is whether to adopt, according to Eugene Nida's (1964) terminology, the principle of formal equivalence, i.e., the closest possible match of form and content between ST and TT, or the principle of dynamic equivalence, i.e., a principle of equivalence of effect on readers of the TT. Newmark (1981:89) identifies formal equivalence as "semantic translation" and dynamic equivalence as "communicative translation". In the case of producing a translation which is ruled by the principle of dynamic equivalence, the aim would be

The approach adopted for the research, which is the normal strategy nowadays, is related to Vermeer's Skopostheorie (from Greek Skopos - target), closely connected with what Hatim and Mason call a "reader-centred translating" (Hatim and Mason 1990:16). In the first place, translation is seen as a cultural process rather than a merely linguistic one. Consequently, translation is seen as an act of communication, and not simply as an act of transcoding a SLT into a TLT. The orientation lies in the function of the TLT and on that of the SLT. Vermeer's Skopostheorie considers translation as a crosscultural transfer.

The notion of the intention between the author of the SLT and the effect of the translated version on the TLC has been expressed by Shveitser, Retsker and by Candell and Hulin.

In this approach, the text is adapted to meet specified needs in the target culture, therefore adopting the principle of dynamic equivalence. Let me give you a very representative example which appears in Discourse and the Translator by Hatim and Mason taken from the Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20, 1-16):

Text 1

Text 2

Text 3

In Text 1 (the Authorised Version of 1611), the translators simply offer a functional equivalent, and in Text 2 (the Revised Standard Version 1954) we can find the precise term that appears in the SLT, representing the view of a text-centred translation. However, in Text 3 (the New English Bible 1961), a reader-centred approach has been taken into consideration.

A recurrent debate in Translation Theory and Practice for centuries has been that of 'translatability' versus 'untranslatability' . The question arising is whether nil equivalence terms or terminological items with a difficulty of cultural appreciation can be transferred or not. Whereas these terms present the problem of a 'theoretical untranslatability', on the practical side, a rendering can always be provided.

The problem of translatability and untranslatability is encountered in many instances. On the one hand there is the necessity to provide a translation whereas on the other hand there is 'theoretical impossibility' of translating some terms. As an illustration on this ongoing debate, the following two quotations provide ample evidence.

The second interpretation by García López, which has won the support of most theorists, is the most convincing one. As Brislin stated:

As Shveitser claims in Equivalence and Adequacy:

Eugene Nida claimed in 1981 that "some assistance must be provided for objects that do not occur in the receptor language". In an attempt to develop some sort of theory to deal with the translation of cultural terminological items, Peter Newmark in 1988's A Textbook of Translation tried to develop some procedures for the translation of culture-specific terms. He distinguishes between the following procedures: (TRANSPARENCY).

In order to provide a clearer view of these procedures let me provide you with a representative example taken from a brochure published by the Northern Ireland tourist Board:

It is clear that the rendering of nil equivalence terms proves to be intricate since these terminological items lack referents in the TL equivalent to those of the SL. This limitation in TL lexis deserves special consideration:

For instance, analysing the term 'bannock' (see Table 1), it can be argued that the conceptualization of the term involved exists in Spanish, since a 'type of bread' is being dealt with. The specific features of that particular 'bread' would certainly vary from culture to culture but the cognitive concept of 'bread' remains the same in intercultural communication.

On the other hand, it would be the realia or "language-specific lexemes which reflect life and manners of the communicative community" (Neubert in MacMathúna and Singleton 1983:24) that the TL lacks. In the case of the term 'bannock' mentioned above, it would be the distinctive semes that differ in the SL and the TL cultures and that create the impossibility of a perfect lexicalization in the TL. However, terms that pose this problem can be examined and the use of componential analysis (C.A.) proves of great help when trying to get as close as possible to the SL item as will be shown below.

Whenever cultural terminology is analysed, both monolingual and bilingual dictionaries are used. However, as indicated in "Problems of Intercultural Translation" (Lomholt 1991:28-35), the unreliability of dictionaries is a major problem when dealing with the translation of culture-specific terms.

As the different examples in the data analysis have revealed, dictionaries pose many more problems than it might seem. In order to consider these problems in a systematic way, two main categories can be established:

- Monolingual dictionaries

- Bilingual dictionaries

For the translator, monolingual dictionaries can be a useful aid in the search for information about culture-specific terms. However, the highly specific nature of cultural terminology and the need for lexicographers to provide concise information means that monolingual dictionaries are inevitably marred by a number of inadequacies and generalisations.

The problem of incomplete definitions occurs because lexicographers are obliged to omit certain distinctive semes of a given lexeme, even though these are of great importance for the translator of nil equivalence terms. A representative example of this incompleteness can be found in this research with the term 'bannock', previously mentioned. In this case, information about usage in Scotland and North of England can be found, but no information on Irish usage is provided (Simpson and Weiner 1989, Vol.I:937). Obviously, if certain semes do not appear in the dictionary and the translator does not base his/her information on that provided by the experts in the subject field and SL interviewees, the rendering is very likely to be poor or incomplete.

A second problem that has emerged out of this research is that there are often differences between the definitions provided by monolingual dictionaries and the definitions appearing in the contexts where the terminological item appears. It is logical to think that the definition provided in the context should be more accurate than the one appearing in the dictionary. Such a belief is based on the assumption that the writer of the tourist information brochures where the item is included must necessarily be a native speaker of the SL culture, and also, if not an expert in the subject field, at least a person with good knowledge of his/her own culture.

A representative example of this aspect can be found in the term 'champ'. Although the basic ingredients for this dish are mentioned both in the dictionary (Hanks 1988:263) and in the contextual example where the terminological item appears, there is no direct match between the two. The reason for this difference could probably be attributed to the variety of local or regional customs and usage.

A third and final problem encountered is that of definitions in monolingual dictionaries which differ from the views expressed by experts in the subject field. A representative example is the term 'Irish stew'. Different experts in the subject field strongly emphasized the fact that 'Irish stew' should never be made of beef as the dictionary states (Hanks 1988:804).

The problem of unfindable terms is probably the one that the translator of culture-specific terms has to face most often when using a bilingual dictionary. As previously mentioned, the specificity of these items means that their inclusion in a bilingual dictionary is at best unlikely and at worst impossible. For instance, terms such as 'bannock' or 'barmbrack' (see Table 2) simply do not appear in the Collins Spanish-English / English-Spanish dictionary.

Another problem encountered in bilingual dictionaries is that of incorrect renderings. In order to solve this problem effectively, a good knowledge of the SL culture is an essential prerequisite for the translator, since a lack of appropriate understanding might lead the translator to accept the given entry. For example, the first rendering provided for the term 'farm house' is "cortijo" (Smith 1990:204). However, this TL term fails to convey the cultural aspects associated with the term 'farm house' as it is used and understood in Ireland, from the very fact that a 'farm house' is a type of establishment which offers accommodation.

Having identified the major problems related to the use of both monolingual and bilingual dictionaries, it is important to state that one potential solution does exist. In short, the solution would be to develop glossaries or databases where cultural terms are arranged either in alphabetical order or under topic headings. This is clearly an enormous task which would require not only the effort of qualified translators specialised in specific areas, but also the help and support of Tourist Information Offices located in the countries involved.

As mentioned before, it is of the utmost importance to consult experts in the subject field and SL native speakers when trying to translate nil equivalence terms. As shown above, should these aspects be forgotten, the renderings that any translator could offer would certainly be affected either by incorrectness or incompleteness.

Componential Analysis (C.A.) has proved to be an extremely useful tool when dealing with the translation of culture-specific terms, especially in those cases of terminological items with nil equivalence. Whenever a translator is faced with the problem of nil equivalence, he/she must inevitably find a way of overcoming this difficulty and provide a TL rendering. Even though some of the connotations of the SL term might be lost in the transfer, the closest counterpart must be found.

Following Pottier's model (Pottier 1964) and by analysing the closest lexemes in the TL, and by assigning a positive (+) or a negative (-) value to the distinctive features or semes, it was shown that the translator can provide a rendering in the TL. The examples of 'bannock', 'barmbrack' or 'treacle farl' (see Tables 1. 2. & 3) corroborate that, although some aspects of the SL item are lost, it is possible to provide an acceptable rendering. The referent for a 'bannock' would certainly be non-existent in many TL cultures. Hence, the translator, using componential analysis, has to perceive what the object is in detail, so it can be conveyed faithfully to the TL readership.

In order to carry out a correct C.A., the translator must study carefully the distinctive semes that the lexeme to be analysed possesses. It might seem obvious to think that the best source of information for obtaining such features would be a good dictionary. However, in the translation of cultural terminology this is not always the case. In fact, the most appropriate way to initiate such an analysis is to consult experts in the subject field. Once this first step has been taken, native SL speakers must also be consulted. Finally, the third step to be taken is to consider information provided by both monolingual and bilingual dictionaries.

The process outlined above is the one that was adopted for this study. During a series of interviews carried out with both experts in the subject field and native SL speakers, this author received information that would otherwise have been impossible to find in any dictionary, be it monolingual or bilingual. Once all this necessary information had been gathered, monolingual and bilingual dictionaries were consulted and the distinctive semes were then established in order to carry out a C.A.

Having clearly identified the distinctive semes, the C.A. itself can be divided into a number of further steps which ultimately enable the translator to identify the most suitable TL lexeme to be offered in the translation. Firstly, the translator must choose the closest possible lexemes in the TL so they can be analysed in the C.A. Secondly, the translator must assign a positive value (+) to those semes of the TL lexeme that correspond to the distinctive features of the SL lexeme. At the same time, the translator must also assign a negative value (-) to those semes which do not correspond to the distinctive features of the SL lexeme.

One important point that requires further clarification is that the positive value (+) is assigned on the basis of possibility rather than certainty. For instance, a 'bannock' is usually made from oatmeal and barley whereas Spanish bread, or 'pan', is not and the latter term can therefore be assigned a positive value (+) on the basis of possibility. The only task then remaining for the translator is to identify the TL lexeme which has at least the same primary distinctive features as the SL lexeme.

After carrying out a componential analysis and studying the distinctive semes that a lexeme possesses, the translator is then in a position to apply the translation procedure that best suits the particular context given. This research has shown that the most effective solutions in cases of nil equivalence terms could be the use of either a functional equivalent, a descriptive equivalent or a translation couplet. Of course, some loss of information is always inevitable in such cases, because by using any of these procedures the reader would not perceive the special patterns, i.e. the distinctive semes, of the lexeme. This inevitable loss of specific features of the original SL terminological item in the process of translation would result in what has been defined as "restricted or conditioned translatability" (Neubert in MacMathúna and Singleton 1983:23).

An analysis on the C.A. tables included show that underneath the SL term, different possible equivalent terms in Spanish are analysed. These were chosen considering the closest semantic fields in Spanish for the SL items. In the columns, the different distinctive semes of the SL term appear. These semes were arranged in terms of importance, from the more generic appearing on the left to the more specific appearing on the right end.

In the case of the term 'bannock' it can be observed that from all the closest possible items in Spanish it is the term 'pan' the one that covers all the distinctive semes of the SL item. The analysed terms 'roscón', 'bizcocho' or 'torta' share some of the distinctive semes of 'bannock', but the fact that they do not share the first and most generic one, the fact that a 'bannock' is a type of 'bread' excludes them from a correct rendering. It should also be mentioned that the seme 'bread' and its consequent rendering into 'pan' would result into a highly unspecific transfer, since 'pan' is the most generic feature of the lexeme. Therefore, a more specific characteristic of 'bannock' should be included in the translation. The semes 'round' and 'flat' could be excluded since these features are common to the generic concept of 'bread'. However, the inclusion of the feature 'made of oatmeal' or 'made of barley' would greatly narrow the semantic perception of the item in question. A potential rendition for 'bannock' using a translation couplet could therefore be 'pan de avena ('bannock')'.

In the case of the term 'barmbrack' a similar phenomenon occurs. Items closely associated in terms of meaning in Spanish were chosen but the most generic and decisive seme is only represented by the Spanish term 'bollo'. A 'bollo' in Spain is not necessarily always filled with fruit, whereas a 'barmbrack' is. Therefore the inclusion of this distinctive seme would result in a more complete understanding of the SL terminological item. A potential solution for 'barmbrack' using a translation couplet could therefore be 'bollos rellenos de fruta ('barmbracks')'.

In the case of 'treacle farl' the componential analysis is applied similarly. Being a 'treacle farl' a type of bread, the lexeme 'pan' in Spanish would be the one that most faithfully corresponds to the SL item. However, the rendering should be complemented with one of the distinctive semes, a potential solution being 'pan de melaza ('treacle farl')'.

As shown above, nil equivalence terms should and in fact can be translated. However, translation has to be considered in relative terms.

In short, what the translator has to achieve is a version which is the closest natural equivalent. As mentioned previously, Vermeer's Skopostheorie set the framework for this research. The act of translation goes far beyond a merely linguistic transcoding, it is in fact an act of interlingual communication, and as such the principle of dynamic equivalence has to be applied. Translation must be thoroughly analysed from the point of view of function, both in the original SLT and in the TLT, if a communicative approach and the principle of dynamic equivalence are to be retained. The translator should get as close as possible to the SLT, always being aware of the difficulties involved. This is an idea which has been expressed in unequivocal terms

In summary, and very especially when dealing with nil equivalence terms, it is always essential for the translator to be aware that "la traducción no es la obra, sino un camino hacia la obra" (Ortega y Gasset 1977:64).