See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/289527925

CULTURAL TRANSLATABILITY AND UNTRANSLATABILITY: A CASE STUDY OF

TRANSLATION OF “ROSTAM AND SOHRAB”

Article · December 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 2,014

1 author:

Abdollah Keshavarzi
Islamic Azad University, Firuzabad Branch
21 PUBLICATIONS   22 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Impact of Cooperative Vocabulary Learning on Iranian EFL Learners’ Translation Performance View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdollah Keshavarzi on 07 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Global Research in Education and
Social Science
6(3): 138-147, 2016
ISSN: 2454-1834
International Knowledge Press
www.ikpress.org

CULTURAL TRANSLATABILITY AND

UNTRANSLATABILITY: A CASE STUDY OF
TRANSLATION OF “ROSTAM AND SOHRAB”

BANAFSHEH MOHAMMADI1 AND ABDOLLAH KESHAVARZI2*

1
Department of English, Marvdasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran.
2
Department of English, Firoozabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran.

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS
This work was carried out in collaboration between both authors. Author AK designed the study, wrote the
protocol and interpreted the data. Author BM anchored the field study, gathered the initial data and performed
preliminary data analysis. Both authors managed the literature searches and produced the initial draft.
Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Received: 13th October 2015

Accepted: 26th November 2015
Published: 8th December 2015 Original Research Article
__________________________________________________________________________________

ABSTRACT

The aim of the present study was to explore cultural untranslatability in the Story of “Rustam and Sohrab” in
Firdowsi’s Shahnameh and its equivalent translation by Helen Zimmern. To this end, the cases containing the
untranslatable cultural elements or elements culturally difficult to translate were identified by comparing the
Story of “Rustam and Sohrab” with its English translation by Zimmern. Besides, strategies used to render
cultural and linguistic elements problematic in translation were identified through using categories proposed by
Vinay and Darbelent (2000) and Newmark (1988). The results showed nouns including common nouns, name of
places, and name of persons accounted for 89.8% of the cultural untranslatable elements while adjectives
included only 10.3% of the cultural untranslatable elements. Personal proper names were the most frequent
category of cultural untranslatable elements followed by common nouns and names of places. The most
common strategies used to render cultural elements were transference and retention through translation and the
second most frequently used strategy was replacement. Other strategies being used less frequently were
naturalization, synonymy, and literal translation.

Keywords: Cultural translatability and untranslatability; Shahnameh; story of Rustam and Sohrab; translation
strategies.

1. INTRODUCTION related to the beliefs, customs, history, literature, and

shared knowledge of the speech community in which
Language and culture are two inseparable phenomena the original text has been created. This shared or
that underline any act of translation. To transfer a common knowledge makes the members of the same
message from the source text into the target text, the speech community capable of communicating and
translator must somehow overcome linguistic and understanding each other. However, in interlingual
cultural barriers. Cultural aspects of translation are communications such as translation, this knowledge
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Corresponding author: Email: abdollaksh123987@yahoo.com;


must be transferred to the target readers to enable
them to understand the messages or the meanings
contained in the target text.
Accordingly, throughout the history, translation has
played an important role in conveying thoughts and
knowledge from one nation to other nations. Apart
from this importance, the act of translating is not
simply changing a message from the source language
into the target one; translation is an act of problem-
solving. Sometimes it is difficult to solve problems
existing in translation, and so the notion of
untranslatability emerges.
According to Newmark [1], there are three types of
text: 1) informative text-type in which the topic or
content is the main focus, 2) the expressive text-type
in which the author and the aesthetic dimension are
important, 3) vocative text-type in which the reader-
response is important. Literary texts and especially
poetry fall under the second category. The features of
poetry make the translation of such texts more
difficult than other texts. When translating a piece of a
poem, the translator may also encounter a number of
problems arising from rhythm, diction, and formalistic
elements. In addition, the translator has to preserve
the exact sense convoyed by the poem while taking
into account linguistic, literary and aesthetic, and
socio-cultural problems. The aesthetic and literary
aspects cover issues such as poetic structure,
metaphorical expressions, and sounds. Socio-cultural
issues occur when the translator faces expressions
containing four major cultural categories: ideas,
ecology, behavior, and products. Such aspects make
some elements of poetry impossible to translate or
untranslatable.
The concepts of translatability and untranslatability
have been widely discussed and scholars have taken
on two different approaches to the notion of
untranslatability: the monadist approach and the
Universalist approach [2]. The first approach was
adopted by Nida, Jakobson, Bausch, Hauge, and Ivir.
They believed that translatability is ensured by the
existence of linguistic universals such as syntactic and
semantic categories shared by all languages. Other
scholars adopted the second approach based on which
the reality is interpreted in different ways by different
linguistic communities and thus the translatability is
jeopardized [2]. This approach is known as the Sapir-
Whorf hypothesis because of the work done by
Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf. According to
Sapir, “the real world is to a large extent
unconsciously built up on the language habits of the
group. […] The worlds in which different societies
live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world
with different labels attached.” [2]. Accordingly, it is
139
Mohammadi and Keshavarzi; JOGRESS, 6(3): 138-147, 2016
argued that each linguistic community has its own
perception of the world, different from those of other
linguistic communities. This shows that the existence
of different worlds is determined by language [2].
The third approach to translatability, which developed
in France in the late 1960s, was the Deconstructionists
approach, which challenges the notion of translation
as a transfer of meaning. Andrew Benjamin, Michel
Foucault, Paul de Man and Jacques Derrida, the
founder of this approach argue that as the translation
of a text involves a rewriting of the original text, the
target texts is not considered as subsidiaries of the
original text but as dependent on translation [2]. Three
important concepts operationalized in this approach
are the translation process, the originality, and the
authorship of a text. The translation process is “a
validation of the text that is being translated”.
Secondly, originality is not a chronological concept.
In other words, it is not about which text was
produced first but it is a qualitative matter as it refers
to the nature of the text which was conceived first.
Finally, the authorship is questioned as the translation
is regarded as a process which constantly modifies the
source text [2]. In the same line, it can be suggested
that translatability/untranslatability is a matter of
degrees as there is no text or element of it that is
absolutely translatable or totally untranslatable.
As such, a study of these untranslatable elements can
provide useful insights on how translators tackle such
elements in the translation process. In the same vein,
the present study tries to explore linguistic and
cultural untranslatability in an English translated
version of Shahnameh by Ferdowsi. The rationale for
choosing Shahnameh is that Ferdowsi is one of the
undisputed giants of the Persian literature. After
Ferdowsi's Shahnameh a number of other works
similar in nature appeared over the centuries within
the cultural sphere of the Persian language. Without
exception, all such works were based in style and
method on Ferdowsi's Shahnameh, but none of them
could quite achieve the same degree of fame and
popularity as Ferdowsi's masterpiece. Therefore,
Ferdowsi has a unique place in Persian history
because of the strides he made in reviving and
regenerating the Persian language and cultural
traditions. In addition, Shahnameh or The Epic of
Kings is one of the definite classics of the world. It
tells hero tales of ancient Persia. The contents and the
poet's style in describing the events take the reader
back to the ancient times and make him/her sense and
feel the events. Another reason for conducting this
study on Shahnameh was that there is little research, if
any, on the translatability or untranslatability of
linguistic and cultural elements in Shahnameh. For
that reason, this study is going to explore linguistic

and cultural untranslatability in the Story of “Rustam
and Sohrab” by Ferdowsi, the well-known poet of
Persian language and its equivalent translation by
Helen Zimmern.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Untranslatability is a property of a text of any
utterance in one language when there is no equivalent
text or utterance in another language [3]. Catford [4]
made a distinction between linguistic untranslatability
and cultural untranslatability. Linguistic
untranslatability originates from the differences in the
source language and the target language. In contrast,
culture untranslatability is due to the absence in the
target language of relevant situational features. Nida
[5] uses the term loss in translation when the
translator is facing terms or concepts in the source
language that do not exist in the target language.
Newmark [6] recognizes such problems as deviation
in translation. Untranslatability is still a controversial
issue. Currently it is believed that translation is a
possible and feasible task, but there are still some
language items that are difficult to translate which
give rise to the problem of untranslatability.
According to Catford [4], “Failure to find a target
language equivalent is due entirely to the differences
between the source language and the target language.
Some example of this type of untranslatability would
be ambiguity, play on words [puns], poligosemy [the
quality or state of having a few meanings, as opposed
to having a single meaning or many meanings] etc.”
Linguistic untranslatability occurs in situations where
the linguistic elements of the original text cannot be
substituted by adequately in structural, linear,
functional, or semantic terms as a consequence of a
lack of denotation or connotation [7]. However,
untranslatability is a matter of degree as some texts
are more translatable than others. As a case in point, a
text with an aesthetic function contains some elements
which make its rendering more difficult in the target
language compared with a text with informative
function which makes the translation process easier.
Cultural untranslatability refers to the translation
difficulties that originate from the gap between the
source culture and the target culture. Catford [4] states
that cultural untranslatability occurs when “A
situational feature, functionally relevant for the source
language text, is completely absent from the culture of
the target language as a part. For example, the names
of some institutions, clothes, foods and abstract
concepts among others” are instances of cultural
untranslatable items (p. 99). Cultural untranslatability
refers to a situation where the relations of expressing
certain cultural terms in the source text does not find
adequate rendering in the target culture. To put it
140
Mohammadi and Keshavarzi; JOGRESS, 6(3): 138-147, 2016
another way, the relation between the creative subject
and its linguistic expression in the original language
does not find functional cultural translation equivalent
in the target language.
According to Cui [3], cultural untranslatability arises
from two sources: untranslatability resulting from
culture gap including material culture, traditional
culture, religious culture, and traditional culture and
untranslatability resulting from culture conflict.
Culture gap occurs when an item in one culture is
nonexistent in the other culture while culture conflict
occurs when connotations of a word or an item in one
culture are quite different from its connotations in
other culture.
According to Catford [4], cultural untranslatability is
less absolute than linguistic untranslatability. Given
the dynamic nature of language and culture, Bassnett
[7] goes beyond this definition and argues that as far
as language is the primary modeling system within a
culture, “cultural untranslatability must be de facto
implied in any process of translation” (p. 41).
A few studies have addressed the notion of
translatability/untranslatability of literary works.
Dehbashi [8] compared the translations of Shahnameh
by Davis [9] in terms of semantic features of Persian
poetry to observe semantic features of Persian poetry
and specifically the story of “Rostam and Sohrab”, to
view if they are kept intact, changed, or lost in the
English translation of Shahnameh. They analyzed the
translations in terms of loss of translation, gain in
translation, and the loss of figurative language. The
results showed that in Davis' translation, %74 of
selected verses were translated correctly (gain), %2 of
Loss in Davis' translation, and in %24 of cases the
translation has been done with the loss of figurative
language.
Mashhady and Noura [10] studied untranslatable
elements in the story of “Rustam & Sohrab “selected
from Shahnameh by Firdowsi and its equivalent
translation by Warner & Warner. The authors also
focused on the relation of untranslatability in the story
of “Rustam & Sohrab” with the semantic translation
of Warner & Warner and the style of Ferdowsi. The
authors concluded that they are untranslatable for two
reasons: the translation method used by Warner &
Warner (semantic) translation, and the highly
qualified style of Ferdowsi. In addition, according to
the authors, there are many other factors influencing
the extent of translatability and untranslatability of a
text.
Jayasimha [11] explored cultural translation through a
cognitive approach and focused on the possibilities of
analyzing complex cultural symbols that have been
found difficult for translation from Telugu to English

by many translators. According to the author, one of
the major challenges faced by translators is the
translation of cultural symbols as every culture has
some peculiarities as well as rigid complexity based
on its geographic, historical, anthropological, and
sociological conditions that are deep-rooted into the
perceptive models of that particular civilization or
language. Aldahesh [12] conducted a study on
untranslatability of the Qur’ān. He demonstrated that
concerning the translation of the Qur’an there are
three types of untranslatability for both Muslim
intellectuals and Qur’ān translators including
linguistic, cultural, and theological untranslatability.
The results of the study also showed that while both
the Muslim intellectuals and translators of the Qur’ān
agree upon the fact that the Qur’ān specific linguistic
and cultural aspects are untranslatable, they prioritize
the ways in which they deal with such aspects.
However, both groups confirm the possibility of
rendering the meanings of the Qur’ān into other
languages and assert the inevitability of this process.
In addition, it is argued that the notion of Qur’ān’s
translatability rather than its untranslatability should
be the main concern of scholars.
Given the significance of Shahnameh as one of the
magnum opus of the Persian literature and the
importance of considering cultural and linguistic
elements in translation, the present study aims to
provide a contrastive analysis of an English rendering
of “Rustam and Sohrab” in Shahnameh translated by
Helen Zimmern to explore cultural and linguistic
translatability and untranslatability. Accordingly, the
present study seeks to answer the following questions:
1. What are cultural untranslatable elements in
English rendering of “Rustam and Sohrab” in
Shahnameh by Helen Zimmern?
2. What strategies were used to translate cultural
untranslatable elements in English rendering of
“Rustam and Sohrab” in Shahnameh by Helen
Zimmern?
3. METHODOLOGY
This section addresses the materials used to collect the
data, the procedure taken to conduct the study, and the
method of data analysis.
Table 1. Type of frequency of cultural untranslatable elements
Cultural Frequency
Common nouns 12
Adjectives 4 10.3
Name of places 3 7.7
Name of persons 20
Total 86
141
Mohammadi and Keshavarzi; JOGRESS, 6(3): 138-147, 2016
3.1 Materials
The materials used in this study to collect the data
were from the Story of “Rustam and Sohrab” in the
Shahnameh by Iran’s national poet, Ferdowsi (c. 940-
1020 CE) and an English rendering of this story in the
Shahnameh by Helen Zimmern.
3.2 Procedure
An English rendering of the Story of “Rustam and
Sohrab” in the Shahnameh by Helen Zimmern was
analyzed to see how much Zimmern has been
successful in her translation in reaching Firdausi’s
points of view. To collect data, the text under analysis
was read carefully and the instances containing the
untranslatable cultural elements or elements difficult
to translate were identified. Therefore, the main
variable manipulated in this study was cultural
untranslatability that was represented by
untranslatable cultural elements or elements difficult
to translate. Lexical items with cultural connotations
such as nouns, noun phrases, adjectives, and adjective
phrases were selected as the unit of analysis. To this
end, untranslatable cultural elements and their
equivalent instances in English were identified and
listed in a table (See Appendix III). Then,
compensation strategies used to render cultural
elements problematic in translation were identified
using categories proposed by Vinay and Darbelent
[13] and Newmark [1] (See Appendix I and II for
compensation strategies and their definitions). Finally,
the collected data were analyzed by SPSS (Version
19) using descriptive statistics including mean,
standard errors of mean, and frequency analysis.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
As it was mentioned, the aim of the present study was
to present a contrastive analysis of an English
rendering of “Rustam and Sohrab” in Shahnameh
translated by Helen Zimmern to explore cultural
translatability and untranslatability. Table 1 shows the
type and frequency of cultural untranslatable elements
in the English rendering of “Rustam and Sohrab” in
Shahnameh by Helen Zimmern:
Valid percent Cumulative percent
30.8 30.8
41.0
48.7
51.3 100.0
100.0

As it is evident, nouns including common nouns,
name of places (proper names), and name of persons
(personal proper names) account for 89.8% (30.8 +
7.7 + 51.3) of the cultural untranslatable elements
while adjectives include only 10.3% of the cultural
untranslatable elements. Thus, nouns are the most
frequently found cultural untranslatable elements in
the English translation of Shahnameh. Of these nouns,
personal proper names include 51.3% of cultural
untranslatable elements as the most frequent category
followed by common nouns (30.8%) and names of
places (7.7%) as the second and third most common
categories. This is shown in Fig. 1.
Some examples of common nouns as cultural
untranslatable items occurring in the English
translation of Shahnameh include di:v (spook) and
mɔ:hre (a brachial fastened on arms as a symbol).
In addition, examples of adjectives with cultural
associations include tæhæmtæn (having an
elephantine body) and pæri:rui: (peri-faced). Names
of places include Turan and Samengan and some
instances of the names of persons are Sam, Rostam,
and Goodarz. Other examples of such nouns are
presented in the Table 2.
Table 3 presents the most frequent strategies used to
render cultural untranslatable items.
As it is shown, the most common strategies used to
render cultural elements are transference and retention
through translation, each being used in 25.6% of the
cases. The second most frequently used strategy is
replacement which has been employed in 20.5% of
the cases. Other strategies, on the other hand, are used
less frequently. These strategies include
naturalization, synonymy, and literal translation, each
occurring in only 5.1% of the cases. Finally,
neutralization, replacement & addition, retention &
replacement, and cultural equivalent were found as
the least frequent strategies, each being employed
only in 2.6% of the cases. These strategies are
illustrated as follows:
One of these strategies used as compensation for
the loss of cultural items was replacement which
refers to replacing one item in the SL with
another item in the SL with exactly the same
meaning. An example is the use of Mazandaran
(a region in the current Iran) instead of its
equivalent name in the ancient Iran, i.e. Turan.
Another strategy used to translate culturally
untranslatable elements is neutralization which
means that SL word is neutralized or generalized,
i.e. this word is explained by some “culture free”
words. For instance, mɔ:hre which means a
brachial fastened on arms as a symbol or used in
142
Mohammadi and Keshavarzi; JOGRESS, 6(3): 138-147, 2016
the past as a tool for protecting someone
especially a child from the evil eyes has been
translated as onyx which is a rather general term.
Some strategies that were used to render culture-
bound elements by Zimmern were not found in
either framework proposed by Vinay and
Darbelent [12] or Newmark [1]. An example of
such strategies is retention through translation
which was employed mainly to translate personal
proper names. In this stance, two processes are
applied: firstly, the original form of the proper
name is retained and secondly, some extra
elements of the proper name are translated into
target language, especially in the cases an epithet
or a title accompanies the proper name under
question. For instance, Rakhsh-e tizpa was
translated as Rakhsh, the swift of foot and Tus-e
Nozar as Tus, the son of Nuder.
Another strategy was replacement and addition
where the original SL item is replaced with
another SL item with some additional elements.
For example, the word tæhæmtæn as an epithet
for Rostam was translated by Zimmern as Rostam
the Pehliva. Finally, retention and replacement is
another strategy not found in other categories. In
this case, the original form of the proper name is
retained but the second element is replaced with
another non-equivalent element. As a case in
point, Sam-e Savar (Sam, the horseback) was
translated by Zimmern as Sam, the son of
Neriman. In fact, the second element of the
proper name, i.e. the epithet has changed. Some
of these strategies have been also proposed by
Leppihalme [14]. Sometimes metaphors have
been translated by replacing it with the referent
name or object. As an example, Ferdousi has
used the words Khorshid (the sun) and Mah (the
moon) as metaphors for Rostam and Sohrab and
Setare (stars) for other kings as in the past it was
thought that the sun and the moon were superior
to stars as they seem bigger and brighter than
stars, so was the case with Rostam and Sohrab
and they were more powerful, more good-
looking, and much taller than other heroes and
kings. To avoid ambiguity, however, Zimmern
has used Rostam and Sohrab for Khorshid and
Mah and Setare for other kings.
Another point relevant to our discussion is
translation of allusions as culture-bound
elements. According to Abrams [15], an allusion
is a short reference, either direct or indirect, to a
person or event or a literary work. Allusions may
originate from different sources, some of which
may include "history, literature, cinema", and
 Mohammadi and Keshavarzi;; JOGRESS, 6(3): 138-147, 2016

"television" [16]] or allusions may arise from their enemies

topical events, music, ic, sculpture, and paintings
[17]] and their intelligibility varies across cultural
and language contexts. However, some allusions
are transcultural. For instance, anyone who is a
little familiar with the Western culture will have
some idea of who Hamlet wass and what his
dilemma was. There are a number of allusions in
the story of Rostam and Sohrab. An example is
ta:jbæxʃ (crown-giver)
giver) as an adjective used to
describe Rostam as a person who used to save
many kings and their crowns and thrones against
nemies so he was referred to as the crown
crown-
giver or crown-saver.
saver. However, Zimmern did not
mention the allusions associated with such
elements and she omitted them as the loss in
translation [8]. Another case is the phrase Akhtar-
e Kavian translated by Zimmern rn as the flag of
Kawah,, alluding to the story of Kaveh and his
uprising against Zahak, the snake snake-shouldered.
However, one reason for omitting this allusion is
possibly that the story has been mentioned
elsewhere in Shahnameh and its translated
version.

Cultural elements

Common nouns
Adjectives
Name of places
Name of persons

Fig. 1. Frequency and types of cultural untranslatable elements

Table 2. Some examples of culturally untranslatable items

Element Meaning Element Meaning

Mubid Zoroastrian priest Dastan An adjective which refers to Rostam
Rostam Name of the Iranian hero Savar Knight (horse rider)
Keriman The generous Jahangir One who conquers the world
Sam-e Nariman Sam the son of Neriman Turan A region in northern Iran (Mazanderan)
Ormuzd The ancient Iranian god Guzhdeham-e pir Gustahem the aged
who stands against
Ahriman (devil)
Tahamtan Rostam the Pehliva Zhand Zindeh (name of a person)
Kiani The family of Kaianides Jahanjuy The winner of the world (Sohrab)

Table 3. Most frequent strategies to render cultural untranslatable elements

Strategies Frequency Valid percent Cumulative percent

Transference 10 25.6 25.6
Omission 1 2.6 28.2
Replacement 8 20.5 48.7
Naturalization 2 5.1 53.8
Synonymy 2 5.1 59.0
Neutralization 1 2.6 61.5
Retention through translation 10 25.6 87.2
Replacement and addition 1 2.6 89.7
Retention and replacement 1 2.6 92.3
Literal translation 2 5.1 97.4
Cultural equivalent 1 2.6 100.0
Total 39 100.0

143

5. CONCLUSION
The aim of the present study was to explore cultural
untranslatability in the Story of “Rustam and Sohrab”
by Ferdowsi and its equivalent translation by Helen
Zimmern. To this end, the instances containing the
untranslatable cultural and linguistic elements or
elements difficult to translate were identified by
comparing the Story of “Rustam and Sohrab” with its
English translation by Zimmern. Besides, strategies
used to render cultural and linguistic elements
problematic in translation were identified using
categories proposed by Vinay and Darbelent [13] and
Newmark [1]. It was shown that nouns including
common nouns, name of places, and name of persons
accounted for 89.8% of the cultural untranslatable
elements while adjectives included only 10.3% of the
cultural untranslatable elements. In addition, personal
proper names were the most frequent category of
cultural untranslatable elements followed by common
nouns and names of places. It was also observed that
the most common strategies used to render cultural
elements were transference and retention through
translation. The second most frequently used strategy
was replacement. Other strategies, on the other hand,
were used less frequently, including naturalization,
synonymy, and literal translation.
In addition to strategies proposed in literature (e.g.
Vinay & Darbelent, [13]; Newmark, [1]) in rendering
proper name allusions, translators can use two more
strategies recognized in the present study, i.e.
retention through translation which normally used for
proper names that contain some extra element such as
an epithet and replacement and addition as another
strategy where the original SL item is replaced with
another SL item with some additional elements.
Besides, for different categories of cultural and
linguistic untranslatable elements, translators may
resort to different strategies. For instance, personal
proper names and the name of geographical places
can be rendered through the retention of the original
name. Translators of literary texts can also use
different strategies concerning translation of allusions
as culture-bound elements. For instance, when an
allusion is far-off from the cultural context or is of
little relevance, it can be omitted. Otherwise,
translators may find other ways to render them.
Finally, as indicated by Jayasimha [11], one of the
major challenges faced by translators is the translation
of cultural symbols as every culture has some
peculiarities as well as rigid complexity based on its
geographic, historical, anthropological, and
sociological conditions that are deep-rooted into the
perceptive models of that particular civilization or
144
Mohammadi and Keshavarzi; JOGRESS, 6(3): 138-147, 2016
language. Another reason for untranslatability of
some elements is the unique style of Shahnameh [10].
COMPETING INTERESTS
Authors have declared that no competing interests
exist.
REFERENCES
1. Newmark P. A textbook of translation.
London: Prentice Hall; 1988.
2. De Pedro R. The translatability of texts: A
historical overview. Meta. 1999;49(4):546-559.
Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/003808ar
3. Cui J. Untranslatability and the method of
compensation. Theory and Practice in
Language Studies. 2012;2(4):826-830.
4. Catford JC. A linguistic theory of translation.
Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1965.
5. Nida EA. Toward a science of translation.
Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language
Education Press; 2004.
6. Newmark P. Approaches to translation.
Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language
Education Press; 2000.
7. Bassnett S. Translation studies. Third Edition.
London and New York. Routledge’s
Collection; 2002.
8. Dehbashi MR. An investigation of Davis'
translation of Shahnameh, Rostam and Sohrab
story in focus. Language in India. 2010;
10(10):451-468.
9. Davis D. At home and far from home; poems
on Iran and Persion culture. Washington DC:
Mage Publishers; 2002.
10. Mashhady H, Noura M. A case study:
Translation problems in the story of Rustam
and Sohrab based on Warner & Warner
Translation. English Language Teaching. 2012;
5:9.
11. Jayasimha P. Translation for cultural
experience: A cognitive approach to cultural
translation. Research Journal of English
Language and Literature (RJELAL). 2013;1(2):
70-80.
12. Aldahesh AY. (Un) translatability of the
Qur’ān: A theoretical perspective. International
Journal of Linguistics. 2014;6(6):23-45.
13. Vinay JP, Darbelnet J. A methodology for
translation. In The translation studies reader.
Ed. Lawrence Venuti. London: Rutledge; 2000.

14. Leppihalme, R. Culture Bumps: An empirical
approach to the translation of allusions.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters; 1997.
15. Abrams MH. A glossary of literary terms
(6th ed). San Diego: Harcourt; 1993.
145
Mohammadi and Keshavarzi; JOGRESS, 6(3): 138-147, 2016
16. Salo-oja M. Lost in translation? Translating
allusions in two of Reginald Hill’s Dalziel &
Pascoe novels. MA Thesis: Helsinki; 2004.
17. Perri C. On alluding. Poetics. 1978;7:289-307.

Appendix 1. Translation strategies proposed by Vinay and Darbelent [13]
No. Strategy
1 Borrowing
2 Calque
3 Literal translation
4 Transposition
5 Modulation
6 Equivalence
7 Adaptation
Appendix 2. Translation strategies proposed by Newmark [1]
No. Strategy
1 Transference
2 Naturalization
3 Cultural equivalent
4 Functional equivalent
5 Descriptive equivalent
6 Neutralization
7 Componential analysis
8 Synonymy
9 Through-translation
10 Shifts or transpositions
11 Modulation
Mohammadi and Keshavarzi; JOGRESS, 6(3): 138-147, 2016
APPENDIX
Description
It is used for the creation of a stylistic effect, for example, “in order to
introduce the flavor of the source language (SL) culture into a
translation, foreign terms are used.
It is a special kind of borrowing” when an expression from another
language is borrowed and then all of its elements are translated literally.
It is the direct transfer of a SL text into a grammatically and
idiomatically appropriate TL text.
It is a method when one word class is replaced with another without
changing the meaning of the message.
This is a variation of the form of the message, obtained by a change in
the point of view and it is used when a literal or transposed translation is
considered unsuitable, unidiomatic or awkward in the TL.
It is a method of creating equivalences. As a result, most equivalences
are fixed, and belong to a phraseological repertoire of idioms, clichés,
proverbs, nominal or adjectival phrases as well as to many
onomatopoeia of animal sounds.
It is used in cases where the type of situation being referred to by the SL
message is unknown in the TL culture, thus, a translator creates a new
situation in the TL text that can be considered as equivalent one, which
is called a situational equivalent.
Description
It is the process of transferring a SL word to a TL text in its original
form.
It is a procedure when a SL word is adapted first to the normal
pronunciation, then to the normal morphology of the TL.
It means approximate translation, where a SL cultural word is translated
as TL cultural word.
It requires the use of a culture-neutral word and it is called the most
accurate way of translating, i.e. deculturalising a cultural word.
This is a procedure where the meaning of the culture-bound term is
explained in several words.
It means that SL word is neutralized or generalized, i.e. this word is
explained by some “culture free” words
It means comparing an SL word with a TL word which has a similar
meaning but is not an obvious one-to-one equivalent, by demonstrating
first their common and then their different sense components.
It is a strategy where a near TL equivalent” is used to define SL
concept.
It is the literal translation of common collocations, names of
organizations and components of compounds. It denotes calque or loan
translation.
It involves a change in the grammar from SL to TL, for instance, (a)
change from singular to plural, (b) the change required when a specific
SL structure does not exist in the TL, (c) change of an SL verb to a TL
word, change of an SL noun group to a TL noun.
It occurs when the translator reproduces the message of the original text
in the TL text in conformity with the current norms of the TL, since the
SL and the TL may appear dissimilar in terms of perspective.
146
 Mohammadi and Keshavarzi; JOGRESS, 6(3): 138-147, 2016

No. Strategy Description

12 Recognized translation It occurs when the translator normally uses the official or the generally
accepted translation of any institutional term.
13 Compensation It occurs when loss of meaning in one part of a sentence is compensated
in another part.
14 Paraphrase This procedure means that the meaning of the CBT [culture-bound
term] is explained. Here the explanation is much more detailed than that
of descriptive equivalent.
15 Couplets, triplets or It is a procedure when occurs when two or more different translation
quadruplets strategies are used to deal with a translation problem.
16 Notes, glosses, and This is the procedure when additional information appears either in a
additions. text or as a footnote.

Appendix 3. An excerpt of datasheet

No. Cultural untranslatable English equivalent Compensation strategies used

lexical item
1 Turan Mazandaran Replacement
2 Mohre Onyx Neutralization
3 Rakhsh-e tizpa Rakhsh, the swift of foot Retention through translation
4 Rostam Rostam the Pehliva Replacement and addition
__________________________________________________________________________________________
© Copyright International Knowledge Press. All rights reserved.

147

View publication stats