The analysis of a business text translation from English to Romanian

regarding the equivalence and non-equivalence

Abstract
A language is a living phenomenon that does not exist apart from the culture where it
is spoken or written. To be familiar with a language one must also be familiar with the culture
in which the language is used. Language is an extremely complicated means of
communication. Thus, translation is more than replacement of one word in the source
language with another word in the target language. It is considered a complex process that
involves the transfer of meaning contained in one set of language signs into another set of
language signs through competent use of dictionary and grammar. Sometimes the translator
has to resort to a combination of units in order to find an appropriate equivalent. In some
cases the translation is only an adequate interpretation of an alien code unit and equivalent is
impossible. Most often meaning is carried by units much more complex that the single word
and by various structures and linguistic devices.
Whenever we translate a source text into a target text we face the problem of
translation equivalence and non-equivalence. Thus, in this paper I have tried to explain the
equivalence and non-equivalence problems occurred when I translated an English source text
into a Romanian target text.

Theoretical background
Translating concepts and stretches of language is not an easy task.
Language is first and mainly connected to the cultural background. Regarding
translation process, translators must take into account the differences between
the cultural background the text comes from and the cultural background that
text goes to, at language level. It would be easy to make translations if language
were simply a nomenclature for a set of universal concepts.

1
Translation process involves the next stages:
Source Language Receptor Language
Text Translation

Analysis Restructuring

Transfer

The translator has to take into account the question of interpretation.

Many times exact translation is impossible. In determining what to use in
English, the translator must take into account the key elements as follows:
• Accept the untranslability of the source language phrase in the target
language on the linguistic level.
• Accept the lack of similar cultural convention in the target language
• Consider the significance of a phrase in its particular context
• Replace in the target language the invariant core of the source language
phrase in its two referential systems – the particular system of the text
and the system of culture out of which the text has sprung.
• Take into account the specificity and type of the source text
• Know the cultural background of the source text
• Have background knowledge in the source text field (for getting involved
in highly specialized area of translation it is recommended to have
background knowledge in those subjects).
• Make sure that the target text is coherent with the source text.

Equivalence means that the original text and translated text are in a one-
to-one correspondence. In this paper I have analysed translation equivalence at

2
word level, above the word level (collocations, idioms and metaphors) and
grammatical equivalence.
Non-equivalence means that the target language has no direct equivalent
for a word or a phrase in the source language. I have tried to find out and
explain word correspondence and interpretation according to the common types
of non –equivalence, as follows:
• Culture – specific concepts, when the source language word may express
a concept which is totally unknown in the target culture.
• The source language concept is not lexicalized in the target language; the
source language word may express a concept which is known in the
target culture but simply not lexicalized, it is not allocated a target
language word to express it.
• The source language word is semantically complex. This is a common
problem in translation. A single word can sometimes express a more
complex set of meanings than a whole sentence.
• The source and target languages make different distinctions in meaning
• The target language lacks a superordinate. It may have specific words but
no general words.
• The target language lacks a specific term (hyponym)
• Differences in expressive meaning. A target language word which has the
same propositional meaning as the source language word, but it may
have a different expressive meaning. The difference may be obvious or
subtle but important enough to pose a translation problem in a given
context.
• Differences in form. There is often no equivalence in the target language
for a particular form in the source text. Certain prefixes and suffixes in
English often have no direct equivalent in other languages.

3
 • False friends which are the same in form in both languages different in
meaning.

Source text
Paying the piper
Will Barack Obama’s reform of executive pay work?
CREATING political theatre by cracking down on executive pay may prove to
be the easy part for Barack Obama. Coming up with a sensible and effective
way to compensate senior managers at companies bailed out by the American
taxpayer will be far trickier—and the new president’s first effort, unveiled on
February 4th, is unlikely to be his last.
Capping the non-equity-based remuneration of executives in companies
receiving “exceptional assistance” at $500,000 a year and banning “golden
parachutes” for failed executives is likely to strike most Americans as fair, or
even generous, given that Mr Obama himself earns a mere $400,000 and the
rules will apply only to new bail-outs. Indeed, after the outrageous payment of
billions of dollars in bonuses by Wall Street firms that had survived only
because many more billions had been injected into them by the government, the
executives should probably be grateful for getting off so lightly. Moreover,
executives will be allowed grants of restricted stock (which they cannot sell
until the taxpayer is repaid), so they may yet end up making a fortune.
Last time a president tried to curb fat-cat salaries was in 1993, when Bill
Clinton signed a law restricting the tax deductibility of executive pay to $1m.
This merely prompted a burst of creativity. Perks were devised that got around
the cap, and there was a boom in paying executives with shares and options that,
thanks to the bull stockmarket of the 1990s, made everybody far wealthier than
they would have been using the old pay formulae.

4
Translated text
Suportarea consecinţelor / După faptă si răsplată
Va funcţiona reforma lui Barack Obama referitoare la salariile directorilor ?
Crearea teatrului politic prin reducerea drastica a salariilor directorilor se
dovedeşte probabil a fi partea cea uşoară pentru Barack Obama. Introducerea
unei modalităţi rezonabile şi eficiente de a plati managerii companiilor
subventinate din impozitele incasate de la contribuabilii americani va fi mult
mai dificilă – şi primul effort al noului preşedinte, facut public pe 4 febr. , e
puţin probabil să fie şi ultimul.
Limitarea remuneraţiei nereferitoare la capital, pentru directorii din cadrul
companiilor care primesc ajutor de stat, la 500.000 de dolari pe an şi
interzicerea “colacilor de salvare pentru directorii care sunt pe cale de a se
ineca” este probabil pentru majoritatea Americanilor o măsură justa sau chiar
generoasă, luând în considerare faptul că Dl. Obama câştigă doar 400.000 de
dolari pe an iar reglementările se vor aplica doar celor care au beneficiat recent
de aceste ajutoare financiare. Într-adevăr, după plăţile şocante de miliarde de
dolari ca sporuri salariale de către firmele de pe Wall Street, care au
supravieţuit doar datorită faptului că mult mai multe miliarde au fost investite /
pompate în ele de către guvern, cei din conducere ar trebui probabil să fie
recunoscători că au scăpat doar cu atât. În plus, directorilor li se vor permite
subvenţii la pachetele de acţiunile restricţionate (pe care nu le pot vinde până
când contribuabilii nu isi vor fi recuperate banii), aşa că ei încă mai pot în cele
din urmă să-şi facă acumulări.
Ultima dată când un preşedinte a încercat să limiteze salariile mari a fost în
1993, când Bill Clinton a semnat o lege prin care restricţiona deducerea de

5
impozit a salariilor executivului la 1 mil. de dolari. Aceasta nu a facut decat sa
stimuleze un plus de creativitate. Beneficiile au fost înţelept planificate astfel
încât să ocoleasca plafoanele şi s-a înregistrat un avânt prin acordarea de actuni
si optiuni de cumparare de actiuni directorilor încât, datorită creşterii preţului
acţiunilor pe piaţă în anii 90, i-a făcut mult mai bogaţi decât ar fi fost dacă
foloseau vechile scheme de salarizare.

Translation Analysis
The title of the article “Paying the piper” is an idiom. In this case there is
no equivalence at word level because if one translates each word by its
correspondent word in Romanian, the whole phrase will be nonsense. So, a
Romanian equivalent idiom is necessary if there is any. The meaning of this
idiom is ‘to face the results of one's actions; to receive punishment for
something; to accept the unpleasant results of something you have done; to pay
the price’ and thus, understanding the meaning I may render it using a
Romanian equivalent idiom `dupa fapta si rasplata`. Some experts consider
that idioms and metaphors are not part of equivalence because they represent
the specificity and identity of the source language. In my opinion, finding
equivalent phrases is not an attack to source language identity but a way of
understanding the appropriate meaning in a given context.
The problem that arises in translations when languages we work with are
English and Romanian is word order in the sentence, although there is
equivalence at word level. For example „Will Barack Obama’s reform of
executive pay work?” Va funcţiona reforma lui Barack Obama referitoare la
salariile directorilor? I have noticed here the grammar problems regarding
word order in a question and the two ways of expressing the genitive case that
differ a bit for the two languages. Otherwise, there is equivalence concerning
the elements of grammar.

6
 For the English phrasal verb ‘crack down’ it is easy to find a Romanian
equivalent ‘reducere drastica’ taking into account phrasal verb regime and
knowing the political – economic context of the source text.
The word ‘executive’ is a problematic one because it may have different
meaning depending on the context. In this context it refers to managers. It could
have referred to those who govern the country. But understanding the
background and message of the whole source text I have chosen the Romanian
word ‘director’.
The word ‘sensible’ (rezonabil) is a false friend for Romanian language
being similar in form with ‘sensibil’ but very different in meaning.
This part of sentence ‘…to compensate senior managers at companies
bailed out by the American taxpayer…’ can be translated as ‘…a plati
managerii companiilor subventionate din impozitele incasate de la
contribuabilii americani…’. Here, the syntagm ‘American taxpayer’ is
semantically complex. If I translated as ‘platitorii de impozit americani’ it
would illustrate the similar meaning of the English phrase but it would not have
the same impact on the text reader as ‘impozitele incasate de la contribuabilii
americani’. I have made an interpretation choosing a combination of words
suitable for and used in Romanian language.
In the source language the phrase “exceptional assistance” is a superordinate
for the context given. If this phrase were translated ‘ajutor exceptional’ in the
target language it would not have the meaning transmitted by the source
language. Knowing the context, the field this text refers to I realized that
‘assistance’ is in fact ‘financial assistance’ that is ‘money’. In this case the
target language has specific words (hyponyms) ‘ajutor de stat’. I use the same
explanation for ‘payment of billions of dollars in bonuses’, where ‘payment
...in bonuses’ is translated ‘sporuri salariale’. If I had kept the direct
correspondent for ‘bonuses’, ‘bonusuri’ one might not have perceived the right
meaning of this word.

7
 The English metaphor - “golden parachutes” for failed executives – has
no direct equivalence in the target language. If I choose the translation ‘parasute
de aur’ one realises that the phrase intends to express the rescuing idea
associated with the word ‘parachute’. But according to the target language
cultural background one requires finding a specific equivalent and we have
indeed an equivalent metaphor in the target language in form of ‘colacul de
salvare’. This metaphor is more representative for our culture than ‘parasute de
aur’(although everyone can understand the meaning of the latter translation).
For ‘rules will apply only to new bail-outs’ I have chosen ‘reglementari’
instead of ‘reguli’ because it is the right word in the target language for its right
meaning in the source language. I may say that it is the collocation problem
here; the Romanian word ‘reglementari’ collocates better than ‘reguli’ in the
context given.
When I translated ‘to curb fat-cat salaries’ I dropped out the word ‘cat’
so that a Romanian direct equivalent phrase may be used ‘salarii grase’.

In the analysis above I have included the most representative words,

phrases and sentences regarding their translation and interpretation from
English – the source language into Romanian – the target language.

Bibliography:
Baker, Mona. (1992). In Other Words. Paris & New York: Routledge
Munday, J. (2001). Introducing Translation Studies. Paris & New York: Routledge
Source: http://www.trad.it/
http://books.google.fr/

8
9