“The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem”.
By Itamar Even-Zohar
. Why translated literature has been ignored
1
Even-Zohar begins by pointing out that although historians agree that translation has played a
major role in shaping national cultures, it has rarely been studied properly. In most literary
histories, translations are mentioned only when they cannot be avoided, such as in discussions
of the Middle Ages or the Renaissance. Even then, translations are treated as isolated works
rather than as part of a larger pattern. Because of this, we do not clearly understand how
translated literature functions as a whole or what role it plays within a literary tradition.
. Translated literature as a system
2
The central question of the essay is whether translated literature can be seen as asystem, just
like original literature. Even-Zohar argues that it can and should be. Translated works are not
randomly chosen or produced; they follow patterns. The choice of which texts are translated
depends on the needs and values of the target literature, and translations follow certain norms
and rules that are shaped by the literary culture receiving them. Because of this, translated
literature forms its own network of relations and can be studied as a system within the larger
literary structure.
. The idea of the literary polysystem
3
Even-Zohar introduces the concept of theliterarypolysystem, which refers to the idea that
literature is made up of many interacting systems rather than one single, unified structure.
These systems can include genres, styles, popular literature, elite literature, and translated
literature. Within the polysystem, some systems are central and powerful, while others are
peripheral and less influential. The position of translated literature within this polysystem is not
fixed and can change over time.
. Central vs peripheral position of translated literature
4
Translated literature does not always stay on the margins. Sometimes it occupies acentral
position, meaning it actively shapes the main trendsof a literature. At other times, it occupies a
peripheral position, meaning it has little influenceand follows already established norms.
Whether translated literature is central or peripheral depends on the historical and cultural
situation of the target literature.
. When translated literature becomes central
5
Translated literature tends to take a central role in three main situations. First, when a literature
is young and still developing, it relies heavily on translations to build genres, styles, and
language forms. Second, when a literature is weak or peripheral compared to more dominant
literatures, it depends on translations to bring in new models and ideas. Third, during periods of
crisis or major change, when existing literary models no longer work, translations help fill the
gap and introduce new possibilities.
. Innovation through translation
6
When translated literature is central, it becomes a source ofinnovation. Translations introduce
new themes, new ways of representing reality, new writing styles, and even new language
structures. In such periods, the distinction between original and translated works becomes
blurred. Often, leading writers or avant-garde figures are also translators. Translation becomes
a creative force that helps reshape the literary system.
. Peripheral and “weak” literatures
7
Even-Zohar explains that some national literatures are historically weaker or more peripheral,
especially those of smaller nations. These literatures often lack certain genres or literary models
and therefore depend heavily on translations from dominant cultures. In such cases, translated
literature is not just important—it may form a large part of the literary system itself. This
dependence creates a hierarchy between literatures, where stronger literatures influence
weaker ones.
. Turning points and literary vacuums
8
At moments of major change, known asturning points,a literature may reject its existing
traditions without having new ones ready. This creates aliterary vacuum. During such times,
translated literature can easily move into a central position, supplying new models and ideas.
Foreign texts become especially influential because the local literature lacks acceptable
alternatives.
. When translated literature is peripheral
9
When translated literature occupies a peripheral position, it has very little influence. In this case,
translations follow the dominant norms of the target literature and use conservative, already
familiar styles. Rather than introducing new ideas, translation helps preserve old tastes. This
creates a paradox: translation, which could bring change, instead becomes a force for tradition
and stability.
0. Translation as conservatism
1
Sometimes, translated literature becomes stuck in older styles even after the original literature
has moved on. This happens when translations continue to follow outdated norms that the
central literature has already rejected. As a result, translated literature can turn into a rigid
system that resists change and protects old models.
1. Stratification within translated literature
1
Translated literature itself is not uniform. Some translated works may be central, while others
remain peripheral. Often, translations from a dominant source language become central, while
translations from other languages stay marginal. For example, Even-Zohar notes that in Hebrew
literature between the world wars, translations from Russian were central, while translations
from English or German were peripheral.
2. The “normal” position of translated literature
1
Even-Zohar suggests that, in most cases, translated literature tends to occupy a peripheral
position. Central positions usually occur only during periods of crisis, transition, or weakness.
Over time, as a literary system stabilizes, translated literature is pushed back to the margins.
However, cultural differences matter, and some literary systems are more open or rigid than
others.
3. Effects on translation norms
1
The position of translated literature strongly affects how translations are done. When translation
is central, translators are more willing to break local rules and stay close to the original text. This
results in translations that are moreadequatetothe source text. When translation is peripheral,
translators adapt the text heavily to fit existing norms, leading to less faithful and more
domesticated translations.
4. Translation as a historical activity
1
Even-Zohar concludes that translation cannot be defined in fixed or timeless terms. What counts
as a translation, how translations are produced, and how they function all depend on the cultural
and historical context. Translation is shaped by the literary polysystem and its internal power
relations. Therefore, translation must always be studied as part of a living cultural system rather
than as an isolated activity.
History of Translation
Importance of Studying the History of Translation Theory
he history of translation theory is an essential part of Translation Studies because translation
T
has always played a major role in shaping literature, culture, religion, and society. Studying
translation historically helps us understand how ideas about language, meaning, culture, and
power have changed over time. Certain debates, such asword-for-word versus sense-for-sense
translation, began in ancient times and continue eventoday. Translation has also been closely
connected with nationalism, religion, capitalism, and changing ideas about the individual and
society. Therefore, studying translation diachronically (across time) is vital to literary and cultural
history.
Problems with Period-Based Study of Translation
eorge Steiner divides translation history into four periods, ranging from Roman times to the
G
modern era. His classification helps identify shifts in focus—from practical translation to theory,
linguistics, and later philosophical approaches. However, this division has problems. The
periods are uneven in length, with the first covering about 1700 years and the last only a few
decades. This shows how difficult it is to strictly divide translation history into fixed periods.
Culture is dynamic, and rigid periodization does not accurately reflect how ideas overlap and
continue across time.
Alternative Approaches to Studying Translation History
Instead of strict historical periods, scholars prefer studying translation by tracing changing ideas
and practices across time. Some focus on specific centuries, national traditions, or individual
translators. These approaches help us understand how translation theories develop within
cultural systems. However, many studies focus more on theimpactof translations rather than
on theprocessand theory behind them. A systematicstudy of translation theory, especially in
ancient Rome, is still lacking. Overall, flexible and contextual approaches are more useful than
rigid timelines.
Roman Concept of Translation
lthough translation did not originate with the Romans, Roman thinkers like Cicero and Horace
A
greatly influenced Western translation theory. For the Romans, translation was part of literary
creation and cultural enrichment. They believed literature should transmit wisdom and aesthetic
eauty. Roman translators did not aim for strict literal accuracy. Instead, they focused on
b
producing elegant and effective texts in Latin that enriched Roman literature.
Word-for-Word vs Sense-for-Sense Translation
icero and Horace clearly distinguished betweenword-for-wordandsense-for-sense
C
translation. They argued that translators should focus on meaning rather than copying words
exactly. Literal translation was seen as awkward and ineffective. The translator’s responsibility
was toward the target language readers, not blind fidelity to the source text. This idea—non
verbum de verbo, sed sensum de sensu—became a foundationalprinciple in translation theory.
Roman Translation and Cultural Context
oman translators worked in a bilingual or multilingual society where educated readers often
R
knew Greek. As a result, translations were read alongside the original texts. Translation was
seen as imitation and creative transformation rather than faithful reproduction. The translator’s
skill was judged by how creatively and intelligently they adapted the original. Translation was
part of a larger system that valued classical models across languages.
Bible Translation and the Spread of Christianity
ith Christianity, translation gained a new role: spreading the word of God. Bible translation
W
became both a religious and cultural activity. Translators had to balance clarity, beauty, and
doctrinal accuracy. St Jerome, like Cicero, supported sense-for-sense translation, but Bible
translation was risky because small changes could lead to accusations of heresy. This tension
shaped translation practices for centuries.
Translation, Power, and Religion
ible translation became politically and religiously charged, especially during the Reformation.
B
As Latin declined and national languages gained importance, translation helped shape national
identities. Translating the Bible into the vernacular weakened the authority of the Church and
empowered ordinary people. Translation thus became a tool in religious conflict and social
change.
The Wycliffite Bible and Vernacular Translation
ohn Wycliffe believed that every person should have direct access to the Bible in their own
J
language. The Wycliffite Bible (1380–84) was the first complete English Bible. It aimed at clarity
and meaning rather than literal wording. The translation process involved collaboration,
consultation with scholars, and revision. Despite being banned, these translations spread
widely, showing the strong demand for vernacular scripture.
Printing and Sixteenth-Century Bible Translation
he invention of printing transformed Bible translation. William Tyndale’s New Testament (1525)
T
focused on clarity for ordinary readers and was translated directly from Greek and Hebrew.
Many European languages received Bible translations during this period. Translators like
Erasmus and Luther emphasized accessibility and everyday language, believing scripture
should belong to everyone.
Goals of Sixteenth-Century Bible Translators
he main aims of Bible translators during the Reformation were threefold. First, to correct errors
T
in earlier translations. Second, to create clear, fluent, and beautiful vernacular texts. Third, to
reduce Church-controlled interpretation and allow direct engagement with scripture. Precision
was essential because translation choices had serious religious consequences.
Translation as Spiritual and Cultural Reform
or translators like Luther, translation was not just linguistic but cultural and spiritual. Meaning
F
was more important than grammar, and style had to suit everyday speech. Bible translation
raised the status of vernacular languages and encouraged individual interpretation. Translators
became agents of religious reform and social change.
Education and the Vernacular
ranslation played an important educational role long before the Renaissance. Early vernacular
T
glosses added to Latin manuscripts helped ordinary readers understand sacred texts and also
contributed to the development of European languages. For example, the Lindisfarne Gospels
contained word-for-word English glosses written between the lines of Latin text. Though
tylistically plain, these glosses were true translations because they transferred meaning
s
between languages.
King Alfred and Translation for Learning
In the ninth century, King Alfred promoted translation as a tool for social and educational
recovery after the destruction caused by Danish invasions. He believed that learning could only
revive if important texts were translated into a language people understood. In translating works
likeCura Pastoralis, Alfred supported both word-for-wordand sense-for-sense translation,
depending on purpose. Translation was thus seen as moral, political, and educational, not
merely linguistic.
Translation in Medieval Education
In medieval education, translation was used as a writing and learning exercise within the system
of the Seven Liberal Arts. The Trivium (grammar, rhetoric, dialectic) formed the foundation of
learning. Translation and paraphrasing were important tools for developing rhetorical skill and
understanding texts, especially in training students to analyze, expand, or simplify ideas.
Quintilian and Translation as Stylistic Training
he Roman theorist Quintilian strongly supported paraphrasing and translation as methods for
T
improving oratory. He believed students should first stay close to the original text and later add
their own style. Translation from Greek into Latin was encouraged to develop creativity and
linguistic skill. Translation and paraphrase were not clearly separated, as both aimed at
improving expression and imagination.
Rise of Vernacular Literatures
atin remained the main educational language for centuries, but from the tenth century onward,
L
vernacular languages began to develop literary traditions. Translation became a means of
enriching these emerging literatures. Writers translated and adapted foreign texts to raise the
status of their own languages. This continued the Roman idea of cultural enrichment through
translation, but now focused on vernacular growth.
Vertical and Horizontal Translation (Folena)
ianfranco Folena distinguishes betweenverticalandhorizontaltranslation. Vertical translation
G
occurs when texts are translated from a prestigious language like Latin into a vernacular.
Horizontal translation happens between languages of similar status, such as Provençal into
Italian or French into English. This distinction shows how translation functioned differently
depending on cultural hierarchy.
Medieval Thinkers on Translation
hinkers like Roger Bacon and Dante understood translation as more than a technical exercise.
T
Bacon discussed problems like loss and word coinage, while Dante emphasized accessibility for
readers. Both believed translation involved ethical, aesthetic, and intellectual responsibility, not
just stylistic comparison.
Imitation and Originality in the Middle Ages
In medieval literature, originality was not highly valued. Writers were expected to imitate, adapt,
and rework existing texts. The line between translation, adaptation, and borrowing was often
unclear. Writers like Chaucer produced works ranging from direct translations to loose
adaptations. Accuracy in translation depended on understanding the source, not strict loyalty to
its wording.
Translation as Interpretation
hether vertical or horizontal, medieval translation was considered a skilled act of
W
interpretation. Translators were free to use source texts as material for creative writing.
Translation was closely linked to reading, understanding, and reshaping texts for new
audiences.
Early Translation Theorists after Printing
he invention of printing in the fifteenth century led to a rise in translation and the first serious
T
attempts at translation theory. As Europe changed due to scientific discoveries, exploration, and
new worldviews, translation also gained a new intellectual role.
Etienne Dolet and Translation Principles
tienne Dolet was one of the earliest theorists to outline clear principles of translation. He
E
emphasized understanding the meaning of the original, mastery of both languages, avoidance
of word-for-word translation, use of natural speech, and maintaining proper tone. His execution
for heresy shows how dangerous translation could be. Dolet viewed translation as a scholarly
and cultural responsibility.
George Chapman and the ‘Spirit’ of the Text
eorge Chapman, translator of Homer, believed a translator must capture thespiritandsense
G
of the original, not just its words. He stressed deep scholarly research and warned against
overly free translations. Influenced by Platonic ideas, Chapman believed poetic inspiration could
be transferred across languages.
Translation in the Renaissance
uring the Renaissance, translation became central to religious, political, and cultural debates.
D
Translators could face execution for certain interpretations. Translation affirmed contemporary
identity by using modern language and style. Translators aimed to make texts relevant to their
own time.
Renaissance Translation and Contemporary Style
lizabethan translators often modernized texts by using lively idioms and direct speech. This
E
made translations more immediate and engaging. Translation was used to bring classical works
into contemporary life rather than preserve ancient forms.
Poetry Translation: Wyatt and Surrey
oetic translators like Wyatt and Surrey focused on recreating meaning and emotional effect
P
rather than literal structure. Wyatt’s translation of Petrarch shows how translation was used to
speak directly to contemporary concerns. Faithfulness was understood as recreating the poem’s
function in the new culture.
Philemon Holland and Nationalism
hilemon Holland believed translations should use simple, popular language. He adapted
P
Roman political terms into English equivalents like Parliament or Commons. He also added
explanations for clarity. His translations reflect strong English nationalism and pride in the
vernacular.
Translation as a Shaping Force in the Renaissance
ranslation was not secondary but central to Renaissance intellectual life. It helped manage
T
cultural change, link past and present, and bridge languages during religious and national
conflict. Translators often acted as cultural reformers.
Seventeenth-Century Changes in Translation Theory
he seventeenth century emphasized rules, models, and classical imitation due to scientific
T
thinking and political change. Translation of classical texts increased, especially in France and
England. However, art was still seen as inspired and creative, not mechanical imitation.
Sir John Denham and Poetic Translation
enham argued that poetry cannot survive literal translation. A translator must recreate poetry
D
with new life and spirit. Translator and author are equals working in different times. Translation
involves recreating the essence of the original.
Abraham Cowley and Creative Freedom
owley believed translators should freely add, remove, or change material to capture the
C
author’s manner of expression. His approach represents extreme freedom and influenced later
“libertine” translators.
John Dryden’s Three Types of Translation
ryden classified translation intometaphrase(word-for-word),paraphrase(sense-for-sense),
D
andimitation(free adaptation). He supported paraphraseas the best method. A translator must
be a poet, understand both languages, and follow contemporary taste.
Dryden’s Middle Path and Influence
ryden aimed for balance between literal accuracy and creative freedom. He modernized
D
classical texts to suit English readers. His ideas strongly influenced later translators like
Alexander Pope, who also emphasized preserving the spirit and energy of poetry.
The Eighteenth Century: Translation and Moral Duty
In the eighteenth century, translation was not only about being faithful or free but also about the
translator’s moral responsibility to the reader. Translatorslike Dryden and Pope believed
that a text should be made clear and readable for contemporary audiences. This often meant
rewriting or reshaping older textsto suit modernlanguage, taste, and values. As a result,
many classical and earlier works were adapted rather than strictly translated.
amuel Johnson argued that the main purpose of writing is to be read. He supported additions
S
to a translation if they improved elegance, as long as nothing important was removed. This
shows that translators felt justified inalteringtextsto communicate effectively with their own
time and nation. Translation was thus closely linked to changing ideas oforiginality and
readership.
Pope vs Chapman: Different Translation Styles
lexander Pope’s translation of Homer focuses onemotion,elegance, and suffering, using
A
smooth and Latinate language. His Andromache is passive and tragic. In contrast, Chapman’s
version usesdirect, energetic verbs, making Andromacheappear strong and almost
warrior-like. This comparison shows how translation reflects thetranslator’s values and the
spirit of their age, not just the original text.
Goethe’s Three Stages of Translation
oethe proposed that translation develops inthree stages. The first stage introduces foreign
G
works in familiar terms, making them easy for readers to understand (e.g., Luther’s Bible). The
second stage involvesadapting the foreign work intothe translator’s own style, often
replacing original features. Goethe criticized the French tradition for this.
he third and highest stage aims fordeep closenessto the original, creating a new form that
T
preserves the spirit and structure of the source text. Goethe praised Voss’s translation of Homer
s an example. However, this ideal moves close to the idea that some texts may bealmost
a
untranslatable.
Tytler’s Principles of Translation
lexander Fraser Tytler wrote the first systematic English study on translation. He proposed
A
three principles:
. T
1 he translation should fully convey the ideas of the original.
2. The style should match the original’s character.
3. The translation should read smoothly and naturally.
ytler opposed overly loose translations but still believed that translators may clarify unclear
T
parts of the original, even by adding or omitting material. He compared the translator to a
painter who cannot use the same colours but must create thesame effect. For Tytler, the
translator must capture the“soul” of the author.
Shift from Moral Role to Imagination
rom Dryden to Tytler, translation theory focused on recreating thespirit or soulof a text. Over
F
time, however, thinkers began to question the clear separation between form and meaning.
Attention shifted toward theories ofImagination,moving away from moral instruction and strict
copying. This made translation a more complex and uncertain activity.
Romanticism and Translation
omanticism emerged as a reaction against rationalism and formal rules. It emphasized
R
imagination, individual creativity, and emotional depth. Poets were seen as creators who
could reshape reality. This changed attitudes toward translation, raising the question of whether
translation is acreative act or a mechanical one.
oleridge distinguished betweenFancy(mechanical imitation) andImagination(organic
C
creation). Similarly, German thinkers like A.W. Schlegel argued that translation should retain the
form of the original, while also claiming that all communication itself is a form of translation.
Translation thus became aphilosophical concept, not just a linguistic task.
Translation, Meaning, and Untranslatability
omantic thinkers often believed that poetry existsbeyond language, in silence and spaces
R
between words. This created a problem: if meaning lies beyond language, how can it be
translated? This led to the idea ofuntranslatability.
Two solutions were proposed:
. L
1 iteral translation, focusing closely on words.
2. Use of astrange or artificial languageto suggest the original’s feeling.
Post-Romanticism: Foreignness and Literalism
chleiermacher suggested creating a specialtranslationlanguagethat preserves the foreign
S
nature of the original. Translators like F.W. Newman and William Morris followed this idea,
deliberately usingarchaic and strange languagetoreflect the original culture.
illiam Morris believed the reader should adapt to the text, not the other way around. His
W
translations are difficult and obscure but aim to confront the reader with theforeign past
directly. This shows a strong respect for the original but little concern for accessibility.
Victorian Translation Attitudes
ictorian translators valued theremoteness of theoriginalin time and place. Carlyle and
V
Rossetti believed translation should enrich national culture by bringing in great works from the
past, even if they were difficult to read.
owever, this approach created a paradox. While translators deeply respected original texts,
H
they also produced translations meant only for asmallintellectual elite, which reduced
translation’s wider cultural role.
Matthew Arnold and Scholarly Authority
atthew Arnold believed translators should serve thesource text completely. He argued that
M
only scholars who know the original language can judge a translation properly. The reader
should be brought to the original through translation, not comforted by ease or familiarity.
his approach further reduced the importance of the translator’s creativity and strengthened the
T
idea of translation as asecondary activity.
Literalism: Longfellow vs Fitzgerald
enry Wadsworth Longfellow believed translation should beas literal as possible, even
H
sacrificing rhyme and beauty. For him, the translator’s role was to report what the author says,
not interpret meaning. This reduced the translator to atechnical role.
In contrast, Edward Fitzgerald believed a translation mustlive, even if it changes the original
significantly. His famous line about preferring a “live sparrow to a stuffed eagle” reflects a belief
in creative freedom. However, this approach could be elitist and dismissive of the original
culture.
Major Translation Types in the 19th Century
Five main views of translation emerged:
.
1 ranslation as a scholarly activity.
T
2. Translation as a guide back to the original.
3. Translation using deliberate foreignness.
4. Translation as the translator’s personal artistic choice.
5. Translation used to “improve” a supposedly inferior original.
Each approach reflects different power relations between source text, translator, and reader.
Archaizing and Its Criticism
rchaizing translations were criticized for being pedantic and artificial. J.M. Cohen argued that
A
using mock-antique language was a mistake that lowered translation’s status. However,
theorists like George Steiner defended archaizing as a way to introducealternate possibilities
into a language and culture.
rchaizing can be seen as an attempt tocolonize thepast, especially during times of rapid
A
social change.
The Twentieth Century and Translation Studies
arly twentieth-century English translation theory remained influenced by Victorian ideas and
E
lacked strong theoretical foundations. This was despite major developments elsewhere, such as
Structuralism, linguistics, and communication theory.
Important figures like Ezra Pound, Hilaire Belloc, and James McFarlane helped revive serious
discussion of translation. Gradually, Translation Studies emerged as adistinct academic
discipline.
Conclusion: Translation and History
ranslation theories change according tohistorical, cultural, and social conditions. There is
T
no single correct way to translate. Studying the history of translation helps us understand why
translators made certain choices and how translation shapes literature and culture.
ranslation Studies is a complex system with many interconnections, and its history is essential
T
for understanding contemporary theory and practice.
Roman Jakobson
oman Jakobson begins by arguing that the meaning of words does not come from direct
R
experience with objects but from language itself. For example, one does not need to taste
cheese to understand the word “cheese.” What is required is knowledge of how the word
functions within a language system. Even mythical things like “ambrosia” or “nectar” are
understood through language, not experience. This shows that meaning is alinguistic and
semiotic fact, not something that exists in objectsthemselves.
akobson strongly rejects the idea that meaning belongs to things rather than words. He
J
explains that meaning cannot be smelled, tasted, or touched. There is no meaning without a
sign. Simply pointing at an object cannot fully explain a word because pointing is ambiguous—it
does not tell us whether the word refers to the object, its category, its use, or even an abstract
idea like prohibition or offering. Therefore, language is essential for meaning-making.
or Jakobson, to understand a word is to be able totranslate it into another sign. He follows
F
Charles Peirce in saying that meaning is always expressed through interpretation. For example,
the word “bachelor” can be translated as “unmarried man.” This act of translation is not optional
but fundamental to how language works.
akobson identifiesthree types of translation. Thefirst isintralingual translation, which
J
means explaining a word using other words from the same language, such as defining or
paraphrasing. The second isinterlingual translation,which is translation from one language to
another. The third isintersemiotic translation, wherewords are translated into non-verbal
systems, such as turning a poem into a painting or a novel into a film.
e points out thatperfect equivalence between wordsrarely exists, even within the same
H
language. Synonyms are never exactly the same. For example, while every celibate is a
bachelor, not every bachelor is a celibate. Because of this, words are often best explained using
full sentences rather than single-word substitutes.
his problem becomes more complex ininterlingualtranslation. Different languages divide
T
reality in different ways. Jakobson uses the example of the English word “cheese” and the
Russian word “сыр (syr).” In Russian, “cheese” made without ferment (like cottage cheese) is
not called “сыр.” This shows that languages categorize the same objects differently, making
exact translation difficult.
akobson argues that translation usually happens at the level ofmessages, not individual
J
words. A translator receives a message in one language and re-codes it into another language.
Translation, therefore, involves producingtwo equivalentmessages in different codes, not
matching words one-to-one.
central idea in the essay is“equivalence in difference.”Languages are different, yet
A
communication and translation are possible. Linguistics itself depends on translation, since
explaining any linguistic feature involves rephrasing or comparing signs. This is why Jakobson
emphasizes the importance of bilingual dictionaries and comparative grammars.
akobson rejects the idea that some thoughts are completely untranslatable. He explains that
J
any concept can be expressed in any language, evenif new words, loanwords, or descriptive
phrases are needed. He gives examples from indigenous languages where modern objects are
described creatively, such as calling a watch a “hammering heart.” These expressions may
sound strange but still communicate clearly.
rammar, however, creates real challenges in translation. Languages differ in what theymust
G
express grammatically. For instance, Russian verbsrequire information about whether an
action is completed and about gender, while English does not. When translating “I hired a
worker” into Russian, the translator must know whether the worker was male or female and
whether the action was completed. This information is optional in English but compulsory in
Russian.
akobson explains that languages differnot in whatthey can express, but in what they must
J
express. Because of this, translation sometimes forcesthe translator to choose information that
was left vague in the original. When translating back and forth between languages, meaning can
gradually be lost unless the sentence is supported by context.
In ordinary communication and scientific thinking, translation is always possible because
language allowsmetalinguistic explanation—talkingabout language using language itself.
Therefore, Jakobson argues that the idea of completely untranslatable cognitive meaning is
false.
owever, translation becomes much more difficult inpoetry, myths, jokes, and wordplay. In
H
these forms, grammatical features like gender, sound patterns, and word structure carry deep
meaning. For example, grammatical gender influences how cultures personify objects.
Jakobson shows how words like “death,” “sin,” or “life” are imagined differently in different
languages because of their grammatical gender.
In poetry, sound patterns, rhyme, puns, and word similarities are not decorative but central to
meaning. Because poetry depends so heavily on the form of language,poetry is, by definition,
untranslatablein a literal sense. What is possibleiscreative transposition—rewriting the
poem in another form, another language, or even another medium like music or film.
akobson concludes with the famous phrase“Traduttore,traditore”(“the translator is a traitor”).
J
He explains that a literal translation of this phrase into English would lose its rhyme and
wordplay. To translate it properly, one would have to explain its meaning rather than copy its
words. This final example reinforces his main idea:translation is not copying words, but
interpreting meaning through signs.