Don't ask me about untranslatability

There seems to be a great deal of interest in so-called untranslatable words. I have seen and heard several conversations and interviews in which translators are asked to provide examples of words that can’t be translated; some translators have obliged, while others have pushed back, however gently, against the very concept of untranslatability. I have been interviewed twice, and one more interview is coming out this fall. I haven’t been asked so far about untranslatable Portuguese words, and I hope I never will be. Here are some reasons why.

1. When someone asks a translator for examples of untranslatable words, the request suggests that the translation unit is the word, that is, that translation work comes down to the task of finding in the target language the equivalent of each word in the original text. This makes no sense when so often translators are dealing with common expressions and idioms. But even the phrase isn't the translation unit either. Literary translators don’t translate words or phrases—they translate stories, novels, poems. The translation unit is the entire text, and the translator’s interpretation of the text—of its meaning, tone, register, rhythm—will guide the translation of individual words and phrases. There is a balance to be struck between these micro and macro levels of translation, as Bruna Dantas Lobato puts it in an interview for the Grove Atlantic. It is somewhere between the micro level—the word, phrase, sentence—and the macro level—the paragraph, chapter, the entire text—that translators make decisions as they translate.

2. The request suggests that this lack of one-to-one correspondence is a rarity, and those "untranslatable" words are a freak, an exoticism. These aren't special or exotic words. This lack of a direct correspondent across languages happens often and is referred to as a semantic gap. Even a supposedly simple word like the Portuguese “porteiro” may require more than a one-word equivalent or perhaps some explanation in the translated text. In Brazil, a porteiro may be a hotel doorman, but in the context of an apartment building, the porteiro doesn't stand at the door to open it and welcome guests. The porteiro or porteira may sit at a desk inside the building or in a booth just outside it. Is this person a receptionist if their main function is security? Perhaps. Depending on the context, the translator may choose to omit the function entirely and refer to the person by name, if a name is mentioned and that person's function is made clear from the context, or simply say "the person at the desk" or "the person in the security booth." (I provide examples of other everyday words that may be tricky to translate in a previous blog on “untranslatability.”) There are indeed several ways to convey the meaning of these hard to translate words, or rather, the sentences in which they occur. The words in question can be paraphrased; they can be added as an appositive, a phrase describing the noun it follows, as I’ve done here; they can be briefly explained in the translation in a way that blends in imperceptibly with the rest of the text, in what we call a "stealth gloss;" they can be explained in a footnote or endnote; or they can be elucidated in some other form. In some cases, the translator may choose to keep the word from the source language for a variety of reasons, including a desire to respect the culture the text comes from and represents or to avoid cultural appropriation. These examples point to the array of choices available to translators, and none of them constitute evidence of untranslatability. For a longer list of the resources available to translators dealing with semantic gaps, see this article from the American Translators Association website.

3. When a translator is asked for examples of untranslatable words, the request places an undue emphasis on what translation can’t do. Yes, it is hard to find one noun in English that conveys precisely what the Portuguese noun “saudade” means. And I suspect it is hard to find one noun in most if not all languages that conveys precisely what “Schadenfreude” means. But translating these words isn't an impossible task. After all, literature is about the humanity we all share and I don't believe that certain meanings are impossible to share across languages. Literary translation isn't made hard by "untranslatability." Rather, it is hard--and interesting and rewarding--because literary translators are constantly faced with multiple issues beyond finding equivalents for specific words. Translation is a complex process involving a very close reading of the text and a careful consideration of its meaning(s), subtext, tone, style as well as the linguistic resources available in the target language, culminating with choices made on the basis of this consideration, along with a large dose of intuition. This recognition of the complex, thoughtful, artistic work translators do is why I want to focus on what translation can do, not on what it can’t. I ask prospective interviewers, or anyone asking me questions about my translation work, to focus on the challenges a text has posed as I translated it and how I went about meeting those challenges. I want us to focus on the possibilities, the attempts, and the successes. I believe this approach would make for a much more productive, informative, and positive conversation.

I wonder how my colleagues feel about this. If you are a literary translator, please feel free to leave comments in the contact section of this site. I would love to report on the responses in a later post.