As a response to Eco’s quote concerning the difficulties with effectively communicating translations in different languages, I somewhat agree with his notion, but I also disagree. When adequately transitioning from one language to another, there are many cultural factors a translator must consider. Appeasing to the linguistic norms and the dialect of the targeted language is the main priority, because this is how the message will be most successfully interpreted. Sticking to the vernacular word-for-word will never result in a rewarding outcome for the targeted readers. Linguistically, no two languages are ever the same. Due to linguistic barriers, texts being translated in alternate languages will never be interpreted in the exact same way. This is part of the reason I agree with Eco when he talks about the skepticism of translators when working with multiple different languages. It’s a difficult duty to thoroughly interpret the same framework and meaning of a text into another completely different language. Phrases or words may not even exist in the targeted language, and this forces the translator to manipulate the text in the most adequate way possible. Words may hold such dense value and substance, but happen to not exist in the targeted language. For example, Eco uses a figurative case when mentioning viewpoints from different cultures. He states, “Should the translation lead the reader to understand the linguistic and cultural universe of the source text, or transform the original by adapting it to the reader’s cultural and linguistic universe? In other words, given a translation from Homer, should the translation transform its readers into Greek readers of Homeric times, or should it make Homer write as if he were writing today in our language?” (pg. 22). Besides considering language barriers, translators also have to do with handling the time gaps in between the two translated texts.
As a solution, the translator must search for a similar substitute even though it may not express the same strength or significance. The same process goes for idioms or phrases that may convey a specific message but don’t exist in the targeted language. In this case, the translator must invent new ways or build on linguistic precedent that already exist in the targeted language. With this, it’s inevitable that there will be some sort of loss with wording or context.
However, what I don’t agree with is Eco’s way of wording his opinion as if translating texts have to either be exact or be a completely new text. I think, as Jhumpa Lahiri advocated, translation is a solution, not the solution. There are multiple different ways translators can maintain the same message and still use different linguistic mechanisms. Therefore, I wouldn’t consider the newly translated text as “incommensurable” because the idea is derived from an original piece of work. There is already a foundation and outline the translators use to reciprocate the same message in a new language.