All this is of a great relevance for the translation studies. Indeed, as is clear since long time, the most problematic issue for a translator is not to translate what is effectively said, but to transpose what is implicitly communicated though being unsaid.
Thus, when a translator deals with a text — especially if it is a poetic, religious or technical one — the content to transpose in another language is not limited to the literal meanings of the words that constitute the message. The translator is supposed to construct an expression in the target language that not only has the same literal meaning, but also the same unsaid implications and the same meta-semiotic connotations as the source text. The mastery of the translator consists in putting all these components together without weighing down the resulting message with excessive explanations and comments; indeed, the translation itself "remains perhaps the most direct form of commentary", according to D. G. Rossetti's well-known statement (see ROSSETTI 1861).
The translators of all the times have faced this problem, have often found some more or less felicitous solutions of it, and sometimes have even theorized about it. In most cases, the translators became aware of the "problem of the unsaid" in language far before the linguistic studies have reached a solution to this problem. A very known case, in such regard, is that of St. Jerome who claimed, in his treatise on the theory of translation (De optimo genere interpretandi), for the supremacy of the "sense-by-sense" translation over the "word-by-word" approach (see MARTI 1974). Not suprisingly, such an opposition is still valid also in contemporary translation studies. Thus, George Nida, one of the most known scholars of translation, speaks about formal-equivalence translations vs. functional-equivalence translations, but the opposition is basically the same as the one dealt with by Jerome (see NIDA & TABER 1982; VENUTI 2000).
Indeed, the senses to be translated are often not stated directly in the original wording and are only communicated implicitly or presupposed. Therefore, translating word-by-word would not be sufficient. Jerome simply stated the necessity of taking care of what we would call "meta-semiotic reference", "frame semantics" and "discourse implicatures" nowadays. For Jerome this is more a technique than a theory. But even in the case of G. Nida, his theoretical thinking strongly depends on his own translation practice.
The present panel is devoted to the analysis of this kind of "naïve" solutions of the "problem of unsaid", i.e. the translation techniques of ancient translators. A theoretic framework as the one explained above is supposed to be the best clue for understanding and interpreting such translation techinques.
Papers are welcome dealing with translation techinques in Asiatic cultural context, possibly in ancient period, but even in modern times provided that the translator is unaware of the modern linguistic theories. A theoretical approach similar, or equivalent, to the one presented above should be used as a general framework.
Artemij KEIDAN
University of Rome "La Sapienza"
Institute of Oriental Studies
P.le Aldo Moro 5
00185 Roma
