EQUIVALENCE OR ILLUSION? THE TRANSLATORS' STRUGGLE WITH CULTURAL MEANINGS

INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE “INTEGRATION OF MODERN LINGUISTICS WITH SCIENCE, EDUCATION, AND PRACTICE IN THE PROCESS OF GLOBALIZATION: NEW APPROACHES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND CHALLENGES”, DECEMBER 4, 2025 679 EQUIVALENCE OR ILLUSION? THE TRANSLATORS’ STRUGGLE WITH CULTURAL MEANINGS 1Arustamyan Y.Y., 2Rahmatova Kamilla Xafizovna 1DSc, professor National University of Uzbekistan named after Mirzo Ulugbek, Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 22nd year student National University of Uzbekistan named after Mirzo Ulugbek, Tashkent, Uzbekistan https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17828161 Annotation. The article explores long-discussed idea of equivalence in translation, arguing that attaining complete equivalence is impossible because of language’s cultural aspects. Basing on theoretical models proposed by Catford, Nida, Baker and Newmark, the article emphasizes the influence of linguistic, pragmatic and cultural elements on the meaning transfer process. Particular focus is drawn towards culturally rooted and untranslatable words through the examples of Russian-English comparisons, showing how languages reflect different perspectives. The study further examines strategies of cultural mediation, including domestication, foreignization, and compensation, referring to Venuti’s work in particular. These strategies illustrate how translators manage the conflict between accuracy and cultural relevance. Ultimately, the article argues that translation is a negotiation between linguistic form, cultural authenticity and communicative affect, and therefore full equivalence is more of a theoretical ideal construct that an achievable result. Key words: translation studies, equivalence, cultural meaning, untranslatability, domestication, foreignization, dynamic & formal equivalence. Introduction Translation is an activity of enormous importance in today’s globalized society. Numerous scholars viewed it from various angles – linguistic, cultural, cognitive – yet the question of equivalence – the degree to which a source text can be reproduced through translation – is still debatable and problematic. The term translation has numerous definitions to it due to the complexity of the process, therefore, depending on the perspective one takes, it is defined differently. According to J. C. Catford “translation is an operation performed on languages: a process of substituting a text in one language for a text in another” 1 , who highlights the linguistic aspect of translation activity. S.Bassnet, on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of culture by defining translation as “not only a linguistic act, but also a cultural one; it involves the transfer of meaning within specific cultural and social contexts”. 2 B.Hatim and I.Manson in their book “Discourse and the translator” (1990) discussed socio-communicative component of this activity by stating that “translation is a communicative process which takes place within a social context and involves the negotiation of meaning between producers and receivers of texts”. 3 Equivalence is one of the key concepts in the field of modern translation studies, understanding which is necessary for the right perception of the other concepts related to this 1 Catford J. C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965. – P. 103 2 Bassnett S. Translation Studies. London: Routledge, 2002. – P. 176 3 Hatim B., Mason I. Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman, 1990. – P. 253 INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE “INTEGRATION OF MODERN LINGUISTICS WITH SCIENCE, EDUCATION, AND PRACTICE IN THE PROCESS OF GLOBALIZATION: NEW APPROACHES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND CHALLENGES”, DECEMBER 4, 2025 680 sphere and having a conceptual approach to the translation activity in general. In the broadest sense, it is a type of relationship between two objects (ST and TT in this particular case) allowing the statement of these two being considered communicatively corresponding, though rarely completely identical. Scholars throughout many years of research have not come to a precise conclusion concerning aforementioned concept; some opinions are contradictory claiming nonexistence of full equivalence in terms of languages due to cultural and social background differences and those affecting the perception of individuals. This implies the impossibility of achieving an absolute correspondence between ST and TT on all levels of text processing (lexical, semantical, pragmatic and etc.), suggesting only partial or functional, rather that total. This paper aims to explore the issue of equivalence from the perspective of cultural meaning and examine whether true equivalence is possible when translating culture-related elements or why full equivalence often remains just an illusion. Myth of equivalence The research of equivalence has led to the necessity for the formation of several types of equivalent relationships depending on the level of the units of translation (morphemes, words, collocations and sentences) and types of meaning (denotative, connotative and pragmatic). This article will reference several types of equivalence formulated by different scholars to illustrate how deep and diverse the term is. Eugine Nida (1964) developed terms “formal” and “dynamic” equivalence, stating that former approach refers to more literal, word-for-word translation that aims at reproducing the structure and content of the ST as similarly as possible. Whereas, the later term, according to him, views ST as a whole and attempts at reproducing the original effect on the audience accentuating naturalness of the TT. 4 While a text translated using “dynamic equivalence” approach is focused on readability and sounds more natural, “formal equivalence” ensures that the text will not be contaminated by translator’s influence. Mona Baker proposed a multi-level model of equivalence, emphasizing that correspondence may occur not only on a linguistic level, but contextual as well. Her theory includes word-level equivalence (correspondence of individual lexical items), grammatical equivalence (similarity in grammatical structures), textual equivalence (cohesion and information flow of the text) and pragmatic equivalence (the implicit meaning and communicative effect). 5 This framework once more highlights the complexity of achieving a full equivalence when translating. Similarly, Peter Newmark (1992) differentiated semantic and communicative equivalence. 6 First-mentioned approach aims at preserving the exact meaning of the ST, though sometimes sacrificing naturalness and flow while second approach focuses on keeping the effect of the text on the audience prioritizing adaptation. Each type reflects a different aspect of how the meaning is transferred between languages, highlighting how tricky it is to reach a “perfect” equivalence – almost illusion – like. That is because translation is not just a simple process of transferring words from one language into another, there is an inevitable and strong interconnection between a language and society – 4 Nida E. A. Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964. – P. 331 5 Baker M. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routledge, 2011. – P. 332 6 Newmark P. A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice Hall, 1988. – P. 292. INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE “INTEGRATION OF MODERN LINGUISTICS WITH SCIENCE, EDUCATION, AND PRACTICE IN THE PROCESS OF GLOBALIZATION: NEW APPROACHES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND CHALLENGES”, DECEMBER 4, 2025 681 people, who speak that particular language; their traditions, history, habits and culture. All those factors are deeply rooted in each word (pronounced or written), words carry the weight of both linguistic and cultural meanings. Language shapes and is shaped by human experience. Thus, even when denotative meanings of a word seem to align, speakers of different cultural background still understand and perceive it differently. An example of cultural differences affecting people’s perception of concepts can be between Russian and English metaphorical representation of life. In English, life is a journey with paths, directions and goals. (E.g. I’m following my dreams; He is at the crossroads; They’ll go places in life). In Russian the word “life” carries a different cultural context, it encodes struggle, fate and endurance more strongly (Жизнь – борьба; Нести свой крест; Такова судьба). English life metaphors emphasize agency and progress whereas Russian ones are more about acceptance of struggle and destiny – pointing to historical orientations towards control, endurance and spirituality. Therefore, despite numerous theoretical models that attempt to classify and describe its types, absolute equivalence between source and target texts is unattainable, as languages encode not only different linguistic systems but also distinct worldviews and cultural experiences. Cultural Meaning and the translator’s dilemma Language is not merely a system of letters, words and sentences, it goes beyond being a means of communication. Not only do words serve as holders of linguistic denotative meanings, but they also are the reflections of cultural values and worldviews. For this reason, translators are put into the position of ever-lasting dilemma between accuracy and cultural resonance, since translation inevitably requires transferring culture alongside linguistic units transferring culture alongside linguistic units. Culture is defined by values, norms, and beliefs of the society. One’s culture can be considered a lens through which a person undergoes the world and develops a shared meaning of what surrounds them. Languages, in turn, develop in response to the societal and cultural needs of communities that speak them. “This essential idea - that a relationship exists between the exterior world as we perceive it and the linguistic form of our thoughts and of a culture – makes of a language at one and the same time the mirror of a culture and its instrument of analysis and creation.” 7 Implying that language should be viewed as “culture”, not a “tool for communication”, a linguistic system shapes values and attitudes, allowing people to see the reality in different ways. Interestingly, the understanding of this theory is impossible to achieve if one has no other language to contrast with one`s native tongue. There are meanings that do not coincide in two languages, even for cognates, leading to the realization how arbitrary linguistic symbols are, which gives a rise to what scholars call untranslatable words. These are lexical items so deeply rooted in cultural experience that no single equivalence exists in another language. For example, the Rusian “дача”, although it is often translated as country house or summer cottage, these equivalents fail to convey the cultural script embedded in the term. It is not simply a physical location; it represents a culturally specific model of life – one that combines leisure, gardening, self-sufficiency, escape from urban pressures, and deeply rooted Soviet-era traditions. For Russians, it evokes a shared cultural experience involving family, seasonal rituals and a particular rhythm of life. Similarly, English concept “privacy” lacks Russian equivalents, not 7 Durham C. A. Language as Culture. // The French Review, vol. 54, no. 2, 1980 – P. 200 INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE “INTEGRATION OF MODERN LINGUISTICS WITH SCIENCE, EDUCATION, AND PRACTICE IN THE PROCESS OF GLOBALIZATION: NEW APPROACHES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND CHALLENGES”, DECEMBER 4, 2025 682 because the ideas are absent, but because the cultural framing behind them differs. Such examples demonstrate how linguistic symbols reflect cultural phenomena rather than objective reality. A systematic comparison between English and a particular language (Russian in this case) reveals the existence of two linguistic structures, born from different conceptions of life. English tends toward lexical precision: it offers a wide range of narrowly defined verbs and adjectives (glance, stare, gaze) while Russian typically relies on smaller set of base verbs expanded through prefixes and aspect (смотреть, взглянуть, всматриваться). As a result, a single Russian lexeme may correspond to several English synonyms, each capturing only a prat of the original semantic field. These patterns point to a general tendency in English toward concrete, image-based vocabulary, and in Russian toward holistic and often emotionally richer meanings. Overall, because each language emphasizes different aspects of human experience – English privileging explicitness and agency, Russian prioritizing emotional depth and contextuality – achieving full equivalence in translation becomes limited, reinforcing the idea of equivalence as an approximate rather than absolute concept. Strategies for cultural meditation Cultural meditation is one of the translator’s main responsibilities, as it has been stated that many culturally specific elements cannot be transferred directly without risking loss of meaning. Since languages encode distinct worldviews and cultural experiences, translators must employ particular strategies that bridge these cultural gaps and help the target audience interpret unfamiliar concepts correctly. To achieve these, various approaches have been proposed by scholars in the translation studies field. One of the scholars, who is widely known for his contribution to this matter is Lawrence Venuti with his proposal of “domestication” and “foreignization”. “Domestication is an ethnocentric reduction of a foreign text to target-language cultural values”. 8 He points out that this strategy privileges fluency and readability of the text by adapting it to the target culture even though occasionally leading to the loss of the original “charm” and potential unrecognizable state of the text. The risk of “over-adaptation” increases causing possible erasure of cultural specificity and imposition of target-culture ideologies into the text by replacing foreign elements with target-culture analogues or paraphrases having similar concepts. “Foreignization entails choosing a foreign text and developing a translation method along lines which are excluded by dominant cultural values in the target language.” 9 This strategy stands on the opposite side of the spectrum stating the intentional preservation of the “foreingness” of the source text. The translator here leaves the structures, terms and cultural markers of the source text intact encouraging cross-cultural awareness. By keeping the unfamiliarity, foreignization makes visible the cultural distance that is often attempted to be concealed allowing target audience to witness how source and target languages, and, therefore, cultures are different from each other and unique. Compensation is one of the techniques for cultural mediation, it restores the lost cultural, stylistic or semantic effect in case of impossible preservation of what appeared in the source text; “a technique that recreates lost effects in another part of the text” 10 . The translator 8 Venuti L. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London: Routledge, 1995. – P. 353. 9 Ibid. 10 Hervey S., Higgins I. Thinking Translation: A Course in Translation Method. London: Routledge, 1992. – P. 264 INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE “INTEGRATION OF MODERN LINGUISTICS WITH SCIENCE, EDUCATION, AND PRACTICE IN THE PROCESS OF GLOBALIZATION: NEW APPROACHES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND CHALLENGES”, DECEMBER 4, 2025 683 compensates inevitable losses by compensating the information somewhere else in the text while still keeping the overall pragmatic impact. Helpful with wordplay, metaphors or humor, this strategy enables translators to maintain readability without sacrificing meaning significantly. These strategies reveal that translator’s task goes far beyond reproducing linguistic structures; it involves making important conscious decisions about how cultural experience is represented in the final product of translation – whether the strangeness of the source text ought to be highlighted and preserved (foreignization); naturalness and familiarity outweighs for easier perception by target audience (domestication) or the structure of the text could be distorted in order to compensate for an absent concept(compensation). Considering all of the aforementioned facts, the choice of the strategy and usage of translational techniques is not purely a mechanical process, but a negotiation between form, effect and sense. Therefore, it reinforces the central argument of the article: full equivalence is unattainable exactly because of the necessity of balance between cultural authenticity and clarity. Conclusion The analysis clearly demonstrates the obstacles in achieving full equivalence in the form of differences in culture, linguistic aspects and cognitive processes between languages. Culturerelated and worldview-dependent units make the application of various types of equivalence (formal, dynamic, semantic and grammatical) proposed by scholars, limited. The examples between Russian and English illustrate how even seemingly simple words carry different connotative meanings, making direct equivalence impossible. Thus, translators must strategically implement domestication, foreignization, compensation, and other techniques to balance fidelity with clarity. These choices are often dependent on many factors and require a deep understanding of not only a text, but its purpose, audience and intended effect on the reader, thus translation should not be understood as a quest for a perfect equivalence but as a process of a meaningful approximation shaped by cultural complexity and constant decision-making processes. REFERENCES 1. Baker M. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routledge, 2011. 2. Bassnett S. Translation Studies. London: Routledge, 2002. 3. Catford J. C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965. 4. Durham C. A. Language as Culture. // The French Review, vol. 54, no. 2, 1980 5. Hatim B., Mason I. Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman, 1990. 6. Hervey S., Higgins I. Thinking Translation: A Course in Translation Method. London: Routledge, 1992. 7. Newmark P. A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice Hall, 1988. 8. Nida E. A. Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964. 9. Venuti L. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London: Routledge, 1995.