UNIVERSITATEA DIN CRAIOVA

FACULTATEA DE LITERE

ȘCOALA DOCTORALĂ „ALEXANDRU PIRU”

TRANSLATION AND TRANSMEDIATION OF

SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS

SUMMARY

Conducător științific:

Prof. univ. dr. Titela VÎLCEANU

Doctorandă:

Alexandra Ștefania ȚIULESCU

Craiova

2020

1

SUMMARY

Keywords: translation, text, language, transmediation, Shakespeare, translation methods,

translation principles, translation procedures, literary translation, target text, target audience,

accuracy, fidelity, compensation

“Words, words, words” is Hamlet’s time-devouring reply to Polonius’ question “What

do you read, my lord?”. The problem of literary translation and transmediation of Shakespeare’s

plays has awakened an undoubtful interest in the last decades, and research in the field can be

said to have gone beyond disciplinary confines. Our investigation of the topic is driven by the

need to gain insights into the technicalities and practicalities of the translation of Shakespeare’s

plays and transmediation models, focusing integratively on two of Shakespeare’s plays:

“Hamlet”, “Romeo and Juliet”.

Within this complex approach to Shakespeare’s plays, the current doctoral thesis

primarily aims at investigating the translation-related challenges and solutions, involving the

English-Romanian language pair. Secondly, our research focuses on transmediation models,

more precisely on film subtitling. Thirdly, Shakespeare’s plays and Visual Arts are co-related.

Furthermore, the overarching aim of the thesis is to holistically integrate all these levels of

analysis with a view to achieving a global framework for the translation and transmediation of

Shakespeare’s plays.

The full exploitation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary theoretical approaches to

Shakespeare’s work highlights a wide range of difficulties in translating Shakespeare language

into Romanian providing linguistic, stylistic and cultural strategies through which the meaning

of a literary work can be successfully carried across into another language. Under the

circumstances, the audacious act of translating Shakespeare’s language from English into

Romanian has a distinct value and significance, leading to the in-depth understanding and

assimilation of the meaning of literary texts that will never belong to a by-gone era.

The scope of the current doctoral thesis can be best featured by an interdisciplinary and

transdisciplinary conceptual and methodological landscape. The terms interdisciplinary and

transdisciplinary represent new paradigms in their own right, based on their own sets of

methodological and objectives toolkit. As suggested by the title, this hybrid landscape will be

shaped by Translation Studies, Audiovisual Translation and Transmediation, in an attempt to

2

establish fruitful relations between today’s media and Shakespeare’s language into translation

in Romanian.

The theoretical underpinnings of the field of translation studies are blended with a

hands-on approach, most visible in the corpus analysis of the translation of Shakespeare’s

“Romeo and Juliet” and “Hamlet” into Romanian. Aiming at an in-depth investigation of the

Romanian translations of the above-mentioned plays, we primarily undertake to feature

Shakespespeare’s language alongside the specific socio-cultural context of origin so as to

understand and assess how smooth and accurate its insertion into the target language (context)

is.

Even though considerable attention has been paid the translation process and product,

we consider that transmedition issues, and especially in association with translation challenges

and achievements, have been underresearched.

With reference to Shakespeare’s language in translation, we tackle it from a

competence-based perspective: the literary translator should possess linguistic competence (as

a bilingual), intercultural competence (as a cultural mediator), thematic area competence

(interpreted here as a solid background of literary criticism, history, etc.), pragmatic

competence (as the ability to use language effectively and efficiently when contextualising

translation). An overall description of the translator’s knowledge, skills, values and attitudes is

provided by the discussions centred on the various linguistic and extra-linguistic factors which

influence the translator’s performance in terms of (in)visibility, fidelity, motivated choices, etc.

Accordingly, we attempt to systematise the findings deriving from the analysis of

Shakespeare’s translations into Romanian and from film adaptations. Further, we attempt to

present a transmediation semiotic model for his plays in relation to film and visual arts.

The present thesis is intended to provide answers to questions that might be asked by

the lay person and by experts alike, while defining the translator’s competence in terms of

ideological and axiological affiliation(s), (in)visibility, creativity, ethnocentric, ethnorelative or

ethnodeviant stances, and accountability.

One of the focal points of interest is represented by the retranslation, or better put,

rewriting of Shakespeare plays by several Romanian translators in different timeframes.

Therefore, we embark upon establishing a flexible structure for the identification and

description of the heteroglossia of recent translations as an evidence of the translators’ another

important role, namely that of shaping the evolution of language. In this respect, as pointed out

by Baker (1992) and Machali (2001), equivalence becomes essential in the transfer of both the

intendend and updated meaning. On this assumption, translators are faced with text as unit of

3

meaning in the form of stretches of words or sentences, which means that the global meaning

of the text could also be considered a unit of meaning.

Last but not least, we think that the suitability of our scientific investigation is also

grounded in the contrastive approach (parallel corpus) and in the evaluation of the intralingual

situations and interlingual ones.

Starting from the 19th century, the Romanian translators enjoyed wider access to the

original Shakespeare’s texts. However, the first Romanian translations of Shakespeare’s texts

were second-hand translations, based on German and French versions. The translators were

prevented to perceive the subtleties and refinement of the Shakespearean puns mainly because

of the employment of these intermediary texts that had been previously filtered. The different

English editions used in the translation process can also account for the significant differences

between the Romanian versions of the same play. There needs to be mention of the fact that

there are major differences between the in-quarto and the in-folio versions, and between the in-

quarto variants, such as: omission or addition of whole excerpts, scene order change, verse

arrangement change and spelling change. It is also worth mentioning the fact that the printing

or transcription that were not error free impeded on the understanding of Shakespeare’s works

even for contemporary native English speakers.

One fundamental assumption of the analysis is that the translation of Shakespeare’s

plays in Romanian implies the analysis of two different languages and cultures (source

language-English and target language-Romanian) and different timeframes, therefore

expecting functional asymmetries such as lexical and cultural gaps.

In this context, our doctoral thesis proposes a thorough assessment of linguistic and

cultural aspects encountered both in English (at the intralingual level) and in translation and

film adaptations (interlingually). With reference to the translation and transmediation of

Shakespeare’s plays, the analysis focuses on the management of the linguistic units and cultural

loads in translation, stressing the need for a fit-for-purpose methodological toolkit.

The aims that are set for the current doctoral thesis come from a number of research

questions that methodise its content, size and shape. The answers to the questions are pursued

from a theoretical perspective as well as an applied perspective. Admittedly, we start from the

general framework of the investigated fields towards most particular and specific issues

determined by the translation and transmediation of Shakespeare’s plays. Based on these

questions, we formulate the research hypotheses and we:

1. identify, explain and interpret the linguistic mechanisms underlying the translation(s) and

4

transmediation(s) of Shakespeare’s plays, more precisely, to describe the status and functional

characteristics of the translated texts in Romanian, as well as the most frequently used

strategies.

2. establish a framework of analysis of the translations of Shakespeare’s plays into Romanian

in order to identify recurrent translation-related problems and propose general as well as

customised solutions.

3. propose a flexible framework allowing for the dynamic development, rethinking and

retooling of translation strategies and procedures.

4. identify, examine and compare the creativity and impact of Shakespeare’s language from a

translation-oriented perspective.

5. identify, examine and compare transfer strategies in Shakespeare’s film adaptation from a

subtitling-oriented perspective.

6. establish a corpus where text sampling secures the accurate identification of standardising

tendencies and the adequate degree of representativeness by their importance in the target

language.

We hope that the present research thesis will provide sustainable ways of understanding

the language, translation and transmediation of Shakespeare’s plays, while also opening up

further research directions with regard to Shakespeare’s language management (involving the

English-Romanian language pair or other language pairs).

Moreover, the thesis might represent a reference point for those who are interested in

the translation and transmediation of Shakespeare’s plays, as the proposed framework can be

replicated and recontextualised for the analysis of other plays and literary texts, for the in-depth

investigation of other linguistic and cultural aspects, etc.

We also hope that our proposed could be of interest to researchers and students in the

field of (new) media studies, focusing on the semiotics of literary texts, etc. The findings of

analysis might be taken into consideration by researchers aimimg at building interdisciplinary

and transdisciplinary patterns of translation studies and transmediation studies.

The present doctoral thesis concentrates primarily on the contribution to the studies on

the Romanian translations of Shakespeare’s plays from a translation-oriented perspective,

understood in terms of the specificities of literary translation and of translating and

transmediating Shakespeare. Obviously, linguistic and cultural issues are addressed using a

purpose-driven conceptual and methodological blended toolkit of translations studies,

sociolinguistics, pragmalinguistics, corpus linguistics, intercultural communication, semiotics,

functional stylistics, hermeneutics and media studies.

5

The discrepancies between the Romanian translations of the same play but during

different time periods can be accounted for by the temporal distance that separates them and by

the evolution of the Romanian language. In this way, we undertake to explain the dilemmas and

choices of the Romanian translators of Shakespeare’s plays, who face linguistic, temporal and

cultural difficulties during the translation process.

The different English editions used in the translation process can also account for the

significant discrepancies between the Romanian versions of the same play, and we have chosen

an in-depth and detail-oriented approach to be able to truthfully describe this text type (drama)

in relation to translation and transmediation, and to eliminate parallel terminology, serving

theoretical and practical purposes.

We are fully aware that many other scientific and academic approaches to

Shakespeare’s plays in translation are left for additional investigations and surveys. Also, a

more complex view on the topic is still a challenge, and we think that we need to identify the

readership’s expectations at a larger scale and in more accurate ways.

When it comes to the methodology of the doctoral thesis and its sustainability, we adopt

a mixed toolkit, based primarily on qualitative methods and techniques, corroborated with

quantitative ones.

The thesis is predominantly based on qualitative research methods, i.e. review of

mainstream literature so as to compile, analyse and synthetise the most relevant theories and

models related to the topic of translation of Shakespeare’s plays, in the field of translation

studies, sociology of translation, intercultural communication, cultural studies, transmediation.

Qualitative research is also present in the form of case studies (transmediation of 2 films), one-

on-one interviews and documentary analysis. The corpus-based analysis is applied to

monolingual and bilingual texts alike when discussing translation and transmediation issues. It

is worth mentioning that we use tables and figures in order to quantify results. We propose a

corpus-based analysis comprising:

Source language texts

*** The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. 1996. London: Wordsworth Editions.

Target language texts

Romeo and Juliet/Romeo și Julieta. Parallel Texts, 1882. Translated by Dimitrie I. Ghica,

Bucharest: Contemporary Literature Press.

Romeo and Juliet/Romeo și Julieta, Parallel Texts. 1907. Translated by H. G. Leca. Bucharest:

Contemporary Literature Press.

Romeo și Julieta. 1984. Translated by Virgil Teodorescu, Bucharest: Univers Publishing

6

House.

Romeo and Juliet/Romeo și Julieta, Colecția Bilingvă. 2009. Translated by Șt. O. Iosif.

Bucharest: Pandora.

Romeo și Julieta. 2010. Translated by A. Ignat and A.M. Călin, Pitești: Paralela 45.

Hamlet, Prince of Denmark/Hamlet, Prințul Danemarcei. Parallel Texts, 1877. Translated by

A. Stern, Bucharest: Contemporary Literature Press.

Hamlet/Hamlet. Parallel Texts. 1908. Translated by V. Anestin. Bucharest: Contemporary

Literature Press.

Hamlet, Prinț al Danemarcei. 1964. Translated by L. Levițchi and D. Duțescu. Bucharest:

Publishing House for Universal Literature.

Hamlet, Prince of Denmark/Hamlet, Prințul Danemarcei, Colecția Bilingvă. 2009. Translated

by D. A. Lăzărescu. Bucharest: Pandora.

Hamlet, Opere II, William Shakespeare. 2010. Translated by V. Popa and G. Volceanov. Pitești:

Paralela 45.

Films

Hamlet: The Film. DVD. Directed by Franco Zeffirelli, California: Universal Pictures Video,

1990.

Romeo and Juliet: The Film. DVD. Directed by Franco Zeffirelli, California: Universal Pictures

Video, 1968.

Paintings

Painting 1 - Sir John Everett Millais, Ophelia 1851–1852. Wikimedia Commons.

Painting 2 - Salvador Dali, Ophelia’s Death, 1936. Wikimedia Commons.

Painting 3 - Paul Albert Steck, Ophelia, 1895. Wikimedia Commons.

Painting 4 - Odilon Redon, Ophelia Among the Flowers, 1905-1908. Wikimedia Commons.

Painting 5 - Ferdinand V. E. Delacroix, The Death of Ophelia, 1844. Wikimedia Commons.

Painting 6 - Ferdinand V. E. Delacroix, The Death of Ophelia, 1844. Wikimedia Commons.

Painting 7 - John William Waterhouse, Ophelia, 1889. Wikimedia Commons.

Painting 8 - John William Waterhouse, Ophelia, 1894. Wikimedia Common.

The present thesis “Translation and Transmediation of Shakespeare’s plays” is

numerically organised into five chapters according to the investigated sub-topics, with their

own introduction and conclusions, each divided into a certain number of subchapters.

The Introduction is dedicated to the rationale of choosing the research topic, the general

theoretical framework of the doctoral thesis, an interrelated multi-level summary of the main

7

researched issues and dimensions developed throughout the thesis. We set up the

methodological background of our study, the objectives, the working hypothesis, and we also

motivate the selection of the research methods and techniques. Furthermore, the Introduction

provide a concise description of the corpus and the framework of the corpus-based analysis

(corpus type, length, structure and sources).

Chapter One - Translation. Deriving Insights into the Process and Product - explores

the general concept of translation put forward by different scholars focusing on a non-elitist

all-embracing concept of literary translation, on the recognition of the diversity of approaches

within Translation Studies. This introductory part of the first chapter offers a behind-the-scenes

look at the complex machinery of translation. The relationship between the process / product

of translation and the context in which it takes place is considered to be of paramount

importance. The theoretical background helps us understand the role played by inferential

processes in decision making and problem solving in translation at the level of target text

production, evaluation and control. The discussion of translation models endorsed by Catford

(1964), Nida (1975) and Newmark (1988) focusing on macro- and micro-contextualization

issues is done on the purpose of building an integrated model. This integrated theoretical

framework allows us to better understand and operationalise the key notions of translation

methods, translation strategies, translation procedures, evaluation and control of the process

and product, and the challenges faced by translation theorists to provide functional definitions

and classifications both in a synthetic and analytical manner. For instance, we identify and

discuss in Section 1.1.5. Translation Principles and Procedures the ability of the translators to

control their process and their ability to change. This depends, to a large extent, not only on the

translation task, but also on their knowledge and translational competence and skills. Alves

(2003) considers that translators sometimes translate “automatically” in a way in which they

feel a kind of “flow” and become aware of a poor translation immediately. This enables them

to find better solutions without great effort. Sometimes, they have to spend a lot of time thinking

about a possible solution for a translation problem such as reception or production problem.

In the same climate of opinion, the subchapter 1.2. Evaluation and Control of the

Process and Product revolves around the quality of translation evaluation and the translation

errors from a syntactic and semantic level. At this theoretical stage, we provide the syntax and

semantic definitions by Mattews. First, Mattews (1981) sees the literal meaning of the term

“syntactic” as “arrangement” or “setting out together” and that “traditionally, it refers to the

branch of grammar dealing with the ways in which words, with or without appropriate

inflections, are arranged to show connections of meaning within the sentence”. Secondly, the

8

definitions of syntax termed by Matthews (1981) may refer to the study of the relationship

between the elements that join a text and formulate them as a sequence that combines words

together.

In this first chapter it can be concluded that to the process of translation needs to be

given careful attention due to a complex network of factors in order to perform an accurate

translation product. For instance, the intended use of the translation, the context of situation,

the generic knowledge, and the communicative purpose. At the end of this first chapter, a return

to the definition of translation can help to put the insights into the process and product of it into

a broader of theoretical background.

Chapter Two - Literary Translation. Specific Challenges and Perspectives - discusses

literary translation according to text type, constructed around functional theories (Reiss, 1977,

Reiss and Vermeer, 1984, Nord, 1992). Further, the chapter exploits the uniqueness and

specificity of the literary text from the perspective of the expressive text type, and the literary

translation features. Also, we richly illustrate and discuss the specific challenges of literary

translation in accordance with hermeneutic approaches, calling on the views of translation

studies researchers (Nida, 1975, Reiss, 1977, Vermeer, 1984, Venuti, 2000, Bassnett, 2002).

In this chain of thought, Section 2.1.1. Reiss’s Approach to Text Type deals with a

quality evaluation of a translation theory according to text type, constructed around Reiss’s

Functional Theory from 1977. Reiss (1979) believes that “expressiveness” is vital. In our

opinion, Reiss’s approach to literary texts is valuable, even though she fails to offer a detailed

analysis about translation methods and the theory seems to be out of date as Pym, (2010: 34)

further points out. In the same vein, a few translation scholars underscore the irreplaceable

“expressiveness” in literary translations with apposite examples. For instance, Shklovsky

(2000:44) finds out that non-standard patterns are a feature of poetic language and argues that

translation should be evaluated according to its adequacy in that regard. Bassnett (2002) claims

that, in literary text, form is strongly linked with content, and consequently form should be

carefully preserved, even if this is at the expense of fluency of the TT. Nida (1964) claims that

whether the content or form is given priority is determined by the different nature of message

from the source text. Venuti (2000) debates that the styles of the ST and TT reflect the beliefs

of the author and translator and hence should be emphasised. These theoretical considerations

are helpful, but they generally relate to translation practice and this gap calls for the use of

stylistics, an array of more “rigorous” and systematic literary linguistic theories about the nature

of literary language.

In section 2.1.2. Features of Literary Texts are exploited the uniqueness and specificity

9

of literary texts. The specific challenges of literary translation mainly stem from both ST and

TT consideration. Specifically, the literary text has unique qualities in comparison with non-

literary texts, which are exceptionally challenging to literary translators. For example, the poetic

language of literary texts has as a noticeable function that of foregrounding, which is the

opposite of automatization. The foregrounded linguistic features can breach the norms of

standard language, and thus their translation here does take the risk of creating counterpart

patterns that are unfamiliar in the TL.

Additionally, some linguistic features are subtle and implicit, but the literary translators

are often unaware. What is more, on one hand some prose translators take it for granted that

unlike in poetry, in prose the form is detachable from content, which directly causes their

inconsistence in maintaining the ST style. On the other hand, challenges also come from the

TT perspective, the linguistic and cultural differences are problematic for literary translation in

that they apply the influence on the comprehension of the aesthetic values by the target reader.

Correspondingly, literary translation usually has a target reader which is likely to be quite

different from the one the writer originally had in mind. Literary translators oppose difficulties

because of their unawareness of the individuality of literature, and even though they aware they

can not cope with them mainly when they are linguistic and cultural or specific features.

Apart from challenges in literary translation practices, some familiar theoretical issues

related to the nature of translation remain argumentative. Equivalence, often mentioned in

translation theory studies, is open to question since language is context-dependent and thus can

not be sure to have the same value in different contexts. Similarly, accuracy and fidelity do not

necessarily refer to the literal or word-for-word translation. On the contrary, fidelity has varied

dimensions and compensation may be an efficient and effective translation principle in

translating stylistic features where literal translation fails, and it is a feature “worth striving to

maintain”. (Harvey, 1995, 78).

In the last part of this chapter, particularly in Section 2.3. Equivalence, topical, and

even still controversial issues such as equivalence, accuracy, fidelity and compensation are

critically analysed in relation to literary translation quality.

Chapter Three - Audiovisual Translation. Forms. Methods and Reach - is dedicated

to the contextualisation of Audiovisual translation. Firstly, the chapter deconstructs the

historical perspective of audiovisual translation, followed by the outlining of the difficulties in

subtitling, of the adequate strategies in correlation with the evaluation process in audiovisual

translation. Consequently, we emphasis the complexity of audiovisual texts in section 3.1.2. A

Typology of Audiovisual Language Transfer. Audiovisual translation involves the translator to

10

compare verbal and non-verbal information by another form of communication such as: a

gesture or a rise in intonation. Audiovisual translators and subtitlers in particular, need to

combine language with image and not to forget, with sound. Besides, subtitlers are required to

have text compression skills that will allow them to transport the original message. This has to

be made in considerably fewer words. Further, we emphasis the audiovisual language features,

more precisely of the language of dubbing and subtitling. Further, the chapter discusses the

theory frame for subtitling as developed by Gambier (2003). Conjointly, in section 3.2.2.

Subtitling Strategies we outline some constraints and challenges inherent to the subtitling

strategies, in addition to essential semiotic elements, hinder achieving the overall evaluation

process in audiovisual translation and transmission. Within this context, we insert Gottlieb’s

subtitling classification from 1992. (expensation, paraphrase, transfer, imitation, transcript ion,

dislocation, condensation, decimation, deletion, resignation). Yet, we also mention that these

subtitling strategies are criticised by Jaskanen (1999) with the claim that they are repeatedly

subjective and overlapping, requiring the difficulty to distinguish each of them. Occasionally,

the text which has to be translated, contains the implicit humour and mocking allusion and in

this case, the translator may face some difficulties in finding the appropriate equivalent meaning

in target language related to the source language culture. The transformation of dialogue into

subtitles is influenced by three main factors: captions must integrate with the existing material

and semiotic structure of a film, speech has to be presented in and not altered.

Chapter Four -What’s in a Name? What’s in Translation? - proposes both a corpus-

based and a corpus-driven approach to Shakespeare’s plays. The corpus selected focuses on the

inventory and analysis of “love and hate” renderings in the translation of “Romeo and Juliet”.

This case study Exploring Interfaces of “Love” and “Hate” in the Translation of “Romeo and

Juliet” aims to identify frequent and specific translation strategies used to describe “love” and

“hate” as exemplified by comparing the original version in English to five different translation

versions into Romanian, covering the time span ranging from 1882 to 2010. The second part of

the corpus analysis, Exploring Interfaces of “Life”, “Death” and “Madness” in the Translation

of “Hamlet”, targets the “life, death and madness” expressions in “Hamlet” from a translation-

oriented perspective, undrlying the same objective. As a main conclusion of the chapter, the

various renderings of the above mentioned items (and literary themes) reveal different degrees

of intensity (at the connotational level), the translator’s idiolect, as well as their axiological and

ideological affiliation.

Overall, the Romanian translations of Shakespeare’s plays that we examined in this case

study cast light on the main themes of “Romeo and Juliet” - love vs. hate, “Hamlet”- life, death

11

and madness, certifying the legacy of Shakespeare’s language. The lines flow as naturally as

possible, but what is lost in most of the Romanian versions is the original iambic pentameter as

most of the translators is struggled to retain the musicality of the Shakespeare’s language and

rhythm. To a large extent, the evaluation and validation of translation implies the subjectivity

of the translator in order to interpret Shakespeare’s literary text considered a landmark linguistic

and cultural artefact.

The diachronic dimension has a major importance, the time gap being significant (1882-

2010, respectively 1877-2010) between the reception of the original message and the five

translations for each piece. Therefore, the problem of preserving the stylistic identity of the

original text and its historical dimension is accentuated.

Yet, there are some potent differences between them. Iosif (2009) prefers the poetic in

order to enhance the religious language and most of his translation choices have changed their

meanings. By the strategy of addition, he deliberately inserts the Romanian religious expression

“O, Doamne, Doamne.” (translating back as “Oh my God”) as an opening line for Juliet’s

paradoxical exclamation. In the Romanian lexicon, the interjection “O” followed by the

recurring proper noun “Doamne, Doamne” accentuates stupor, feelings of astonishment,

frustration, anger and shock. Thus, resorting to this strategy, Iosif (2009) successfully orients

the readership towards Juliet’s enigmatic reaction to Romeo as being the son of her family’s

(dreadful) enemy. In contrast, Teodorescu (1984) togheter with Levițchi and Duțescu (1964)

and Iosif (2009) opt more frequently for archaic words more often than the othet translators in

order to enhance a flavour of the past in Shakespeare’s language. For instance, the use of the

archaic term “sol” (“envoy”), a literary synonym of “messenger” in Romanian.

To enhance the biblical refence, in his translation’s notes, Volceanov (2010) mentions

that the word “pronie” is an allusion to the line from the The Gospel According to Matthew

(translating back as “Evanghelia după Matei”) in which it is said that “But not a single sparrow

can fall to the ground without your Father” (translating back as “nicio vrabie nu va cădea pe

pământ fără știrea Tatălui vostru” (10:29). Religious terms are also foregrounded by Iosif

(2009) as he activates the biblical lexicon in the Romanian rendering “precum un Dumnezeu,

stăpân pe-altarul sufletului meu” (“As a God, holy master of my shrine”), incorporating the idea

of imprecation. Juliet worships Romeo, sensing his presence as if he were God, in a sort of

personal religion.

Comparatively, Teodorescu (1984) adds the adjective “bun” (“good”) to induce the idea

of Romeo as good God and much worthy of being worshipped by Juliet. Also, to highlight

Juliet’s religious devotion to her lover on her knees he proposes the Romanian rendering “la

12

care îngenunchi mă-nchin” (translating back as “to whom I pray on my knees”), the supreme

form and position when praying in accordance with the holy Christian beliefs. Yet, the use of

the verb “a se inchina” in the translation solution, creates an extra connotation of religiousness

to Juliet’s action in accordance with the symbolism of woman placed on an inferior position to

the courting her lover, Romeo as Godlike.

To inflate religious terminology, Iosif (2009) caters “Prin nouri scanteiază sfantu-ți

duh” (“Between the clouds brightens your holy spirit”) for the source line “And sails upon the

bosom of the air”, marking once again the sanctity of Juliet’s presence. Also, he picks “soare

sfânt” (“holy sun”), intensifying the religious language Romeo uses even from their first

encounter at the ball scene to underline the purity of love that Juliet reveals.

The strategy of omission is also recurrent. In his translation adjustment, Volceanov

(2010) opts for quite visible omissions in comparison with the other translators and eliminates

the adjective “political” from the metaphor “political worm” probably to avoid any reference

to politics. Instead, he adds the word “gașca (de viermi)” (traslating back as “the worm gang”)

with a pejorative connotation. Still, in his translation, Iosif (2009) also adopts the technique of

omission, not mentioning Juliet’s name as in the original version, hiding the information from

the source text, deliberately or for aesthetic reasons.

The original meaning of the source text is constantly sustained by additions in the target

language. Thus, Iosif (2009) inserts words such as “Verona”, “veronezi” (“the people of

Verona”) to create the imagery and the frame of an Italian love story, lending it the value of an

Italian culture-specific item instead of a universal love story and symbol.

Naturalisation is a key strategy in rebuilding the original meaning, of great use in

keeping the story open for modern and free interpretations, allowing translators to adapt and

change the location of the play and the character’s name. Under the circumstances, three of the

translators replaced the name “Montague” mentioned in the source text with different variants.

Thus, via naturalisation of the name “Montague” with the Italian correspondent of “Montech”:

Ghica (1882) and Leca (1907) choose “Montechio”, while Iosif (2009) spells it- “Montecchio”.

Due to the opening line of the prologue, the translators may have associated the city of Verona

with a pair of lovers from Shakespeare’s time, named Romeo Montecchi and Giulietta

Cappelletti, also under the influence of the story line. Contrastingly, Teodorescu (1984)

followed by Ignat and Călin (2010) preserve in translation the original name of “Montague” to

sustain the accuracy.

Modulation is a repetitive technique used by the Romanian translators of Shakespeare

to modelate the original meaning so as to meet the target language requirements for naturalness

13

as well as the literary language need for creativity. Ghica (1882) and Leca (1907), opt for the

synonym “ocean” (“ocean” - a cognate in English) creating a stronger psychological hook. In

contrast with the previous translation solutions, Ignat and Călin (2010) opt for the metaphor

“râu de lacrimi” (translating back as “a river with tears”) to intensify the meaning of sadness

and pain in the target language. Also, by this technique, the word “love” is translated by Ghica

(1882) and Leca (1907) by “pasiune” (translating back as “passion”) and “patimă (translating

back as “devotion”) stressing the religious connotation.

Explicitation is of a great help in delivering the original meaningin translation, even if

the musicality and poetic function is dropped in this case. Iosif (2009) prefers a predicative

construction - “Iubirea aicea-i ură” for “loving hate”, using the verb “to be” in the present tense,

providing an explicitation in relation to what the subject “iubirea/love” stands for, and overtly

equating it with “ura/hate”. To stress the clashing of the opposite feelings that Romeo is

experiencing, the translators merge two seemingly incompatible notions in order to secure

symbolism and the aesthetic function.

Cultural specificity or flavour is favoured by most of the Romanian translators. For

instance, Iosif (2009) makes for the word “love” when rendering it in Romanian by “dor” with

no English direct equivalent, untranslatable, in fact. According to the Romanian Explanatory

Dictionary (DEX), “dor” is a longing feeling for someone you love and it is closely related to

the French term “douleur” and the English “pain”. The Romanian word “dor” is often used to

describe the certain feeling when you miss someone so ardently, a bittersweet emotion. The

translator applies a strategy of stylistic and cultural domestication to boost Juliet’s intended

meaning, taking into consideration the Romanian readership’s expectations. Also, in his

translation version, Stern (1877) proposes a formal address when referring to madness “metodă

în dânsa”, adding a cultural specific form, indicating deference, specific to Romanian T/V

pronoun system with a high polite value. In his translation version, Stern (1877) proposes a

formal address when referring to madness “metodă în dânsa”, adding a cultural specific form,

indicating deference, specific to Romanian T/V pronoun system with a high polite value.

To preserve Shakesperea’s language musicality, translators applied different

techniques. For instance, Stren (1887), Levițchi and Duțescu (1964) and Volceanov (2010) via

word-for-word translation, choose the infinitive “A fi, sau a nu fi, iata intrebarea.” Similarly, in

his translation version of “Romeo and Juliet”, Iosif (2009) plays on the aesthetic function of

language by using the repetition as a translation procedure “un nume / un nume doar! / a

name/just a name!”

Translators openly negotiate textual and artistic fidelity with interpretive elasticity.

14

Thus, at the linguistic, stylistic, dramatic and contextual-historical level, Shakespeare’s text is

meticulously translated, annotated and commented. Accordingly, Volceanov (2010) adds

translation notes in which he totally disagrees with the collocation used by the majority of the

Romanian translators until now as “prastii si sageti”. He fully rounds his arguments by

mentioning that that the current editors of the newest English modern version of “Hamlet”

published in U.K. unanimously agree that Shakespeare used the word “slings” with the

equivalent meaning for “balistă”, “catapultă sau tun” and used it with the value of a synecdoche,

otherwise they should have translated it “tunuri și arcuri”. Also, he sustains that a proper literary

translation would have sounded like “de proiectile și săgeți”, but he preferred to translate the

idea, not the imagery: “lovituri și plame” (translating back as “hits and palms”). Further, he

claims that some Romanian translators of the play “Hamlet”, apart from the above mentioned,

such as Ion Caramitru and Marius Stănescu, preferred the use of Romanian subjunctive mood

“să fii ori să nu fii...” In contrast, the decision made by the selected translators compresses the

original grammatical form and faithfully transmits Hamlet’s rhetorical question about his own

existence in particular and human existence in general.

Volceanov’s (2010) translations togheter with Ignat and Călin’s (2010) translations are

the most recent versions and the easiest to trail in terms of Shakespeare’s language

comprehension, even if their versions are the ones which shorten Shakespeare’s text and cuts

most of it, sometimes drastically in order to sustain the fluidity in translation. However,

Volceanov’s (2010) translation version for “Hamlet” delivers a modern and present text, based

on the strategy of textual concentration, eliminatimg suspecting words, albeit irrelevants for the

present readership.

Still, all twenty translations samples extracted from “Romeo and Juliet” and “Hamlet”

seem to be effective both in terms of performability and readability. The comparative analysis

of the translations of “Romeo and Juliet” with reference to the love vs hate theme and “Hamlet”

with reference to the themes of life, death and madness aims to underline the translation

intention and the fact that the adoption of a certain translation strategy is motivated at the socio-

cultural level.

A common characteristic to all the Romanian translation versions is that most of the the

homogeneity of the original text is not affected, the structure and format of the source language

are maintained. The information from the source language is not affected by translation

omissions. By using these strategies, the text is refreshed and sectored for the target language.

The translations made in 1882 (Ghica) and respectively, in 1877 (Stern), stand out for their

fidelity to the original text. The form and content are found almost intact.

15

The qualitative analysis of the Romanian translations places the first one to be the

closest to Shakespeare’s archaic language, but it recommends a modern translation version,

more appropriate to the current cultural context. As mentioned in his introductory notes,

Volceanov emphasises that in a statistical hierarchy of Shakespeare’s plays performed in

Romanian, the third rank is occupied by “Romeo and Juliet” with 38 performances and by

“Hamlet” with 48 performances. The translations used were mainly those of Iosif (2009), Virgil

Teodorescu (1984) and Dan Amedeo Lăzărescu.

The Romanian translators of Shakespeare’s plays know when they have to distance

themselves from the text or to jump closer to it. Also, they know what is to be sacrificed and

what must be preserved in translation in a proper amount as not to destroy the idea from the

source language or the created image without lightening or mutilating the essence of a certain

line.

Chapter Five - Transmediation. Forms and Models - the first part of this chapter deals

with the contextualisation of Transmediation within Translation Studies whereas the second

part identifies and explores the differences and similarities between the “Hamlet”, “Romeo and

Juliet” play dialogue and the screen dialogue approached by the director Franco Zeffirelli in the

films of 1990 and 1968 respectively, along with the Romanian subtitles.

The subchapter 5.1. “Hamlet” in Transmediation: Words Becoming Visible presents the

discrepancies between the play dialogue and the screen dialogue of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”.

These are motivated by the development of the Shakespeare’s language in the process of

transmediation and by the temporal distance between them. The film version of Franco

Zeffirelli is a model of transmediation in which we discover a series of concepts based upon

the spatial placing of the characters and their behaviour in correlation with the text breaks.

Using the strategies of subtitling such as: deletion and condensation, ideas and thoughts from

the original text that are either fixed or void in subtitling versions.

For instance, Act 1, Scene 3, in the form of transmediation, diffuses individual demands

upon us, even if the film scene is being divulged in altered version from the play. The film

dialogue of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” invites the audience to make assumptions about potential

power relations between the characters, but, the result is the unchanged, whether it is on the

screen or on the stage.

Similarly and symmetrically, the subchapter 5.2 “Romeo and Juliet” in

Transmediation: Words Becoming Visible includes the analysis of “Romeo and Juliet” with

reference to various screen cuts from the film dialogue - director Franco Zeffirelli, year: 1968,

along with the Romanian subtitles. By confronting film adaptations and subtitling, our objective

16

is to detect if the Romanian subtitling captures the essence of the original play.

Even if most of Romeo’s lines are excluded in the film version dialogue, he has some

bold interventions sustained by the invented dialogue lines which make a huge difference to the

story. For example, the insertion of “No” as response from Romeo to Juliet when asked about

her rushed love declarations towards him, leaves no room for clarification and assures the Juliet

doubts. Later in the original play text Juliet says to Romeo “do not swear at all”, but in the film

version Romeo answers with “I swear. Oh, Juliet!”. This invented dialogue line for Romeo has

a strong impact upon the story, as with his response, Romeo vows an instance of reciprocal

love, but in the original text version we do not have a clear confirmation as the film version

does. Therefore, we can say that the film encourages and influence the story line by sustain

Romeo and Juliet reciprocity in matters of love. Juliet insists that Romeo should prove that he

is sincerely in love with her “If that thy bent of love be honourable”, but she gets no reply in

the original text version. In contrast, in the film version, by the strategy of addition, Romeo

rushes in and responds with a loud “Yes”. Once again, with the invented dialogue line, Romeo

reassures Juliet of his feelings towards her.

Also, the subchapter 5.3. Shakespeare’s Plays in Visual Arts. A Transmediation Model

- explores a form of transmediation through visual arts. A selection of famous artists such as

John Everett Millais, Salvador Dali, Paul Albert Steck, Odilon Redon, Ferdinand V. E.

Delacroix, Jules LeFebvre, John William Waterhouse reconstruct the tragic end of Ophelia’s

story. In this highly featured context, we identify and explain noteworthy elements of the

original play by Shakespeare. Ophelia reconstructed and reinterpreted in visual arts is a magical

tool to help make to the viewer identify noteworthy elements in the original play by

Shakespeare. For example, Salvador Dali proposes a balance of distinguishable elements with

metaphorical representations of Shakespeare’s Ophelia. By the process of transmediation, the

viewer is left with a prominent flavour of Shakespeare’s language in form of art. The painting

that ultimately leaves room for the own interpretation of the viewer.

The General Conclusions are dedicated to the aggregate findings of our research,

pointing out to the intertextual encounter with Shakespeare’s plays, their translations into

Romanian and with the transmediation model.