Translator as cultural mediator: challenges in translating allusions

Professor Harutyunyan from the English Chair of Cross-Cultural Communication, together with Associate Professor Armine Khachatryan from the same chair, has co-authored an article titled "Translation of Allusions as a Problem of Cultural Transfer (Based on the Novel Shame by Salman Rushdie)," which examines the challenges of translating allusions and issues of cultural transmission.

The study considers how translators can render not only words, but also culture, memory, irony, and subtext. These questions are central to Professor Harutyunyan's analysis of the difficulties in translating allusions in Salman Rushdie'snovel Shame. 

– Ms. Harutyunyan, what particularly drew you to the topic of translating allusions, and why did you choose Shame by Indian-born British writer Salman Rushdie?

– The translation of allusions is particularly compelling because it lies at the intersection of linguistics and cultural studies. It is not simply a matter of transferring words, but of decoding cultural codes.

Our research focused on Salman Rushdie's work because he is a truly multicultural author. His novel Shame poses a significant challenge for translators: Eastern and Western thought, history, and myth are so closely intertwined that without a precise interpretation of its allusions, the text loses its semantic depth.

– During the research, which cultural or political allusions proved most difficult to translate? 

– From a translation perspective, the greatest challenges arise from allusions rooted in national identity, as well as religious and mythological ones. A striking example is the reference to Ahuramazda, which requires the reader not only to recognize the deity but also to grasp the subtle irony with which the author links a sacred name to a "damn land." Equally challenging are multilayered historiographical allusions, such as those involving Danton, where historical fact, literary character, and theatrical interpretation intersect.    

– In your view, is it possible to fully convey the subtext of one culture in another language? 

– A complete transfer is theoretically nearly impossible, since each native speaker has a unique associative field. However, through the translation strategy of adaptation and the use of annotations, it is possible to achieve functional equivalence.

A translator can provide the reader with "keys"—such as explanatory notes—that allow them to uncover the author's implicit meanings. 

– Ms. Harutyunyan, if you were to summarize the main idea of the article in one sentence, what would it be?

– The main idea is that the translation of allusions is not merely a linguistic transfer, but a complex act of intercultural decoding. It requires the alignment of the background knowledge of both author and reader, as well as the translator's precise interpretation of cultural codes in order to preserve the semantic depth of the work.

The findings of the study suggest that annotation and explicative translation are the most effective approaches in the case of culturally complex texts. A comparative analysis of Armenian and Russian translations shows that simplification or omission of allusions—as was the case in the Russian version—significantly impoverishes the original text, whereas the detailed commentary and faithful rendering used in the Armenian translation preserve both its scholarly and artistic value.

I place particular importance on the role of the translator as a cultural mediator. A translator should not be a mere conveyor of words, but someone who undertakes the difficult yet rewarding task of maintaining the bridge between two different worlds. In my view, one of the most dangerous tendencies in literary translation is excessive "transparency," when a text is simplified at the expense of its cultural depth. In our article, we emphasized that the complexity of the original should be reflected in the translation, even if it requires additional intellectual effort from the reader.

– From your remarks, it can be inferred that the translator is not only a linguistic intermediary but also a cultural mediator. To what extent do you agree with this view?

– Absolutely. The translator is not only a builder of linguistic bridges, but also a "cultural ambassador." Their task is not simply to replace an English word with an Armenian one, but to adapt one worldview to another. Without this mediating role, the reader cannot fully perceive the "spirit" of the work.

– Speaking more generally about the translation process, what, in your view, is most often "lost" in translation: language, humor, thinking, or cultural context?

– In my opinion, it is most often the cultural context—and closely related humor—that is lost. Humor is largely based on wordplay or historical references that may not evoke any associations in another cultural environment. Language can be reproduced, and mindset can be described, but the "hidden threads" that connect words to the reader's collective memory are the most difficult to translate.

– Do readers from different cultures perceive allusions in the same way?

– No, and that is precisely the beauty of literature. For example, biblical or Greek mythological allusions are immediately recognizable to a European reader, whereas in Eastern cultural contexts they may be perceived simply as narrative elements without deeper layers. The translator's skill lies in recognizing this gap and bridging it.

– Has globalization made it more difficult to preserve cultural distinctiveness, or the opposite?

– Yes, without question. In the context of globalization, the world is becoming increasingly homogenized. It has become significantly more difficult to preserve cultural specificity. Globalization often promotes a universal culture. Hollywood films, global brands, and social media platforms impose standardized characters, humor, and symbols. As a result, subtle national nuances and local particularities are often marginalized or pushed to the background. Today's reader often becomes more familiar with global symbols than with the deeper layers of their own culture. 

– Is today's reader prepared for "complex" literature with multiple cultural layers?

– I believe most readers prefer quick-read texts, but there is a conscious readership that seeks intellectual challenge. Authors like Rushdie are precisely for those who enjoy decoding complex texts. 

– Does the modern reader miss deeper allusions?

– Unfortunately, yes. Due to the information overload, people have become accustomed to reading superficially. Many allusions that would have been clear to an average educated reader fifty years ago may now be unfamiliar to younger audiences. This increases the importance of translators' annotations and commentary.

– Do you think artificial intelligence will ever be able to fully convey cultural context in translation?

– Artificial intelligence is an excellent tool for literal and technical translation, but it lacks empathy and cultural memory. It may be able to recognize an allusion, but it cannot feel its emotional weight or the subtle irony that the author embeds between the lines. In my firm view, the full transfer of cultural context will remain the domain of human intelligence for a long time to come.

– What kind of literature would you recommend young readers to develop cultural thinking?

– If you want to develop cultural thinking, I would recommend reading classics of magical realism and postmodernism, including Gabriel García Márquez, Salman Rushdie, and Umberto Eco. Among English-language authors, Julian Barnes, Thomas Pynchon, and Toni Morrison are essential reading. 

These writers teach us to see the world as a labyrinth of texts and symbols. Reading their works develops critical thinking and helps one understand the hidden "language" and subtexts of different civilizations.

There is no need to be afraid of "complex" literature—this is precisely where the most important discoveries are hidden. 

– Ms. Harutyunyan, is there any work that you consider virtually untranslatable?

– In literary studies, it is generally accepted that absolutely untranslatable texts do not exist—any meaning can, in theory, be conveyed through extended explanation. However, some works are almost impossible to translate while preserving form, wordplay, and cultural nuance. Such texts are often referred to as a "translator's nightmare."

The most striking example is James Joyce's Finnegans Wake. It is considered the pinnacle of untranslatability. Joyce wrote it in a unique language—a fusion of English and dozens of other languages—creating neologisms, wordplay, and associative chains that shift meaning with each reading.

– What skills should a modern translator have beyond linguistic knowledge?

– In my view, a strong command of languages today is merely a prerequisite—a foundation. To become a true professional, much more is required.

First, one needs a strong research instinct. A translator must be something of a detective: if they encounter an unfamiliar name or an obscure reference in a text, they should not rest until they have uncovered its origins.

Next is technological flexibility. We must learn to work with modern tools and artificial intelligence, not as a replacement, but as a means of improving quality.

But perhaps most important is empathy. A good translator is like a chameleon: they retain their own mastery while fully adopting the tone and voice of the author. They must be able to, quite literally, "step into the author's skin."

And, of course, broad intellectual horizons. From history to quantum physics, from pop culture to religious studies—the translator must be familiar with a wide range of fields in order not to feel alien within the text.