objects or concepts typical of a given culture: traditional British culture—British
20
leap. Neither of them has "exact matches" (whatever this means) in our target
languages. Both phrases carry some
"local colour," as is witnessed by the fact that
other speakers felt compelled to take them up again and develop on them, perhaps
in order to enrich their own speech with some humour. That's why it should be
argued that phrases like these can be considered as a specific type of realia.
As is often the case in legal reasoning, and occasionally in scholarly
argument on translation too, once you agree on how to categorize something, you
already have a clue as to how to handle it. So how do you go about translating
realia? The standard answer is that you choose from the weaponry of translation
techniques ranging from transcription, through loan and calque, to various ways of
explaining what the item is. One end of the range is more controversial: the search
for a cultural or functional equivalent to substitute for the original. Basically,
techniques mentioned in scholarly discussion of realia are still the ones
exemplified decades ago by Vinay and Darbelnet.
Even more than with single-word realia, when dealing with set phrases like
the ones in our examples, language professionals are keen to search for a cultural
equivalent, as is witnessed for example by the many multilingual lists of idioms
circulating in interpreter-training institutions. One important point to be made is
that translators will to some extent mix the available techniques, partly depending
on factors such as text type and function. A good example of this are bilingual in-
flight magazines: here, substitution of the realia by a (supposed) cultural equivalent
is frequent, perhaps because the two versions are meant to be read independently
(that is, unless the readers are frequently traveling interpreters suffering from a
serious professional deformation). This would imply that articles are to be
entertaining in each language separately.