Author: Tymur Levitin — Founder & Director, Levitin Language School
Copyright © Tymur Levitin. All rights reserved.
The traditional question in translation studies is usually framed like this: How should realia be translated? At first glance, the question seems natural. Translation theory has long offered a familiar set of procedures for dealing with culture-specific items: transcription, transliteration, calque, descriptive translation, cultural substitution, generalization, omission, notes, and mixed solutions. These procedures are described in different ways by different scholars, but the underlying assumption is similar: realia are difficult units, yet they can still be “translated” through appropriate techniques. That assumption is practical, widespread, and deeply rooted in translator training.
This article takes a different position. It does not deny the value of earlier theory. It argues, rather, that the very wording of the problem has been misleading. In most cases, realia are not translated in the strict sense at all. They are interpreted, reframed, approximated, contextualized, explained, retained, staged, or strategically mediated. Traditional methods are not false; they are simply misnamed. They are usually presented as methods of translation, while in fact they are mostly methods of managing non-equivalence. That is the central claim of this article. It also explains why so many “successful translations of realia” still leave readers with only partial understanding.
The argument becomes even stronger once we move beyond lexical realia. If realia include not only words for local objects, but also culture-bound institutions, communicative habits, behavioral norms, cognitive patterns, and code-based meanings, then the old question becomes even less adequate. One cannot “translate” a style of indirectness, a hierarchy of responsibility, a ritualized way of refusing, or a culturally typical way of framing risk by means of lexical equivalence. One can only interpret the communicative force behind them and decide how that force should be reconstructed for a new audience.
Why the classical idea of “translating realia” is too narrow
Classical and modern overviews of realia translation repeatedly list familiar procedures: transcription or transliteration, calque, descriptive rendering, semantic analogy, adaptation, generalization, omission, and commentary. Newmark’s broader cultural framework, Aixelá’s distinction between conservation and substitution, and later practical summaries all confirm that the field has never relied on a single method. Instead, it has always worked through a repertoire of compromises.
That is precisely the point. A repertoire of compromises is not the same thing as direct translation. If a translator writes samovar, that is retention. If the translator writes a traditional Russian tea urn, that is description. If the translator chooses a culturally closer analogy, that is substitution or approximation. If the translator adds a footnote, that is commentary. None of these procedures creates a full equivalent. Each of them performs an act of interpretation. The translator decides what matters most: the foreign form, the practical function, the emotional coloring, the historical atmosphere, the reader’s comfort, or the cultural shock of the original.
This is why the older formula “translation of realia” should be rethought. The issue is not whether a translator can mechanically move a unit from one language into another. The issue is whether the translator can reconstruct enough of the source-world experience for the target reader to receive the intended meaning, function, and impression. In other words, the real task is not transfer of a word, but reconstruction of a cultural event within language.
What traditional theories contribute — and where they stop
Traditional theories remain useful because they identified real practical choices. They help translators notice that not all cases are solved in the same way. A culture-specific institution is not the same as a food term; a historical title is not the same as a ritual phrase. That practical differentiation remains valuable. Aixelá’s influential model, for example, groups strategies broadly around conservation and substitution, which is one of the clearest ways to show whether the translator keeps the foreignness visible or moves the text toward target-culture familiarity.
But such theories still tend to stop one step too early. They answer the question, “What procedure can be applied?” more readily than the question, “What exactly is being mediated here?” That becomes a serious problem once we leave simple object-nouns behind. A phrase like this can be worked with is not difficult because of vocabulary. Its difficulty lies in a culturally specific habit of evaluating a situation indirectly. The phrase does not simply say whether a lesson is possible. It packages uncertainty, flexibility, and practical negotiability in a recognizable local way. To render it properly, one must interpret the stance, not just the words. No classical list of procedures fully solves that by itself. The translator needs a broader interpretive model. That need is already visible in recent discussions of culture-specific items and latent or context-dependent realia.
Why realia are better understood as interpretive problems
Once the translator asks not “How do I translate this word?” but “What exactly am I trying to make the reader understand?”, the whole field changes. The object of work becomes clearer.
Sometimes the translator wants the reader to grasp a referent.
Sometimes the goal is a social function.
Sometimes it is a historical atmosphere.
Sometimes it is a behavioral script.
Sometimes it is a coded identity marker.
Sometimes it is a thought pattern that sounds natural in one culture and strange in another.
Those are not identical tasks. Therefore, they should not be treated as one homogeneous problem called “translation of realia.” They are better treated as different modes of interpretation.
This is especially important for the expanded model of realia developed in the previous article. If realia include referential, conceptual, linguistic, structural, interactional, cognitive, behavioral, institutional, and code-based forms, then each type calls for a different response. One does not handle a food term, an official title, a pragmatic formula, a ritual refusal, and a culture-specific logic of responsibility in the same way. The mistake of much earlier theory was not merely that it focused too much on words. The deeper mistake was that it asked for one family of “translation techniques” where the real problem required different interpretive strategies for different layers of cultural meaning.
The classical procedures, reconsidered
Retention: transcription, transliteration, direct borrowing
This is often the first and safest-looking option. The source form is preserved with minimal adaptation. Its strength is obvious: cultural specificity remains visible, historical texture can be preserved, and the reader meets the foreign element as foreign. This is often the best choice when the foreign item itself matters.
Its weakness is equally obvious. Retention does not interpret anything by itself. It preserves form, but often leaves meaning underexplained. In many cases it gives the reader a label without access to the lived function of the label. It is therefore not translation in the strong sense. It is controlled non-translation.
Calque
Calque appears more transparent because it recreates internal structure. It can work well when source and target cultures share enough conceptual ground for the copied form to make sense.
But calque is often deceptive. It creates an illusion of equivalence where none may actually exist. A formally transparent expression may still mislead the reader about the cultural reality behind it. In such cases, calque is not interpretation but a surface imitation that risks false understanding.
Descriptive rendering
Descriptive translation is one of the most honest procedures in the field. It openly admits that there is no ready-made equivalent and replaces the missing equivalent with explanation.
Its limitation is stylistic and experiential. Description often explains the object but weakens the compactness, tone, rhythm, or symbolic force of the original. It helps understanding, but it can flatten atmosphere. Again, what we see here is interpretation by explanation, not translation by equivalence.
Cultural substitution and adaptation
This procedure is often criticized, yet it remains useful in carefully chosen cases. It helps a target reader grasp function quickly by replacing the foreign item with a more familiar parallel. Aixelá’s substitution logic and later practical studies confirm that this family of procedures is common whenever readability and effect are prioritized.
Its danger is distortion. The reader may understand something, but not the right thing. Cultural substitution can reconstruct effect while erasing identity. It is interpretation through analogy, and analogy is always selective.
Generalization and neutralization
These procedures reduce cultural density in order to keep the text moving. They are widely used in practice because not every realia can carry the full burden of explanation in every context.
Their value is economy. Their weakness is loss. They allow communication to continue, but usually at the cost of atmosphere, precision, and cultural uniqueness. They are often necessary, but they should never be confused with full transfer of meaning.
Notes, glosses, commentary
Notes are the most explicit acknowledgment that interpretation is required. The translator stops pretending that the target text alone can fully carry the source-world meaning and adds a second channel of communication.
The weakness is narrative interruption. Notes may preserve knowledge while damaging flow. Yet theoretically they are invaluable because they reveal the truth most clearly: when realia resist equivalence, the translator becomes not only a language mediator but also a commentator.
A new proposal: not “methods of translating realia,” but strategies of interpreting realia
This article proposes that the older terminology should be replaced with a more accurate framework. Instead of speaking primarily about methods of translating realia, we should speak about strategies of interpreting realia.
That shift matters because it changes the translator’s task. The question is no longer, “Which formal procedure do I apply to this item?” but rather, “What kind of cultural phenomenon is this, and what must the reader understand about it?” Once that question is asked, strategy becomes linked to type. The translator stops treating all realia as variants of one lexical problem and begins treating them as different interpretive challenges.
Our model: strategies of interpreting realia by type
1. Naming strategy
This is used when the identity of the source item itself matters most. The item is retained, lightly adapted, or minimally framed. This strategy suits many referential realia and some institutional names.
2. Descriptive strategy
This is used when reader comprehension is more important than foreign form. It explains what the item is, what it does, or why it matters.
3. Functional strategy
This is used when the translator aims to preserve what the item does in the communicative situation rather than what it is called. It is especially useful for institutional, behavioral, and pragmatic realia.
4. Situational strategy
This is used when a unit cannot be understood outside the concrete situation in which it functions. Instead of forcing an artificial equivalent, the translator reconstructs the scene, the tension, or the behavioral script. This is crucial for interactional and behavioral realia.
5. Experiential strategy
This is used when the translator must convey not the object itself, but the cultural experience attached to it. The reader needs to understand how the item feels, what it signals, or why it matters socially.
6. Discursive strategy
This is used when the realia lies in the way thought is packaged in speech. Cognitive and political realia often require this strategy. The translator must explain the logic, ambiguity, caution, or rhetorical design of the utterance rather than search for a mythical “equivalent sentence.”
7. Code-revealing strategy
This is used for criminal, youth, professional, gendered, or subcultural codes. Here the key task is to reveal membership, register, and implied social positioning.
8. Layered hybrid strategy
This is often the most realistic strategy of all. The translator names the item, gives a minimal explanation, and lets context do the rest. Or the translator provides a functional rendering in the main text and a sharper clarification nearby. Many realia require not one action, but a sequence of interpretive moves.
Why this model is stronger
This model is stronger because it does not begin with formal techniques. It begins with meaning goals. It asks what the translator must help the reader recover: identity, function, effect, context, experience, code, or logic. Only then does it choose a procedure. In that sense, the model is not anti-translation. It is anti-illusion. It refuses to pretend that all difficult cultural material can be solved through word-level equivalence. It places interpretation where it has always belonged: at the center of serious translation.
What this changes for translators, teachers, and readers
For translators, it means greater honesty. A translator does not fail by admitting that a realia has no equivalent. A translator fails by pretending that a formal substitute has solved the problem when it has not.
For teachers, it means that students should stop asking only, “How do I translate this?” and start asking, “What must the listener or reader understand here?” That shift is decisive in advanced language work.
For readers, it means a better kind of translation: one that is less obsessed with lexical symmetry and more committed to meaningful reception.
For theory, it means the field can finally stop confusing technique with ontology. The old procedures still matter. But they should be understood for what they are: tools of interpretation under conditions of non-equivalence.
Conclusion
Realia are not “translated” in the naive sense that a stable equivalent is found and transferred. More often, they are handled, mediated, framed, explained, approximated, or reconstructed. The classical procedures identified by earlier scholarship remain useful, but they should no longer be treated as proof that realia are simply another lexical translation problem. They are not. They are cultural interpretation problems.
That is why the old question must be reformulated. The real question is not, How do we translate realia? The real question is, How do we make culturally specific meaning intelligible without destroying its identity, force, or function? Once translation studies asks that question clearly, it stops chasing equivalence where equivalence does not exist. And only then does it begin to speak honestly about what translators have actually been doing all along.
If you want, next I’ll prepare the banner text and the visual composition for this second article in the same style as the first.