On the other hand, the second translation subscribes to norms and practices of the target culture, which means that the translator adopts the acceptability approach. In this case, the translator goes beyond the mere linguistic norms and takes into consideration the target culture and tradition.  

In my opinion, in this context, the second translation conveys the same idea of the original message and the readers can understand how important was Santiago´s role in his family. For these reasons, I believe that the second translation works better. 

 

In the first translation “he used to take them their fruit and their chicken” the translator chose an adequate approach, which means he/she chose to subscribe to the norms of the source text and through them also to the norms of the source language and culture. 

In the second translation “he was the breadwinner for the family” the translator chose an acceptable approach, which means he/she subscribed to the norms of the target culture.

Given the context of the translation, one would understand that the translator tried to keep it as literal and loyal to the original text as possible, and that is why decided to go for “take them their fruit and their chicken ''. If someone from the same culture reads the translation he/she may understand the reference that Santiago was the one that supported his family economically. But the misunderstanding may arise if someone that does not know about certain aspects of that culture reads that phrase and does not get the reference.

On the other hand, in the second translation the translator decided to shift from the source text and adopted a stance that would convey the original meaning but with a change of words that it is not so literal. So, anyone that reads that phrase would understand the important role that Santiago played in his family. 

Toury explains that translation should be regarded as having a cultural significance, and that the translator plays a social role. So, in my opinion, the second translation may be a better decision because it guarantees that whoever reads that phrase (and in any context) may understand what it means and thus it communicates the meaning of the original text.

The first translation is faithful to the words of the witness. It translates from one language into the other by using words that match in meaning and let the reader come into contact with the Peruvian Culture. In this case, the translator clearly chose the adequation pole, as Toury names it.  Although it is valid to use this pole, I think that it was not the correct choice to make since it may confuse a person that is not familiarized with Peruvian culture. As a consequence, the intention behind the woman’s words are not translated into the target language. In this context, I believe that understanding the true meaning behind “fruit and chicken” is of vital importance as it was a detail the witness must have added so that others could empathize with her and her cause. 

On the other hand, the second translation is clearly influenced by the acceptability pole, where the translator tries to recreate the intentions of the speaker in a way in which the target audience may easily understand them. This pole is useful for conveying the witness’ intention to create empathy. 

After taking into account the context and analyzing whether every individual within the target audience would understand the message in its totality, I think that choosing the acceptability pole is a much more friendly decision than using the adequation pole. However, if the aim of this translation were to share Peruvian customs, the adaptability pole would be more suited. 

In the text provided, we can see a perfect example of what Toury calls the pole of adequacy (“[th]eir fruit and [th]eir chicken") and the pole of acceptability (“the breadwinner”). It is very clear why the pole of adequacy is not the best alternative in this case: it does not convey the message clearly and it will most likely lead to an inaccurate understanding of the phrase. A literal translation creates problems in a culture in the same way as the “Lamb of God” phrase from the Bible would be unfamiliar and symbolize nothing in the Eskimo culture, as Nida proposes when explaining the dichotomy between “formal vs. dynamic equivalence”. Conversely, the pole of acceptability proves to be the best option since the term “breadwinner” conveys the exact message that the speaker had in mind, proving to be its closest natural equivalent.

In spite of the above, we must bear in mind that most of the time translators come across texts in which the decision between the pole of adequacy, the pole of acceptability or a combination of both is not as “unchallenging” as this one.  

Moreover, Toury also states that a translator may subject him or herself to the original text, with the norms it has realized (adequacy), or to the norms active in the target culture (acceptability). He continues explaining that adherence to source norms determines a translation’s adequacy, whereas subscription to norms originating in the target culture its acceptability.

Taking into account the concepts of adequacy and acceptability explained by Toury, we could say that the first translation is a clear example of adequacy due to the fact that it seems that the translation matches exactly the same words of the original text. Therefore, as the translation is subject to the original text, I consider that the message of what the woman intended to say was not correctly conveyed.

Regarding the second translation, it is an example of acceptability due to the fact that it takes into account the norms of the target culture so that the message is delivered and understood correctly. The translator has the intention of delivering the same message the speaker wanted to give by adapting it to the culture of the target audience so that they can understand the message.

All in all, I consider that choosing the acceptability pole in this case would be the best decision due to the fact that it conveys the message in a clear manner. 

This decision can in many ways determine the final translation’s effect on its target audience. A more adequate translation would be better for introducing parts of the source culture, and would more effectively influence the readers by imposing them with what could very well be alien notions, ideas, expressions, or, simply, words. A translation that more closely leans towards the pole of acceptability, on the other hand, would be more effective at conveying the original text’s message, since it is always more easy to understand something when it is being explained in a way we are familiar with, without being distracted by new ideas, concepts, or words.

In the provided example, the first is a translation that leans towards adequacy and the second on is one that leans towards acceptability. Neither is agrammatical or incorrect, but one conveys the original text’s message more naturally, without introducing a very culturally specific expression that may otherwise distract the reader. And since this seems to be a news article, I would argue that the message should be conveyed in a way that both easily grasps the readers' attention as well as keeps them focused on the story.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, in this case, I do not consider defending “the foreign” by delivering a literal or more word-for-word translation (as provided in the first alternative) worthy. Because this is a court decision, not a piece of art/literature where the text would profit from the interesting fact that in Peruvian households, they eat chicken and fruits (or that chicken is typical of Peruvian cuisine.) It could not be argued that in the second alternative there is a destruction of the underlying networks of signification, since the rendering conveys the meaning that her son was “the provider,” which is, I reckon, the focal point of the original statement. “Traer el pollo a la casa” may be classified as an idiom of the Peruvian jargon (within the boundaries of the Spanish language) and the term “being the breadwinner in the family” sheds some light on the meaning of it for English speakers. The aim of the wording of a court decision should be for as many people as possible to understand what happened in the case and what its outcome was, instead of providing entertainment (as one would most likely expect from a novel, for instance, trying to guess what the author tried to express.) It is worth reminding the existence of the plain English rule that is promoted by a vast number of linguists and lawyers (and even by governments through the enactment of statutes on the issue.) So, in this case, translating the source relevant extract in a more literal fashion would be plainly ridiculous. Letting the input language interfere with the target text here “in order to counter deculturation” would confuse the readership instead of making it easier for them to understand the judgment. If I was providing translation services for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, I would certainly not adhere to the first translation alternative (for fear of getting fired.) Further, I allow myself to doubt whether the use of domesticating techniques is convenient when translating legal texts. Law is a specialized field, it speaks its own language (i.e., legalese.) In the instant case, the loss of the essence or gist of the original wording is the right approach (which would not be the case for literary translations, probably.) Of course, a choice of such kind is always contingent on the context, otherwise, we risk incurring a qualitative impoverishment of our productions. 

Neither translation can be said to be wrong however, since both translations can work with varying degrees of success in different contexts. It depends on the context as well as the client’s needs and wishes to produce a translation that is effective and suitable. 

In the case of these translations, “breadwinner” is appropriate and conveys the same concept wonderfully, but it can be understood that, when dealing with legal statements, the client would prefer a more literal, attached translation. And in that case, it is the translator’s duty to shape the target language so as to fulfil said wish. 

(2)    he was the “breadwinner” for the family is a target-text oriented translation.

Since the linguistic norms and cultural background of the recipients of the target text will inevitably vary, to a lesser or greater extent, from that of the producer of the target text, I believe we should think of translators as cultural mediators who need to satisfy the needs of both of them, and this can only be accomplished by adjusting the message accordingly so that it flows naturally in the target culture.

In this sense, I believe the second version to be more accurate. I do not think that the first version is completely incorrect; most speakers of English would probably understand, to a certain extent, the message that the translator is trying to convey. Still, this version falls quite short of the quality standards I personally believe a translation must meet, especially in terms of accuracy and readability. In the second version, there is a shift from the source text that makes the translation more precise and elegant.