ABSTRACT
Most discussions of translatability and untranslatability appeal to a conception of translation as an integral representation of an anterior utterance across languages. Complete untranslatability would be beyond words, as it would imply the impossibility of communication or even semiosis. In universalist view, linguistic differences can cause practical problems for translation, but in principle translatability is guaranteed by biological factors and cultural considerations. Translatability was taken for granted in Roman antiquity. Since the case for untranslatability bears both on linguistic structure and on the relation between language and culture, it is often subdivided into two kinds, linguistic and cultural. In the twentieth century, both translatability and untranslatability were taken up in unexpected ways by influential thinkers. Since translation theory, like philosophy, has no choice but to translate, the demonstration of untranslatability leaves the discipline in a quandary. Untranslatability has received renewed attention due to the publication of the Dictionary of Untranslatables edited by B. Cassin.
