Equivalence in Translation Theory I
• Equivalence between the SL and TL texts: an important area of
research in TT. While, however, the object of research is quite clear in
the attempts to describe the models of the translation process,
equivalence as an object of research is not so unequivocal.
• Equivalence is a research object of central importance not only in TT
but also in linguistic studies. No system of any language can be
described without identifying the meaning and structure of its units.
And if different languages are compared, it is again the semantic and
structural similarities or identities, in other words, equivalence
between them that are searched for.
Equivalence in Translation Theory II
What do readers, translators researchers mean by equivalence?
The researcher, the translator, and the receiver of the translated text
impose their own approaches on it.
• Readers and listeners (receivers) assume equivalence,
• translators create it,
• research workers investigate it.
Reader’s perception: the simplest.
• confidence in the translator;
• translation generally regarded as true and valid;
• no conscious concept of equivalence at all: if the work in question –
does not gain favour with him, he will blame the author and not the
translator;
• criticism will not exceed the lexical level: the translator mistranslated
certain words.
Equivalence in Translation Theory III
Translator’s perception: much more complex;
• conscious and clear-cut ideas of what equivalence could and should be
like;
• aims to create it but sometimes fails to achieve it;
• the quality of translation, i.e. creating equivalence or the failure to
create it do not directly depend on the translator’s ideas of equivalence
being conscious or instinctive.
Translation researcher’s perception: equivalence in its full complexity;
As opposed to the more or less instinctive but still “unambiguous”
notions of equivalence held by readers and translators, researchers in
translation theory have expressed different views on the essence of
translation.
Equivalence in Translation Theory IV
Various approaches to equivalence
1/ Equivalence: a precondition of translation, vs. other ways of
transmitting a foreign language text (adaptations, extracts, abstracts).
Translation involves the replacement of a SL texts with an equivalent
TL one.
Equivalence has no types or phases within the translation process. If
translation means the creation of a text equivalent to the SL one, this
also means that all translations are equivalent: study of equivalence
unnecessary.
2/ Full equivalence can never be achieved. The TL text coincides with
the original only from certain points of view, which are sought out and
systematised. Translation practice offers ample material for the study
of equivalence types and equivalence phases.
Equivalence in Translation Theory V
2/a Normative analysis: prescribes what the translator is supposed to do
in order to achieve an equivalent translation;
2/b Descriptive analysis: a great number of examples, description of how
the translator creates equivalence, what has been preserved or
sacrificed from the original text.
3/ No identical requirements of equivalence can be imposed on the
translation of an instruction manual, a film script, the description of a
machine or a poem, which means that there must be as many different
realizations of equivalence as text types.
Of the approaches treated above only those will be discussed which do not
regard equivalence as a general precondition but attempt to
differentiate between its various types.
Equivalence in Translation Theory VI
Catford’s approach to equivalence I
A Linguistic Theory of Translation (1965): distinction between “formal
correspondence” and “textual equivalence”.
• „Formal correspondent”: “any TL category (unit, class, structure,
element of structure, etc.) which can be said to occupy, as nearly as
possible, the ‘same’ place in the ‘economy’ of the TL as the given SL
category occupies in the SL”.
• „Textual equivalent” (rather vague): “A textual translation equivalent,
then, is any TL form (text or portion of text) which is observed to be
the equivalent of a given SL form (text or portion of text)”.
Formal correspondence: rare, since languages are highly different in their
systems. A certain lexical unit or grammatical structure hardly ever
fills in the same slot in the systems of the two languages (e.g. E
brother ≠ H fivér [cf. H báty, öcs, distinction missing in E]; E
grandmother, H nagymama ≠ R babushka [cf. H nagyszülők, E
grandparents, umbrella term missing in R]
Catford’s examples: E yes ≠ Japanese hai or H igen; E yes ≠ French oui
Equivalence in Translation Theory VII
Catford’s approach to equivalence II
Textual equivalence: see the definition
above + “...SL and TL texts or items are
translation equivalents when they are
interchangeable in a given situation.”
E.g. a girl comes in and says: I have
arrived.
Non-linguistic elements of the situation:
place, time, girl’s age, colour of hair,
clothing, occupation, number of
listeners present, etc.;
Very few lingusitically relevant features: 1/
the speaker (I and not you or he), 2/ she
has arrived and not left, 3/ the event has
taken place, i.e. it is not something that
will occur later (have arrived and not
will arrive), 4/ it is linked to the present
(have arrived and not had arrived).
Russian translation: Ja prisla.
Non-linguistic elements of the situation:
identical;
Lingusitically relevant features: 1/ the
speaker (ja and not on), 2/ gender
(prisla vs. prisol), 3/ has arrived and
not left (prisla vs usla), 4/ the event has
taken place, i.e. it is not something that
will occur later (prisla vs pridu), 5/ the
speaker has come on foot and has not
used a vehicle (prisla vs prijehala), 6/
the action is completed, not repeated or
progressive (prisla vs prihogyila).
Equivalence in Translation Theory VIII
Catford’s approach to equivalence III
Only three identical elements (speaker, arrival and the event having taken
place), which is, however, enough for the E and the Russian sentences
to be interchangeable in the given situation. While the E verb arrive
and the Russian verb prijtyi have hardly any formal features in
common, the sentences I have arrived and Ja prisla can be considered
textual equivalents.
Catford’s main criterion of textual equivalence: the identity of contextually
relevant features.
Equivalence in Translation Theory IX
Nida’s approach to equivalence I
In Toward a Science of Translating Eugene Albert Nida regards the
identity of the receiver’s (reader’s, listener’s) reaction/response – and
not the identity of the relevant markers of a situation - as the main
criterion for equivalence. He differentiates between formal and
dynamic equivalence.
• Formal equivalence arises if the translator gives preference to the SL
text, reflecting both its contents and form as truly as possible and
including:
1/ grammatical units, 2/ the use of words and 3/ the sense of terms. To
achieve the most faithful translation of grammatical units, the
translator will translate:
1/ a noun into a noun and a verb into a verb, 2/ does not change sentence
boundaries, 3/ does not change paragraphs or the punctuation, etc.
Equivalence in Translation Theory X
Nida’s approach to equivalence II
• E.g., Plato’s dialogues can be translated only in this way, in order for
the reader to understand the essence of Plato’s philosophical system
and follow the evolution of his terminology.
• Formal equivalence is to be achieved if a translation is made for
linguists who want to contrast the corresponding units of two
languages.
• Therefore formal equivalence is not something to be rejected but a
valuable type of translation of certain texts for a given circle of
receivers.
Equivalence in Translation Theory XI
Nida’s approach to equivalence III
Conversely, in dynamic equivalence preference is given to the TL
receiver, who, on reading a dynamically equivalent translation, cannot
help thinking that he, too, would have put it the way it has been put. A
dynamically equivalent translation is “the closest natural equivalent of
the SL text”.
“Natural” translation requires the following factors:
1/ the receptor language and culture as a whole - primary criterion for
naturalness. J.H.Frere (1820): “The language of translation ought…to
be a pure, impalpable and invisible element, the medium of thought
and feeling... it ought never to attract attention to itself...”
2/ the general context of the given message,
3/ the target-language audience.
Equivalence in Translation Theory XII
Nida’s approach to equivalence IV
Elimination of foreignness in two areas:
a/ in grammar: changes are easier to carry out as structural differences
make such changes compulsory, it is inevitable to rearrange the word
order, a noun is often translated into a verb or vice versa, a noun might
be replaced with a pronoun, etc.
b/ in lexis: adjustment of the lexical structures of the SL to those of the TL
much more difficult. Three lexical levels:
• names to which an equivalent is easy to find (folyó, fa, kő, etc.)
• names that denote culturally different objects but functionally similar
objects (e.g. könyv)
• names that refer to some cultural peculiarities such as synagogue. It is
not easy to escape their foreignness, and if the cultures in question are
very remote from each other, it appears to be totally impossible.
Equivalence in Translation Theory XIII
Nida’s approach to equivalence V
2/ the general context of the given message:
a/ sentence intonation and rhythm,
b/ reflection of the stylistic features of the SL text:
• how to avoid vulgarisms in the translation of a text written in an
elevated style,
• how to avoid making an everyday text read like a complicated legal
document because of the translator’s effort to eliminate all the
ambiguities,
• an E text written in prose will appear colourless and dull in Spanish
translation, whereas Spanish prose in E translation may sound
unbearably loquacious,
• the importance of avoiding anachronisms and the importance of
reflecting all shades of emotion of the SL text in the TL.
Equivalence in Translation Theory XIV
Nida’s approach to equivalence VI
3/ the target-language audience: the translator must be familiar with the
TL reader’s knowledge of the world, his experience and ability to
perceive and understand things around him (“capacity of decoding”).
The ideal is for the translation to achieve the same effect as the
original has in the SL environment. A frequently quoted example from
the Bible: Lamb of God → Seal of God for an Eskimo audience.
However 1: the response of the original, i.e. the SL audience cannot
always be reconstructed (literary works of several hundred years old or
deriving from an entirely different culture).
However 2: to achieve the same effect is a requirement in the case of
translations of scientific or technical works written for a contemporary
audience.
Equivalence in Translation Theory XV
Other views on equivalence I
Otto Kade (1968) 4 types of equivalences:
• total equivalence: one SL unit → one permanent TL equivalent (e.g.
terms, names of institutions, etc.);
• optional equivalence: a given SL unit → several TL equivalents (e.g.
H feszültség, G Spannung → E voltage, tension, stress, pressure);
• approximate equivalence: the meaning of a SL unit is divided between
two TL equivalents (e.g. H láb → E leg/ foot, H arc → E face/ cheek,
G Himmel → E sky/heaven;
• zero equivalence: SL unit → no TL equivalent (.e.g. culture-specific
words)
Equivalence in Translation Theory XVI
Other views on equivalence II
Gert Jäger (1975) distinguishes
• communicative equivalence: the „communicative value” does not change in
translation, i.e. it produces the same effect as the TL, see Nida. However, Jäger
regards it as a psychological aspect that cannot be studied with the tools of
linguistics;
• functional equivalence: „functional values” can be studied
linguistically – a precondition of functional equivalence
Functional values: the sum of the functions of the linguistic signs
the sum of their meanings:
a/ semantic meaning
this is what
b/ syntactic meaning: grammatical functions, e.g. topic-comment
has to be
c/ pragmatic meaning realised linguistically
preserved in
translation
Equivalence in Translation Theory XVII
Other views on equivalence III
L.S. Barkhudarov(1975) distinguishes
1/ referential meaning: relationship between signifier and signified (most
important);
2/ intralinguistic meaning: relationship between linguistic signs (last in
importance);
3/ pragmatic meaning: relationship between signs and their users (2nd in
importance).
In translation semantic losses are unavoidable and can only be minimized
if the translator sets up a priority list, see above.
Equivalence in Translation Theory XVIII
Other views on equivalence IV
Werner Koller (1979) distinguishes denotative, connonative, textnormative, pragmatic, and formal equivalence.
P. Newmark (1982) introduces
cognitive equivalence: equivalence of sense and content.
• The more informative a text is, the easier it is to create a similar effect;
• the more emotive a text is, the more difficult it is achieve the same
effect.
Two types of translation:
1/ semantic: preservation of information of the SL text
2/ communicative: effect produced on the TL reader
Equivalence in Translation Theory XIX
What “should” be preserved in translation?
Generally agreed: whatever it is called, the contents, sense, functional
value, meaning, information structure should be preserved in order to
achieve a certain degree of equivalence.
All these approaches are somewhat normative declaring what a translation
should look like, what a translator should preserve at all costs.
However: Studying the process of translation the researcher should take a
theoretical, and not a normative, stand (Revzin/Rosentsveig 1964, my
translation).
Equivalence in Translation Theory XX
Komissarov’s views on equivalence I (1973, 1980, 1990)
• not normative, critical or evaluative;
• the question to be asked is how equivalence is created;
• equivalence, or “semantic similarity” between a SL and TL text is
highly variable;
• researcher’s task: to explore types of equivalence in large amounts of
text.
The five levels of transfer correspond to five levels of equivalence (see
slides 26-33, Lecture V):
1/ equivalence on the level of the communicative goal,
2/ equivalence on the level of the situation,
3/ equivalence on the level of message,
4/ equivalence on the level of utterance,
5/ equivalence on the level of linguistic signs.
Equivalence in Translation Theory XXI
Komissarov’s views on equivalence II (K’s E-R examples translated into
H, where possible)
1/ Type I: the lowest degree of semantic similarity:
E: Maybe there is some chemistry between us that doesn’t mix.
H: Talán nagyon eltérő a jellemünk.
a/ words and syntactic structures are totally different,
b/ neither words, nor structures of the TL text are in a derivational
relationship with the SL.
What is common in them is „the general intention of the message, its
orientation towards a certain communicative effect, which can be
called ‘the purport of communicaton’”.
Equivalence in Translation Theory XXII
Komissarov’s views on equivalence III
2/ Type II: a higher degree of similarity, even if it is not so evident at first
sight:
E: He answered the phone.
H: Felvette a kagylót.
a/ words and syntactic structures are totally different again,
b/ however, they describe the same situation, although in different ways.
„The information which characterises the second type of equivalence can,
therefore, be designated as ‘identification of the situation’”.
Equivalence in Translation Theory XXIII
Komissarov’s views on equivalence IV
3/ Type III: an even higher degree of similarity (identity of not only the
communicative goal and the situation but also the way the situation is
described):
E: Scrubbing makes me bad-tempered.
H: A padlósurolás feldühít.
E: London saw a cold winter last year.
H: Tavaly Londonban hideg volt a tél.
a/ the syntactic structures are totally different, but the words contain
common semes,
b/ the TL text is a semantic paraphrase of the SL one (in the first example,
both text reveal a cause and effect relation).
Equivalence in Translation Theory XXIV
Komissarov’s views on equivalence V
4/ Type IV: similarity increases even further.
Besides the communicative goal, the situation described and the manner it
is described, the grammatical structures are also partly identical:
E: He was never tired of old songs.
H: Soha nem unta a régi dalokat.
a/ similar words and syntactic structures (SVO),
b/ the TL structures are in a derivational relationship with the SL ones.
„We can say that here the translation conveys not only the „what for”, the
„what about” and the „what” of the original, but also something of the
„how it is said in the original”.
Equivalence in Translation Theory XXV
Komissarov’s views on equivalence VI
5/ Type V: maximum possible similarity
E: I saw him at the theatre.
H: Láttam őt a színházban.
a/ the TL text retains the meaning of all the words used in the SL one,
b/ the parallel syntactic structures imply the maximum invariance of their
meanings.
Equivalence in Translation Theory XXVI
Komissarov’s views on equivalence VII
offer a broader view of equivalence than other studies do. The role of the
text, however, is absent from his analysis, too. The fact that the
original and the translated sentence contain the same lexical units and
syntactic structures does not at all make them equivalent.
The system fails to take into consideration the idea that a TL sentence can
only be equivalent with a SL one if it plays the same role or occupies
the same position in the TL text as the SL sentence in the SL text.
Equivalence in Translation Theory XXVII
Kinga Klaudy’s views on equivalence I
Three types of communicatively equivalent translation:
1/ referential equivalence: the TL text should refer to the same segment of
reality (facts, events, phenomena, etc.) as the TL text;
2/ contextual equivalence: individual sentences should occupy the same
position in the whole of the TL text as their correspondences in the
whole of the SL text;
3/ functional equivalence: the TL text should play the same role in the TL
community as the SL text in the SL community (transferring
information, provoking emotions, appeal, etc.)
It is only TL texts that satisfy these three requirements can be considered
communicative equivalents of given SL texts.
Equivalence in Translation Theory XXVIII
Kinga Klaudy’s views on equivalence II
1/ Referential equivalence: a precondition of translation. If a TL text does
not refer to the same segment of reality, it cannot be considered
translation, therefore research on the causes of “bad” translation does
not belong to the tasks of TT.
2/ Contextual equivalence has two angles: the sentence and the text.
a/ Sentence: TL sentences should be connected and should participate in
the organisation of the TL text in the same way as their correspondents
do in the SL text. This is carried out by different means in different
languages, there is a great deal of variation even within one language
and differences between language users (writers, translators, etc.)
b/ Text: in the TL text, produced as a result of translation, sentences
should be connected to one another in the same way as in nontranslated TL texts representing a similar genre.
Equivalence in Translation Theory XXIX
Kinga Klaudy’s views on equivalence III
How can equivalence depend on the degree to which translated TL texts
are similar to original non-translated TL? The answer:
3/ Functional equivalence (see above, slide 27) can only be realised if a
translated TL text conforms to the patterns of other TL texts used by
TL speakers (works of literature should not resemble legal documents,
scientific texts should not sound like small talk).
In literary texts form becomes part of the referential component and has to
conform to texts regarded as literature by the TL readers.
Equivalence in Translation Theory XXX
The importance of the concept of equivalence
Despite views rejecting it, it has great
1/ theoretical significance: in translation totally different linguistic
structures may enter into equivalence relations. Without translation
their identical function would never be detected, which provides data
for linguistic research into the relationship of function and form.
2/ Practical significance: it may provide scientifically sound criteria for
translation criticism: see the (non)-fulfilment of the three conditions of
equivalence.