LECTURE V. EQUIVALENCE IN
TRANSLATION
Plan
1. Equivalence and Equivalents
2. Different Approaches to the Types
of Equivalencies
3. Grammar and Lexical Equivalents
4. The translation of Idioms
• 1. Equivalence and Equivalents
• Equivalence is defined in the COLLINS Dictionary of the
English language as the state of being equal or
interchangeable in value, quality, significance, etc.... or
“having the same or a similar effect on meaning”.
Similarly, WEBSTER’S “Ninth new Collegiate Dictionary”
defines the concept as a state of being “equal in force,
amount or value”. It becomes immediately clear, when
considering these two definitions, that there are three
main components in both: a pair (at least) between
which the relationship exists, a concept of
likeness/sameness/similarity/equality, and a set of
qualities. Thus, equivalence is defined as a relationship
existing between two or more entities, and the
relationship is described as one of
likeness/sameness/similarity/equality in terms of any of a
number of potential qualities. In translation equivalence
can be said to be the central issue.
• The theory of “partial communication” seems to
be the basis of most contemporary translation
studies. According to this theory communication
doesn’t transfer the whole message. The same
holds true for the translating process: it doesn’t
transfer the totality of what is in the original.
Many theorists interpret this theory in different
ways. There is no unanimity in their views.
• Some theoreticians view equivalence as
oriented translation or a procedure which
replicates the same situation as the original, but
using completely different words. According to
them equivalence is therefore an ideal method
when the translator has to deal with proverbs,
terms, nominal or adjectival phrases. They say
that the need for creating equivalence arises
from the situation.
• Roman Jakobson’s study of the
equivalence gave new impetus to the
theoretical analysis of translation since
he introduced the notion of “equivalence
in difference”. On the basis of his
approach to language he suggests three
kinds of translation:
• -intralingual, within one language, that is
rewording or paraphrase;
• -interlingual, between two languages;
• -intersemiotic, between sign systems.
• Jakobson claims that in the case of interlingual
translation, the translator makes use of
synonyms in order to get the source language
text message across. This means that in the
interlingual translation there is no full
equivalence between code units. According to
this theory translation involves two equivalent
messages in two different codes. From a
grammatical point of view languages may differ
to a greater degree, but this doesn’t mean that a
translation cannot be possible, in other words,
the translator may face the problem of not
finding a translation equivalent. In the case of
deficiency, terminology may be qualified and
amplified by loanwords or loan-translations,
neologisms or semantic shifts”.
• 2. Different Approaches to the Types of
Equivalencies
• Both mentioned theories recognize the
limitations of a linguistic theory and argue that a
translation can never be possible since there are
several methods that the translator can choose.
Several types of translation equivalence can be
distinguished. In the first type of equivalence it
is only the purport of communication that is
retained. The second type is characterized by
the “identification of the situation”. The third type
implies retention in the translation of the three
parts of the original contents. The fourth type of
equivalence presupposes retention in the
translation of the four meaningful components of
the original. In the fifth group of equivalence we
can find the maximum possible semantic
similarity between texts in different languages.
• Professor Baker speaks about linguistic and
communicative approach to translation. She
distinguishes between the following types of
equivalence.
• -equivalence that appears at word level and above word
level when translating from one language into another.
• -grammatical equivalence , when referring to the
diversity of grammatical categories across languages
and this may pose some problems in terms of finding a
direct correspondence in the Target language. In fact,
she claims, that different grammatical structures in the
Source language and the target language may cause
remarkable changes in the way the information or
message is carried across. These changes may induce
the translator either add or omit information in the TT
because of the lack of particular grammatical devices.
• -textual equivalence , when referring to the equivalence
between a ST and TT in terms of information. Texture is
a very important feature in translation since it provides
useful guidelines for the comprehension and analysis of
the ST which can help the translator in his attempt to
produce a cohesive and coherent text. It is up to the
translator to decide whether or not to maintain the
cohesive ties as well as the coherence of the ST. This
decision is guided by three factors such as the target
audience, the purpose of translation and the text type.
•
-pragmatic equivalence, when referring to strategies of
avoidance during the translation process. Therefore the
translator needs to work out implied meaning in
translation in order to get the Source text message
across. The role of the translator is to recreate the
author’s intention in another culture in such a way that
enables the reader to understand it.
•
In the theory of translation the process of translation
means the replacement of a representation of a text in
one language by a representation of an equivalent text in
the other language. Texts in different languages can be
equivalent in different degrees (fully or partially
equivalent), in respect of different levels of presentation
(equivalent in respect of context, semantics, grammar,
lexis, etc...) and at different ranks (word-for-word,
phrase-for-phrase, sentence-for-sentence).
•
It is apparent, and has been for a very long time
indeed, that the ideal of total equivalence is a chimera.
Languages differ from each other having distinct codes
and rules regulating the construction of grammatical
stretches of languages and these have different
meanings. To shift from one language to another is, by
definition, to alter the forms. There is no absolute
synonymy between words in the same language and
indeed there is no absolute synonymy between words in
different languages. Something is always “lost” or
sometimes “gained” in the process of translation..
• Language is a formal structure – a code
consisting of elements which can combine to
signal semantic “sense” and, at the same time, a
communication system which uses the forms of
the code to refer to entities. The translator has
the option. The choice is between translating
word-for-word (literal translation) or meaning-formeaning (free translation).
• Pick the first and the translator is criticized for
the “ugliness” of a “faithful” translation. Pick the
second and there is criticism of the “inaccuracy”
of a “beautiful” translation. Either way, it seems,
the translator cannot win even though we
recognize that the crucial variable is the purpose
for which the translation is being made, not
some inherent characteristics of the text itself.
•
Some of the SL units have permanent equivalents in TL,
that is to say, there is a one-to-one correspondence
between such units and their equivalents. As a rule this
type of correspondence is found with words of specific
character, such as scientific and technical terms, proper
and geographical names and similar words whose
meaning is more or less independent of the particular
contextual situation.
• Other SL units may have several equivalents each. Such
one-to-many correspondence between SL and TL units
is characteristic of most regular equivalents. The
existence of a number of non-permanent (or variable)
equivalents to a SL units implies the necessity of
selecting one of them in each particular case.
• In trying to solve the problem of translation equivalence,
Newbert postulates that from the point of view of a
theory of texts, translation equivalence must be
considered a semiotic category, comprising syntactic,
semantic and pragmatic components. These
components are arranged in a hierarchical relationship,
where semantic equivalence takes priority over syntactic
equivalence, and pragmatic equivalence conditions and
modifies both the other elements. Equivalence overall
results from the relation between signs themselves, the
relationship between signs and what they stand for, and
those who use them. Similarly, the interaction between
all three components determines the process of
selection in the TL, as for example, in the case of letterwriting. The norms governing the writing of letters vary
considerably from language to language and from period
to period, even within Europe.
• The question of defining equivalence is being
pursued by two lines of development in
Translation Studies. The first, rather predictably,
lays an emphasis on the special problems of
semantics and on the transfer of semantic
content from SL to TL. With the second, which
explores the question of equivalence of literary
texts, the work of the Russian Formalists and the
Prague Linguists, together with more recent
developments in discourse analysis, have
broadened the problem of equivalence in its
application to the translation of such texts.
James Holmes, for example, feels that the use
of the term equivalence is vague, since to ask
for sameness is to ask too much.
• 3. Grammar and Lexical Equivalents
•
Depending on the type of the language units involved
regular equivalents can be classified as “lexical,
phraseological and grammatical”.
• The absence of the regular equivalents doesn’t imply
that the meaning of an equivalent-lacking SL unit can not
be translated. The translator coming across an
equivalent-lacking word, resorts to occasional
equivalents which can be created in one of the following
ways:
•
1. Using loan-words imitating in the TL the form of the
SL word or word combination, i.e. tribalism,
impeachment, backbencher, brain-drain which get the
status of regular equivalents.
•
2. Using appropriate substitutes, that is the TL words
with similar meaning. The Russian word APTECA or
Romanian Farmacie are not exactly the English
Drugstore where they also sell such items as magazines,
soft-drinks, ice-cream, etc... , but in some cases this
appropriate equivalent can be used.
• 3.Using all kinds of lexical (semantic) transformations
modifying the meaning of the SL word.
•
4.Using an explanation to convey the meaning of the
SL unit.
•
The last method is used sometimes in conjunction with
the first one when the introduction of a loan-word is
followed by a foot-note explaining the meaning of the
equivalent-lacking word in the SL.
•
There are also quite a number of equivalent-lacking
idioms. Such English phraseological units as “You
cannot eat your cake and have it”, “to dine with Duke
Humphry”, “to send smb. to Coventry “ and many others
have no regular equivalents in other languages. They
are translated either by reproducing their form in the TL
through word-for-word translation or by explaining the
figurative meaning of it.
• Equivalent lacking grammatical forms give less trouble to
the translator. Here occasional substitutes can be
classified under three main headings, namely:
•
1. Zero translation when the meaning of the
grammatical form is not rendered in the translation since
it is practically identical to the meaning of some other
unit and can be safely left out. In the sentence “By that
time he had already left England” the idea of priority
expressed by the Past Perfect tense should be
separately reproduced in the TL as it is made vivid by
the presence of “by that time” and “ already”.
•
2.Approximate translation when the translator makes
use of a TL form particularly equivalent to the equivalentlacking form in the SL. While translating the following
sentence “I saw him enter the room” we should know
that the Russian language has no Complex Subject of
this type but the meaning of the object clause is a
sufficient approximation.
• 3.Transformational translation when the
translator resorts to one of the grammatical
transformations. While translating the sentences
“Your presence at the meeting is not obligatory.
Nor is it desirable” we can unite them and
present as one sentence.
• As it has been emphasized, equivalents are
not mechanical substitutes for the SL units but
they may come handy as a starting point in
search of adequate translation. The translator
will much profit if he knows many permanent
equivalents, is good at selecting among variable
equivalents and resourceful at creating
occasional equivalents, taking into account all
contextual factors.