Notes from Jeremy Munday

* Discussing Equivalence

Roman Jakobson: the nature of linguistic meaning

and equivalence
In Chapter 1 we saw how, in his paper ‘On linguistic aspects of translation’ (1959/2012), structuralist
Roman Jakobson describes three kinds of translation: intralingual, interlingual and intersemiotic, with
interlingual referring to translation between two different written sign systems. Jakobson goes on to
examine key issues of this type of translation, notably linguistic meaning and equivalence. Jakobson
follows the theory of language proposed by the famous Swiss linguist Saussure (1857–1913). Saussure
distinguished between the linguistic system (langue) and specific individual utterances (parole).
Central to his theory of langue, he differentiated between the ‘signifier’ (the spoken and written
signal) and the ‘signified’ (the concept), which together create the linguistic ‘sign’. Thus, in English
the word cheese is the acoustic signifier which ‘denotes’ the concept ‘food made of pressed curds’ (the
signified). Crucially, the sign is arbitrary or unmotivated (Saussure 1916/1983: 67–9). Instead of
cheese, the signifier could easily have been bread, soup, thingummyjig or any other word. Jakobson
also stresses that it is possible to understand what is signified by a word even if we have never seen or
experienced the concept or thing in real life.

Jakobson then moves on to consider the thorny problem of equivalence in meaning between words in
different languages, part of Saussure’s parole. He points out (1959/2012: 127) that ‘there is ordinarily
no full equivalence between code-units’. Thus, the Russian syr is not identical to the English cheese
(or, for that matter, the Spanish queso, the German Kase, the Korean chijeu, etc.) since the Russian
‘code-unit’ does not include the concept of soft white curd cheese known in English as cottage cheese.

Nida and ‘the science of translating’

Eugene Nida’s theory of translation developed from his own practical work from the 1940s onwards
when he was translating and organizing the translation of the Bible, training often inexperienced
translators who worked in the field.

Chomsky Effect:

Chomsky’s generative–transformational model analyses sentences into a series of related levels

governed by rules. In very simplified form, the key features of this model can be summarized as
follows:
(1) Phrase-structure rules generate an underlying or deep structure which is
(2) transformed by transformational rules relating one underlying structure to another (e.g. active to
passive), to produce
(3) a final surface structure, which itself is subject to phonological and morphemic rules

‘Kernel’ is a key term in this model. Just as kernel sentences were the most basic structures of
Chomsky’s initial model, so, for Nida and Taber (ibid.: 39), kernels ‘are the basic structural elements
out of which language builds its elaborate surface structures’. Kernels are to be obtained from the ST
surface structure by a reductive process of back transformation.
When it comes to analysing individual words, Nida (1964a: 33ff) describes various ‘scientific
approaches to meaning’ related to work that had been carried out by theorists in semantics and
pragmatics. Central to Nida’s work is the move away from the old idea that a word has a fixed
meaning and towards a functional definition of meaning in which a word ‘acquires’ meaning through
its context and can produce varying responses according to culture. Meaning is broken down into the
following:
Linguistic meaning: the relationship between different linguistic structures, borrowing elements of
Chomsky’s model. Nida (ibid.: 59) provides examples to show how the meaning crucially differs even
where similar classes of words are used. For instance, the following three expressions with the
possessive pronoun his all have different meanings: his house means ‘he possesses a house’, his
journey equals ‘he performs a journey’
and his kindness is ‘kindness is a quality of him’.
(2) Referential meaning: the denotative ‘dictionary’ meaning. Thus, son denotes a male child.
(3) Emotive or connotative meaning: the associations a word produces. So, in the phrase ‘Don’t
worry about that, son’, the word son is a term of endearment or may in some contexts be patronizing.
A series of techniques, adapted from linguistics, is presentedas an aid for the translator in determining
the meaning of different linguistic items. Techniques to determine referential and emotive meaning
focus on analysing the structure of words and differentiating similar words in related lexical fields.
These include
hierarchical structuring, which differentiates series of words according to their level (for instance,
the superordinate animal and its hyponyms goat, dog, cow, etc.) and techniques of componential
analysis.

Formal and dynamic equivalence and the principle

of equivalent effect

The old terms such as ‘literal’, ‘free’ and ‘faithful’ translation, which were examined in Chapter 2, are
discarded by Nida in favour of ‘two basic orientations’ or ‘types of equivalence’ (Nida 1964a: 159):
(1) formal equivalence; and (2) dynamic equivalence. These are defined by Nida as follows: (1)
Formal equivalence: Formal equivalence focuses attention on the
message itself, in both form and content . . . One is concerned that the message in the receptor
language should match as closely as possible the different elements in the source language. (Nida
1964a: 159)
Formal equivalence, later called ‘formal correspondence’ (Nida and Taber 1969: 22–8), is thus keenly
oriented towards the ST structure, which exerts strong influence in determining accuracy and
correctness. Most typical of this kind of translation are ‘gloss translations’, with a close approximation
to ST structure, often with scholarly footnotes. This type of translation will often be used in an
academic or legal environment and allows the reader closer access to the language and customs of the
source culture.
(2) Dynamic equivalence: Dynamic, later ‘functional’, equivalence is based on what Nida calls ‘the
principle of equivalent effect’, where ‘the relationship between receptor and message should be
substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message’. (Nida
1964a: 159). ‘Naturalness’ is a key requirement
for Nida. Indeed, he defines the goal of dynamic equivalence as seeking ‘the closest natural equivalent
to the source-language message’ (Nida 1964a: 166, Nida and Taber 1969: 12). This receptor-oriented
approach considers adjustments of grammar, of lexicon and of cultural references to be essential in
order to achieve naturalness. For Nida, the success of the translation depends above all on achieving
equivalent effect or response. It is one of the ‘four basic requirements of a translation’, which are
(ibid.: 164):
(1) making sense;
(2) conveying the spirit and manner of the original;
(3) having a natural and easy form of expression;
(4) producing a similar response.

Although dynamic equivalence aims to meet all four requirements, it is also a graded concept since
Nida accepts that the ‘conflict’ between the traditional notions of content and form cannot always be
easily resolved. As a general rule for such conflicts, Nida considers that ‘correspondence in meaning
must have priority over correspondence in style’ if equivalent effect is to be achieved. However, it is
interesting to note the similarity with Tytler’s principles of translation in one of the early attempts at
systematizing translation theory at the end of the eighteenth century (see Chapter 2). This suggests that
the scientific approach is still supported by the essential subjectivity of some of the language of the
literal vs. free debate.
The key role played by Nida is to develop the path away from strict word-for-word equivalence. His
introduction of the concepts of formal and dynamic equivalence was crucial in introducing a receptor-
based (or reader-based) orientation to translation theory. However, both the principle of equivalent
effect and the concept of equivalence have come to be heavily criticized for a number of reasons:
Lefevere (1993: 7) felt that equivalence was still overly concerned with the word level, while van den
Broeck (1978: 40) and Larose (1989: 78) considered equivalent effect or response to be impossible.
(How is the ‘effect’ to be measured and on whom? How can a text possibly have the same effect and
elicit the same response in two different cultures and times?) Indeed, the whole question of
equivalence inevitably entails subjective judgement from the translator or analyst.