1430 Second Lecture

Equivalence in Translation

What is equivalence?

The dictionary defines equivalence as being the same, similar or interchangeable with
something else. In translation terms, equivalence is a term used to refer to the nature
and extent of the relationships between SL and TL texts or smaller linguistic units.

The comparison of texts in different languages inevitably involves a theory of

equivalence. Equivalence can be said to be the central issue in translation although its
definition, relevance, and applicability within the field of translation theory have
caused heated controversy, and many different theories of the concept of equivalence
have been elaborated within this field in the past fifty years.

1. Linguistic Approach
2. Cultural Approach
3. Mix of 1 and 2

The Linguistic Approach

1. Jakobson and the concept of equivalence in difference

Roman Jakobson's study of equivalence gave new impetus to the theoretical analysis
of translation since he introduced the notion of 'equivalence in difference'. On the
basis of his semiotic approach to language and his aphorism 'there is no signatum
without signum' he suggests three kinds of translation:

 Intralingual (within one language, i.e. 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 ST message across. This means that in interlingual
translations there is no full equivalence between code units. According to his theory,
'translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes'. Jakobson goes
on to say that from a grammatical point of view languages may differ from one
another to a greater or lesser degree, but this does not mean that a translation cannot
be possible, in other words, that the translator may face the problem of not finding a
translation equivalent. He acknowledges that 'whenever there is deficiency,
terminology may be qualified and amplified by loanwords or loan-translations,
neologisms or semantic shifts, and finally, by circumlocutions'.
Both Vinay and Darbelnet as well as Jakobson conceive the translation task as
something which can always be carried out from one language to another, regardless
of the cultural or grammatical differences between ST and TT.

It can be concluded that Jakobson's theory is essentially based on his semiotic

1
1430 Second Lecture

approach to translation according to which the translator has to recode the ST

message first and then s/he has to transmit it into an equivalent message for the TC.

2. Nida and Taber: Formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence

Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal
equivalence—which in the second edition by Nida and Taber (1982) is referred to as
formal correspondence—and dynamic equivalence. Formal correspondence 'focuses
attention on the message itself, in both form and content', unlike dynamic equivalence
which is based upon 'the principle of equivalent effect'. In the second edition (1982)
or their work, the two theorists provide a more detailed explanation of each type of
equivalence.

Nida and Taber themselves assert that 'Typically, formal correspondence distorts the
grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language, and hence distorts the
message, so as to cause the receptor to misunderstand or to labor unduly hard'.

Dynamic equivalence is defined as a translation principle according to which a

translator seeks to translate the meaning of the original in such a way that the TL
wording will trigger the same impact on the TC audience as the original wording did
upon the ST audience. They argue that 'Frequently, the form of the original text is
changed; but as long as the change follows the rules of back transformation in the
source language, of contextual consistency in the transfer, and of transformation in the
receptor language, the message is preserved and the translation is faithful'.

Despite using a linguistic approach to translation, Nida is much more interested in the
message of the text or, in other words, in its semantic quality. He therefore strives to
make sure that this message remains clear in the target text.

3. Catford and the introduction of translation shifts

Catford's approach to translation equivalence is linguistic approach based on the
linguistic work of Firth and Halliday. His main contribution in the field of translation
theory is the introduction of the concepts of types and shifts of translation. Catford
proposed very broad types of translation in terms of three criteria:

1. The extent of translation (full translation vs partial translation);

2. The grammatical rank at which the translation equivalence is established

(rank-bound translation vs. unbounded translation);

3. The levels of language involved in translation (total translation vs. restricted

translation).

One of the problems with formal correspondence is that, despite being a useful tool to
employ in comparative linguistics, it seems that it is not really relevant in terms of
assessing translation equivalence between ST and TT. For this reason we now turn to
Catford's other dimension of correspondence, namely textual equivalence which
occurs when any TL text or portion of text is 'observed on a particular occasion ... to

2
1430 Second Lecture

be the equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text'.

As far as translation shifts are concerned, Catford defines them as 'departures from
formal correspondence in the process of going from the SL to the TL'. Catford argues
that there are two main types of translation shifts, namely level shifts, where the SL
item at one linguistic level (e.g. grammar) has a TL equivalent at a different level (e.g.
lexis), and category shifts which are divided into four types:

1. Structure-shifts, which involve a grammatical change between the structure of

the ST and that of the TT;

2. Class-shifts, when a SL item is translated with a TL item which belongs to a

different grammatical class, i.e. a verb may be translated with a noun;

3. Unit-shifts, which involve changes in rank;

4. Intra-system shifts, which occur when 'SL and TL possess systems which
approximately correspond formally as to their constitution, but when
translation involves selection of a non-corresponding term in the TL system'.
For instance, when the SL singular becomes a TL plural.

The Cultural Approach:

1. Vinay and Darbelnet and their definition of equivalence in

translation
Vinay and Darbelnet view equivalence-oriented translation as a procedure which
'replicates the same situation as in the original, whilst using completely different
wording' According to them, equivalence is therefore the ideal method when the
translator has to deal with proverbs, idioms, clichés, nominal or adjectival phrases
and the onomatopoeia of animal sounds.

2. Vladimir Ivir and Hatim & Mason

Ivir looks at equivalence in cultural terms. He believes that cultural references in any
language are almost untranslatable because they are steeped in culture and therefore
go beyond the linguistic aspects of any source text. However, he suggest certain
strategies to overcome this problem. His strategies include addition, omission,
adaptation, replacement, and other similar ways of trying to make the target text have
the same influence as the source text.
For Basil Hatima and Mason, the translator is a mediator between languages and
cultures. The translator is a communicator whose job is to communicate the intended
message of the source text as truly and faithfully as possible.

3. Popovic

He comes up with the concept of stylistic equivalence or translation equivalence, and

he defines it as " functional equivalence of elements in both TL and SL texts aiming
at an expressive identity with an invariant of identical meaning. He also refers to this

3
1430 Second Lecture

term as adequacy, expressive correspondence and faithfulness to the original. So

stylistic equivalence involves preserving the expressive character/elements of the SL,
while at the same time retaining as much as possible of its basic semantic content. So
the translator always looks for a corresponding TL item which is stylistically
equivalent to a given element of the ST.

Mix of Linguistic and Cultural Approaches:

1. Baker's approach to translation equivalence
New adjectives have been assigned to the notion of equivalence (grammatical, textual,
pragmatic equivalence, and several others) and made their appearance in the plethora
of recent works in this field. An extremely interesting discussion of the notion of
equivalence can be found in Baker (1992) who seems to offer a more detailed list of
conditions upon which the concept of equivalence can be defined. She explores the
notion of equivalence at different levels, in relation to the translation process,
including all different aspects of translation and hence putting together the linguistic
and the communicative approach. She distinguishes between:

 Equivalence that can appear at word level and above word level, when
translating from one language into another. Baker acknowledges that, in a
bottom-up approach to translation, equivalence at word level is the first
element to be taken into consideration by the translator. In fact, when the
translator starts analyzing the ST s/he looks at the words as single units in
order to find a direct 'equivalent' term in the TL.
 Grammatical equivalence, when referring to the diversity of grammatical
categories across languages. She notes that grammatical rules may vary across
languages and this may pose some problems in terms of finding a direct
correspondence in the TL. In fact, she claims that different grammatical
structures in the SL and TL may cause remarkable changes in the way the
information or message is carried across. These changes may induce the
translator either to add or to omit information in the TT because of the lack of
particular grammatical devices in the TL itself. Amongst these grammatical
devices which might cause problems in translation Baker focuses on number,
tense and aspects, voice, person and gender.

 Textual equivalence, when referring to the equivalence between a SL text and

a TL text in terms of information and cohesion. 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 or her attempt to
produce a cohesive and coherent text for the TC audience in a specific context.

 Pragmatic equivalence, when referring to implicatures and strategies of
avoidance during the translation process. Implicature is not about what is
explicitly said but what is implied. Therefore, the translator needs to work out
implied meanings in translation in order to get the ST message across. The
role of the translator is to recreate the author's intention in another culture in
such a way that enables the TC reader to understand it clearly.

4
1430 Second Lecture

2. House and the elaboration of overt and covert translation

House (1977) is in favour of semantic and pragmatic equivalence and argues that ST
and TT should match one another in function. House suggests that it is possible to
characterize the function of a text by determining the situational dimensions of the
ST. In fact, according to her theory, every text is in itself is placed within a particular
situation which has to be correctly identified and taken into account by the translator.
After the ST analysis, House is in a position to evaluate a translation; if the ST and the
TT differ substantially on situational features, then they are not functionally
equivalent, and the translation is not of a high quality. In fact, she acknowledges that
'a translation text should not only match its source text in function, but employ
equivalent situational-dimensional means to achieve that function'.

Central to House's discussion is the concept of overt and covert translations. In an

overt translation the TT audience is not directly addressed and there is therefore no
need at all to attempt to recreate a 'second original' since an overt translation 'must
overtly be a translation' (ibid.:189). By covert translation, on the other hand, is
meant the production of a text which is functionally equivalent to the ST. House also
argues that in this type of translation the ST 'is not specifically addressed to a TC
audience'.

House sets out the types of ST that would probably yield translations of the two
categories. An academic article, for instance, is unlikely to exhibit any features
specific to the SC; the article has the same argumentative or expository force that it
would if it had originated in the TL, and the fact that it is a translation at all need not
be made known to the readers. A political speech in the SC, on the other hand, is
addressed to a particular cultural or national group which the speaker sets out to move
to action or otherwise influence, whereas the TT merely informs outsiders what the
speaker is saying to his or her constituency. It is clear that in this latter case, which is
an instance of overt translation, functional equivalence cannot be maintained, and it is
therefore intended that the ST and the TT function differently.