Armenian Folia Anglistika Translation Studies

Equivalence in Translation
Ali Reza Ghanooni
Yerevan State University

T he prevalent concept in the 1950s for most translation theory is equivalence.

Translating is generally seen as a process of communicating the foreign text by
establishing a relationship of identity or analogy with it. 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.
Approaches to the question of equivalence differ radically. Theorists as Catford (1965),
Nida & Taber (1969) and Koller (1995), define translation in terms of equivalence rela-
tions, while others, such as Snell-Hornby (1988) reject the theoretical notion of equiva-
lence, holding that it is either irrelevant or damaging to translation studies. However,
Baker (1992) adopts a middle course, using this notion for the sake of convenience -
because most translators are used to it rather than because it has any theoretical status.
Those in favor of equivalence-based theories of translation define equivalence as the rela-
tionship between a source-text and a target text that allows the TT to be deemed as a trans-
lation of the ST in the first place. Theorists who maintain that translation is contingent
upon equivalence, have attempted to develop typologies of equivalence, either focusing
on the rank (word, sentence, text) at which level equivalence is said to obtain, or on the
type of meaning (denotative, connotative, pragmatic, etc.) (Baker 1997). In this article the
viewpoints of translation scholars as regards “equivalence” will be taken into account.
These theorists have studied equivalence in relation to translation process, using different
approaches.
Roman Jackobson (1959) is a figure who theorizes about equivalence. His study of
equivalence gave new impetus to the theoretical analysis of translation since he intro-
duced the notion of “equivalence in difference”. On the basis of his semiotic approach to
language and his aphorism “there is no signatum without signum” (1959:232), he sug-
gests three kinds of translation:
• Intralingual (within one language, i.e. rewording or paraphrasing)
• Interlingual (between two languages or translation proper)
• Intersemiotic (between sign systems or transmutation)
He goes on to examine the key issues of translation, notably, linguistic meaning and
equivalence. He considers the problem of equivalence in meaning between words in dif-
ferent languages. According to him (1959:114), there is no full equivalence between
code-units. In his description, interlingual translation involves substituting messages in
one language not for separate code-units but for entire messages in some other language.
The translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes. An example he
gives is that of cheese in English, which is not identical to the Russian word syr, since
the Russian code-unit does not include the concept of cottage cheese, therefore, the best
way is to expand the word in the TL. He acknowledges that “whenever there is deficien-

116
Translation Studies Armenian Folia Anglistika

cy, terminology may be qualified and amplified by loanwords or loan-translations,

neologisms or semantic shifts, and finally, by circumlocutions”.
It can be concluded that Jakobson’s theory is essentially based on his semiotic
approach to translation according to which the translator has to recode the ST message
first and then she/he has to transmit it into an equivalent message for the TC.
Vinay and Darbelnet (2000:83-93, quoted in Munday, 2001) identify two translation
strategies, “direct translation and oblique translation”. Borrowing, calque and literal transla-
tion procedures are the procedures used for direct translation in cases where the items pose
no real problem and can be easily relayed. However, there are cases in which literal transla-
tion is not possible and, for this reason, the translator should avail himself of “oblique trans-
lation”. It includes “transposition, modulation, equivalence and adaptation”.
Vinay and Darbelnet view equivalence-oriented translation as a procedure which “repli-
cates the same situation as in the original, whilst using completely different wording”
(ibid.:90). They also suggest that if this procedure is applied during the translation process,
it can maintain the stylistic impact of the SL text in the TL text. According to them, equiva-
lence 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.
Catford’s approach to translation equivalence clearly differs from that adopted by
Nida: Catford had a preference for a more linguistic-based approach to translation and
this approach is based on the ideas put forward by Firth and Halliday. The latter treat lan-
guage as communication that operates functionally in context and on a range of different
levels (e.g. phonology, graphology, lexis, grammar) and ranks (sentence, clause, group,
word, morpheme).
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 trans-
lation).
In this article the second type of translation will be referred to, since it concerns the
concept of equivalence. We will then move on to analyze the notion of translation shifts,
as elaborated by Catford which are based on the distinction between formal correspon-
dence and textual equivalence. In rank-bound translation an equivalent is sought in the
TL for each word, or for each morpheme encountered in the ST. In unbounded transla-
tion equivalences are not tied to a particular rank, and we may additionally find equiva-
lences at the levels of the sentence, the clause etc.
Catford makes a distinction between “formal correspondence” and “textual equiva-
lence”. In this dichotomy the former is “any TL category (unit, class, element of struc-
ture, etc.) which can be said to occupy the same place in the economy of the TL as the
given SL category occupies in the SL” (Catford 1965:27).
The latter is “any text or portion of text which is observed on a particular occasion to
be the equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text”.
Translation theorists who privilege equivalence must inevitably come to terms with

117
Armenian Folia Anglistika Translation Studies

the existence of “shifts” between foreign and translated texts. Catford defines them as
“departures from formal correspondence in the process of going from the SL to the TL”
(ibid.:73). 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:

Structure-shifts, which involve a grammatical change between the

structure of the ST and that of the TT;
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;
Unit-shifts, which involve changes in rank;
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” (ibid.:80). For instance, when the SL singular becomes a TL plu-
ral.

Finally, Catford comes to the conclusion that “translation equivalence does not entire-
ly match formal correspondence”. However, Catford was criticised for his linguistic the-
ory of translation. The translation process cannot simply be reduced to a linguistic exer-
cise, as claimed by Catford, for instance, since there are also other factors, such as tex-
tual, cultural and situational aspects which should be taken into consideration when
translating. In other words, Snell-Hornby (1988) does not believe that linguistics is the
only discipline which enables people to carry out a translation, since translating involves
different cultures and different situations at the same time and they do not always match
in the languages under question.
As might be imagined, scholars working in non-linguistic translation studies have
been critical of the notion of equivalence. Bassnett (1980:25) summarises the major
problems as she sees it: “Translation involves far more than replacement of lexical and
grammatical items between languages. Once the translator moves away from close lin-
guistic equivalence, the problems of determining the exact nature of the level of equiva-
lence aimed for begin to emerge”.
For Nida (1964a:159), there are two types of equivalence: “formal equivalence”
and “dynamic equivalence”. The former 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. It
is oriented towards the ST structure. Typical of this kind of translation is “gloss trans-
lation”, with profuse footnotes, allowing the reader to gain close access to the lan-
guage and customs of the source culture. On the other hand, “dynamic equivalence”
is based on “the principle of equivalent effect”, where the relationship between recep-
tor and message should be the same as that which existed between the original recep-
tors and the message. 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

118
Translation Studies Armenian Folia Anglistika

source language, of contextual consistency in the transfer, and of transformation in the

receptor language, the message is preserved and the translation is faithful” (Nida and
Taber 1969:200).
For Nida, the success of the translation depends on achieving equivalent response
with four requirements: making sense, conveying the spirit and manner of the original,
having a natural and easy form and producing similar response.
In order to answer the question “what exactly has to be equivalent”, Koller
(1979a:186) describes five types of equivalence:
1. Denotative equivalence: the SL and TL words refer to the same thing in the real
world. He calls it “content invariance”.
2. Connotative equivalence: the SL and TL words trigger the same or similar associa-
tions in the minds of the native speakers of the two languages. It is related to the lex-
ical choices, especially between near synonyms. Koller sees this as “stylistic equiva-
lence”.
3. Text-normative equivalence: This is pertinent with text-types, with different kinds of
texts behaving in different ways. This is closely linked to work by Catharina Reiss
who classifies the text as informative, expressive and operative.
4- Pragmatic equivalence: This type is oriented towards the receptor language reader,
called “communicative equivalence”. This is Nida’s dynamic equivalence.
5. Formal equivalence: This is related to the form and the aesthetics of the text, includ-
ing the stylistic features of the ST.
However, Baker (1992) puts together the linguistic and the communicative approach.
She puts a distinction between equivalence in translation that can appear at word level
and above word level. Baker acknowledges that in the bottom-up approach to translation
equivalence at word level is the first element to be taken into consideration by the trans-
lator. In fact, when the translator starts analyzing the ST she/he looks at the words as sin-
gle units in order to find a direct “equivalent” term in the TL. Baker gives a definition of
the term word, since it should be remembered that a single word can sometimes be
assigned different meanings in different languages and might be regarded as being a
more complex unit or morpheme. This means that the translator should pay attention to
a number of factors when considering a single word, such as number, gender and tense
(ibid.:11-12).
When referring to the diversity of grammatical categories across languages, she
speaks about grammatical equivalence. She states 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 grammati-
cal devices which might cause problems in translation, Baker focuses on number, tense
and aspect, voice, person and gender.
Textual equivalence is referred to when discussing the equivalence between a SL text
and a TL text in terms of information and cohesion. Texture is a very important feature

119
Armenian Folia Anglistika Translation Studies

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. It is up to the translator to decide
whether or not to maintain the cohesive ties as well as the coherence of the SL text. His
or her decision will be guided by three main factors, that is, the target audience, the pur-
pose of the translation and the text type.
Pragmatic equivalence is referred to in connection with implicatures and strategies of
avoidance during the translation process. Implicature is information which is not said
explicitly but 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.
To sum up, the concept of equivalence is very vague, encompassing diverse points of
view, not enjoying a unique base to place the translation on. For this reason, this concept
has lost color and popularity. In general, these theories can be divided into three cate-
gories. A group of translation scholars are in favour of a linguistic approach to transla-
tion, considering translation as merely a matter of linguistics. However, the translator is
also dealing with two different cultures at the same time. This particular aspect seems to
have been taken into consideration by another group of theorists who regard translation
equivalence as being essentially a transfer of the message and a pragmatic/functionally
oriented approach to translation. Finally, there are other translation scholars who seem to
stand in the middle, such as Baker for instance, who claims that equivalence is used “for
the sake of convenience − because most translators are used to it rather than because it
has any theoretical status”.

References:

1. Baker, M. (1992) In Other Words: a Coursebook on Translation. London:

Routledge.
2. Baker, M. (1997) The Routelege Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and
New York: Routlege.
3. Bassnett, S. (1980) Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
4. Catford, J.C. (1965) A Linguistic Theory of Translation: an Essay on Applied
Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.
5. Jakobson, R. (1959) On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. // On Translation. / Ed.
by R.A. Brower. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
6. Koller, W. (1979a) Einführung in die Übersetyungswissenschaft. Heidelberg-
Wiesbaden: Quelle und Mezer, The English translation of the chapter appears in A.
Chesterman (Ed.) (1989).
7. Nida, E. (1964) Towards a Science of Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
8. Nida, E. and Taber, C.R (1969/1982) The Theory and Practice of Translation.
Leiden: E. J. Brill.

120
Translation Studies Armenian Folia Anglistika

9. Snell-Hornby, M. (1988) Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam:

Benjamins.
10. Vinay, J.P. and Darbelnet, J. (1995) Comparative Stylistics of French and English:
a Methodology for Translation. / Tr. by J.C. Sager and M.J. Hamel. Amsterdam /
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

³ñ·Ù³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ³Ù³ñÅ»ùáõÃÛáõÝÁ

êáõÛÝ Ñá¹í³ÍÇ Ñ»ÕÇݳÏÁ ³Ý¹ñ³¹³éÝáõÙ ¿ óñ·Ù³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý` μݳ·ñÇÝ Ñ³-

Ù³ñÅ»ù ÉÇÝ»Éáõ ï»ëáõÃÛ³ÝÁ: лÕÇݳÏÇ Ñ³í³ëïÙ³Ùμ, óñ·Ù³Ý³μ³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý
Ù»ç óñ·Ù³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ³Ù³ñÅ»ùáõÃÛ³Ý ËݹÇñÁ ùÝݳñÏí»É ¿ ݳËáñ¹ ¹³ñÇ »ñÏ-
ñáñ¹ Ï»ë»ñÇÝ, ¨ μ³½Ù³ÃÇí μ³Ý³í»×»ñÇ ¨ ï³ñ³Ï³ñÍáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ³éÇà ¿ ¹³ñ-
Ó»É: øÝݳñÏ»Éáí ·áÛáõÃÛáõÝ áõÝ»óáÕ Çñ³ñ³Ù»ñÅ ï»ë³Ï»ïÝ»ñÁ` Ñá¹í³Í³·ÇñÁ
ùÝݳ¹³ï³μ³ñ ¿ Ùáï»ÝáõÙ ¹ñ³ÝóÇó Ûáõñ³ù³ÝãÛáõñÇÝ ¨ Ñëï³Ï»óÝáõÙ Çñ áõñáõÛÝ
Ùáï»óáõÙÁ ùÝݳñÏíáÕ Ñ³ñóÇÝ:

121