Equivalence And Equivalence Efect

Dr.Ramon A. Boloron
Holy Name University
Several najor Works ofthe tirne :
• Eugene Nida's seminal concepts of formal and
dynamic equivalence
• Peter Newmark's semantic and communicative
translation

• Werner Koller's Korrespondenz and Aquivalenz

Roman Jakobson, a structuralist, describes three
kinds of translation: intralingual ,
interlingual, and
intersemiotic, with interlingual referring to
translation between two different written systems.

Saussure distinguished between the linguistic

system (langue) and specific individual utteran
(parole). Central to his theory oflangue,he
(
differentiated between the signifier the spoken
(
and written signal)and the signified the concept)
,which together create the linguistic sign.
 Exarnple:
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). Instead

of cheese, the signifier could easily have been
bread, soup,thingummyjig or any other word.
 Linguistic Uniyersalisrn
Considers that ,although languages may differ in the way they convey
meaning and in the surface realizations ofthat meaning, there is a shared
way of thinking and experiencing the world.

Linguistic Relativity or determinism

Claims that differences in language shape different conceptualizations of
the world.

Full linguistic relativity

Would mean that translation was impossible, but of course translation
does occur in all sorts ofdifferent contexts.
 In Jakobson's description interlingual translation
involves substituting messages in one language not for
separate code-units but for entire messages in some other
language.

For Jakobson, cross-linguistic differences ,which

underlie the concept of equivalence,centre around
obligatory grammatical and lexical :
form Languages differ
essentially in what they must convey and not in what they
convey.
Examples ofdifferences :
The level ofgender : house
e.g. is feminine in Roman languages.
Neuter in German and English; honey is masculine in French,
German and Italian , feminine in Spanish, and neuter in English.

The Level of aspect :in Russian, the verb morphology varies

according to whether the action has been completed or not ;
,
The level of semantic fields such as kinship terms :eg. the
German Geschwister is normally explicated in English as brothers
and sisters, since siblings is rather formal. Similarly, in Chinese it

(
would be xiong di jie mei) literally meaning clder brother,
younger/ clder brother, elder/ younger sister
Jakobson believes that all is conveyable in any
existing language. For him, only poetry ,with its unity
of form and sense and where phonemic similarity is

sensed as semantic relationship , considered

is

untranslatable and requires creative transposition.

 (Arnerican Eugene ) Nida
(1914-2011)Theory translation
of
Eugene Nida's theory of translation developed from his
own practical work from the 1940's onwards when he was
translating and organizing the translation of the Bible,

training often inexperienced translators who worked in the

field.

His works were influenced by Noam Chomsky's

generative-transformational grammar model analyses
sentences into series of related levels governed by rules.
 Key features of thernodel:
Phrase structure rules generate an underlying or deep structure
which is

Transformed by transformational rules relating one underlying

.
structure to another (e.g. active to passive), to produce

Final surface structure,

and morphemic rules.
which itsclf issubject to phonological

The most basic of such structures are kernel sentences, which

are simple, active, declarative sentences that require the
minimum oftransformation (e.g. the wolf attackedthe deer)
The kernel structure entails a reductive process of back

transformation analysis using generative-transformational

grammar's four types of functional class :
1events :often but not always performed by verbs (e.g. run, fall,

grow, think)
2 objects :often but not always performed by nouns (e.g. man,
horse, mountain, talble)

3 abstracts :quantities and qualitics ,

including adjectives and
adverbs (eg red, length, slowly )
4 relationals :including affixes,prepositions, conjunctions, and
copulas (eg.pre, into, of, because, be )
Exarnple of analysis designed to illustrate the
different constructions with the preposition of
:
Surface structure will ofGod

Back transformation :B (object ,God )performs A (event ,wills)

:creation of the world
Surface structure

Back transformation :B (object, the world )is performed by A (

event, creates)
Kernelsare the level atwhich the message is transferred
intothe surface structure in aprocess of:1 literal transfer 2
minimal transfer 3literary transfer
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 cont
and can produce varying responses according to culture.
Meaning is broken down into the following:
a. Linguistic meaning : between different linguistic
relationship
structures, borrowing clements of Chomsky's model.Nida
provides examples to show how the meaning crucially differs even
where similar classes of words are used. For example, the use of
possessive pronoun *his have different meanings :
His house means he possesses ahouse ;his journey
equals he performs a journey and his kindness is a
quality of him.
meaning:the denotative dictionary
b. Referential
meaning. Thus,son denotes a male child.
c. Emotive or connotative meaning: the associations
a word produces. So,on the phrase don't worry
about that son,the word son is a term of endearment
or may in some contexts be patronizing.
Techniques in determining referential and emotive meaning:
Hierarchical structuring :differentiates series ofwords

(forinstance, superordinate
according to their level
animal and its hyponyms goat, dog, cow, etc)

b. :
Componential analysis seeks to identify and discriminate
specific features of a range of related words.
Semantic structure analysis :separates out visually the
different meanings of spirit( demons, angels, gods, ghost,
ethos, alcohol, etc)
The old terms such as literal, free, and faithful translation:
discarded by Nida in favor of types of cquivalence :
1 formal equivalence 2dynamic equivalence
1Formal cquivalence focuses attention
to the message itslf, in
both form and content.. The receptor language should match as
closely as possible the different elements in the source language.

2. Dynamic cquivalence :dynamic, later "

functional,cquivalence

is based on what Nida calls the principle of cquivalenteffect

where the message has to be tailored to the receptor's linguistic
needs and cultural expectations.
For Nida, the success of the translation depends above
allon achieving equivalent effect or response :
1Making sense 2conveying the spirit and manner of
the original 3having natural and easy form of
expression 4 producing a similar response
Broeck and Larose considered equivalent effect or
response to be impossible (How can a text possibly
have the same effect and elicit the same response in
two different cultures and times ?
 Newrnark: Sernantic and
Cornnunicative Translation
:
Communicative translation attempts to produce on its
readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on
the readers of the original. It resenmbles Nida's dynamic
equivalence.

Semantic Translation :attempts to render, as closely as the

semantic and syntactic structures of the second language
allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original. It has
similarities to Nida's formal cquivalence.
 Semantic translation Comm. trans
Addresse help TT with conno subjective,reader
tations focused towards

specific lang/ culture

Culture remains with SL foreign to TL culture

Time and not fixed own contemp context

Origin
Form loyalty to author overriding loyalty norms
Appro serious lit. autobio tech/ informative text

Praiteness publicity, popular fictio

 1 King James Version (KJV,originally published
1611)
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth.

1:2 And the carth was without form, and void; and
darknesswas upon the face of the deep. And the spirit
of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said,' Let there be light And there
was light.
2New English Bible (NEB,originally published 1970)
1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth.

1:2 Now the earth was without shape and empty, and
,
darkness was over the surface ofthe watery deep but the
Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water.

1:3 And God said,'Let there be light':And there was

light.