|
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.
|
whenever there is deficiency,
terminology may be qualified and amplified by loanwords or loan
translations, neologisms or semantic shifts, and finally, by
circumlocutions
|
The aim of this paper is to review the theory of equivalence as
interpreted by some of the most innovative theorists in this field—Vinay
and Darbelnet, Jakobson, Nida and Taber, Catford, House, and finally Baker.
These theorists have studied equivalence in relation to the translation
process, using different approaches, and have provided fruitful ideas for
further study on this topic. Their theories will be analyzed in
chronological order so that it will be easier to follow the evolution of
this concept. These theories can be substantially divided into three main
groups. In the first there are those translation scholars who are in favour
of a linguistic approach to translation and who seem to forget that
translation in itself is not merely a matter of linguistics. In fact, when
a message is transferred from the SL to TL, the translator is also dealing
with two different cultures at the same time. This particular aspect seems
to have been taken into consideration by the second group of theorists who
regard translation equivalence as being essentially a transfer of the
message from the SC to the TC and a pragmatic/semantic or 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' (quoted in Kenny, 1998:77).
1.1 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' (ibid.:342). 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,
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.
With regard to equivalent expressions between language pairs, Vinay and
Darbelnet claim that they are acceptable as long as they are listed in a
bilingual dictionary as 'full equivalents' (ibid.:255). However, later they
note that glossaries and collections of idiomatic expressions 'can never be
exhaustive' (ibid.:256). They conclude by saying that 'the need for
creating equivalences arises from the situation, and it is in the situation
of the SL text that translators have to look for a solution' (ibid.: 255). Indeed,
they argue that even if the semantic equivalent of an expression in the SL
text is quoted in a dictionary or a glossary, it is not enough, and it does
not guarantee a successful translation. They provide a number of examples
to prove their theory, and the following expression appears in their list: Take
one is a fixed expression which would have as an equivalent French
translation Prenez-en un. However, if the expression appeared as a
notice next to a basket of free samples in a large store, the translator
would have to look for an equivalent term in a similar situation and use
the expression Échantillon gratuit (ibid.:256).
1.2 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' (1959:232), 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' (ibid.:233). 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' (ibid.:234). Jakobson provides a number of
examples by comparing English and Russian language structures and explains
that in such cases where there is no a literal equivalent for a particular
ST word or sentence, then it is up to the translator to choose the most
suitable way to render it in the TT.
There seems to be some similarity between Vinay and Darbelnet's theory of
translation procedures and Jakobson's theory of translation. Both theories
stress the fact that, whenever a linguistic approach is no longer suitable
to carry out a translation, the translator can rely on other procedures
such as loan-translations, neologisms and the like. Both theories recognize
the limitations of a linguistic theory and argue that a translation can
never be impossible since there are several methods that the translator can
choose. The role of the translator as the person who decides how to carry
out the translation is emphasized in both theories. 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 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.
1.3 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' (1964:159). In the second edition (1982) or their work,
the two theorists provide a more detailed explanation of each type of
equivalence.
Formal correspondence consists of a TL item which represents the closest
equivalent of a SL word or phrase. Nida and Taber make it clear that there
are not always formal equivalents between language pairs. They therefore
suggest that these formal equivalents should be used wherever possible if
the translation aims at achieving formal rather than dynamic equivalence. The
use of formal equivalents might at times have serious implications in the
TT since the translation will not be easily understood by the target
audience (Fawcett, 1997). 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' (ibid.:201).
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' (Nida
and Taber, 1982:200).
One can easily see that Nida is in favour of the application of dynamic
equivalence, as a more effective translation procedure. This is perfectly
understandable if we take into account the context of the situation in
which Nida was dealing with the translation phenomenon, that is to say, his
translation of the Bible. Thus, the product of the translation process,
that is the text in the TL, must have the same impact on the different
readers it was addressing. Only in Nida and Taber's edition is it clearly
stated that 'dynamic equivalence in translation is far more than mere
correct communication of information' (ibid:25).
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.
1.4 Catford and the introduction of translation shifts
Catford's approach to translation equivalence clearly differs from that
adopted by Nida since Catford had a preference for a more linguistic-based
approach to translation and this approach is 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:
- The extent of
translation (full translation vs partial translation);
- The grammatical
rank at which the translation equivalence is established (rank-bound
translation vs. unbounded translation);
- The levels of
language involved in translation (total translation vs. restricted
translation).
We will refer only to the second type of translation, since this is
the one that concerns the concept of equivalence, and we will then move on
to analyze the notion of translation shifts, as elaborated by Catford,
which are based on the distinction between formal correspondence 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 translation equivalences are not tied to a particular
rank, and we may additionally find equivalences at sentence, clause and
other levels. Catford finds five of these ranks or levels in both English
and French, while in the Caucasian language Kabardian there are apparently
only four.
Thus, a formal correspondence could be said to exist between English
and French if relations between ranks have approximately the same
configuration in both languages, as Catford claims they do.
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 be the
equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text' (ibid.:27). He implements
this by a process of commutation, whereby 'a competent bilingual informant
or translator' is consulted on the translation of various sentences whose
ST items are changed in order to observe 'what changes if any occur in the
TL text as a consequence' (ibid.:28).
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' (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
plural.
Catford was very much criticized for his linguistic theory of
translation. One of the most scathing criticisms came from Snell-Hornby
(1988), who argued that Catford's definition of textual equivalence is
'circular', his theory's reliance on bilingual informants 'hopelessly
inadequate', and his example sentences 'isolated and even absurdly
simplistic' (ibid.:19-20). She considers the concept of equivalence in
translation as being an illusion. She asserts that the translation process
cannot simply be reduced to a linguistic exercise, as claimed by Catford
for instance, since there are also other factors, such as textual, cultural
and situational aspects, which should be taken into consideration when
translating. In other words, she 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 from one language to another.
1.5 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' (ibid.:49).
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' (ibid.:194).
House (ibid.:203) 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.
House's theory of equivalence in translation seems to be much more flexible
than Catford's. In fact, she gives authentic examples, uses complete texts
and, more importantly, she relates linguistic features to the context of
both source and target text.
1.6 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. 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).
- 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. 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
purpose of the translation and the text type.
- 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.
1.7 Conclusion
The notion of equivalence is undoubtedly one of the most problematic and controversial
areas in the field of translation theory. The term has caused, and it seems
quite probable that it will continue to cause, heated debates within the
field of translation studies. This term has been analyzed, evaluated and
extensively discussed from different points of view and has been approached
from many different perspectives. The first discussions of the notion of
equivalence in translation initiated the further elaboration of the term by
contemporary theorists. Even the brief outline of the issue given above
indicates its importance within the framework of the theoretical reflection
on translation. The difficulty in defining equivalence seems to result in
the impossibility of having a universal approach to this notion.
* It should be noted that House's model of situational dimension is
adapted from Crystal and Davy's model elaborated in 1969. House gives an
extensive explanation of the reasons which motivated her to change, and
sometimes omit, some of the information given by Crystal and Davy. Further
details can be found in House (1977:38-41), or in D. Crystal and D. Davy,
Investigating English Style (London: Longman, 1969).
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES
Baker, Mona (1992) In Other Words: a Coursebook on Translation, London:
Routledge.
Catford, John C. (1965) A Linguistic Theory of Translation: an Essay on
Applied Linguistics, London: Oxford University Press.
Fawcett, Peter (1997) Translation and Language: Linguistic Theories
Explained, Manchester: St Jerome Publishing
House, Juliane (1977) A Model for Translation Quality Assessment, Tübingen:
Gunter Narr.
Kenny, Dorothy (1998) 'Equivalence', in the Routledge Encyclopaedia of
Translation Studies, edited by Mona Baker, London and New York:
Routledge, 77-80.
Jakobson, Roman (1959) 'On Linguistic Aspects of Translation', in R. A.
Brower (ed.) On Translation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, pp. 232-39.
Nida, Eugene A. (1964) Towards a Science of Translating, Leiden: E.
J. Brill.
Nida, Eugene A. and C.R.Taber (1969 / 1982) The Theory and Practice of
Translation, Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Vinay, J.P. and J. Darbelnet (1995) Comparative Stylistics of French and
English: a Methodology for Translation, translated by J. C. Sager and
M. J. Hamel, Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
|