Equivalence in Translation Theory I Equivalence between the

Equivalence in Translation Theory I • Equivalence between the SL and TL texts: an important area of research in TT. While, however, the object of research is quite clear in the attempts to describe the models of the translation process, equivalence as an object of research is not so unequivocal. • Equivalence is a research object of central importance not only in TT but also in linguistic studies. No system of any language can be described without identifying the meaning and structure of its units. And if different languages are compared, it is again the semantic and structural similarities or identities, in other words, equivalence between them that are searched for.

Equivalence in Translation Theory II What do readers, translators researchers mean by equivalence? The researcher, the translator, and the receiver of the translated text impose their own approaches on it. • Readers and listeners (receivers) assume equivalence, • translators create it, • research workers investigate it. Reader’s perception: the simplest. • confidence in the translator; • translation generally regarded as true and valid; • no conscious concept of equivalence at all: if the work in question – does not gain favour with him, he will blame the author and not the translator; • criticism will not exceed the lexical level: the translator mistranslated certain words.

Equivalence in Translation Theory III Translator’s perception: much more complex; • conscious and clear-cut ideas of what equivalence could and should be like; • aims to create it but sometimes fails to achieve it; • the quality of translation, i. e. creating equivalence or the failure to create it do not directly depend on the translator’s ideas of equivalence being conscious or instinctive. Translation researcher’s perception: equivalence in its full complexity; As opposed to the more or less instinctive but still “unambiguous” notions of equivalence held by readers and translators, researchers in translation theory have expressed different views on the essence of translation.

Equivalence in Translation Theory IV Various approaches to equivalence 1/ Equivalence: a precondition of translation, vs. other ways of transmitting a foreign language text (adaptations, extracts, abstracts). Translation involves the replacement of a SL texts with an equivalent TL one. Equivalence has no types or phases within the translation process. If translation means the creation of a text equivalent to the SL one, this also means that all translations are equivalent: study of equivalence unnecessary. 2/ Full equivalence can never be achieved. The TL text coincides with the original only from certain points of view, which are sought out and systematised. Translation practice offers ample material for the study of equivalence types and equivalence phases.

Equivalence in Translation Theory V 2/a Normative analysis: prescribes what the translator is supposed to do in order to achieve an equivalent translation; 2/b Descriptive analysis: a great number of examples, description of how the translator creates equivalence, what has been preserved or sacrificed from the original text. 3/ No identical requirements of equivalence can be imposed on the translation of an instruction manual, a film script, the description of a machine or a poem, which means that there must be as many different realizations of equivalence as text types. Of the approaches treated above only those will be discussed which do not regard equivalence as a general precondition but attempt to differentiate between its various types.

Equivalence in Translation Theory VI Catford’s approach to equivalence I A Linguistic Theory of Translation (1965): distinction between “formal correspondence” and “textual equivalence”. • „Formal correspondent”: “any TL category (unit, class, structure, element of structure, etc. ) which can be said to occupy, as nearly as possible, the ‘same’ place in the ‘economy’ of the TL as the given SL category occupies in the SL”. • „Textual equivalent” (rather vague): “A textual translation equivalent, then, is any TL form (text or portion of text) which is observed to be the equivalent of a given SL form (text or portion of text)”. Formal correspondence: rare, since languages are highly different in their systems. A certain lexical unit or grammatical structure hardly ever fills in the same slot in the systems of the two languages (e. g. E brother ≠ H fivér [cf. H báty, öcs, distinction missing in E]; E grandmother, H nagymama ≠ R babushka [cf. H nagyszülők, E grandparents, umbrella term missing in R] Catford’s examples: E yes ≠ Japanese hai or H igen; E yes ≠ French oui

Equivalence in Translation Theory VII Catford’s approach to equivalence II Textual equivalence: see the definition above + “. . . SL and TL texts or items are translation equivalents when they are interchangeable in a given situation. ” E. g. a girl comes in and says: I have arrived. Non-linguistic elements of the situation: place, time, girl’s age, colour of hair, clothing, occupation, number of listeners present, etc. ; Very few lingusitically relevant features: 1/ the speaker (I and not you or he), 2/ she has arrived and not left, 3/ the event has taken place, i. e. it is not something that will occur later (have arrived and not will arrive), 4/ it is linked to the present (have arrived and not had arrived). Russian translation: Ja prisla. Non-linguistic elements of the situation: identical; Lingusitically relevant features: 1/ the speaker (ja and not on), 2/ gender (prisla vs. prisol), 3/ has arrived and not left (prisla vs usla), 4/ the event has taken place, i. e. it is not something that will occur later (prisla vs pridu), 5/ the speaker has come on foot and has not used a vehicle (prisla vs prijehala), 6/ the action is completed, not repeated or progressive (prisla vs prihogyila).

Equivalence in Translation Theory VIII Catford’s approach to equivalence III Only three identical elements (speaker, arrival and the event having taken place), which is, however, enough for the E and the Russian sentences to be interchangeable in the given situation. While the E verb arrive and the Russian verb prijtyi have hardly any formal features in common, the sentences I have arrived and Ja prisla can be considered textual equivalents. Catford’s main criterion of textual equivalence: the identity of contextually relevant features.

Equivalence in Translation Theory IX Nida’s approach to equivalence I In Toward a Science of Translating Eugene Albert Nida regards the identity of the receiver’s (reader’s, listener’s) reaction/response – and not the identity of the relevant markers of a situation - as the main criterion for equivalence. He differentiates between formal and dynamic equivalence. • Formal equivalence arises if the translator gives preference to the SL text, reflecting both its contents and form as truly as possible and including: 1/ grammatical units, 2/ the use of words and 3/ the sense of terms. To achieve the most faithful translation of grammatical units, the translator will translate: 1/ a noun into a noun and a verb into a verb, 2/ does not change sentence boundaries, 3/ does not change paragraphs or the punctuation, etc.

Equivalence in Translation Theory X Nida’s approach to equivalence II • E. g. , Plato’s dialogues can be translated only in this way, in order for the reader to understand the essence of Plato’s philosophical system and follow the evolution of his terminology. • Formal equivalence is to be achieved if a translation is made for linguists who want to contrast the corresponding units of two languages. • Therefore formal equivalence is not something to be rejected but a valuable type of translation of certain texts for a given circle of receivers.

Equivalence in Translation Theory XI Nida’s approach to equivalence III Conversely, in dynamic equivalence preference is given to the TL receiver, who, on reading a dynamically equivalent translation, cannot help thinking that he, too, would have put it the way it has been put. A dynamically equivalent translation is “the closest natural equivalent of the SL text”. “Natural” translation requires the following factors: 1/ the receptor language and culture as a whole - primary criterion for naturalness. J. H. Frere (1820): “The language of translation ought…to be a pure, impalpable and invisible element, the medium of thought and feeling. . . it ought never to attract attention to itself. . . ” 2/ the general context of the given message, 3/ the target-language audience.

Equivalence in Translation Theory XII Nida’s approach to equivalence IV Elimination of foreignness in two areas: a/ in grammar: changes are easier to carry out as structural differences make such changes compulsory, it is inevitable to rearrange the word order, a noun is often translated into a verb or vice versa, a noun might be replaced with a pronoun, etc. b/ in lexis: adjustment of the lexical structures of the SL to those of the TL much more difficult. Three lexical levels: • names to which an equivalent is easy to find (folyó, fa, kő, etc. ) • names that denote culturally different objects but functionally similar objects (e. g. könyv) • names that refer to some cultural peculiarities such as synagogue. It is not easy to escape their foreignness, and if the cultures in question are very remote from each other, it appears to be totally impossible.

Equivalence in Translation Theory XIII Nida’s approach to equivalence V 2/ the general context of the given message: a/ sentence intonation and rhythm, b/ reflection of the stylistic features of the SL text: • how to avoid vulgarisms in the translation of a text written in an elevated style, • how to avoid making an everyday text read like a complicated legal document because of the translator’s effort to eliminate all the ambiguities, • an E text written in prose will appear colourless and dull in Spanish translation, whereas Spanish prose in E translation may sound unbearably loquacious, • the importance of avoiding anachronisms and the importance of reflecting all shades of emotion of the SL text in the TL.

Equivalence in Translation Theory XIV Nida’s approach to equivalence VI 3/ the target-language audience: the translator must be familiar with the TL reader’s knowledge of the world, his experience and ability to perceive and understand things around him (“capacity of decoding”). The ideal is for the translation to achieve the same effect as the original has in the SL environment. A frequently quoted example from the Bible: Lamb of God → Seal of God for an Eskimo audience. However 1: the response of the original, i. e. the SL audience cannot always be reconstructed (literary works of several hundred years old or deriving from an entirely different culture). However 2: to achieve the same effect is a requirement in the case of translations of scientific or technical works written for a contemporary audience.

Equivalence in Translation Theory XV Other views on equivalence I Otto Kade (1968) 4 types of equivalences: • total equivalence: one SL unit → one permanent TL equivalent (e. g. terms, names of institutions, etc. ); • optional equivalence: a given SL unit → several TL equivalents (e. g. H feszültség, G Spannung → E voltage, tension, stress, pressure); • approximate equivalence: the meaning of a SL unit is divided between two TL equivalents (e. g. H láb → E leg/ foot, H arc → E face/ cheek, G Himmel → E sky/heaven; • zero equivalence: SL unit → no TL equivalent (. e. g. culture-specific words)

Equivalence in Translation Theory XVI Other views on equivalence II Gert Jäger (1975) distinguishes • communicative equivalence: the „communicative value” does not change in translation, i. e. it produces the same effect as the TL, see Nida. However, Jäger regards it as a psychological aspect that cannot be studied with the tools of linguistics; • functional equivalence: „functional values” can be studied linguistically – a precondition of functional equivalence Functional values: the sum of the functions of the linguistic signs the sum of their meanings: a/ semantic meaning this is what b/ syntactic meaning: grammatical functions, e. g. topic-comment has to be c/ pragmatic meaning realised linguistically preserved in translation

Equivalence in Translation Theory XVII Other views on equivalence III L. S. Barkhudarov(1975) distinguishes 1/ referential meaning: relationship between signifier and signified (most important); 2/ intralinguistic meaning: relationship between linguistic signs (last in importance); 3/ pragmatic meaning: relationship between signs and their users (2 nd in importance). In translation semantic losses are unavoidable and can only be minimized if the translator sets up a priority list, see above.

Equivalence in Translation Theory XVIII Other views on equivalence IV Werner Koller (1979) distinguishes denotative, connonative, textnormative, pragmatic, and formal equivalence. P. Newmark (1982) introduces cognitive equivalence: equivalence of sense and content. • The more informative a text is, the easier it is to create a similar effect; • the more emotive a text is, the more difficult it is achieve the same effect. Two types of translation: 1/ semantic: preservation of information of the SL text 2/ communicative: effect produced on the TL reader

Equivalence in Translation Theory XIX What “should” be preserved in translation? Generally agreed: whatever it is called, the contents, sense, functional value, meaning, information structure should be preserved in order to achieve a certain degree of equivalence. All these approaches are somewhat normative declaring what a translation should look like, what a translator should preserve at all costs. However: Studying the process of translation the researcher should take a theoretical, and not a normative, stand (Revzin/Rosentsveig 1964, my translation).

Equivalence in Translation Theory XX Komissarov’s views on equivalence I (1973, 1980, 1990) • not normative, critical or evaluative; • the question to be asked is how equivalence is created; • equivalence, or “semantic similarity” between a SL and TL text is highly variable; • researcher’s task: to explore types of equivalence in large amounts of text. The five levels of transfer correspond to five levels of equivalence (see slides 26 -33, Lecture V): 1/ equivalence on the level of the communicative goal, 2/ equivalence on the level of the situation, 3/ equivalence on the level of message, 4/ equivalence on the level of utterance, 5/ equivalence on the level of linguistic signs.

Equivalence in Translation Theory XXI Komissarov’s views on equivalence II (K’s E-R examples translated into H, where possible) 1/ Type I: the lowest degree of semantic similarity: E: Maybe there is some chemistry between us that doesn’t mix. H: Talán nagyon eltérő a jellemünk. a/ words and syntactic structures are totally different, b/ neither words, nor structures of the TL text are in a derivational relationship with the SL. What is common in them is „the general intention of the message, its orientation towards a certain communicative effect, which can be called ‘the purport of communicaton’”.

Equivalence in Translation Theory XXII Komissarov’s views on equivalence III 2/ Type II: a higher degree of similarity, even if it is not so evident at first sight: E: He answered the phone. H: Felvette a kagylót. a/ words and syntactic structures are totally different again, b/ however, they describe the same situation, although in different ways. „The information which characterises the second type of equivalence can, therefore, be designated as ‘identification of the situation’”.

Equivalence in Translation Theory XXIII Komissarov’s views on equivalence IV 3/ Type III: an even higher degree of similarity (identity of not only the communicative goal and the situation but also the way the situation is described): E: Scrubbing makes me bad-tempered. H: A padlósurolás feldühít. E: London saw a cold winter last year. H: Tavaly Londonban hideg volt a tél. a/ the syntactic structures are totally different, but the words contain common semes, b/ the TL text is a semantic paraphrase of the SL one (in the first example, both text reveal a cause and effect relation).

Equivalence in Translation Theory XXIV Komissarov’s views on equivalence V 4/ Type IV: similarity increases even further. Besides the communicative goal, the situation described and the manner it is described, the grammatical structures are also partly identical: E: He was never tired of old songs. H: Soha nem unta a régi dalokat. a/ similar words and syntactic structures (SVO), b/ the TL structures are in a derivational relationship with the SL ones. „We can say that here the translation conveys not only the „what for”, the „what about” and the „what” of the original, but also something of the „how it is said in the original”.

Equivalence in Translation Theory XXV Komissarov’s views on equivalence VI 5/ Type V: maximum possible similarity E: I saw him at theatre. H: Láttam őt a színházban. a/ the TL text retains the meaning of all the words used in the SL one, b/ the parallel syntactic structures imply the maximum invariance of their meanings.

Equivalence in Translation Theory XXVI Komissarov’s views on equivalence VII offer a broader view of equivalence than other studies do. The role of the text, however, is absent from his analysis, too. The fact that the original and the translated sentence contain the same lexical units and syntactic structures does not at all make them equivalent. The system fails to take into consideration the idea that a TL sentence can only be equivalent with a SL one if it plays the same role or occupies the same position in the TL text as the SL sentence in the SL text.

Equivalence in Translation Theory XXVII Kinga Klaudy’s views on equivalence I Three types of communicatively equivalent translation: 1/ referential equivalence: the TL text should refer to the same segment of reality (facts, events, phenomena, etc. ) as the TL text; 2/ contextual equivalence: individual sentences should occupy the same position in the whole of the TL text as their correspondences in the whole of the SL text; 3/ functional equivalence: the TL text should play the same role in the TL community as the SL text in the SL community (transferring information, provoking emotions, appeal, etc. ) It is only TL texts that satisfy these three requirements can be considered communicative equivalents of given SL texts.

Equivalence in Translation Theory XXVIII Kinga Klaudy’s views on equivalence II 1/ Referential equivalence: a precondition of translation. If a TL text does not refer to the same segment of reality, it cannot be considered translation, therefore research on the causes of “bad” translation does not belong to the tasks of TT. 2/ Contextual equivalence has two angles: the sentence and the text. a/ Sentence: TL sentences should be connected and should participate in the organisation of the TL text in the same way as their correspondents do in the SL text. This is carried out by different means in different languages, there is a great deal of variation even within one language and differences between language users (writers, translators, etc. ) b/ Text: in the TL text, produced as a result of translation, sentences should be connected to one another in the same way as in nontranslated TL texts representing a similar genre.

Equivalence in Translation Theory XXIX Kinga Klaudy’s views on equivalence III How can equivalence depend on the degree to which translated TL texts are similar to original non-translated TL? The answer: 3/ Functional equivalence (see above, slide 27) can only be realised if a translated TL text conforms to the patterns of other TL texts used by TL speakers (works of literature should not resemble legal documents, scientific texts should not sound like small talk). In literary texts form becomes part of the referential component and has to conform to texts regarded as literature by the TL readers.

Equivalence in Translation Theory XXX The importance of the concept of equivalence Despite views rejecting it, it has great 1/ theoretical significance: in translation totally different linguistic structures may enter into equivalence relations. Without translation their identical function would never be detected, which provides data for linguistic research into the relationship of function and form. 2/ Practical significance: it may provide scientifically sound criteria for translation criticism: see the (non)-fulfilment of the three conditions of equivalence.