The Equivalence Debates Translation Studies in Theory and

The Equivalence Debates Translation Studies in Theory and Practice Term I – week 2 © Cristina Marinetti, 2009

The rise of equivalence • From 1960 s the question of equivalence becomes central and equivalence becomes: – The aim of translation activity – The object of translation research – The parameter for assessing quality • The discourse of translation is entirely predicated on ideas of ‘sameness’, ‘correspondence’, ‘substitution of like with like’.

Linguistic Theories of Translation & Übersetzungwissenshaft • Catford, A Linguistic Theory of Translation (1964) • Jacobson, ‘On linguistic aspects of translation’ (1959) • Nida, Towards a Science of Translating (1964), Theory and Practice of Translation (1969) • Vinay & Darbelnet, Stylistique comparée du francais et de l'anglais (1958) • Koller, Einführung in die Übersetzungwissenshaft (1979)

Catford (1964) • ‘Translation is an operation performed on language: a process of substituting a text in one language for a text in another. Clearly, then, any theory of translation must draw upon a theory of language – a general linguistic theory. ’ (1) – Textual equivalence – Formal correspondence

Saussure, Course in General Linguistics (1915) • Textual equivalence and formal correspondence are based on Ferdinand de Saussure’s linguistic theory. • Saussure establishes a coherent object for linguistics in the distinction between langue and parole. • La langue denotes the abstract systematic principles of a language, without which no meaningful utterance (parole) would be possible. • Parole designates individual acts, statements and utterances that are created each time a speaker produces language in a particular situation. • Textual equivalence – looks for correspondence at the level of individual utterances • Formal correspondence – looks for correspondence at the level of linguistic principles (grammar, phonetics, lexis, syntax etc. )

Catford’s Textual Equivalent & Formal Correspondent • A textual equivalent is ‘any target language text or portion of text which is observed on a particular occasion to be equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text’ (27) • A formal correspondent is ‘any TL category (unit, class, structure) which can be said to occupy as nearly as possible the same place in the economy of the TL as the SL given category occupied in the SL’ (27)

Catford’s methodology • • Set a language unit for translation (My son is six) Ask bilingual informant or competent translator for textual equivalent (Mio figlio ha sei anni) Note differences or shifts (is=ha; six=sei anni) Apply a series of commutations to the sample sentence (My favourite number is six) and ask for the new textual equivalent Then count the occurrences of a particular TL equivalent for a particular SL item (six=sei anni 20/40) Then calculate the degree of probablity of the textual equivalent for that particular SL item. (six=sei anni 50%) Despite being completely superseded, Catford work highlights the problems of equivalence between languages even at the level of the word and the vital importance of context in the determination of linguistic meaning

Problems of equivalence Comment on any differences in meaning between the following sets: Car, automobile, motor, limousine, limo, banger, lemon Comfortable, homely, comfy, cosy, snug, Dad, daddy, papa, pop, father, pater, old man Now list all the words and expressions you can think of in your target language for car, comfortable, father. Comment on any difference in meaning between the English sets and those in your target language. Can we talk about degrees of equivalence?

Ø Eng. school (n) Attempt to translate the word school into your own/second language. Can you do it easily? How many options do you have? What do the options depend on? 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) ‘the school was built in 1932’ ‘what will you do when you finish school? ’ ‘the Venetian school of painting’ ‘a school of small glittering fish swam by’ ‘the school keeps parents informed’ ‘he never missed a single day of school’ CONTEXT as Co-text

Ø Fr. ‘Je vais à l’ école’ This sentence can be translated into English as: - I go to school - I am going to school - I’m going to the school - I’m driving to school - I’m going to college Which is the ‘right’ translation? Why? What are the implications of each version? CONTEXT as CONTEXT of SITUATION

From Malinowski (1923: 305) Native language from papa new guinea: Tawoulo ovanu – lit. we paddle in place BUT ‘whenever the natives arrive near the shore of an overseas village they have to close the sail and use the paddle’ so paddle here is not describing what the crew was doing but indicating the arrival at the overseas village: Tawoulo ovanu means ‘we arrived at the overseas village’ ‘This sentence can only be translated by explaining it through the exact Ethnographic account of the sociology, culture and tradition of that native community’ CONTEXT as CONTEXT of CULTURE

Jacobson (1959) • Linguistic meaning is made up of: Linguistic sign Signifier Whisper/ [hwĭspƏr] Concept Signified Root of issues of untranslatability (next week)

Nida (1969) • Reframing the question of equivalence: – How to find the ‘correct’ equivalent? ‘correct’ for whom? • Notion of ‘equivalence’ is not universal – but dependent on nature of target audience. Goal: audience understanding. • Theory based on practical advice for translators NOT just description of language practice • Move from translation as a subfield of applied linguistics (Catford, Jacobson) to translation studies, a discipline in its own right.

Message over Form, Equivalence, Naturalness, • ‘Translating must aim primarily at reproducing the message’ • ‘If all languages differ in form then form must be altered to preserve content’ • ‘The best translation does not sound like a translation’

Dynamic equivalence • A dynamic equivalent translation is a translation that seeks to communicate to its target audience on three levels: – provide information that people can understand (Informative function), – in a way that people can feel its relevance (Expressive function) – And can then respond to it in action (Imperative function)

Formal Correspondence and Dynamic Equivalence So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any incentive of love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind (Revised Standard Version RSV - Philippians 2: 1 -2) • Does your life in Christ make you strong? Does his love comfort you? Do you have fellowship with the spirit? Do you feel kindness and compassion for one another? I urge you then, make me completely happy by having the same thoughts, sharing the same love, and being one in soul and mind. (Today’s English Version TEV - Philippians 2: 1 -2)

Problematization of equivalence theories in contemporary translation thought and practice Equivalence assumes: • That equal value is possible between languages and cultures. (A lot of translation is asymmetrical between languages that pertain to cultures that are more or less powerful - economically, culturally, politically) • That the source text is a stable entity. (a lot of source texts nowadays are not stable, they are evolving all the time – online content) • That there is one message that can be interpreted unequivocally (Derrida, there is no univocal message) • That the work of the translator occurs only at the level of language and text. (translation is not a neutral act but one that positions the translator in the arena of exchange of cultural capital) A notion useful for our times should see translation as evolving rather than equivalent to the value of a fixed entity.

References • Catford, A Linguistic Theory of Translation (1964) • Jacobson, ‘On linguistic aspects of translation’ (1959) • Koller, Einführung in die Übersetzungwissenshaft (1979) • Malinowski ‘The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages. ’ In C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards. The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of Influence of Language Upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism. • Nida, Towards a Science of Translating (1964), Theory and Practice of Translation (1969) • Saussure, Course in General Linguistics (1915) • Vinay & Darbelnet, Stylistique comparée du francais et de l'anglais (1958)

Thank you. If you have any questions come to see me: S. 0. 37 or email me at: C. Marinetti@warwick. ac. uk