Translation
equivalent/equivalence
Adj.
equal or interchangeable in value, quantity,
significance, etc.
having the same or a similar effect or meaning
N.
the state of being equivalent or interchangeable
Logics/maths:
the binary truth-function that takes the value true
when both component sentences are true or when
both are false, corresponding to English if and only if.
Symbol: º or « , as in --(p Ù q) º --p Ú --q,
= biconditional
TE
‘Unity in difference’
‘Sameness in diference’
R. Jakobson 1957
What is equivalence?
Concepts of sameness & similarity
SIMILARITY (logics):
Not necessarily symmetrical
This copy of M. Lisa is incredibly like the original
The M. Lisa is incredibly like this copy of it.
Not reversible
Richard fought like a lion
?The/A lion fought like Richard
Not necessarily transitive
If A is similar to B and B is similar to C, it is not logically implied that A
is similar to C
SIMILARITY – cognitive
aspects
Two entities are similar
Two entities are are thought of as similar
Objective vs similartity ‘in the mind’
Models of similarity in cogn. science:
Mental distance model
(concepts located closer to each other in the mind-
proximity of values)
Feature or contrast model
Degree of overlap of features (shared and distinctive)
Two entities are similar if they share at
least one feature
Two entities are the same if neither has
features that the other lacks
Salience / Relevance (with respect to
some purpose),
Similarity-as-attribution
Similarity judgements (e.g. in poetry)
Hamlet: Do you see yonder cloud that’s almost in shape of a
camel?
Polonius: By the mass, and ‘tis like a camel indeed.
Hamlet: Methinks it’s like a weasel.
Polonius: It is becked like a weasel.
Hamlet: Or like a whale?
Polonius: Very like a whale.
Similarity (Sovran 1992)
Chesterman, p. 13-15
Recap.:
The concept of similiarity is Janus-faced (In art he is depicted with two heads
facing opposite ways, C16: from Latin, from janus archway). It
simultaneously refers
to a relation-in-the-world and a perception in the mind. The element of
subjective perception is always present.
Two entities are percieved to be similar to the extent that their salient
features match
Two entities count as the same within a given frame of reference if
neither is percieved to have salient features which the other lacks
Assessment as to what counts as a feature and how salient it is are
both context-bound (purpose of assessm.) and assessor-bound
Assessment of similarity are thus constrained by relevance
Degree of similarity correlates inversely with the extension of the set of
items judged to be similar
Two main types of similarity relation: divergent and convergent
‘Why is a raven like a writing-
desk?’ (Alice in Wonderland)
LINGUIST: they both begin with /r/ sound (FORMAL)
LITERARY SCHOLAR : they can both serve as a source of
inspiration for poetry
CARROLL: ‘Because it can produce a few notes, to they are
very flat’ (HOMONYMIC)
OTHERS: ‘because Poe wrote on both’; because it slopes with
a flap; because they both stand on legs’, etc. (SEMANTIC,
FUNCTIONAL)
TRANSLATION THEORY
vs
CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS
Notion of equivalence - primarily a
translation theory concept
Sameness is understood differently in
TR and CA
Contrastiveness – a CA concept, also
useful in TR
Langue vs parole; competence vs
performance
Equivalence in TR theory
1. The equative view
2. The taxonomic view
3. The relativist view
1. The equative view
classical view, Jerome, Erasmus; the
Holy Script; (Kelly 1979, Renner 1989):
A = A’
A A + A’
A = A, A’ , A’’, A’’’
A A, A’ , A’’, A’’’
2. The taxonomic view
Jerome: non-sacred texts should be translated more freely that sacred
ones
G. Mounin (1958)
Jakobson (1959): denotative eq. is always possible (denied by other
theorists)
Nida (1964) – formal equivalence & dynamic equivalence
Catford (1965) formal correspondence between SL & TL categories
when they occupy, as nearly as possible, the ‘same’ place in the
economies of the two languages – maximal closeness, not true identity.
Koller (1979, 1992) Denotative, connotative, text-normative, pragmatic,
formal/aesthetic eq.
Ivir (1981) formal correspondence and translation equivalence
Newmark (1985) semantic vs communicative eq.
Snell-Hornby (1986) TE practically irrelevant issue (cf. 58 types of
Aequivalenz in German studies)
3. The relativist view – campaign
against equivalence
Snell-Hornby (1988): rejects identity assumption; equivalence
is an illusion
Holmes / Toury (1988, 1980): three main lines of arguments:
Reject samenes as a criterion for any relation betwee SLT and TLT
Equivalence is to be replaced by a more relative term: similarity,
matching, family resemblance (a number of resemblances)
Translator’s rationality is descriptive (more than one possible
solution); using norms TLR is to find the most suitable solution
Chesterman (1997): introduction of the relation norm
governing professional translation behaviour
Pym (1992): eq. is fundamentally an economic term
(=exchange value in a particular situation), (Eq. depends only
on what is offered, negotiated and accepted in the exchange
situation)
Gutt (1991): eq. depends on the utterance itself and the
cognitive state of the interpreter (e.g. TR of the Bible – for two
time-distant recipents)
Toury (1980, 1995) – comparative literary studies:
TL culture is the starting point, not SL culture:
start with existing translations and study the resemblances existing
betweeen these and their SL texts;
deduce what TR strategies have been used (throughout history);
establish various constraints & norms impinging on the TLR’s
decision-making (Lefevere 1992)
Vermeer / Reiss / Nord (1984, 1993) – skopos theory: do
not seek to achieve the same skopos as the original, but what
the skopos of the translation is (e.g. poetry, purpose, ets)
Relativist views on TR go hand in hand with the relativist view
of language, as opposed to universalist views
Conclusion:
Most scholars in TR theory today reject EQ as an
identity assumption in all its forms (formal, semantic,
pragmatic, situational...)
EQ is theoretically untenable
EQ misinterprets what translators actually do
The EQ or relevant similarity between SLT and TLT is
not given in advance; BUT
It takes shape within the mind of the TLR under
a number of constraints (purpose of TLT and the
act of translation (in an act of communication)
Chesterman (1998: 27)
TE - the central issue in
translation
Heated controversy :
(a) definition, (b) relevance, (c) applicability
Key theorists:
Vinay and Darbelnet, Jakobson, Nida
Catford, House, Baker, Newmark, Ivir,
Koller
Three main approaches to TR and
TE:
1. linguistic approach to TE – BUT translation in itself is not merely
a matter of linguistics
2. TE - a transfer of the message from the Source Culture to the
Target Culture:
when a message is transferred from the SL to TL, the translator is also
dealing with two different cultures at the same time
3. pragmatic/semantic or functionally oriented approach
equivalence-oriented translation - a
procedure which 'replicates the same
situation as in the original, whilst using
completely different wording' (ibid.:342)
Vinay and Darbelnet:
this procedure (if applied during the translation
process) can maintain the stylistic impact of the SL
text in the TL text
TE: ideal method when dealing with proverbs, idioms,
clichés, nominal or adjectival phrases and the
onomatopoeia of animal sounds
equivalent expressions between language pairs -
acceptable as long as they are listed in a bilingual
dictionary as 'full equivalents':
However, (glossaries and collections of idiomatic
expressions) 'can never be exhaustive
Vinay and Darbelnet:
Therefore: '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'
formal correspondence
&
textual equivalence
Catford: Translation Shifts (def)
BUT:
TR of Homer: it is impossible to expect
Comm. Approach:
- provided that eq. effect is secured (LIT TR – not
Criticism:
overabundance of terminology (free-lit, formal eq-eq
effect, covert-overt, sem – comm)
strong prescriptivism – smooth vs qwkwar TR, TR =
art (semantic) = craft (communicative)
- a good guidance for TR training (abundant
examples)
8. Werner Koller:
Korrespondenz vs Äquivalenz
- Űbersetzungswischenschaft (W. Wills,
O. Kade, A. Neubert)
- 'Einfuehrung in die
Uebersetzungswissenschaft' (1979/89)
Koller
Correspondence: ('langue', 'competence':
within CA of two language systems
formal similarities and differences
PROBLEMS:
false friends, signs of lexical, morphological & syntactic
interference
Equivalence: ('parole', 'performance':
equivalent items in specific ST-TT pairs and contexts
Competence in the foreign language:
Knowledge of (formal) correspondences
Competence in transaltion:
knowledge / ability in equivalences
However: ? What exactly has to be EQUIVALENT?!!
Koller: Types of Equivalence: - a
possible answer:
DENOTATIVE
- extralinguistic content, 'content invariance'
CONNOTATIVE
lexical choices (e.g. in near synonyms),
'stylistic equivalence'
TEXT-FORMATIVE
related to text types, (cf. K. Reiss)
PRAGMATIC
'communicative equivalence'
oriented to the receiver of the text message
Nida's 'dynamic equivalence'
FORMAL
related to the form and aesthetics of the text
stylistic features
'expressive equivalence'
Research into different types of
equivalences
Koller published in 1979, but his text survived through four editions to 1992 and
is still worth reading.
Toury was published in book form in Israel in 1980, but his work has taken years
to filter through to some kind of general recognition.
The writings of Vermeer and friends, published mostly in German and often in
small university editions, have been so slow to catch on that the group still feels
revolutionary more than ten years after the Grundlegung einer allgemeinen
Translationstheorie of 1984.
The space of European translation studies is spread so thin and remains so
fragmented that these various paradigms have mostly managed to co-exist in
tacit ignorance of each other. There is no evidence of any catastrophic debate
being resolved one way or the other.
the general trend was away from equivalence and toward target-side criteria.
Of course, this was more or less in keeping with the movement of linguistics
toward discourse analysis, the development of reception aesthetics, the
sociological interest in action theory, and the general critique of structuralist
abstraction.
The 1980s: the social and historical
relativity of translational equivalence
Many of the linguistic categories that had previously been
considered objective could now have been seen as largely
subjective constructs.
Beyond the restricted field of specialized terminology, theorists
could no longer be sure that a given source-text unit was
necessarily equivalent to a specific target-text unit.
Such a relation could only be norm-bound or probabilistic (for
Toury) or subordinate to wider target-side considerations (for
Vermeer).
There would always be at least residual doubt about general
claims to equivalence.
Critic views of
‘translation equivalence’
Almost ten years after Koller’s Einführung, Mary Snell-Hornby’s
“integrated approach” of 1988 sought to bring together and
systematize the work that had been done to that date.
the underlying assumption was that a certain compatibility was
there; it just needed to be “integrated.”
The package was once again made to look faintly scientific, this
time privileging American panaceas like prototypes and scenes-
and-frames, along with a potpourri of common sense, gratuitous
critique, and a disarming propensity to self-contradiction
(notably with respect to the status of linguistic approaches).
One of the most remarkable aspects of this “integrative”
exercise was the list of effectively excluded approaches.
Snell-Hornby:
dismissed two thousand years of translation theory as an
inconclusive “heated discussion” opposing word to sense
(one finds the same inconclusiveness in theories of God, or
love, and yet we keep talking).
dispatched historico-descriptivism because it had avoided
evaluation (but hadn’t it discovered anything?).
Not surprisingly, she also forcefully discarded equivalence as
being “unsuitable as a basic concept in translation theory”
None of these excluded approaches “have provided any substantial
help in furthering translation studies”
However, unlike Toury or Vermeer, Snell-Hornby tried to indicate
precisely where the equivalence paradigm had gone wrong.
This is where translation studies could have become truly
upsetting.
Snell-Hornby:
finds that in the course of the 1970s the English term “equivalence”
became “increasingly approximative and vague to the point of
complete insignificance,” and its German counterpart was “increasingly
static and one-dimensional”
there was in fact no radical rupture between those who talked about
equivalence and those who preferred not to (Toury accepted the
English-language trend; Vermeer fell in with the German-language
usage of the term).
Snell-Hornby concludes that “the term equivalence, apart from being
imprecise and ill-defined (even after a heated debate of over twenty
years) presents an illusion of symmetry between languages which
hardly exists beyond the level of vague approximations and which
distorts the basic problems of translation”
Some kind of equivalence could be integrated into its appropriate corner
(technical terminology), but the equivalence paradigm should otherwise get
out of the way
Snell-Hornby:
But, if the term “equivalence” were really so polysemous - Snell-Hornby
elsewhere claims to have located fifty-eight different types in German
uses of the term (1986: 15) -, how could she be so sure it “presents an
illusion of symmetry between languages”?
The term apparently means nothing except this illusion.
And yet none of the numerous linguists cited in Koller ever
presupposed any “symmetry between languages.”
had she looked a little further, Snell-Hornby might have found that
concepts like Nida’s “dynamic equivalence” presuppose substantial
linguistic asymmetry.
More important, Koller’s actual proposal was based on studying
equivalence on the level of parole, leaving to contrastive linguistics the
entire question of symmetries or dissymmetries between language
systems
Snell-Hornby
“The narrow and hence mistaken interpretation of translational
equivalence in terms of linguistic correspondence is in our
opinion one of the main reasons that the very concept of
equivalence has fallen into disrepute among many translation
scholars.” (1994: 414). (A. Neubert)
One can only suppose there was more than logic at stake in
Snell-Hornby’s critique of equivalence.
An element of power, perhaps?
Snell-Hornby’s Integrated Approach has indeed had influence, and
may yet find more.
It was the right title at the right time, lying in wait for the massive
growth of translator-training institutions that took off at the end of
the decade.
Neubert
Yet this is not the story of just one person. There is more at stake in the
movement away from equivalence. Strangely, while European translation
studies has generally been expanding, a center of strong equivalence-based
research at Leipzig, closely associated with Professor Neubert, has been all but
dismantled by west-German academic experts.
Further, the one west-European translation institute that has been threatened
with reduction - Saarbrücken - is precisely the one that, through Wilss, is most
clearly aligned with linguistics and the equivalence paradigm.
This is not to mention the numerous east-Europeans who still - heaven forbid! -
talk about linguistics and equivalence, awaiting enlightenment from the more
advanced western theorists.
The institutional critique of equivalence surreptitiously dovetails into facile
presumptions of progress, and sometimes into assumptions of west-European
superiority. Perhaps we should take a good look at the bandwagon before we
hop on.
Understanding
Equivalence - A. Pym
Although the 1980s critiques of equivalence-based prescriptivism opened up new terrain,
they mostly failed to understand the logic of the previous paradigm. Little attempt was made
to objectify the subjective importance of equivalence as a concept. It is one thing is to
argue that substantial equivalence is an illusion, but quite another to understand why
anyone should be prepared to believe in it.
Illusions are not illusory. Yet when Snell-Hornby talks about “the illusion of equivalence”
(1988: 13), she does so precisely to suggest that it is illusory and should be dispensed with.
The main alternative to this strategy is to understand and explain the illusion.
Ernst-August Gutt, defines a “direct translation” as an utterance that “creates a presumption of
complete interpretative resemblance” (1991: 186). True, Gutt does not name equivalence as such - it
is a taboo word -, but he certainly describes what equivalence would seem to be doing when a
translation is read as a translation. More important, this “presumption of resemblance” does not
describe anything that would enable a linguist’s tweezers to pick up two pieces of language and
declare them of equal weight.
Comparable considerations enter Albrecht Neubert’s recent comments on equivalence. A translation,
says Neubert, “has to stand in some kind of equivalence relation to the original,” which means that
“equivalence in translation is not an isolated, quasi-objective quality, it is a functional concept that
can be attributed to a particular translational situation” (1994: 413-414, italics in the text).
From the semiotic perspective, Ubaldo Stecconi expresses a similar
mode of thought:
“Equivalence is crucial to translation because it is the unique
intertextual relation that only translations, among all conceivable text
types, are expected to show” (1994: 8).
Such “expectation” is certainly an affair of social convention rather than
empirical certainty, but it has consequences for the actual work of the
translator.
In Stecconi’s terms,
“B had never been equivalent to A before it appeared in a translation:
using inferences of the abductive kind, the translator makes the two
elements equivalent” (1994: 9)
Pym (1992) argues that “equivalence defines translation,” and talks
about non-relativist and non-linguistic “equivalence beliefs” as part
of the way translations are received as translations.
Solutions without Equivalence