Equivalence and Equivalent Effect in Translation Theory essay
Translation equivalence is an important concept of translation theory. It is one of the main principles of Western theory of translation. Finding translation equivalents is one of the core problems of the translation process. As Catford states, “the central problem of translation-practice is that of finding TL equivalents. A central task of translation theory is that of defining the nature and conditions of translation equivalence.” (Catford, 1965, p. 21). Starting from the middle of the twentieth century a lot of prominent theorists who work in the field of translation theory include the concept of equivalence in their theorizing and research. The concept of equivalence was used to distinguish the difference between free and literal translation. Roman Jacobson became the first who used this term in his work published in 1959. Later a lot of specialists used this term in their works and made a lot of attempts to distinguish the concept of equivalence. Such prominent specialists as Vinay and Darbelet Jakobson, Nida, Catford, House and Baker used the concept of equivalence in their studies. All of them regarded this concept in relation to the translation theory. Translation is a complex process which can be regarded from several perspectives. Some specialists view translation as a merely linguistic process where notions from one language are translation into another one. This group of specialists regards equivalence as literal translating each word and notion. At the same time other specialists state that cultural context is very important for the translation because only the use of the context can help to pass real meaning of the text. In their opinion, equivalence in translation should deal with passing the meaning of the text. These scholars present semantic or functional approach to translation. The third group of specialists take middle position and state that equivalence is used for the convenience of translators. Bakers who shares this approach states that equivalence is used “for the sake of convenience—because most translators are used to it rather than because it has any theoretical status” (Kenny, 1998, p.77). Despite different attitudes to the concept of equivalence, most of the specialists pay much attention to its meaning in the theory of translation.
- Importance of Equivalence in Translation Theory:
It is important to understand the meaning of the term equivalence. In English language it may be used as a technical term, which describes scientific notions. For example, term equivalence is used in mathematics, At the same time term equality may be used in common sense in everyday language. In the theory of translation the term equivalence is used in its general meaning because it is hard to find absolutely identical words and notions in different languages. Different languages have different phonetic, grammar, syntax and vocabulary structures. That is why we can speak only about certain degree of equivalence when we make translation. So, in our case we use term equivalence in the meaning of similarity or approximation and it shows the level of likeness between the source and the target text. This likeness may be achieved on different levels.
Translation is a form of communication and that is the reason it is so important to establish equivalence between the source text and the target text. Nida defines translation as “reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style.” (Nida, 1982, p. 12). It is evident that equivalence is one of basic concepts of translation which can not be neglected.
- The View of Different Specialists of Equivalence in Translation:
Roman Jacobson made a valuable contribution to the development of translation theory. He introduced the concept of “equivalence in difference” which had an important meaning for the further development of the translation theory. Roman Jacobson distinguished three kinds of translation, which included:
– intralingual (dealing with one language)
– interlingual (dealing with two languages)
-intersemiotic (dealing with sign systems).
According to Jacobson, translator searches for synonyms when making intralingual translation in order to pass the message. This means that intralingual translation does not imply full equivalence between language units. According to Jakobson: “translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes” (Jakobson, 1959, p. 233). This means that the task of translator becomes to reach equality in messages despite different grammatical, lexical and semantic structures of ST and TT. Despite difference in grammar and lexical structures translation becomes possible through finding necessary equivalents. As he states: “whenever there is deficiency, terminology may be qualified and amplified by loanwords or loan-translations, neologisms or semantic shifts, and finally, by circumlocutions” (ibid. p.234). Jakobson uses different examples to illustrate his concept. He compares different language structures from English and Russian languages and illustrates cases where it is not possible to find a literal equivalent to the ST unite. In these cases translator should choose the most suitable way to translate the text trying to reach the most possible equivalence.
Same as Vinay and Darbelnet, Jakobson states that linguistic approach does not suit for the need of the translation theory. He stresses on the limitations of linguistic theory and point out different methods which help to make the equivalence in translation the same. Jakobson counts on semiotic approach where translator should extract the message from the source language and then choose the most appropriate means to pass it to the target language.
Later scholars continued the study of translation theory and developed their own understanding of equivalence. Nida and Tiber distinguished two types of equivalence – formal equivalence (correspondence ) and dynamic equivalence. Dynamic equivalence is based on the equivalent effect, while formal equivalence is focused on the message itself. As they state “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” (Nida and Taber, 1982, p. 201). Despite the detailed study of both types of equivalence, Nida gives preference to the dynamic equivalence, because it gives more opportunities for the translators and proves to be more effective during the translation procedure. Nida showed other specialists the way and let them distance from the word-to-word translation and make a translation process more dynamic and more reader-oriented.
Catford is another scholar who dedicated much effort to the study of translation theory. His concept of translation equivalence differs from the concept presented by Nida and Taber. Catford’s approach is based on the linguistic approach. Catford expanded translation theory and added new criteria, such as the extent of translation, the grammatical rank and the levels of language involved in the translation. According to Catford, grammatical rank establishes translation equivalence.
Catford’s theory of translation was criticized by many scholars. Snell-Hornby became one of the most active critics of Catford’s ideas. She called equivalence in translation to be an illusion and didn’t believe that translation could be regarded as a merely linguistic process.
The notion of equivalence was changed and developed with the flow of time. Baker’s ideas gave new vision of the problem. She explores the notion of equivalence on different levels and applies it to the translation process. She combines linguistic and communicative approaches in order to make translation process more effective. Baker distinguishes equivalence at the level of the word, at the grammatical level, and at the level of the text . Pragmatic equivalence deals with the purpose of communication and also makes an important contribution to the translation process. All these levels are important for the translator and should be taken into consideration during the translation process because only their combination can result in the qualified translation.
Peter Newmark is another specialist whose ideas had great impact on the development of translation theory. He steps away from Nida’s ideas of recipient-oriented translation and changes the vision of equivalence in translation. Newmark develops ideas of communicative and semantic translation in contrast to literal translation. Not leaving ideas of equivalence and literal translation, Newmark gives preference to semantic and communicative translation. According to Newmark, translation is “rendering the meaning of a text into another language in the way that the author intended the text.” (Newmark, 1988, p. 5). His views had great influence on many other specialists who studied his works and used his approach.
- Equivalence in Translation: Pros and Contras:
Translation is a complex phenomenon which is hard to define. It helps to pass the meaning and form from one language to another and very often equivalence becomes that measure which helps to define the success of this process. A lot of specialists stress on the important role of the equivalence for the translation. Marry Snell-Hornby even states that different definitions of translation process may be regarded as different variants of equivalence description. It is hard to overestimate the role of equivalence in translation. Translation is a bridge which helps to link people who do not understand each other. Translation enables communication between people. This way equivalence becomes the measure of success of translation process. The more equivalent the source and the target text are, the better communication goals will be achieved.
Many scholars and researchers stress on the important role of equivalence in the translation process. At the same time some specialists stress that desire to achieve maximum equivalence may create certain limitations and restrictions. Thus, equivalence may result in extreme concentration on form and structure and thus may cause the loss of sense and message of the text. Specialists who share this opinion center rather on the message of the text and do everything possible to pass it to the recipient even if it may cause the reduction to equivalence level. Equivalence is often used by the specialists who count on linguistic approach to the process of translation. These specialists try to achieve maximum linguistic, grammar and structural equivalence. Their opponents center on the sense and meaning rather than on the form and, thus, do not give too important role to the equivalence or value the equivalence in meaning rather than in its form.
- Conclusions
Equivalence is a complex term which describes phenomena from different spheres of human knowledge. In the field of translation it first appeared in the middle of the last century and since then has become an important indicator of the translation process. Most translation theorists and researchers pay attention to the equivalence in translation, despite the fact that their opinions on this phenomenon may differ. Some specialists believe that the equivalence may be regarded as a synonym of the translation process, others believe that the equivalence should not cause the loss of main message of the text. Despite different approaches, the equivalence is an important notion in the translation process and it helps to approach the meaning and value of the translation process in general.
Do you like this essay?
Our writers can write a paper like this for you!
(12 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
Loading...