Become a member of TranslationDirectory.com at just
8 EUR/month (paid per year)
Much
ink has flown on discussing the term equivalence in translation.
The proponents of this notion, as Nida (1964), Newmark (1981),
Jacobson (1959-2000), Bayar (2007) and others, try hard
to define its nature, types and also compare its degrees
as a crucial subject of research in translation, whereas
other opponents like Vander Broek (1978), Mehrach (1997)
and Van Leuven (1990) consider it as an impossible point
for the translator to reach, and a hindering matter in the
development of translation theory. The aim of this discussion
is to shed as much as possible light on theories and writings
that have dealt with the notion of equivalence and its degrees.
a. Equivalence and contemporary equivalence theories
In fact, the increase
in studying equivalence in translation coincides with the
birth of a strong wave of research in machine translation.
Van Leuven Zwart (1990:227 cited by Mehrach, 1997) states:
It [equivalence]
was used then in its strict scientific sense, to refer to
an absolute symmetrical relationship between words of different
languages.[1]
That is, the aim of
researchers to develop automatic translation led to concentrate
on the equivalent effects that exist between words from
different languages, hence the proliferation of equivalence
studies.
The Russian-born American
structuralist Roman Jacobson (1959-2000: 114) is considered
to be one of the earliest theorists who were occupied by
the study of equivalence in meaning. Jacobson claims that
"there is ordinarily no full equivalence between
code units" (qtd by Munday, 2001).[2] To corroborate his idea, Jacobson
uses the example of ‘cheese’, which does not have the same
equivalent of the Russian ‘syr’. For the latter's code unite
does not have the concept ‘cottage cheese’ in its dictionary
(for more clarifications see Munday, 2001).[3] So, the term is better to be translated
by ‘tvarok’ not ‘syr’. Jakobson also points out that the
problem of both meaning and equivalence is related to the
differences between structures, terminology, grammar and
lexical forms of languages. Jacobson stated that "equivalence
in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the
pivotal concern of linguistics." (qtd by Munday,
2001)[4]
In his work on Bible
translation, Nida (1964) concentrates on studying meaning
in both its semantic and pragmatic natures. He breaks with
the old stories, which regard meanings of words as fixed
and unchanged, to give meaning a more functional nature.
For him, words get their meanings according to the context
and can be changed through the culture in which they are
used. Needless to say that Nida distinguishes between many
types of meaning: linguistic meaning, referential meaning
and emotive meaning (Munday, 2001).[5]
Besides, Nida's concept
of meaning in translation is, to some extent, influenced
by the Chomskyan theory of 'generative transformational
model'. The latter theory focuses on the universal features
of human language. For Chomsky, each language is composed
of a deep structure that undergoes the process of transformations
and a surface structure produced by these transformations
and is subject to phonological and morphophonemic rules.
In his translation of the Bible, Nida adopts these two structures;
i.e., deep and surface structures, and focuses more on the
former structure, since it contains the core of meaning.
Yet, Nida's treatment of meaning is different from that
of Chomsky. Edwin Gentzler (1993)[6] said that:
Chomsky investigates
the meaning inherent in the sign cut off from cultural context;
Nida's primary concern is not with the meaning any sign
carries with it, but with how the sign functions in any
given society.
Actually, the relegation
of cultural context from the Chomskyan theory is the core
of difference between him and Nida. But, despite the differences
in goals and interests between the two theories, both of
them share the same view about the nature of language as
including a deep structure and a surface one (E. Gentzler,
1993).[7]
Nida's theory of translation
is characterized by the distinction between two types of
equivalence: formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence.
For formal equivalence, the translator focuses on the message
itself, that is, its form and content, and there should
be a close similarity between the ST and the TT message
(Nida, 1964).[8] This source-oriented type is described by Kelly
(1979: 131 qtd in Mehrach, 1977)[9] as an approach that "depends
on one-to-one matching of small segments, on the assumption
that the centre of gravity of text and translation lies
in the significance for terminological and artistic reasons."
In the same context,
Munday, (2001)[10] points out that ‘gloss translation’, with scholarly
‘footnotes’ are the most typical of formal equivalence,
as they allow the student to understand the source culture's
language and customs.
Concerning dynamic equivalence,
Nida mentions that this type is based on "the principle
of equivalent effect", in which "the relationship
between receptor and message should be substantially the
same as that which existed between the original receptor
and the message." (Nida, 1964: 159, qtd by Munday)[11]
Nida gives paramount
importance to the notion of ‘naturalness’. He claims that
the main aim of ‘equivalent effect’ is to achieve "the
closest natural equivalent to the source language"
(Nida, 1964).[12] Actually, ‘naturalness’ as a
basic key-word in Nida's theory relies on the adaptation
of grammar, cultural references and lexicon of the ST. It
goes without saying that Nida privileges the preservation
of the text meaning on its style, since it allows the translator to create the same equivalent effects.
To sum up, Nida's aim
in his book Towards A Science of Translation is to
redefine principles and rules that govern and evaluate the
degree of sufficiency of translation (Gentzler, 1993).[13] Comparing form and content of texts, Nida mentions
that content should come first in translation. He argues
that formal translators who focus more on forms of poetry,
for instance, are more likely to misinterpret the "intention
of the author", and more apt to "distort
the meaning" (Nida, 1964).[14] According to Nida, the dynamic translator is more
faithful than the literal one, since he (DT) may perceive
"more fully and satisfactorily the meaning of the
original text" (Nida, 1964).[15] Finally, using Munaday's words, we can
say that Nida's notion of ‘equivalent response’ is of paramount
importance for any translator to achieve an advanced level
of success (Munday, 2001).[16]
It should also be noted
that Newmark's distinction between 'communicative translation'
and 'semantic translation' in his book Approaches to
Translation (1981)[17] is similar to Nida's types of
equivalence. For 'communicative translation', which tends
to create the same effects on the reader of the TT as those
obtained by readers of the ST, resembles Nida's notion of
dynamic equivalence, whereas, 'semantic translation', which
focuses on the rendition of the contextual meaning of the
SLT according to the syntactic and the semantic characteristics
of the TLT, is similar to Nida's formal equivalence.
However, many critics
of the 'equivalent effect' by Newmark come in his Textbook
of Translation (1988). Newmark sees Nida's 'equivalent
effect' as:
The desirable result,
rather than the aim of any translation. […] It is an unlikely result in two cases:
(a) if the purpose of the SL text is to affect and the TL
translation is to inform (or vice versa); (b) if there is
a pronounced cultural gap between the SL and the TL texts.[18]
We infer from this quotation
that the 'equivalent effect' is a result which all translators
long to achieve. However, this result can be unachievable
if the SLT and the TLT do not share the same goal; i.e.,
to inform or to affect, or if they do not have the same
cultural equivalents. The possession of cultural references,
together with the remoteness in time and space reduce the
possibility of achieving 'equivalent effects', except in
case the reader is imaginative, sensitive and has a good
knowledge of the SL culture (Newmark, 1988).[19]
Further, Newmark (1988)
argues that the text may reach a 'broad equivalent effect'
only if it is 'universal', as in this case the ideals of
the original text exceed all cultural frontiers.[20]
The other figure of
translation theorists who devotes a great deal of research
to the notion of equivalence is Koller (1979). The latter,
according to Mehrach (1997: 14) and Munday (2001:47), distinguishes
between five types of equivalence: 'denotative equivalence'
refers to the case where the ST and the TT have the same
denotations, that is conveying the same extra linguistic
facts; 'connotative equivalence', also referred to as 'stylistic
equivalence', is related to the lexical choices between
near synonyms; 'text normative' refers to text types, i.e.,
the description and analysis of a variety of texts behaving
differently; 'pragmatic equivalence', also called 'communicative
equivalence', is oriented towards the receptor of the text,
as he should receive the same effect that the original text
produces on its readers; 'formal equivalence', may also
be referred to as 'expressive equivalence', is related to
the word-for-word rendition of forms, aesthetic and stylistic
features of the ST.
It goes without saying
that Koller (1979: 176-91, qtd by Munday, 2001)[21] devotes a large part of his research
to the examination of the relation between ‘equivalence’
and ‘correspondence’. For the former examines the equivalent
items in both the ST and the TT and it is based on De Saussure's
parameter of ‘langue’, while the latter can be related to
contrastive analysis, as a field of comparative linguistics
and is based on the De Saussure's ‘parole’.
Moreover, the term equivalence
continues to be a central issue for many years. Theorists
and scholars try hard to define it as a way to enhance its
role in translation. According to Broek (1978), J. C. Catford
defines 'translation equivalence' as:
Translation equivalence
occurs when an SL [source language] and TL [target language]
texts or items are related to (at least some of) the same
relevant features of situation substance. [22]
Newmark (1986) uses
the term 'text-bound equivalence', while North (1991) works
on 'functional equivalence'. Mona Baker also devotes her
work to equivalent types, and argues that equivalence is
always relative in the sense that it is influenced by many
linguistic and cultural factors (Mona Baker, 1992).[23]
Additionally, the development
in equivalence research is also characterized by the work
of the Syrian theorist Monia Bayar (2007). In her book To
Mean Or Not To Mean, Bayar distinguishes between formal
equivalence, semantic equivalence, cultural equivalence
and pragmatic equivalence. For her, formal equivalence "designates
an area of correspondence ranging around the word, albeit
involving lower units such as the phoneme or the morpheme".[24] She also states that transliteration;
categorical correspondence such as the correspondence of
'noun to noun, verb to verb' between ST and TT; and textual
correspondence such as length, stylistic aspects, meter,
rhythm and rhyme, are all instances of 'formal equivalence'
(Bayar 2007).
As far as semantic equivalence
is concerned, Bayar (2007)[25] notes that this type relies on
the preservation of many semantic criteria: denotation,
connotation and propositional content. According to her,
words which do not have the same equivalent meanings could
be translated by 'explanatory expressions' as a way of compensation.
For instance, the English word ‘nod’ that has not an equivalent
word in Arabic, can be translated by the expression /?anζama
bi ra?sihi/ (p.163-7). For the third type, 'cultural equivalence',
Bayar (2007) considers it to be the most difficult and 'controversial
kind of equivalence', since it is related to 'human identity'.
She defines it as follows:
Cultural equivalence
aims at the reproduction of whatever cultural features the
ST holds into the TT. These vary from things specific to
the geographical situation, the climate, the history, the
tradition, the religion, the interpersonal or inter-community
social behavior, to any cultural event having an effect
on the language community.[26]
It is clear from this
definition that 'cultural equivalence' consists of the rendition
of the SL cultural features into a TL in a way that helps
the reader understand these foreign cultural features through
his own cultural ones. Actually, 'cultural equivalence'
can be easily reached in case the cultural words under translation
are universally known. However, this can be diminished with
cultural differences that languages may have. Arabic and
English are a case in point. Further, Bayar (2007)[27] discusses the importance of preserving the author's
ideology if the translation is to be qualified as equal
to the ST.
As far as 'pragmatic
equivalence' is concerned, Bayar (2007)[28] points out that this type tends
to reproduce the context and text goals of the SL. She also
shares the same idea with Hatim and Mason (1990: 236-8)
that "pragmatic equivalence subsumes all of the
semio-pragmatic-communicative layers of communication."[29] Examples of these
semiotic and communicative dimensions are genre, field,
mode, tenor, text type and translation purpose (skopos).
In brief, it is true
that Bayar's types of equivalence have already been tackled
by many western theorists, but her illustrative views on
the phenomenon enhance its importance in translation studies,
and helps in the development of research in equivalence.
However, the notion
of equivalence or equivalent effect is not tolerated by
many theorists. The opponents of equivalence refuse its
existence in translation. In his essay The Concept of
Equivalence in Translation, Van den Broek states that
"we must by all means reject the idea that
the equivalence relation applies to translation."
(Broek, 1978)[30]
He also opposes the
idea of equivalence in translation as a form of linguistic
synonymy, ensuring that the latter does not exist even with
words of the same language (p.34). Besides, Broek rejects
terms like similarity, analogy, adequacy, invariance and
congruence, and the implications they may have in translation.
Broek also redefines
the term equivalence by the concept of "true understanding"
(p.29). In the same context, Van Leuven notes that the concept
of equivalence "not only distorts the basic problem
of translation, but also obstructs the development of a
descriptive theory of translation" (Van Leuven,
1990: 228 qtd by Mehrach).[31] Van Leuven also mentions that
equivalence proponents relegate the importance of crucial
factors such as 'the situation of the utterance', 'the intention
of the speaker' and 'the effect on the hearer' (Van Leuven
1990:228 qtd by Mehrach, 1997). Further, the Moroccan scholar
M. Mehrach (1997) also considers equivalence "an
impossible aim in translation." He corroborates
his saying by the idea that no two languages share the same
linguistic structures, and social or cultural aspects. Instead,
he proposes the use of the term 'adequacy' as a reference
for the 'appropriate' translation, that is, "a translation
that has achieved the required optimal level of interlanguage
communication under certain given conditions."[32]
In brief, it is clear
from the above conflicting views and theories that the notion
of equivalence is arbitrary and relative as well. It is,
in fact, difficult to determine since no one could objectively
define the point at which the TT becomes equal to the ST.
Thus, to be moderate as much as possible, we will not define
equivalence as a point of translation proficiency or reject
its existence in translation as some wished, but we will,
instead, use it as a form of approximation in which the
TT approximates the ST. we will also use the term equivalence
as a scale that ranges from optimum degree to zero degree.
So, what are these degrees of equivalence? And what characterizes
each one?
b. Degrees of equivalence
According to Monia Bayar
(2007),[33] equivalence consists of seven degrees: optimum
translation, near-optimum translation, partial translation,
weaker and stronger translation, poor translation, mistranslation
and zero equivalence/non-translation. Each degree has specific
characteristics that keep it distant from the other. In
our distinction of these degrees, we will focus on the pragmatic
and cultural aspects as the two main dimensions that may
assess the degree of preservation of the ST goal, or as
Bayar calls it 'the superordinate goal'.
Optimum translation
It refers to the highest
level of approximation to the ST. Monia Bayar (2007) defines
it as "the closest equivalence degree attainable,
given the circumstances, the linguistic and extralinguistic
resources actually available to the translator."[34] In other words, a
TT may reach the optimal degree when it preserves the 'superordinate
goal' of the ST and its five requirements (genre, field,
mode, tenor and type). Additionally, the TT is said to be
optimal when it looks semantically and grammatically well-formed,
with sentences that cohere to each other to serve the ST
goal and preserve its content, and also when the TT is readable
and easy to understand by receptors. Any deviation from
these characteristics distances the translated text from
the optimal degree. To illustrate these points let us work
on the samples below:
a)
1-Eng ST: He was armed
to his teeth.
2-Arb TT1:کان مسلحا
حتى أسنانه
3-Arb TT2, (optimal):کان مدججا بالسلاح
b)
1-Eng ST: He kicked
the bucket.
2-Arb TT1: رکل الدلو
3-Arb TT2, (optimal):وافته المنیة
Despite their smooth
readability and well-formed grammar, the examples (2) of
these idiomatic expressions are rejected and distanced from
reaching the optimum degree in translation. This is because
of their detraction from the ST's goals and contents. On
the contrary, examples (3) show a fine degree of optimality,
since they succeed in carrying the same implicatures and
cultural aspects of the STs. In brief, optimum translation
is a feasible translation, and the more simple the text
is, the more possible for the translator to reach the optimal
degree of translation. The example below clarifies this:
c)
1-Eng ST: Zidan shoots
the ball.
2-Arb TT1: Zidan frappe le ballon. (Optimal)
3-Arb TT2: ضرب زیدان
الکرة
(Optimal)
The simplicity of the ST
helps to reach the optimum degree in translation. Yet, the problems with optimum translation rise while
dealing with literary translation and more specifically
poetic translation, since its rendition is governed by many
aesthetic and stylistic rules.
Near-optimum translation
Near-optimum translation
refers to the case where the ST superordinate goal and sub-goals
are cohesively and coherently rendered to the TT, but do
not reach the readability of the optimal degree from a textual
point of view. For the sake of clarification, we will use
the example given by Monia Bayar (2007).[35]
d)
SL: If you happen to
have read another book about Christopher Robin, you may
remember that he once had a swan.
TT1: S'il vous est arrivé
de lire un autre livre sur Christopher Robin, vous
pourriez peut-être vous rappeler qu'il avait
un cygne. (Near optimal)
TT2: S'il vous est arrivé
de lire un autre livre qui parle de Christopher Robin, vous
vous rappelleriez alors qu'il avait un cygne. (Optimal)
Reading this example,
we notice that the French version TT1 wrongly uses the adverb
‘sur’ and the verb ‘peut-être’ in translation, the
fact that negatively affects the smooth readability of the
TT. The TT2, on the contrary, is an example of the optimal
translation, since it preserves the smoothness and fluency
of its readability.
Partial translation
Partial translation
refers to the case in which the ST is partially rendered
to the TT; that is, the translator partially translates
the text’s superordinate goal. In this type, it should be
noted that readability and correctness of the TT do not
mean its preservation of the ST, for the TT might be read
smoothly, without conveying the ST goal.
e)
Eng, ST: Never too old
to learn.
Arb, TT1: (partial translation)
لیس
للتعلم سن
یحده
Arb, TT2: (optimal translation) أطلبوا
العلم من المهد
الى اللحد
Here, we can see that
the first (1) TT does not cover the whole superordinate
function or goal of the ST as in the TT2; hence, TT1 is
partial, while TT2 is optimal.
Weaker and stronger versions
Using Monia Bayar's
words, some translations are called weaker versions because
they reproduce the ST goals in 'attenuated terms' if compared
to the original, whereas, others are named strong versions
for their use of stronger terms in their rendition of ST
goals.[36] To clarify these types let us observe the differences
in the examples below:
f)
Eng, ST: Once bitten,
twice shy.
Arb, TT1: (weaker version)
عندما
تلدغ مرة تصبح
خجولا مرتین
Arb, TT2: (optimal)
لا یلدغ
المؤمن من
جحر مرتین
Arb,
TT3: (stronger version) کثرة
الخجل تأتی
من اللدغ
The distance or the
approximation of these versions (weak/strong) from the optimum
degree depends on the degree of their alteration of the
ST goal.
Poor translation
In poor translation,
readability is the core of the problem. Though the TT may
or may not preserve the ST superordinate goal, it is read
with great difficulty by the receptor. In other words, poor
translation occurs when the translator fails to transfer
the ST goals into a readable TT and in an obvious way that
helps the reader grasp them easily.
g)
Arb, ST: یلوموننی
فی حب لیلى
عواذلی ولکننی
من حبها عمید
Eng, TT1: (poor translation).
My reproachers blame me for loving Laila / but I am with
her love smitten.
TT2 (optimal): My reproachers
blame me for loving Laila / but I am deeply smitten with
love for her.[37]
The TT1 shows a poor
translation because the reader cannot easily comprehend
the ST goal.
Mistranslation
In mistranslation the
TT neither sounds readable nor preserves the superordinate
goal of the ST.
i)
ST: It is raining cats
and dogs.
TT1: (mistranslation)
انها تمطر
قططا وکلابا
TT2: (optimal) ینهمر
المطر مدرارا
Here, we see that TT1
not only distorts the superordinate goal of the ST, but
also seems out of context and unreadable.
Zero equivalence
Zero equivalence occurs
when there is no one-to-one equivalent between the ST and
the TT. This happens when the translator deals with texts
that contain many culturally-bound words or expressions.
Examples of this are the words ‘kassāl’, ‘tajin’ and
‘innur’ in Moroccan Arabic, and the English word ‘nuts’,
which hasn't a word equivalent in French (see Bayar, 2007).[38] In fact, zero equivalence rarely
occurs at the text level, except in some literary forms
as poetry and fairytales, and in case it happens, the translator
may use translation recreation instead.
In general, equivalence
in translation can be measured by a scale of degrees that
ranges from optimal equivalence to zero equivalence. These
degrees of equivalence might be measured by the levels of
approximation or distance from the ST 'superordinate goal'.
While optimal equivalence is considered as the highest level
in equivalence, or the most approximate degree from the
ST, zero equivalence is related to the lowest degree of
equivalence or the most distant degree from the ST goal.
[1] Mohamed Mehrach.
(1977) Towards a Text-Based Model for Translation
Evaluation. Ridderkerk: Ridden print, p. 14.
[2] Jeremy Munday. (2001).
Introducing Translation Studies, Theories and applications.
London and New York: Routledge, p. 36.
[6] Edwin Gentzler.
(1993). Contemporary Translation Theories, London
and New York: Routledge, p. 53.
[8] Eugene A. Nida,
(1964). Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden:
Brill, p. 159.
[9] Mohamed Mehrach,
op. cit., (1977), p. 44
[10] Jeremy Munday,
op. cit., (2001), p.41.
[12] Eugene A. Nida,
op. cit., (1964), p. 166.
[13] Edwin Gentzler.
(1993). Contemporary Translation Theories, London
and New York: Routledge, p. 58.
[14] Eugene A. Nida,
op. cit., (1964), pp. 191-2.
[16] Jeremy Munday,
op. cit., (2001), p. 42.
[17] Peter Newmark, (1981). Approaches to Translation. Oxford and
New York: Pergamon, p. 39.
[18] Peter Newmark.
(1988). A Textbook of Translation. London and
New York: Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd, p. 49.
[21] Jeremy Munday,
op. cit., (2001), pp. 46-7.
[22] Broek, Raymond
Van Der, (1981). "The Limits of Translatability
Exemplified by Metaphor Translation", in Itamar
Even-Zohar and Gideon Toury (eds) Translation Theory
and Intercultural Relations, Poetics Today, p. 38.
[23] Mouna Baker. (1997).
The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies,
Part II: History and Traditions. London and New
York: Rutledge, p. 6.
[24] Monia Bayar, (2007).
To Mean or Not to Mean, Kadmous cultural foundation.
Khatawat for publishing and distribution. Damascus,
Syria, p. 163.
[30] Broek, Raymond Van den, (1978) "The Concept of Equivalence In
Translation Theory: Some Critical Reflections",
in J. S. Holmes, J. Lambert and R, Van den Broek (eds),
Literature and Translation, Leuven: Academic,
p. 33.
[31] Mohamed Mehrach,
op. cit., (1977), pp. 14-15.
[33] Monia Bayar, op.
cit., (2007), pp. 213-223.
[37] Mohammed Addidaoui,
op. cit., (2000), p. 32.
[38] Monia Bayar, op.
cit., (2007), p. 223.
Published - April
2009
![[img]](http://doras.dcu.ie/style/images/fileicons/application_pdf.png)