1. Translation Studies 5. The concept of equivalence Krisztina Károly, Spring, 2006 Sources: Baker, 1992; Klaudy, 2003

2. Equivalence = “equal value” of the SL and TL text (sense- and content-related identity)

3. The equivalence perception of readers, translators, researchers The concept of equivalence is viewed differently by the reader/listener  assume equivalence (instinctive view), translator  creates equivalence (more or less conscious view), researcher  investigates equivalence (complex, differing views) (Albert 1988).

4. Approaches to equivalence (3) (1) a precondition/requirement of translation (different from other types of FL transformations: adaptation, abridgment, summary, etc)  translation = replacement of the SL text by the TL equivalent (no subtypes or degrees exist in translation!)

5. Approaches to equiv. cont. (2) never being complete  the TL text is identical with the original text only from certain (formal, situational, contextual, communicative, etc.) aspects (various types and degrees of equivalence exist!) 2 trends: (2.1) normative view: prescribes what the translator has to do to produce an equivalent translation; what it is that he/she has to definitely preserve, or can sacrifice from the original text; (2.2) descriptive view: describes, on the basis of the analysis of numerous translating facts, how translators create equivalence, what it is that they have preserved or sacrificed.

6. Approaches to equiv. cont. (3) being text-type dependent  no identical equivalence requirements can be established for different text types (e.g., a users’ manual, a movie script, lyrical poem): the number of text types determines the number of equivalence types possible (Reiss, 1971).

7. Overview of the various types of equivalences

8. (1) Catford’s (1965) view on equivalence Makes a distinction between “formal correspondence” and “textual equivalent” ________________________________ Formal correspondent = any TL category, which may be said to occupy, as nearly as possible, the ‘same’ place in the system hierarchy of the TL as the given SL category occupies in the SL (1965, p.32)  only approximate: e.g., English brother  a formal correspondent of Hungarian fivér: elder brother/báty and younger brother/öcs

9. Catford cont. Textual equivalence = “any TL form (text/portion of text) which is observed to be equivalent of a given SL form (text/portion of text)” + “SL and TL texts or items are translational equivalents when they are interchangable in a given situation” (1965, p.27,49)  main criterion for text equivalence = the identity of contextually relevant features: e.g., I have arrived. – Megérkeztem.  Lically relevant information: (1) the speaker (I and not you or he), (2) she has arrived and not left (arrive and not leave), (3) it is about an event that has already happened and not something that will happen (have arrived and not will arrive), (4) the prior event is linked to the current situation (have arrived and not arrive, or arrived), (5) the current situation is present (have arrived and not had arrived). (1)-(4) coincide  H and E are interchangeable  may be considered text equivalents

10. (2) Nida’s (1964) view on equivalence It is not the identity of situationally relevant features that is the main criterion for equivalence, but rather the identity of the receiver’s reaction  2 main types of equivalence: “formal equivalence” + “dynamic equivalence”

11. Nida cont. Formal equivalence = if the translator attributes priority to the SL text, and tries to render the SL text as faithfully as possible, not only in its content but also in its form including (1) grammatical units, (2) consistency in word usage, (3) meanings in terms of the source context.  to faithfully give back the grammatical units: (1) verbs are translated into verbs, and nouns into nouns, (2) the boundaries of the sentences remain unchanged, (3) punctuation, paragraphing, etc. also stay the same. E.g., classical text (Plato’s dialogues, to understand the essence of Plato’s philosophical system and to be able to follow the development of his terminology)

12. Nida cont. Dynamic equivalence = “the closest natural equivalent” of the SL text  to produce a “natural” translation, the translator has to bear in mind 3 important factors: (1) the receptor L and culture as a whole,  adaptation on the level of (1.1) grammar: simple task, dictated by the structure of the L (1.2) lexicon: demanding task, may happen on 3 levels: (a) terms for which there are readily available parallels (e.g., river, tree, stone, knife, etc.) (b) terms which identify culturally different objects but with somewhat similar functions (e.g., book) (c) terms which identify cultural specialities (e.g., synagogue, homer, cherubim). (2) the context of the particular message (intonation, rhythm of sentences, style) (3) the receptor-L audience (translation should produce the same effect in the receptor L readers as the original piece did in the SL audience!)

13. (3) Some other views on equivalence German translation research (Kade, 1968)  4 types of equivalences: total equivalence: a SL unit has a permanent equivalent in the TL (e.g., terms, institutional names), optional equivalence: a given SL unit has several equivalents in the target language (e.g., in German: Spannung, in English: voltage, tension, suspense, stress, pressure) approximate equivalence: the meaning of a SL unit is divided between two TL equivalents (e.g., German: Himmel, English: heaven/sky), zero equivalence: the SL unit does not have a TL equivalent (e.g., realia)

14. Some other views cont. Gert Jäger’s (1975) view: communicative equivalence: the “communicative value” of the original text does not change in translation functional equivalence: the “functional value” of the text is preserved (= the sum of the functions of linguistic signs, the sum of their meanings) -- can be described with the tools of Lics

15. What should be preserved in translation? (the “invariant” of translation) the contents of the original text, its sense, its functional value, its meaning, and its information structure  normative view

16. (4) Komissarov’s (1973) view on equivalence  argues against a normative view (researcher has to refrain from any evaluative or critical comments) he does not intend to describe the criteria for creating equivalence; instead he sets out to explore and systematise the equivalence relations observed in translations (based on the Russian translation of English texts)

17. Komissarov’s five levels of transfer correspond to five different levels of equivalence: (1) equivalence on the level of the communicative goal (=the lowest degree of semantic similarity with the original text) (2) equivalence on the level of (the identification) of the situation (=higher degree of similarity, even though it is not so evident at first sight) (3) equivalence on the level of message / of method of description (of the situation) (=higher degree of similarity: it is not only the communicative goal and the situation that are identical, but also the way in which the situation is described) (4) equivalence on the level of utterance /of syntactic meanings (=besides the communicative goal, the situation described, and the manner of describing the situation, the grammatical structures are also partly identical, i.e. their differences are only due to the differences between the systems of the two languages. (5) equivalence on the level of linguistic signs / of word semantics (=the maximum possible similarity

18. (5) Klaudy (2003): The conditions of communicative equivalence 3 types of equivalence relations characterise a communicatively equivalent translation: referential equivalence: the TL text should refer to the same segment of reality, to the same facts, events and phenomena as the SL text contextual equivalence: individual sentences should occupy the same position in the whole of the TL text as their correspondents in the whole of the SL text functional equivalence: the TL text should play the same role in the community of TL readers as the SL text in the community of SL readers (this role may involve transfer of information, provoking certain emotions, appeal, etc.)

19. (6) Baker’s (1992) typology of equivalences word level above word level grammatical textual 1: thematic and information structures textual 2: cohesion pragmatic

20. Textual equivalence: cohesion Halliday and Hasan: continuum of cohesive elements: repetition, synonym, superordinate, general words, pronominal reference

21. Reference = the relationship of identity which holds between two linguistic expressions (textual reference, situational reference; co-reference also) differs across discourse types and languages English: relies heavily on pronominal reference Hebrew: uses proper names to trace participants through a discourse Brazil: refer to participant by using a noun several times in succession before shifting into a pronominal form Brazilian Portuguese: prefers lexical repetition (+ inflects person and number = additional relations) Japanese, Chinese: pronouns hardly ever used (once a participant is introduced, continuity of reference is signaled by omitting the subjects of following clauses)

22. Substitution and ellipsis: Arabic: prefers pronominal reference above all

23. Conjunction Languages differ tremendously in the type of conjunction they prefer (provide information into the whole logic of discourse); reflects the rhetoric of the text and controls its interpretation German: many subordinations and complex structures, many conjunctions (more than in English Chinese, Japanese: simple, shorter structures and mark relations explicitly where possible English: many conjunctions (and presents information in relatively small chunks) Arabic: small number of conjunctions, prefers punctuation instead (and large chunks)

24. Lexical cohesion Languages differ in the number of lexical repetitions they normally tolerate Arabic: repetition is more dominant in Arabic than in English (differing lexical networks: reiterations and collocations Greek also tolerates repetition more than English

25. (7) Rejection of the concept of equivalence the concept of equivalence or identity is generally related to the SL text, trying to assess whether the translation and the SL text are of equal value Gideon Toury (1980) directed the attention to the TL: the text of the translation must function in a TL context, and so it should meet the genre and stylistic requirements of the TL  Important: - equivalence to the SL text ( =“adequacy”), - its ability to meet the requirements presented by the TL (=“appropriacy”) - the TL reader (=“acceptability”) Mary Snell-Hornby (1988) integrates the Lic and the literary approach: the concept of equivalence is cannot be a central category in translation studies; it can do harm by suggesting an atomistic view, producing the false illusion of symmetry between Ls (e.g., the etymology of the English term equivalence and the German term Äquivalenz -- even these two terms cannot be regarded as truly “equivalent”)

26. The importance of the concept of equivalence research on equivalence has great theoretical significance: as a result of translation totally different Lic structures may enter into equivalence relations, and without translation their identical functions would never be detected  provides data for research into the relationship between form and function the practical significance of the concept: it may provide scientifically sound criteria (vs. intuition) for translation criticism (equivalence appears in various degrees, and translations on the market cannot always be regarded as communicatively equivalent to the original texts) ***