LECTURE V. EQUIVALENCE IN TRANSLATION Plan 1. Equivalence and Equivalents 2. Different Approaches to the Types of Equivalencies 3. Grammar and Lexical Equivalents 4. The translation of Idioms

1. Equivalence and Equivalents Translation equivalence is the key idea of translation. Equivalence is defined in the COLLINS Dictionary of the English language as the state of being equal or interchangeable in value, quality, significance, etc.... or “having the same or a similar effect on meaning”. Similarly, WEBSTER’S “Ninth new Collegiate Dictionary” defines the concept as a state of being “equal in force, amount or value”.

It becomes immediately clear, when considering these two definitions, that there are three main components in both: a pair (at least) between which the relationship exists, a concept of likeness/sameness/similarity/equality, and a set of qualities. Thus, equivalence is defined as a relationship existing between two or more entities, and the relationship is described as one of likeness/sameness/similarity/equality in terms of any of a number of potential qualities. In translation equivalence can be said to be the central issue.

The principle of equivalence is based on the mathematical law of transitivity that reads: if A is equal to C and B is equal to C, then B equals A. As applied to translation,equivalence means that if a word or a word combination of one language A corresponds to certain concept C and a word or word combination of another language B corresponds to the same concept C these words or word combinations are considered equivalent.

In other words in translation ‘equivalent’ means indirectly equal, that is equal by similarity of meanings. Ex. Words ‘table’ and ‘стол’, ‘masă’ are equivalent through the similarities of meanings in these languages (they imply the image of the object and grammar peculiarities). In general sense these words are not equal or equivalent- they are equivalent only under specific translation conditions.

This simple idea is very important for the understanding of translation. It reads: the words that you find in a dictionary as translations of the given foreign language word are not the universal substitutes of this word in your language. These translations (equivalents) are worth for specific cases which are to be determined by translator. This can be explained by the fact that the mental concept of a word and word combination is almost never precise outlined and may be different even in the minds of the same language speakers, not to mention the speakers of different languages.

All this speaks for the complexity of finding the proper and only translation equivalent of the given word. Translation equivalence never means the sameness for meanings for the signs of different languages. Thus, translation equivalents in a dictionary are just the prompts for the translator. One may find a proper equivalent only in a discourse due to the context, situation and background knowledge.

Ex. The English word ‘picture ‘ is generally considered equivalent to the words ’pictură’ and ‘картина’. But in the context ‘to take pictures’ this equivalent is no longer correct. Even in the case of terms and geographical names one cannot say for sure that their meanings in different languages are universally equivalent. Ex. ‘Africa’ can be translated as ‘black continent’.

The idea of translation equivalence is strongly related to the unit of translation, i.e. the text length required to obtain proper equivalent. One word is hardly a common unit for translation. It is especially true for so called analytical languages such as English in which the words are usually polysemantic and their meanings strongly depends on the environment. It is possible to fined equivalents for phrasal verbs(give up, bring up…) and sometimes for clichés and proverbs which are commonly used in similar situations..

The general rule of translation reads: the longer is the source text, the bigger is a chance to find proper and correct translation equivalent. Traditionally and from practical viewpoint the optional length of text for translation is a sentence. Being a self-sustained syntactic entity a sentence usually contains enough syntactic and semantic information for translation. However there are cases when a broader stretch of the source text(discourse) is required.

The theory of “partial communication” seems to be the basis of most contemporary translation studies. According to this theory communication doesn’t transfer the whole message. The same holds true for the translating process: it doesn’t transfer the totality of what is in the original. Many theorists interpret this theory in different ways. There is no unanimity in their views. Some theoreticians view equivalence as oriented translation or a procedure which replicates the same situation as the original, but using completely different words. According to them equivalence is therefore an ideal method when the translator has to deal with proverbs, terms, nominal or adjectival phrases. They say that the need for creating equivalence arises from the situation.

Roman Jakobson’s study of the equivalence gave new impetus to the theoretical analysis of translation since he introduced the notion of “equivalence in difference”. On the basis of his approach to language he suggests three kinds of translation: -intralingual, within one language, that is rewording or paraphrase; -interlingual, between two languages; -intersemiotic, between sign systems.

Jakobson claims that in the case of interlingual translation, the translator makes use of synonyms in order to get the source language text message across. This means that in the interlingual translation there is no full equivalence between code units. According to this theory translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes. From a grammatical point of view languages may differ to a greater degree, but this doesn’t mean that a translation cannot be possible, in other words, the translator may face the problem of not finding a translation equivalent. In the case of deficiency, terminology may be qualified and amplified by loanwords or loan-translations, neologisms or semantic shifts”.

2. Different Approaches to the Types of Equivalencies Both mentioned theories recognize the limitations of a linguistic theory and argue that a translation can never be possible since there are several methods that the translator can choose. Several types of translation equivalence can be distinguished. In the first type of equivalence it is only the purport of communication that is retained. The second type is characterized by the “identification of the situation”. The third type implies retention in the translation of the three parts of the original contents. The fourth type of equivalence presupposes retention in the translation of the four meaningful components of the original. In the fifth group of equivalence we can find the maximum possible semantic similarity between texts in different languages.

Professor Baker speaks about linguistic and communicative approach to translation. She distinguishes between the following types of equivalence. -equivalence that appears at word level and above word level when translating from one language into another. -grammatical equivalence, when referring to the diversity of grammatical categories across languages and this may pose some problems in terms of finding a direct correspondence in the Target language. In fact, she claims, that different grammatical structures in the Source language and the target language may cause remarkable changes in the way the information or message is carried across. These changes may induce the translator either add or omit information in the TT because of the lack of particular grammatical devices.

-textual equivalence, when referring to the equivalence between a ST and TT in terms of information. Texture is a very important feature in translation since it provides useful guidelines for the comprehension and analysis of the ST which can help the translator in his attempt to produce a cohesive and coherent text. It is up to the translator to decide whether or not to maintain the cohesive ties as well as the coherence of the ST. This decision is guided by three factors such as the target audience, the purpose of translation and the text type. -pragmatic equivalence, when referring to strategies of avoidance during the translation process. Therefore the translator needs to work out implied meaning in translation in order to get the Source text message across. The role of the translator is to recreate the author’s intention in another culture in such a way that enables the reader to understand it.

In the theory of translation the process of translation means the replacement of a representation of a text in one language by a representation of an equivalent text in the other language. Texts in different languages can be equivalent in different degrees (fully or partially equivalent), in respect of different levels of presentation (equivalent in respect of context, semantics, grammar, lexis, etc...) and at different ranks (word-for-word, phrase-for-phrase, sentence-for-sentence). It is apparent, and has been for a very long time indeed, that the ideal of total equivalence is a chimera. Languages differ from each other having distinct codes and rules regulating the construction of grammatical stretches of languages and these have different meanings. To shift from one language to another is, by definition, to alter the forms. There is no absolute synonymy between words in the same language and indeed there is no absolute synonymy between words in different languages. Something is always “lost” or sometimes “gained” in the process of translation..

Language is a formal structure – a code consisting of elements which can combine to signal semantic “sense” and, at the same time, a communication system which uses the forms of the code to refer to entities. The translator has the option. The choice is between translating word-for-word (literal translation) or meaning-for- meaning (free translation). Pick the first and the translator is criticized for the “ugliness” of a “faithful” translation. Pick the second and there is criticism of the “inaccuracy” of a “beautiful” translation. Either way, it seems, the translator cannot win even though we recognize that the crucial variable is the purpose for which the translation is being made, not some inherent characteristics of the text itself.

Some of the SL units have permanent equivalents in TL, that is to say, there is a one-to-one correspondence between such units and their equivalents. As a rule this type of correspondence is found with words of specific character, such as scientific and technical terms, proper and geographical names and similar words whose meaning is more or less independent of the particular contextual situation. Other SL units may have several equivalents each. Such one-to-many correspondence between SL and TL units is characteristic of most regular equivalents. The existence of a number of non-permanent (or variable) equivalents to a SL units implies the necessity of selecting one of them in each particular case.

In trying to solve the problem of translation equivalence, Newbert postulates that from the point of view of a theory of texts, translation equivalence must be considered a semiotic category, comprising syntactic, semantic and pragmatic components. These components are arranged in a hierarchical relationship, where semantic equivalence takes priority over syntactic equivalence, and pragmatic equivalence conditions and modifies both the other elements. Equivalence overall results from the relation between signs themselves, the relationship between signs and what they stand for, and those who use them. Similarly, the interaction between all three components determines the process of selection in the TL, as for example, in the case of letter- writing. The norms governing the writing of letters vary considerably from language to language and from period to period, even within Europe.

The question of defining equivalence is being pursued by two lines of development in Translation Studies. The first, rather predictably, lays an emphasis on the special problems of semantics and on the transfer of semantic content from SL to TL. With the second, which explores the question of equivalence of literary texts, the work of the Russian Formalists and the Prague Linguists, together with more recent devel­opments in discourse analysis, have broadened the problem of equiva­lence in its application to the translation of such texts. James Holmes, for example, feels that the use of the term equivalence is vague, since to ask for sameness is to ask too much.

3. Grammar and Lexical Equivalents Depending on the type of the language units involved regular equivalents can be classified as “lexical, phraseological and grammatical”. The absence of the regular equivalents doesn’t imply that the meaning of an equivalent-lacking SL unit can not be translated. The translator coming across an equivalent-lacking word, resorts to occasional equivalents which can be created in one of the following ways: 1. Using loan-words imitating in the TL the form of the SL word or word combination, i.e. tribalism, impeachment, backbencher, brain-drain which get the status of regular equivalents. 2. Using appropriate substitutes, that is the TL words with similar meaning. The Russian word APTECA or Romanian Farmacie are not exactly the English Drugstore where they also sell such items as magazines, soft-drinks, ice-cream, etc..., but in some cases this appropriate equivalent can be used.

3.Using all kinds of lexical (semantic) transformations modifying the meaning of the SL word. 4.Using an explanation to convey the meaning of the SL unit. The last method is used sometimes in conjunction with the first one when the introduction of a loan-word is followed by a foot-note explaining the meaning of the equivalent-lacking word in the SL. There are also quite a number of equivalent-lacking idioms. Such English phraseological units as “You cannot eat your cake and have it”, “to dine with Duke Humphry”, “to send smb. to Coventry “ and many others have no regular equivalents in other languages. They are translated either by reproducing their form in the TL through word-for-word translation or by explaining the figurative meaning of it.

Equivalent lacking grammatical forms give less trouble to the translator. Here occasional substitutes can be classified under three main headings, namely: 1. Zero translation when the meaning of the grammatical form is not rendered in the translation since it is practically identical to the meaning of some other unit and can be safely left out. In the sentence “By that time he had already left England” the idea of priority expressed by the Past Perfect tense should be separately reproduced in the TL as it is made vivid by the presence of “by that time” and “ already”. 2.Approximate translation when the translator makes use of a TL form particularly equivalent to the equivalent- lacking form in the SL. While translating the following sentence “I saw him enter the room” we should know that the Russian language has no Complex Subject of this type but the meaning of the object clause is a sufficient approximation.

3.Transformational translation when the translator resorts to one of the grammatical transformations. While translating the sentences “Your presence at the meeting is not obligatory. Nor is it desirable” we can unite them and present as one sentence. As it has been emphasized, equivalents are not mechanical substitutes for the SL units but they may come handy as a starting point in search of adequate translation. The translator will much profit if he knows many permanent equivalents, is good at selecting among variable equivalents and resourceful at creating occasional equivalents, taking into account all contextual factors.