Equivalence in Translation Studies

Equivalence in Translation Studies

• Equivalence is a much-debated topic in translation theory.
• Researchers aimed to develop more systematic translation theories, shifting focus to new "higher-level thought units."
• The concept of equivalence has become a focal point for many researchers, leading to conflicting views on its definition and applicability.
• Theorists like Eugene Nida, Anthony Pym, Werner Koller, and Gideon Toury analyze translation in the context of equivalent relationships.
• Theorists such as Snell-Hornby reject the use of equivalence as a theoretical concept in translation.
• Mona Baker emphasizes the practical applicability of equivalence in translation studies and its necessity to some extent.

Roman Jakobson: Linguistic Meaning and Equivalence

• Born in Russia in 1896, Roman Jakobson was a Russian-American linguist and literary theorist.
• He studied at the Lazarev Institute and Moscow University and became a leader in the Moscow Linguistic Circle.
• He moved to Prague in 1920, earned his PhD, and later lectured in Denmark and New York.
• Jakobson was a key figure in formalism and structural linguistics.
• He founded the Prague Linguistic Circle and coined the term "Structural Linguistics."
• Jakobson’s work expanded into anthropology and psychoanalysis.
• Jakobson’s early analyses aligned with the Russian Formalists, emphasizing examining linguistic works and their morphological properties.
• Jakobson focused on Russian-Czech poetry and contributed to phonology.
• Jakobson's theories shaped modern linguistics, specifically linguistic typology, markedness, and linguistic universals.
• Jakobson co-authored influential works on the structural analysis of language.
• He introduced the dichotomous scale and explored the relationship between poetry and language.
• Jakobson identified three types of translation: intra-lingual, inter-lingual, and inter-semiotic.
• Intra-lingual translation (rewording) involves interpreting verbal signs using different signs within the same language, including rephrasing or summarizing.
• Inter-lingual translation (translation proper) involves interpreting verbal signs from one language to another.
• Inter-semiotic translation (transmutation) involves interpreting verbal signs using non-verbal sign systems like music or gestures.
• Inter-lingual translation presents challenges in linguistic meaning and achieving equivalence.
• In line with Ferdinand de Saussure, Jakobson distinguished between "langue" (the linguistic system) and "parole" (specific utterances).
• According to Jakobson, a key aspect of "langue" is the relationship between the signifier and the signified.
• Jakobson asserted that there is "ordinarily no full equivalence between code-units."
• It is possible to understand what is signified by a word even if we have never seen or experienced that concept.
• The English word "cheese" is not fully equivalent to the Italian "formaggio" because "formaggio" excludes certain types of cheese, like cottage cheese.
• Conceptual scope and cultural significance can cause interlinguistic differences in terms and semantic fields.
• Languages differ in expressing the meaning, yet people share the same way of thinking and experiencing the world.
• Human cognition is universal, and language differences do not fundamentally alter perception of reality.
• The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis argues that language shapes thought and influences how people conceptualize the world.
• The idea that the Hopi language lacks structures to express time the way English does suggests a different time perception.
• If full linguistic relativity were true, translation would be impossible.
• Translation occurs successfully across languages and contexts, suggesting that language influences thought without entirely determining it.
• Interlingual translation involves "substituting messages in one language NOT for separate code-units, but for entire messages in some other language."
• To achieve equivalence, code units will necessarily differ as they categorize reality in unique ways.
• The challenge of equivalence lies in structural and terminological differences between languages.
• Jakobson asserted that "all is conveyable in any existing language."
• While exact one-to-one correspondence between words may not exist, meaning can always be communicated across languages.
• Roman Jakobson's 1953 article focused on the concept of equivalence and the nature of linguistic meaning.
• According to Jakobson, "equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics.”
• Semantic code units vary across languages; therefore, generating total equivalence between two languages remains impossible.
• Jakobson views translation as a form of reported speech and the translator separates and recodes the message.
• Translation can be interpreted as two messages equivalent through two different codes.
• Examples of various translation types are shown when proving Jakobson's claims.
• A translator refers to synonyms when translating intra-lingually (within a language).
• Synonymy is not the same as equivalence.
• The word "peynir" in Turkish cannot be fully equated with “syr” in Russian.
• Differences between languages mean words in different languages can never achieve equivalent meaning.
• Jakobson considers equivalence from linguistic and semiotic perspectives, discussing difference in equivalence.
• Jakobson lays the groundwork for the theory of translation, though only focusing on word and sentence level rather than text level.
• Jakobson implies the impossibility of translation due to these differences and concludes that languages only differ in what they must convey.

Nida and the Science of Translation

• The issues of meaning, equivalence, and translatability became central to Translation Studies in the 1960s.
• Eugene Nida introduced a scientific approach to translation studies in his book Towards a Science of Translating (1964).
• Nida incorporates concepts and terminology from semantics, pragmatics, and Chomsky's syntactic structure theory.
• Noam Chomsky (born 1928) was an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and political activist.
• Chomsky is also a prominent figure in analytic philosophy and a founding figure in cognitive science.
• Phrase-structure rules generate both a deep structure and the final surface structure, subject to phonological-morphemic rules.
• Chomsky states that structural relations are a universal feature of human language.
• Kernel sentences are the most basic of these structures.
• Kernel sentences are declarative with one verb and have active and affirmative forms.
• Kernel sentences are the basic content elements from which complex sentences are formed. The example, "The man opened the door" constitutes a kernel sentence.
• A Non-kernel sentence example; "The man did not open the door."
• Nida saw Chomsky's model as a decoding technique for source texts and encoding technique for target texts.
• The surface structure of the source text is analyzed into deep structure basic elements.
• The basic elements are then transferred and reconstructed semantically and stylistically into the target text's surface structure.
• Nida draws on Chomsky's "Syntactic Structures" using transformational rules and Chomsky's terminology as a base.
• Chomsky’s theory is based on components involving phrase structure rules (base component), deep structure (transformed), and surface structure.
• Nida took part of Chomsky’s model, simplifying it by only taking two aspects of the model.
• Chomsky’s notions like center, kernel and deep structure are echoed by Nida in his focus on deep structures.
• Chomsky looked at language structures and Nida looked at identifying deep structures and turning them into different languages.
• Nida describes various 'scientific approaches to meaning', building on work by theorists in semantics and pragmatics.
• Nida adopts a functional definition of meaning, moving away from the traditional view of words having one fixed meaning.
• Words acquire meaning through context and can provoke different responses depending on culture.
• Nida states meaning is divided into three types: linguistic, referential, and connotative.
• Linguistic meaning refers to the relationship between linguistic structures.
• Referential meaning relates to the denotative or dictionary meaning of a word, for example the word "son" meaning "male child."
• Functional (emotive or connotative) meaning refers to the associations a word produces, for example, "son" as a term of endearment.
• Nida examined various approaches to Bible translation throughout the centuries.
• Nida favored "two basic orientations" or "types of equivalence" instead of old terms like 'literal', 'free', and 'faithful' translation. The two forms are formal and dynamic equivalence.
• Formal equivalence focuses on the form and content of the message ensuring the message in the target language closely matches that of the source.
• Dynamic equivalence (based on the 'principle of equivalent effect') prioritizes the relationship between receptor and message.
• The message "aims at a complete naturalness of expression."
• Formal equivalence focuses on content and form, being oriented towards the ST structure.
• Dynamic equivalence focuses on function, taking into account the receivers of the text and prioritizes producing an equivalent effect.
• Nida's four basic requirements for a translation are to make sense, convey the spirit/manner of the original, have a natural form, and produce a similar response.
• The success of translation depends primarily on the translated message achieving equivalent effect or response.
• Correspondence in meaning must have priority over correspondence in style.
• Nida shifted translation theory in a more receptor-based approach.
• Nida's concept of equivalence bridges linguistic and cultural approaches in translation.
• Nida claims there is no one-to-one relationship for equivalence.
• Translation should prioritize meaning and then style and, also it should not copy its source but match its original as closely as possible.
• Nida considers meaning and usage when translating.
• Nida uses the "surface structure" and "kernel structure" from Chomsky.
• A translated version should be grammatically, culturally, and meaningfully compatible with its original.
• Nida identifies two kinds of equivalence in source texts: formal equivalence, which uses linguistic analysis to achieve an exact target translation and dynamic equivalence, which is tailored for an audience to convey the original's goal.

Peter Newmark: Semantic vs Communicative Translation

• Peter Newmark argued that achieving equivalent effect is "illusory" and that the gap between source/target language emphasis remains a problem.
• Newmark proposed "semantic" and "communicative" translation to narrow this gap.
• Communicative translation attempts to produce an effect on its readers as close as possible to the original.
• Semantic translation attempts to render the exact contextual meaning of the original.
• Communicative translation is similar to Nida's dynamic equivalence, while semantic translation is similar to formal equivalence.
• Newmark argues the success of equivalent effect can be deceptive, and that the gap between emphasis on source and target language always remains.
• He proposes narrowing the gap by replacing semantic and communicative translation with older terminology and distances himself from equivalent effect.
• Semantic translation focuses on meaning, attempts to render the exact contextual meaning of the original, and focuses on the writer/their thought process.
• Semantic translation tends to be complex, awkward, and over-translated.
• It remains within the original language as much as possible and is suitable for expressive texts.
• Communicative translation produces as closely as possible the effect had by the original.
• Communicative translation is addressed only to target language audiences and tends to under-translate to be smoother/easier to read, and is suitable for informative texts.
• Semantic translation is source language oriented and communicative translation is target language oriented.
• Semantic translation is interpreted, faithful and more literal.
• Communicative translation explains, and is faithful but freer.
• Semantic translation is informative, detailed and more complex.
• Communicative translation is clearer, simpler, smoother, and longer.
• Semantic translation is over-translated and communicative translation is under-translated.
• Semantic translation focuses on a single translator's work and communicative translation has a translation team.
• Semantic translation is used for expressive texts; communicative for informative and vocative texts.
• Although Newmark's concepts are quoted frequently in translation literature, his extensive amount of examples provide comprehensive guidance for trainee translators.
• The many questions he addresses have significant practical relevance to translation practice.
• Nida and Newmark are theorists from the field of translation.
• Nida's translation approaches include formal equivalence (preserves the form/content) and dynamic equivalence (achieves the closest natural equivalent).
• Newmark theories include semantic (the meaning) and communicative translation (communicating that meaning).
• Both offer value while giving a better global understanding of translation.
• Peter Newmark said that culture dictates any cultural translation. Newmark suggests two approaches should be made.
• If the original material has foreign values it should be kept in the target translation. If the translator believes in the source language or is unimportant to the audience, they should shift the message to the receiving culture.
• Peter Newmark states that equivalent effect isn't an outcome because the translator must prioritize either the source or receptor language
• This distinction, though similar to Nida, Newmark is more flexible by stating it is not the top outcome, and that the translators must prioritize. Newmark leaves choices and considers the outer material when working.
• Newmark states that if the translator takes on this, they will have more freedom.

Koller: Equivalence Relations

• Correspondence compares two language systems and their differences.
• Equivalence relates to equivalent items in content.
• Correspondence is 'langue' ('competence') and equivalence is 'parole' ('performance').
• Koller identifies five types of equivalence relations: denotative, connotative, text-normative, pragmatic, and formal.
• Denotative equivalence: extralinguistic content.
• Connotative equivalence: lexical choices.
• Text-normative equivalence: related to text types.
• Pragmatic equivalence: communicative.
• Formal equivalence: form and aesthetics.
• Koller states that equivalence is shown at the level of its usage instead of its rules
• The kinds of equivalence are segmented as semantic, connotative, usage, and stylistic
• Werner Koller made known the 'equivalence' in translation theory, building new frameworks instead of sticking to words or sentence structure.
• Where Koller feels one should analyze the text and make an equivalency and that source texts should be translated to receiver texts that can correlate to the readers of what they'll understand.
• Koller believed that is not a rule but shown through communication and that there types of translation should be segmented that are functional or are communicative within.

Development of Equivalence

• Equivalence grew in the 1970s to become a focal translation paradigm with institutional impact, to the point of even machine translation.
• These fields helped promote political support and demand.
• Translation studies sought financial support and was associated in linguistics.
• As a result, research initiatives occurred to training institutions.
• By the 1980's equivalency was challenged in 2 ways, seeing that it wasn't created by the translation and more of a goal.

Examples of Equivalence

• Popovic (1976) identified four types of equivalence:

  • Linguistic equivalence: Linguistic homogeneity between source and target language.
  • Dizisel equivalence: Equivalence that relates to Dizimsel or linguistics
  • Biçemsel equivalence: Function between two works, but unchanged
  • Metinsel equivalence: Relating to style in texts

• Nida (1969) identified two types of equivalence:

  • formal: centering styles.
  • dynamic: has the most influence to change and make the connection stronger.

• Koller (1972) identified the followings forms for translation:

  • Düzanlamsal (denotative)
  • Yananlamsal (conotative)
  • Metin türü gelenekleriyle (text-normative)
  • Dil-kullanımsal (pragmatic)
  • Biçemsel (formal).

• Düzanlamsal (denotative): this is seen at the vocab and text structure

• Yananlamsal (conotative): this is more than writing. These will often show the level of culture at hand.

• Metin türü gelenekleriyle (text-normative) - is making sure to get the message with similar works

• Dil-kullanımsal (pragmatic)- focusing on the use this method will use words on the user and give in the best effect .

• Biçemsel (formal) - these have to be in line with writing to make perfect translations.