1. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCEVIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE
AuthorAuthor: Haralambie Alina: Haralambie Alina
Scientific coordinatorScientific coordinator: PhD. Croitoru Elena: PhD. Croitoru Elena
Lower Danube UniversityLower Danube University
Master’s in Translation and InterpretationMaster’s in Translation and Interpretation
GalaGalaţiţi
20112011

2. MOTTOMOTTO
Do we really know how we translate or what weDo we really know how we translate or what we
translate?...Are we to accept “naked ideas” as thetranslate?...Are we to accept “naked ideas” as the
means of crossing from one language tomeans of crossing from one language to
another?...Translators know they cross over butanother?...Translators know they cross over but
do not know by what sort of bridge. They oftendo not know by what sort of bridge. They often
re-cross by a different bridge to check up again.re-cross by a different bridge to check up again.
Sometimes they fall over the parapet into limbo.Sometimes they fall over the parapet into limbo.
(Firth, 1957:197)(Firth, 1957:197)

3. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCEVIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE
 translation studies: the contemporary theory of
“partial communication”: communication does not
transfer the total message the translating process
does not transfer the totality of what is in the original
 “the ideal of total equivalence is a chimera. Languages
are different from each other; they are different in form
having distinct codes and rules regulating the
construction of grammatical stretches of language and
these forms have different meanings.[...]There is no
absolute synonymy between words in the same
language, so why should anyone be surprised to
discover a lack of synonymy between languages?”
(Bell, 1991:6)

4. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCEVIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE
 J.C. Catford (1965):
 equivalenceequivalence = textual interchangeability in a
given situation- criticized by K. Reiss and
Vermeer (1984): a translation is not
interchangeable with its source text in a given
situation; source texts and translations operate
in different language communities.
 “The information they convey may be felt and
judged to be equivalent, and the situations they
communicate in may be felt to be interculturally
comparable (or equivalent), but they are not the
same.” (A.L. Jakobsen)

5. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCEVIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE
(CONTINUED)(CONTINUED)
 S. Bassnett-McGuire (1991):
 the interpretation of translation should be based
on the comparison of the text’s “function” as
original and as a translation.
 DisadvantageDisadvantage:
 her use of the term function is so broad that
almost any deviation, addition, deletion could be
labelled a “functional equivalent.”
 it allows the replacement of much of the text,
with all its particular resonance and
associations, with something new and completely
different, but which theoretically affects the
reader the same way. (E. Gentzler, 1993:101)

6. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCEVIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE
(CONTINUED)(CONTINUED)
 Holmes (1974:78):
 equivalenceequivalence= preservation of the sound, the
sense, the rhythm, the textual “material” and
recreation of those specific sensation-sound,
sense and association- despite inherent
limitations in the TL (opposed to S. Bassnett-
McGuire’s theory)

7. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCEVIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE
(CONTINUED)(CONTINUED)
 Van den Broeck (1978) :
 redefines and recuperates “equivalence” for his own
concept of “true understanding” of how one should
regard literary translation. (Broeck, 1978:29)
 In agreement with Lefevere (1975), Broeck (1978)
considers that the original author’s intention and the
function of the original text can be determined and
translated so that the TT will be equivalent to the ST
and function accordingly. A translation can only be
complete if and when both the communicative value
and the time-place-tradition elements if the ST have
been replaced by their nearest possible equivalents in
the TT (Lefevere, 1975:102; Broeck, 1978:39).

8. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCEVIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE
(CONTINUED)(CONTINUED)
 Neubert (1986):
 the text has a kind of a “mosaic” quality, an
elasticity that allows it to be translated into a
variety of “relative” TTs.
 introduces the term “translational relativity” in
the reconstruction process, allowing for a
“creative” process of transfer from the ST to the
TT. This relativity derives from an inherent
multiplicity of structural possibilities in the
original (Neubert, 1986:97).

9. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCEVIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE
(CONTINUED)(CONTINUED)
 Toury (1980):
 considers translation from the point of view of the target
culture (TC)
 sets forth a TT theory for translation, focussing not on a
notion of equivalence as postulated requirements, but on
the “actual relationships” between the ST and its “factual
replacement” (Toury, 1980:39).
 The following aspects of Toury’s theory have contributed to
the development of translation theory:
1. The abandonment of one-to-one notions of correspondence
and the possibility of literary/ linguistic equivalence
2. The involvement of the literary tendencies within the TC
in the production of any translated text
3. The destabilization of the notion of an original message
with a fixed identity
4. The integration of both ST and TT in the semiotic web of
intersecting cultural systems.

10. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCEVIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE
(CONTINUED)(CONTINUED)
 Translation studies: there are as manyTranslation studies: there are as many
variants of a translation as there arevariants of a translation as there are
translators.translators.
 Yet, among those many versions, there will be
what Popovic (1976) calls the “invariant core” of
the original. The invariant= what exists in
common between all existing translations of a
single work.
 Instead of prescribing a technique which can
eliminate losses and smooths over changes,
Popovic accepts that losses, gains and changes
are a necessary part of the translation process
because of the inherent differences of intellectual
and aesthetic values in the two cultures.

11. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCEVIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE
(CONTINUED)(CONTINUED)
 E. Nida’s (1969) two types of equivalence:
 formal equivalenceformal equivalence (focuses attention on the message
itself, in both form and content);
 dynamic equivalencedynamic equivalence (based on the principle of
equivalent effect, i.e. that the relationship between
receiver and message should aim at being the same as that
between the original receivers and the SL language).
 The equivalent effect is based on the “four basic
requirements of a translation”:
1. making sense;
2. conveying the spirit and manner of the original;
3. having a natural and easy form of expression;
4. producing a similar response.

12. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCEVIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE
(CONTINUED)(CONTINUED)
 Peter Newmark’s two types of translation:
 communicative translation-communicative translation- attempts to
produce on its readers an effect as close as
possible to that obtained on the readers of the
original ~ Nida’s dynamic equivalence;
 semantic translation-semantic translation- attempts to render, as
closely as the semantic and syntactic structures
of the second language allow, the exact
contextual meaning of the original ~ Nida’s formal
equivalence.

13. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCEVIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE
(CONTINUED)(CONTINUED)
 Werner Koller (1979) introduces the concept of
correspondencecorrespondence, linked with the concept of equivalenceequivalence:
Field Contrastive Linguistics Science of
Translation
Research area Correspondence phenomena
and conditions, describing
corresponding structures and
sentences in the TL and SL
systems
Equivalence
phenomena, describing
hierarchy of utterances
and texts in SL and TL
according to the
equivalence criterion
Knowledge Langue Parole
Competence Foreign language competence Translation competence

14. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCEVIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE
(CONTINUED)(CONTINUED)
 Werner Koller’s (1979) five types of equivalence:
 Denotative equivalence-Denotative equivalence- related to the
extralinguistic content of a text (“content
invariance”);
 Connotative equivalence-Connotative equivalence- related to the lexical
choices, especially between near-synonyms (“stylistic
equivalence”);
 Text-normative equivalence-Text-normative equivalence- related to text types;
 Pragmatic/ communicative equivalence-Pragmatic/ communicative equivalence- oriented
towards the receiver of the text or message;
 Formal equivalence-Formal equivalence- related to the form and
aesthetics of the text, includes word plays and the
individual stylistic features of the ST (“expressive
equivalence”).

15. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCEVIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE
(CONTINUED)(CONTINUED)
 Cay Dollerup’s (2006: 64) main concepts:
 Translations as approximationsTranslations as approximations-- there is no
perfect translation or ideal translator; we can
only discuss tangible approximations of these
elusive ideals;
 AdequacyAdequacy-- a translation is adequate when it
conveys the meaning of the source text to the
target language in a given situation; the users,
clients, recipients can determine the fulfillment
of this criterion.

16. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCEVIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE
(CONTINUED)(CONTINUED)
 Most theories to date can be characterized as
theories of (what is allegedly) the only legitimate
or genuine kind of translation (D. Delabastita,
1991:143).
 The genuine concept of translation can be defined
- in positive terms, i.e. “to render the SL message
with the closest TL equivalent...is, we believe,
the only possible way leading to fidelity” (Shen,
1989:234).
- in negative terms, i.e. “literalism has indeed little
claim to theoretical validity as an approach to
“total translation” (Shen, 1989:224).

17. VIEWS ON EQUIVALENCEVIEWS ON EQUIVALENCE
(CONTINUED)(CONTINUED)
 Recent theories:
 translation= an act of communication across culturaltranslation= an act of communication across cultural
boundariesboundaries, the main criteria being determined by the
recipient of the translation and its specific function
(Snell-Hornby, 1988:47)
 The traditional relationships between the ST and TT
are replaced by networks of relationships and
concepts of intertextuality (Toury, 1986; Lambert,
1989; E. Gentzler 1993) cultural studies modelcultural studies model.
 The translator’s task is to strive for the highest
possible degree of “matching” or “equivalence”
between the SL and the TL text, i.e. the TL text mustthe TL text must
try to achieve a similar effect on the foreign reader astry to achieve a similar effect on the foreign reader as
the SL text does on the native readerthe SL text does on the native reader (Wekker and
Wekker, 1991:221, apud Gentzler, 1993). The TL textThe TL text
must be equivalent to the SL text on both a linguisticmust be equivalent to the SL text on both a linguistic
and a socio-cultural level.and a socio-cultural level.

18. EQUIVALENCE AND ADEQUACY INEQUIVALENCE AND ADEQUACY IN
TRANSLATIONTRANSLATION
 K. Reiss and H. Vermeer (1984:133): in a number of
translations, e.g. translations for teaching purposes and
philological translations, the function of the TLT is different
from that of the SLT. In this case, the principle governing the
translation process is adequacyadequacy.
 AdequacyAdequacy= the appropriate selection of linguistic signs in the
TL in view of the dimensions selected in the ST. (Reiss)
 An adequate TTAn adequate TT= one in which the TT matches a relevant
dimension of the ST, because the translator does not aim at
producing a full textual equivalent of the ST but focuses on a
certain dimension of the ST.
 Adequacy is a more general concept than equivalence.
Equivalence involves matching not just one dimension, but all
dimensions of the ST.
 E. Nida (1976:64) considered that the relative adequacy of
different translations of the same text “can only be determinedcan only be determined
in terms of the extent to which each translation successfullyin terms of the extent to which each translation successfully
fulfils the purpose for which it was intendedfulfils the purpose for which it was intended” (Nida, 1976:64).

19. CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS
 Translation must take into consideration:
 the linguistic context;
 the semantic context;
 the pragmatic context.
 Translation also involves cultural translation, as
cultures shape concepts and texts differently.

20. REFERENCES:REFERENCES:
 Croitoru, Elena. 1996. Interpretation and
Translation. Galati: Editura Porto-Franco.
 Dollerup, Cay. 2006. Basics of Translation
Studies. Iasi: Institutul European.
 Munday, Jeremy. 2001. Introducing
Translation Studies. Theories and
applications. London: Routledge Group.