THE UNIVERSITY OF DANANG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN

LANGUAGE STUDIES

TRASLATION THEORY ASIGNMENT

EQUIVALENCE IN TRANSLATION
The different approaches to understanding
equivalence in translation

Student: Phạm Thị Thanh Thảo

Email: pttthao.tvu@gmail.com
Mobile phone: 0906 811 558
Class: K36NNA-Daklak
Lecturer: Le Thi Giao Chi,M.A.,M.Ed., Ph.D.

ĐakLak, November 2018

 Abstract
The comparison of texts in different languages inevitably involves a theory of
equivalence. Equivalence can be said to be the central issue in translation although its
definition, relevance and applicability within the field of translation theory have
caused heated controversy and many different theories of the concept of equivalence
have been elaborated within this field in the past fifty years.
The aim of this paper is to review the theory of equivalence as interpreted by
some of the most innovative theorists in this field Nida, Koller and Baker then present
a discovery and investigation of different literacy texts taken from the authentic bi-
lingual sources.
Introduction
Historically, equivalence has represented one of the essential problems facing
translation theory, since translation deals with two languages, each of which has its
own characteristic features at the levels of phonetics, phonology, grammar, semantics,
culture, etc. Catford believes that the nature and conditions of translation equivalence
is the central problem of translation theory, while Fawcett (1997) more skeptically
describes equivalence as “a concept that has probably cost the lives of more trees than
any other in translation studies” (ibid: 53).
Equivalence will always be an important part of human translation as long as the
latter exists. To be more specific, equivalence is one of the most important
considerations of professional translation agents and freelance translation service
experts alike when it comes to localizing a website or straightforwardly translating
textual material.
The factors that affect human translation the most are mostly the ones that are
cultural or linguistic in nature. If these so-called parameters are as effective and
accurate as expected, they will help streamline the translation process in a convincing
and correct manner.
Most definitions of translation mention the concept of equivalence as a key factor
in the process of rendering a text from one language into another. For example,
Hartmann and Stork (1972: 173) define translation as “the replacement of a
representation of a text in one language by the representation of an equivalent text in a
second language”. Catford (1965: 20) defines translation as “the replacement of textual
material in one language (SL) by an equivalent textual material in another language
(TL)”. According to Nida and Taber (1969), “translating consists in reproducing in the
receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first
in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style” (ibid: 12).
It is noticeable that these definitions of translation focus on one particular goal:
the obtaining of equivalence from language or textual material A to language or textual
material B. However, one has to wonder to what extent, when translation theorists talk
about the concept of equivalence, they mean the same thing.
The notion of equivalence has caused a lot of controversy in translation studies,
and many different theories have emerged regarding equivalence. Some innovative
theorists such as Vinay and Darbelnet (1995), Jakobson (1966), Nida (1964) Nida and
Taber (1969/1982), Catford (1965), House (1977/1981), Hatim and Mason (1990),
Reiss (1978, 1981) Koller (1995), Bassnett (1980/2004), and Baker (1992) have
studied equivalence in relation to the translation process, using different approaches,
and have provided fruitful ideas for further study on this topic. These scholars may be
divided into two main groups. The first group includes some scholars who are in
favour of a linguistic approach to translation and who sometimes seem to forget that
translation is not just a matter of linguistics or linguistic matching and that there are
other factors which affect translation work. The second group regard translation
equivalence as being essentially a transfer of the message from the source culture to
the target culture and adopt a pragmatic/semantic or functionally oriented approach to
translation. They state that when a message is translated from the source language to
the target language, the translator is also dealing with two different cultures at the same
time. This group of theorists believes that not only linguistics but also culture
determine the type of equivalence to be achieved.
 The following section aims at representing the various views regarding the
concept of equivalence and theories of equivalence in order to establish an
understanding border in understanding the translations of both source language (SL)
and target language (TL)
1. What is equivalence in translation?
Base on oxford dictionary equivalence is equal or interchangeable in value,
quantity, significance, etc. Vinay and Darbelnet as cited in Munday, stated that
“equivalence refers to cases where languages describe the same situation by different
stylistic or structural means”.
Equivalence consists of the concept of sameness and similarity; it has the same or
a similar effect or meaning in translation.
Translational equivalence is the similarity between a word (or expression) in one
language and its translation in another. This similarity results from overlapping ranges
of reference.
A translation equivalent is a corresponding word or expression in another
language.
(Bruce, Les 1995 26–27)

The comparison of texts in different languages inevitably involves a theory of

equivalence. Equivalence can be said to be the central issue in translation although its
definition, relevance, and applicability within the field of translation theory have
caused heated controversy, and many different theories of the concept of equivalence
have been elaborated within this field in the past fifty years.
Therefore, regardless of whether the professional translation agency is doing
source oriented (to be as faithful to the original text as possible) or target-oriented (to
make sure that the original message is translated in terms that the target audience will
understand) translation, there's always some degree of equivalent exchange in different
echelons of language.
2. Theories of Equivalence
 2.1. Nida's Equivalence Theories: Conversely, E.A. Nida (1964) has written
that there are two kinds of equivalence—formal equivalence (also known as formal
correspondence) and dynamic equivalence.
Nida gave up the long-term used words throughout history, such as "literal
translation", "free translation", and "faithful translation". On the contrary, he advocated
two “equivalence” ways as the basic directions and guidelines of translation: dynamic
equivalence and formal equivalence. Nida suggested the main difference between
those two was the purpose of the translation.
Formal equivalence focuses on the need to pay attention to the form and content
contained in the message. The so-called formal equivalence means that the message in
the target language should be in accordance with the different parts in the original
language.
Formal equivalence intends to achieve equivalence between original text and
translation text, and to some extent reflect the linguistical features such as vocabulary,
grammar, syntax and structure of the original language which has great impact on the
accuracy and correctness. One of the most typical translation is "Gloss translations”,
which is closest to the original structure, and with attached comments to give readers a
better understanding of the culture and custom.
Dynamic Equivalence, the most important thing in translating is the message
received by the audience. Messages that are significant in both form and content need
not only to be understood but also to be appreciated. And only when the translator
could state the original features, he can achieve "dynamic equivalence", which stressed
the importance of transferring meaning, not grammatical form. In a word, "quality of a
translation in which the message of the original text has been so transported into the
receptor language that the response of the receptor is essentially like that of the
original receptors.
2.2. Koller’s Equivalence Theories: Using a linguistic-oriented approach, Koller
(1995: 196-7), being under the influence of Nida’s science of translation, states that
there should be an equivalence relation between the source-language text and target-
language text.
Koller describes five different types of equivalence:
(1) Denotative equivalence. This is related to the extra linguistic circumstances
conveyed by the source text.
(2) Connotative equivalence. This is related to lexical choices, especially
between near-synonyms. The connotative values are conveyed by the source text via
the mode of verbalization.
(3) Text-normative equivalence. This is related to parallel texts in the target
language. In other words, it aims at following the norms and patterns required by each
text or by each language in a variety of communicative situations.
(4) Pragmatic equivalence. This is oriented towards the receiver of the text or
message, and tries to create a given effect on the TL receiver in the same way the
source language does on the source language receiver. This resembles Nida’s dynamic
equivalence.
(5) Formal equivalence. Unlike Nida’s formal equivalence this type of
equivalence is related to the form and aesthetics of the text including word plays and
the individual stylistic features of the ST. This is achieved by creating an analogous
form in the TL, using the possibilities of the target language in relation to its forms or
even creating new ones.
2.3. Baker's approach to translation equivalence
She distinguishes between :
(1) Word equivalence: that can appear at word level and above word level when
translating from one language to another. The translator should pay attention to a
number of factors considering a single word, such as, (number , gender and tense)
(2) Grammatical equivalence, when referring to the diversity of grammatical
categories across languages. She claims that different grammatical structures in the ST
and TL may cause remarkable changes in the way the message is carried across .So the
translator may add or omit information. So, Baker focuses or (number, tense, voice,
person and gender )
(3) Textual equivalence :
+ when referring to the equivalence between a SL text and a TL text in terms of
information .
+ It provides useful guidelines for the comprehension and analysis of the ST .
+ The translator will be guided by ( the target of the audience , the purpose of
translation and the text type )
(4) Pragmatic equivalence: The role of translator is to recreate the author's
intention in another culture in such a way that enables the TC reader to understand it
clearly .
3. Classifications of equivalence
Base on the theories of equivalence, there are types of equivalence in translation
defined. They are vividly discussed as follows.
(1) Linguistic equivalence:
When there is word-word translation there is equivalence/ similarity/ identicality/
homogeneity between languages (SL and TL). It is also called lexical equivalence.
(2) Paradigmatic equivalence:
It refers to the similarity in the grammatical structures between the two texts. It is
the higher category than lexical equivalence.
(3) Stylistic equivalence:
It suggests the similarity in the perceived meaning or its influence on the readers’
mind conveyed through the translated message. In other words, if there is functional
equivalence of elements in both original and translation- aiming at an expressive
identity with the invariant of identical meaning. The idiomatic or multiword
expressions are quite crucial for both manual and machine translation as one needs to
consider the socio-cultural milieu of a given language.
(4) Textual or syntagmatic equivalence:
 It takes into consideration the similarity in the organizational structure and forms
of the texts. To put forth differently, if there is equivalence of the syntagmatic
structuring of a text, i.e. equivalence of both form and shape, it is known as textual
equivalence. Keeping the form and shape of both the texts while translating is little
difficult which results in collapsing of the translation output. It is considered to be the
highest level of equivalence because this type of equivalence seems to reach the
similarity in both of surface structure and message implied.
4. English - Vietnamese translation equivalence.
Take randomly forty idioms that are bilingual (Vetnamese – English), take
investigation under the approaches to translation equivalence and see which
classifications of equivalence these idioms translations belong to.
No. English Vietnamese Type of equivalence
1. “Fire is a good servant but a – Đừng đùa với lửa
bad master”
2. “The grass is always greener – Đứng núi này trông núi
on the other side of the fence” nọ
3. “When in the Rome, do as the – Nhập gia tuỳ tục
Romans do”
4. “Old friends and old wine are – Bạn cũ bạn tốt , rượu
best” cũ rượu ngon
5. “A picture is worth a thousand – Nói có sách, mách có
words” chứng
6. “Actions speak louder than – Làm hay hơn nói
words”
7. “Behind every great man, there – Thuận vợ thuận chồng
is a great woman cũng cạn” tát biển Đông
8. “He who laughs today may – Cười người chớ vội
weep tomorrow” cười lâu. Cười người
hôm trước hôm sau
người cười.
9. “Man proposes, God disposes” – Mưu sự tại nhân, thành
sự tại thiên
10. “One good turn deserves – Ở hiền gặp lành
another”
11. “A rolling stone gathers no – Nhất nghệ tinh, nhất
moss “ thân vinh
- Trăm hay không bằng
 tay quen
- Một nghề thì sống,
đống nghề thì chết
12. “A miss is as good as a mile” – Sai một ly đi một dặm
13. “A flow will have an ebb” – Sông có khúc người có
lúc
14. “Diligence is the mother of – Có công mài sắt có
good fortune” ngày nên kim
15. ”Love is blind” – Yêu nhau quá đỗi nên
mê, tỉnh ra mới biết kẻ
chê người cười
16. “A bad compromise is better – Dĩ hòa vi quí
than a good lawsuit”
17. “Great minds think alike” – Chí lớn thường gặp
nhau
18. “You scratch my back and i’ll – Có qua có lại mới toại
scratch yours “ lòng nhau
19. “A good wife makes a good – Vợ khôn ngoan làm
husband” quan cho chồng
20. “Grasp all, lose all” – Tham thì thâm
21. “A blessing in disguise” – Trong cái rủi có cái
may
22. “Where there’s life, there’s – Còn nước còn tát
hope”
23. “Birds of a feather flock – Ngưu tầm ngưu, mã
together” tầm mã
24. “Necessity is the mother of – Cái khó ló cái khôn
invention”
25. “One scabby sheep is enough – Con sâu làm rầu nồi
to spoil the whole flock” canh
26. “Together we can change the – Một cây làm chẳng nên
world” non, ba cây chụm lại nên
hòn núi cao
27. “Every cloud has a silver – Trong họa có phúc
lining”
28. “Send the fox to mind the – Giao trứng cho ác
geese”
29. “As poor as a church mouse” – Nghèo rớt mồng tơi
30. “To be on cloud nine” – Hạnh phúc như ở trên
mây
31. “A bad begining makes a good – Đầu xuôi thì đuôi mới
ending “ lọt
32. “There’s no smoke without – Không có lửa sao có
fire” khói
33. “Love me, love my dog. “ – Yêu người yêu cả
đường đi, ghét người
ghét cả tông ti họ hàng
34. “It is the first step that costs” – Vạn sự khởi đầu nan
35. “A friend in need is a friend – Gian nan mới hiểu
indeed” lòng người
36. “Rats desert a falling house” – Cháy nhà mới ra mặt
chuột
37. “Tit For Tat” – Ăn miếng trả miếng
38. “Opportunities are hard to – Thời qua đi, cơ hội khó
seize” tìm
39. “New one in, old one out” – Có mới, nới cũ
40. “Ring out the old, ring in the
new” – Tống cựu nghênh tân

No. English Vietnamese Type of equivalence

References:
1. Translation Theories – Eugene Nida and Dynamic Equivalence – 2013.
2. http://www3.uji.es/~aferna/H44/Equivalence.htm
3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297129174_Stylistics_and_Tra
nslation
4. https://www.academia.edu/35590557/Equivalence_in_Translation
5. https://www.academia.edu/31732338/THE_CONCEPTS_OF_EQUIVA
LENCE_GAIN_AND_LOSS_DIVERGENCE_IN_ENGLISH-
_URDU_WEB-BASED_MACHINE_TRANSLATION_PLATFORMS
6. http://realenglish3.blogspot.com/2015/03/equivalence-in-translation-
theories.html
7. https://translationjournal.net/journal/14equiv.htm
8.