SESIUNEA DE COUMUNICĂRI ŞTIINŢIFICE, 25 martie 2011

“Dunărea de Jos” of Galaţi

Faculty of Letters
Masters in Translation and Interpreting

Equivalence
in Translation
Studenţi: Bocăneală Bogdan
Anul I, 2010-2011
Îndrumător, prof. dr. Elena Croitoru
Translation
 A method employed and
discussed since Antiquity.

 Translation is generally
seen as a process of
communicating the foreign
text by establishing a
relationship of identity or
analogy.

 Evolved to the point where

it reached the status of an
academic field.

 Involves a specific relation

between a SLT and TLT –
Equivalence. Figure 3.1 (Munday 2001:41)
Translation Theorists and
Equivalence
 Interpreted by some of the most innovative
translation theorists: Vinay and Darbelnet,
Jakobson, Nida, Newmark, Catford, House and
Baker.
 Three main groups:
 linguistic approach - language focus
 pragmatic & semantic approach – culture focus
 linguistic & pragmatic & semantic approach -
language and culture focus
Eugene Nida
 One of the most important theorists and
translators.

 Discards ‘literal’, ‘faithful’ and ‘free’ for formal and

dynamic equivalence.

 Linguistic approach to translation but interest in the

message of the text (semantic quality - a
paramount).

 Draws a significant amount of criticism (too simple

binary system).
 Formal (Functional) Equivalence
“Focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and
content” (Nida 1969:158), i.e. a TL item which represents
the closest equivalent of a SL word or phrase.

HOWEVER:
 not always formal equivalents between language pairs
 serious implications at times in the TT since the
translation will not be easily understood by the target
audience

 “Typically, formal correspondence distorts the

grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language,
and hence distorts the message, so as to cause the receptor
to misunderstand or to labor unduly hard.” (Nida and Taber
1982:122)
 Dynamic Equivalence
 Based upon ‘the principle of equivalent effect’ (Nida
1964:159)

 “The relationship between receptor and message

should be substantially the same as that which existed
between the original receptors and the message.”
(Nida 1964:159)

 The goal – naturalness in translation

 A more efficient method

Peter Newmark
 Different approach to equivalence

 Departs from Nida’s line

 Discards ‘formal’ and ‘dynamic’ for semantic and

communicative

 Equivalence inoperable - full equivalence illusory

 Semantic and Communicative Translation
Comparison
Parameter Semantic Translation Communicative Translation

Transmitter/ Focus on the thought processes of the Subjective, TT reader focused, oriented
Addressee transmitter as an individual (TL toward a specific language and culture.
Focus connotations if they are a crucial part of
the message)

Culture. Remains within the SL culture Transfers foreign elements into the TL
culture.
Relation to ST. Always inferior to ST; loss of meaning May be better than the ST; gain of force
and clarity even if loss of semantic content

Use of form of the SL Replicates deviated norms; loyalty to ST Respect for the form of the SL, but
author. overriding loyalty to TL norms.

Form of the TT. More complex, awkward, detailed; Smoother, simpler, clearer, more direct;
tendency to over translate. tendency to under translate.

Appropriateness For serious literature, autobiography, For the vast majority of texts, e.g. non –
personal effusion, any important political literary writing, technical and informative
(or other) statement. texts, publicity, standardized types,
popular fiction.

Table 3.1 (Munday 2001:45)

Mona Baker
 Discusses the problem of equivalence combining the
linguistic and communicative approach.

 Types of equivalence:
 at word level and
 above word level

 Equivalence explored at different levels:

 word level
 grammatical level
 text level
 pragmatic level
Equivalence at word level:
 Analyze words as single units in order to find a direct
‘equivalent’ term in the TL

 A single word can sometimes be assigned different

meanings in different languages and might be
regarded as being a more complex unit or
morpheme.

 The translator should pay attention to a number of

factors when considering a single word, such as:
number, gender and tense.
Grammatical equivalence

 Different grammatical structures in the SL and TL

cause changes in the way the information or message
is carried across;

 The translator either adds or omits information in the

TT because of the lack of particular grammatical
devices in the TL itself.

 Amongst the grammatical devices which might cause

problems in translation Baker focuses on number,
tense and aspects, voice, person and gender.
Grammatical equivalence (2)
 The idea of countability is universal;
 Gender - a grammatical category according to
which a noun or pronoun is generally classified as
masculine, feminine or neutral;
e.g. “I went out with a friend last -Am iesit in oras cu cineva
night.” asearã.
“A man or a woman?” -Bãrbat sau femeie?

 The category of person relates to the notion of

participant roles;
e.g. Mr. Peters, if there’s anything I
can do to help you, I shall feel
it, for your wife’s sake, a
pleasure . . .”
Domnule Peters, dacă vă pot
ajuta cu ceva, de dragul soţiei
dumneavoastră, o voi face
cu plăcere…(my translation)
 Grammatical equivalence (3)
Aspect is often conflated with the concept of tense.
e.g. Present tense:
I am Romanian. – Sunt român.
I am going to the cinema. – Mã duc la cinema.

Past tense:
When I was in Turin, I worked for Fiat. – Când eram la Torino, lucram
pentru Fiat.
When I was in Turin, I saw the Egyptian Museum. – Când am fost la Torino,
am vãzut Muzeul Egiptean.
Future tense:
(the phone is ringing) I’ll take it! – Rãspund eu!
I’m going to Scotland next summer. – Vara viitoare mã voi duce în Scoţia.

Voiceis a grammatical category which defines the relationship

between a verb and its subject.
e.g. It is hoped that this study will stimulate further investigation
in this field.- Sperãm cã acest studiu va stimula investigaţii ulterioare în
acest domeniu.
Textual equivalence
 Texture provides useful guidelines for the
comprehension and analysis of the ST;

 It is up to the translator to decide whether to maintain

or not the cohesive ties as well as the coherence of
the SL text;

 His or her decision will be guided by three main

factors, i.e., the target audience, the purpose of the
translation and the text type;

 Problems arise when a principle as focus clashes with

basic grammatical principles.
e.g. Apoi sosi Andrei. – And then Andrei arrived.
 Pragmatic equivalence
 refers to implicatures and strategies of avoidance
during the translation process.

 The translator needs to work out implied meanings in

translation in order to get the ST message across.

 The role of the translator is to recreate the author's

intention in another culture in such a way that it
enables the TC reader to understand it clearly.
e.g. to be silver tongued – a avea vorba dulce.
Equivalence – Conclusions
 One of the most problematic and controversial
areas in translation

 Although the key problem since the 60’s and 70’s

(even Antiquity), still the cause of heated debates

 Total equivalence – “A chimera”

 Displaced from the central position by the

functionalist trend (focus on the receptor)
Translation –Conclusions
 Although equivalence is a mirage, translation is not
impossible

 Untranslability – statistics, not mystery

 Translation involves altering forms – “traduttore

traditore”

 Impossibility of a universal approach

Bibliography
 Nida, Eugene A. (1964) Towards a Science of Translating. Leiden: E. J.
Brill.

 Nida and Taber (1982) The theory and practice of translation. Leiden:
Brill.

 Baker, Mona (1992) In Other Words: a Coursebook on Translation.

London: Routledge.

 Leonardi, Vanessa (2000) Equivalence in Translation: Between Myth

and Reality. Translation Journal.
(http://translationjournal.net/journal/14equiv.htm)

 Venutti, Laurence (2000) The Translation Studies Reader. London:

Routledge

 Munday, Jeremy (2001) Introducing Translation Studies. London:

Routledge
THANK YOU!

THE END