Equivalence in Translation: Between Myth and

Reality
by Vanessa Leonardi
 
he 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.

whenever there is The aim of this paper is to review the theory of

deficiency, terminology equivalence as interpreted by some of the most
may be qualified and innovative theorists in this field—Vinay and
amplified by loanwords Darbelnet, Jakobson, Nida and Taber, Catford,
or loan translations, House, and finally Baker. These theorists have
neologisms or studied equivalence in relation to the translation
semantic shifts, and process, using different approaches, and have
finally, by provided fruitful ideas for further study on this
circumlocutions topic. Their theories will be analyzed in
chronological order so that it will be easier to
follow the evolution of this concept. These theories can be substantially
divided into three main groups. In the first there are those translation
scholars who are in favour of a linguistic approach to translation and who
seem to forget that translation in itself is not merely a matter of linguistics.
In fact, when a message is transferred from the SL to TL, the translator is
also dealing with two different cultures at the same time. This particular
aspect seems to have been taken into consideration by the second group of
theorists who regard translation equivalence as being essentially a transfer
of the message from the SC to the TC and a pragmatic/semantic or
functionally oriented approach to translation. Finally, there are other
translation scholars who seem to stand in the middle, such as Baker for
instance, who claims that equivalence is used 'for the sake of convenience
—because most translators are used to it rather than because it has any
theoretical status' (quoted in Kenny, 1998:77).

1.1 Vinay and Darbelnet and their definition of equivalence in

translation

Vinay and Darbelnet view equivalence-oriented translation as a procedure

which 'replicates the same situation as in the original, whilst using
completely different wording' (ibid.:342). They also suggest that, if this
procedure is applied during the translation process, it can maintain the
stylistic impact of the SL text in the TL text. According to them, equivalence
is therefore the ideal method when the translator has to deal with
proverbs, idioms, clichés, nominal or adjectival phrases and the
onomatopoeia of animal sounds.

With regard to equivalent expressions between language pairs, Vinay and

Darbelnet claim that they are acceptable as long as they are listed in a
bilingual dictionary as 'full equivalents' (ibid.:255). However, later they
note that glossaries and collections of idiomatic expressions 'can never be
exhaustive' (ibid.:256). They conclude by saying that 'the need for creating
equivalences arises from the situation, and it is in the situation of the SL
text that translators have to look for a solution' (ibid.: 255). Indeed, they
argue that even if the semantic equivalent of an expression in the SL text is
quoted in a dictionary or a glossary, it is not enough, and it does not
guarantee a successful translation. They provide a number of examples to
prove their theory, and the following expression appears in their list: Take
one is a fixed expression which would have as an equivalent French
translation Prenez-en un. However, if the expression appeared as a notice
next to a basket of free samples in a large store, the translator would have
to look for an equivalent term in a similar situation and use the
expression Échantillon gratuit (ibid.:256).

1.2 Jakobson and the concept of equivalence in difference

Roman Jakobson's study of equivalence gave new impetus to the

theoretical analysis of translation since he introduced the notion of
'equivalence in difference'. On the basis of his semiotic approach to
language and his aphorism 'there is no signatum without signum'
(1959:232), he suggests three kinds of translation:

 Intralingual (within one language, i.e. 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 ST message across. This means
that in interlingual translations there is no full equivalence between code
units. According to his theory, 'translation involves two equivalent
messages in two different codes' (ibid.:233). Jakobson goes on to say that
from a grammatical point of view languages may differ from one another to
a greater or lesser degree, but this does not mean that a translation cannot
be possible, in other words, that the translator may face the problem of not
finding a translation equivalent. He acknowledges that 'whenever there is
deficiency, terminology may be qualified and amplified by loanwords or
loan-translations, neologisms or semantic shifts, and finally, by
circumlocutions' (ibid.:234). Jakobson provides a number of examples by
comparing English and Russian language structures and explains that in
such cases where there is no a literal equivalent for a particular ST word or
sentence, then it is up to the translator to choose the most suitable way to
render it in the TT.

There seems to be some similarity between Vinay and Darbelnet's theory of

translation procedures and Jakobson's theory of translation. Both theories
stress the fact that, whenever a linguistic approach is no longer suitable to
carry out a translation, the translator can rely on other procedures such as
loan-translations, neologisms and the like. Both theories recognize the
limitations of a linguistic theory and argue that a translation can never be
impossible since there are several methods that the translator can choose.
The role of the translator as the person who decides how to carry out the
translation is emphasized in both theories. Both Vinay and Darbelnet as
well as Jakobson conceive the translation task as something which can
always be carried out from one language to another, regardless of the
cultural or grammatical differences between ST and TT.

It can be concluded that Jakobson's theory is essentially based on his

semiotic approach to translation according to which the translator has to
recode the ST message first and then s/he has to transmit it into an
equivalent message for the TC.

1.3 Nida and Taber: Formal correspondence and dynamic

equivalence

Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence,

namely formal equivalence—which in the second edition by Nida and Taber
(1982) is referred to as formal correspondence—and dynamic
equivalence. Formal correspondence 'focuses attention on the message
itself, in both form and content', unlike dynamic equivalence which is based
upon 'the principle of equivalent effect' (1964:159). In the second edition
(1982) or their work, the two theorists provide a more detailed explanation
of each type of equivalence.

Formal correspondence consists of a TL item which represents the closest

equivalent of a SL word or phrase. Nida and Taber make it clear that there
are not always formal equivalents between language pairs. They therefore
suggest that these formal equivalents should be used wherever possible if
the translation aims at achieving formal rather than dynamic equivalence.
The use of formal equivalents might at times have serious implications in
the TT since the translation will not be easily understood by the target
audience (Fawcett, 1997). Nida and Taber themselves assert that
'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' (ibid.:201).

Dynamic equivalence is defined as a translation principle according to which

a translator seeks to translate the meaning of the original in such a way
that the TL wording will trigger the same impact on the TC audience as the
original wording did upon the ST audience. They argue that 'Frequently, the
form of the original text is changed; but as long as the change follows the
rules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual
consistency in the transfer, and of transformation in the receptor language,
the message is preserved and the translation is faithful' (Nida and Taber,
1982:200).

One can easily see that Nida is in favour of the application of dynamic
equivalence, as a more effective translation procedure. This is perfectly
understandable if we take into account the context of the situation in which
Nida was dealing with the translation phenomenon, that is to say, his
translation of the Bible. Thus, the product of the translation process, that is
the text in the TL, must have the same impact on the different readers it
was addressing. Only in Nida and Taber's edition is it clearly stated that
'dynamic equivalence in translation is far more than mere correct
communication of information' (ibid:25).

Despite using a linguistic approach to translation, Nida is much more

interested in the message of the text or, in other words, in its semantic
quality. He therefore strives to make sure that this message remains clear
in the target text.

1.4 Catford and the introduction of translation shifts

Catford's approach to translation equivalence clearly differs from that

adopted by Nida since Catford had a preference for a more linguistic-based
approach to translation and this approach is based on the linguistic work of
Firth and Halliday. His main contribution in the field of translation theory is
the introduction of the concepts of types and shifts of translation. Catford
proposed very broad types of translation in terms of three criteria:

1. The extent of translation (full translation vs partial translation);

 
2. The grammatical rank at which the translation equivalence is
established (rank-bound translation vs. unbounded translation);
 
3. The levels of language involved in translation (total
translation vs. restricted translation).

We will refer only to the second type of translation, since this is the one
that concerns the concept of equivalence, and we will then move on to
analyze the notion of translation shifts, as elaborated by Catford, which are
based on the distinction between formal correspondence and textual
equivalence. In rank-bound translation an equivalent is sought in the TL for
each word, or for each morpheme encountered in the ST. In unbounded
translation equivalences are not tied to a particular rank, and we may
additionally find equivalences at sentence, clause and other levels. Catford
finds five of these ranks or levels in both English and French, while in the
Caucasian language Kabardian there are apparently only four.

Thus, a formal correspondence could be said to exist between English and

French if relations between ranks have approximately the same
configuration in both languages, as Catford claims they do.

One of the problems with formal correspondence is that, despite being a

useful tool to employ in comparative linguistics, it seems that it is not really
relevant in terms of assessing translation equivalence between ST and TT.
For this reason we now turn to Catford's other dimension of
correspondence, namely textual equivalence which occurs when any TL
text or portion of text is 'observed on a particular occasion ... to be the
equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text' (ibid.:27). He implements
this by a process of commutation, whereby 'a competent bilingual
informant or translator' is consulted on the translation of various sentences
whose ST items are changed in order to observe 'what changes if any occur
in the TL text as a consequence' (ibid.:28).

As far as translation shifts are concerned, Catford defines them as

'departures from formal correspondence in the process of going from the
SL to the TL' (ibid.:73). Catford argues that there are two main types of
translation shifts, namely level shifts, where the SL item at one linguistic
level (e.g. grammar) has a TL equivalent at a different level (e.g. lexis),
and category shifts which are divided into four types:

1. Structure-shifts, which involve a grammatical change between the

structure of the ST and that of the TT;
 
2. Class-shifts, when a SL item is translated with a TL item which
belongs to a different grammatical class, i.e. a verb may be
translated with a noun;
 
3. Unit-shifts, which involve changes in rank;
 
4. Intra-system shifts, which occur when 'SL and TL possess systems
which approximately correspond formally as to their constitution, but
when translation involves selection of a non-corresponding term in
the TL system' (ibid.:80). For instance, when the SL singular
becomes a TL plural.

Catford was very much criticized for his linguistic theory of translation. One
of the most scathing criticisms came from Snell-Hornby (1988), who
argued that Catford's definition of textual equivalence is 'circular', his
theory's reliance on bilingual informants 'hopelessly inadequate', and his
example sentences 'isolated and even absurdly simplistic' (ibid.:19-20).
She considers the concept of equivalence in translation as being an illusion.
She asserts that the translation process cannot simply be reduced to a
linguistic exercise, as claimed by Catford for instance, since there are also
other factors, such as textual, cultural and situational aspects, which should
be taken into consideration when translating. In other words, she does not
believe that linguistics is the only discipline which enables people to carry
out a translation, since translating involves different cultures and different
situations at the same time and they do not always match from one
language to another.

1.5 House and the elaboration of overt and covert translation

House (1977) is in favour of semantic and pragmatic equivalence and

argues that ST and TT should match one another in function. House
suggests that it is possible to characterize the function of a text by
determining the situational dimensions of the ST.* In fact, according to her
theory, every text is in itself is placed within a particular situation which
has to be correctly identified and taken into account by the translator. After
the ST analysis, House is in a position to evaluate a translation; if the ST
and the TT differ substantially on situational features, then they are not
functionally equivalent, and the translation is not of a high quality. In fact,
she acknowledges that 'a translation text should not only match its source
text in function, but employ equivalent situational-dimensional means to
achieve that function' (ibid.:49).

Central to House's discussion is the concept

of overt and covert translations. In an overt translation the TT audience is
not directly addressed and there is therefore no need at all to attempt to
recreate a 'second original' since an overt translation 'must overtly be a
translation' (ibid.:189). By covert translation, on the other hand, is meant
the production of a text which is functionally equivalent to the ST. House
also argues that in this type of translation the ST 'is not specifically
addressed to a TC audience' (ibid.:194).

House (ibid.:203) sets out the types of ST that would probably yield
translations of the two categories. An academic article, for instance, is
unlikely to exhibit any features specific to the SC; the article has the same
argumentative or expository force that it would if it had originated in the
TL, and the fact that it is a translation at all need not be made known to
the readers. A political speech in the SC, on the other hand, is addressed to
a particular cultural or national group which the speaker sets out to move
to action or otherwise influence, whereas the TT merely informs outsiders
what the speaker is saying to his or her constituency. It is clear that in this
latter case, which is an instance of overt translation, functional equivalence
cannot be maintained, and it is therefore intended that the ST and the TT
function differently.

House's theory of equivalence in translation seems to be much more

flexible than Catford's. In fact, she gives authentic examples, uses
complete texts and, more importantly, she relates linguistic features to the
context of both source and target text.

1.6 Baker's approach to translation equivalence

New adjectives have been assigned to the notion of equivalence

(grammatical, textual, pragmatic equivalence, and several others) and
made their appearance in the plethora of recent works in this field. An
extremely interesting discussion of the notion of equivalence can be found
in Baker (1992) who seems to offer a more detailed list of conditions upon
which the concept of equivalence can be defined. She explores the notion
of equivalence at different levels, in relation to the translation process,
including all different aspects of translation and hence putting together the
linguistic and the communicative approach. She distinguishes between:

 Equivalence that can appear at word level and above word level,
when translating from one language into another. Baker
acknowledges that, in a bottom-up approach to translation,
equivalence at word level is the first element to be taken into
consideration by the translator. In fact, when the translator starts
analyzing the ST s/he looks at the words as single units in order to
find a direct 'equivalent' term in the TL. Baker gives a definition of
the term word since it should be remembered that a single word can
sometimes be assigned different meanings in different languages and
might be regarded as being a more complex unit or morpheme. This
means that the translator should pay attention to a number of factors
when considering a single word, such as number, gender and tense
(ibid.:11-12).

 Grammatical equivalence, when referring to the diversity of

grammatical categories across languages. She notes that
grammatical rules may vary across languages and this may pose
some problems in terms of finding a direct correspondence in the TL.
In fact, she claims that different grammatical structures in the SL and
TL may cause remarkable changes in the way the information or
message is carried across. These changes may induce the translator
either to add or to omit information in the TT because of the lack of
particular grammatical devices in the TL itself. Amongst these
grammatical devices which might cause problems in translation Baker
focuses on number, tense and aspects, voice, person and gender.

 Textual equivalence, when referring to the equivalence between a SL

text and a TL text in terms of information and cohesion. 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 or her attempt to produce a cohesive and
coherent text for the TC audience in a specific context. It is up to the
translator to decide whether or not to maintain the cohesive ties as
well as the coherence of the SL text. His or her decision will be
guided by three main factors, that is, the target audience, the
purpose of the translation and the text type.

 Pragmatic equivalence, when referring to implicatures and strategies

of avoidance during the translation process. Implicature is not about
 what is explicitly said but what is implied. Therefore, 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 enables the
TC reader to understand it clearly.

1.7 Conclusion

The notion of equivalence is undoubtedly one of the most problematic and

controversial areas in the field of translation theory. The term has caused,
and it seems quite probable that it will continue to cause, heated debates
within the field of translation studies. This term has been analyzed,
evaluated and extensively discussed from different points of view and has
been approached from many different perspectives. The first discussions of
the notion of equivalence in translation initiated the further elaboration of
the term by contemporary theorists. Even the brief outline of the issue
given above indicates its importance within the framework of the
theoretical reflection on translation. The difficulty in defining equivalence
seems to result in the impossibility of having a universal approach to this
notion.