EQUIVALENCE IN TRANSLATION

1. Notion and theory of translation equivalence

Translating is generally seen as a process of communicating the foreign text by

establishing a relationship of identity or analogy with it. In language, one word might have
several different meanings. Take the word “mobile,” which can mean phone, movement, or
flexibility. To maintain translational equivalence, it’s crucial to properly understand the context
of the word. In failing to do so, there will be a breakdown in communication.
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.
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.
Translational equivalence is the similarity between a word (or expression) in one
language and its translation in another.
Approaches to the question of equivalence differ radically.
Theorists as Catford (1965), Nida & Taber (1969) and Koller (1995), define translation in
terms of equivalence relations, while others, such as Snell-Hornby (1988) reject the theoretical
notion of equivalence, holding that it is either irrelevant or damaging to translation studies.
However, Baker (1992) adopts a middle course, using this notion for the sake of convenience -
because most translators are used to it rather than because it has any theoretical status. Those in
favor of equivalence-based theories of translation define equivalence as the relationship between
a source-text and a target text that allows the TT to be deemed as a translation of the ST in the
first place. Theorists who maintain that translation is contingent upon equivalence, have
attempted to develop typologies of equivalence, either focusing on the rank (word, sentence,
text) at which level equivalence is said to obtain, or on the type of meaning (denotative,
connotative, pragmatic, etc.) (Baker 1997). These theorists have studied equivalence in relation
to translation process, using different approaches.
Roman Jackobson (1959) is a figure who theorizes about equivalence. His study of
equivalence gave new impetus to the theoretical analysis of translation since he introduced the
notion of “equivalence in difference”. He suggests three kinds of translation:
• Intralingual (within one language, i.e. rewording or paraphrasing)
• Interlingual (between two languages or translation proper)
• Intersemiotic (between sign systems or transmutation)
He goes on to examine the key issues of translation, notably, linguistic meaning and
equivalence. He considers the problem of equivalence in meaning between words in different
languages. According to him, there is no full equivalence between code-units. In his description,
interlingual translation involves substituting messages in one language not for separate code-
units but for entire messages in some other language. The translation involves two equivalent
messages in two different codes. An example he gives is that of cheese in English, which is not
identical to the Russian word syr, since the Russian code-unit does not include the concept of
cottage cheese, therefore, the best way is to expand the word in the TL. 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”.
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
she/he has to transmit it into an equivalent message for the TC.
Vinay and Darbelnet identify two translation strategies, “direct translation and oblique
translation”. Borrowing, calque and literal translation procedures are the procedures used for
direct translation in cases where the items pose no real problem and can be easily relayed.
However, there are cases in which literal translation is not possible and, for this reason, the
translator should avail himself of “oblique translation”. It includes “transposition, modulation,
equivalence and adaptation”.
According to Vinay and Darbelnet, equivalence is the ideal method when the translator
has to deal with proverbs, idioms, clichés, nominal or adjectival phrases and the onomatopoeia of
animal sounds.
Catford’s approach to translation equivalence clearly differs from that adopted by Nida:
Catford had a preference for a more linguistic-based approach to 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).
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 the levels of the sentence, the
clause etc.
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:
Structure-shifts, which involve a grammatical change between the structure of the ST
and that of the TT;
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;
Unit-shifts, which involve changes in rank;
Intra-system shifts, which occur when “SL and TL possess systems which
approximately correspond formally as to their constitution.
For Nida, there are two types of equivalence: “formal equivalence” and “dynamic
equivalence”.
According to her, the success of the translation depends on achieving equivalent response
with four requirements: making sense, conveying the spirit and manner of the original, having a
natural and easy form and producing similar response.
In order to answer the question “what exactly has to be equivalent”, Koller (1979)
describes five types of equivalence:
1. Denotative equivalence: the SL and TL words refer to the same thing in the real world.
He calls it “content invariance”.
2. Connotative equivalence: the SL and TL words trigger the same or similar associations
in the minds of the native speakers of the two languages. It is related to the lexical choices,
especially between near synonyms. Koller sees this as “stylistic equivalence”.
3. Text-normative equivalence: This is pertinent with text-types, with different kinds of
texts behaving in different ways. This is closely linked to work by Catharina Reiss who classifies
the text as informative, expressive and operative.
 4. Pragmatic equivalence: This type is oriented towards the receptor language reader,
called “communicative equivalence”. This is Nida’s dynamic equivalence.
5. Formal equivalence: This is related to the form and the aesthetics of the text, including
the stylistic features of the ST.
In general, these theories can be divided into three categories. A group of translation
scholars are in favour of a linguistic approach to translation, considering translation as merely a
matter of linguistics. However, the translator is also dealing with two different cultures at the
same time. This particular aspect seems to have been taken into consideration by another group
of theorists who regard translation equivalence as being essentially a transfer of the message and
a pragmatic/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”