Theory of Translation

Lecture III
Translation equivalence (TE) is the key idea of translation. Equivalent means equal in
value, amount, volume, etc. (A.S.Hornby)

Equivalence is the central issue in translation. Its definition, relevance, and applicability
within the field of translation theory have caused heated controversy. Many different
theories of the concept of equivalence have been elaborated within this field for the past
fifty years.

The most innovative theorists (Vinayand Darbelnet, Jakobson, Nida and Taber, Catford,
House, and finally Baker) have studied equivalence in relation to the translation process,
using different approaches.

The principle that a translation should have an equivalence relation with the source
language text is problematic. There are three main reasons why an exact equivalence or
effect is difficult to achieve.

Firstly, it is impossible for a text to have constant interpretations even for the same person
on two occasions (Hervey, Higgins and Haywood (1995: 14).

Secondly, translation is a matter of subjective interpretation of translators of the source

language text. Thus, producing an objective effect on the target text readers, which is the
same as that on the source text readers is an unrealistic expectation.

Thirdly, it may not be possible for translators to determine how audiences responded to
the source text when it was first produced.

Translation is a peculiar type of communication – interlingual communication.

The goal of translation is to transform a text in the Source Language into a text in the
Target Language. This means that the message produced by the translator should call
forth a reaction from the TL receptor similar to that called forth by the original message
from the SL receptor. The content, that is, the referential meaning of the message with all
its implications and the form of the message with all its emotive and stylistic connotations
must be reproduced as fully as possible in the translation as they are to evoke a similar
response. While the content remains relatively intact, the form, that is, the linguistic signs
of the original, may be substituted or replaced by other signs of the TL because of
structural differences at all levels. Such substitutions are justified; they are functional and
aim at achieving equivalence.

Equivalent texts in the two languages are not necessarily made up of semantically identical
signs and grammatical structures and equivalence should not be confused with identity.

Equivalence is the reproduction of a SL text by TL means. The degree of equivalence

depends on the linguistic means used in the SL texts and on the functional style to which
the text belongs.

Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet theory

Vinay and Darbelnet view equivalence-oriented translation as a procedure which
'replicates the same situation as in the original, whilst using completely different wording'
(1995, p. 342).

Eugene Nida’s Theory of Translation

Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal equivalence
(or 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).
This theory is mainly expressed in the book Nida, Eugene A. and C. R. Taber. The Theory
and Practice of Translation (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969 / 1982).

Translation theorists have long disputed the interrelation of the two terms.

The notion of “adequacy” is closely connected with that of equivalence.

Some scholars identify these terms and use them as completely interchangeable notions.

J. Catford’s notion of “translation equivalence” is treated as “adequacy of translation”.

V. Komissarov considers them to denote non-identical but closely related notions. He
claims that adequate translation is broader in meaning than equivalent translation.
Adequate translation is good translation, as it provides communication in full. Equivalent
translation is the translation providing the semantic identity of the target and source texts.

A. Shveitser refers the two terms to two aspects of translation: translation as result and
translation as process. We can speak of equivalent translation when we characterize the
end-point (result) of translation, as we compare whether the translated text corresponds
to the source text. Adequacy characterizes the process of translation. The translator aims
at choosing the dominant text function, decides what s/he can sacrifice.

“Equivalence” is regarded as semantic similarity of the S. and T. language and speech

units.
• Adequate translation - is the translation performed at the level sufficient and necessary
to convey the information and preserve the norms of the TL.

Equivalence is the reproduction of a SL text by TL means. Equivalence does not mean

that two things are identical but they have certain things in common. A translated text is
never identical to its original. However, it can be equivalent to it in a certain degree. Types
of equivalence: Total equivalents, Partial Correspondence Equivalence, Situational
equivalence.

Total equivalents have the exact unambiguous meaning (everyday subjects, animals, time
expressions, etc)

Partial Correspondence Equivalence: lexical, grammatical or stylistical.

Lexical equivalence deals with translation of words and rendering their meanings which
consists of two components –denotation and connotation.

Grammatical equivalence is usually achieved by means of various transformations:

substitution or replacements (both lexical and grammatical), additions and omissions,
paraphrasing and compensation.

Equivalence may occur at different linguistic levels:

Phonetic level of Equivalence

Word-building Level of Equivalence

Morphological Level of Equivalence

Equivalence at Word Level

Equivalence of Phrase Level. Equivalence at phrase level is of two kinds: a SL word

corresponds to a TL phrase, a SL phrase corresponds to a TL word.

The hierarchy of levels does not imply the degree of evaluation. A lower level of
equivalence does not mean a worse level. A higher level of equivalence is not a better one.
A translation can be good at any level. This depends on a number of factors, such as the
aim of the author, the requirements of the text, the perception by the receptor.

Ways of Achieving Equivalence. Types of translation techniques

Calque translation

Calque (blueprint, loan translation) translation is the translation of a word or a phrase by

parts. Since the calqued word is not just a mechanical borrowing of the form but it
undergoes some changes, this device is, to some extent, an actual translation, which
includes form transformations.

Translation transformations. Translation transformations are complete changes of the

appearance of a translated word, phrase, or sentence. In foreign translation theory,
transformations are known as shifts of translation. Translation transformations can be of
three categories:
1)grammatical transformations,

2)lexical (semantic) transformations,

3)complex (lexical and grammatical) transformations.

The Problem of Transformation

The problems of translation and translator’s transformations have been studied by

Barkhudarov, Komissarov, Latyshev, Minyar-Beloruchev, Retsker, Korunets, Koptilov,
Darbelnet and Vinay, Newmark, Klaudy Kinga and others. There is no unified view of
classifying translator’s transformations.

“One cannot fail to notice that some sense units of the source language retain their sense
and structure in the target language unchanged, whereas others retain only their
content/meaning unchanged, but altered or completely changed their origin/source
language form. The kind of major and minor alterations in the structural form of
language units performed with the aim of achieving faithfulness in translation are
referred to as translator’s transformations” (Korunets).

Korunets underlines the fact that a considerable number of sense units are transplanted
to the target language in the form, meaning and the structure of the original, i. e.,
unchanged or little changed. Among these are the following classes of language units:

1) most of genuine internationalisms, some idiomatic expressions, culturally biased

notions, e. g. marketing, chemical reaction, democratic system, veni, vidi, vici, etc.;

2) many loan internationalisms which maintain in the target language the same meaning
and often the same structural form but have a different phonetic sounding, e.g.
agreement/concord/, standard of living, etc.;

3) almost all proper nouns of various subclasses: e.g. Dora, Newton, Boston, etc.

Different classifications of transformations are suggested. Some linguists refer the same
transformations to lexical ones, others – to grammatical ones. Some classifications:

Latyshev L.K. gives his classification of the transformations which is based on the
character of deviation from interlingual correspondences. According to it, all translator’s
transformations are divided into:
1) morphological;
2)syntactical;
3)stylistic;
4) semantic;
5) mixed (lexico-semantic and syntactico-morphological).

Barkhudarov L.S. classifies translator’s transformations according to formal features:

word order change, addition, grammar substitution, omission. He admits that such
division, to a large extent, is approximate and conventional as well.

Retsker Y.I. names two types of transformations: grammatical transformations

(replacement of parts of speech and parts of a sentence), lexical transformations
(specification, generalization, differentiation,antonymic translation, compensation,
modulation, full rearrangement).

Peter Newmark singles out the following transformations: transference, naturalization,

functional equivalent, synonymy, through translation, shifts, modulation, recognized
translation, translation label, compensation, componential analysis, reduction and
expansion, paraphrase, couplets.

Klaudy Kinga suggests the following main types of transfer operations:

Lexical transfer operations

Grammatical transfer operations

Translation presents a process in the course of which the translator solves a number of
creative problems using some techniques. They break the formal aspect of the translation
but provide the achieving of higher level of equivalence.

Despite numerous classifications based upon different criteria, the majority of linguists
agree upon the division of translator’s transformations into grammatical, lexical and
complex lexico-grammatical ones.
Grammatical transformation

The grammatical structure of English differs from the one of Hungarian. According to
the traditional classification of language typology, Hungarian belongs to the agglutinative
type of languages, where words tend to be made up of several syllables. Typically each
word has a base (or root stem) and a number of affixes. Any grammatical category has its
own affix.

Lexical transformation. Complex (lexico-grammatical) transformation.

Lexical means used in the translation are called lexical variants. The lexical variant is
determined by its contextual meaning. Lexical transformations may change the semantic
core of a translated word. They are applied in the translation when one comes across a
non-standard language unit, for example, personal names, words denoting objects
(things), phenomena and notions which are characteristic of the SL culture but do not
exist in the TL. Names of personages, places are either translated or transcribed, many –
transliterated.

Complex (lexico-grammatical) transformations.This type of transformations concerns

both the lexical (semantic) and grammatical level, i.e. it touches upon structure and
meaning.