Volume 4, No.

4
October 2000

Equivalence in Translation: Between

Myth and Reality
by Vanessa Leonardi
Ms. Leonardi was born in Rome.
She has lived and studied in
England for the past six years.
Between 1994-1998 she
he comparison of texts in different languages inevitably
undertook a course at Coventry involves a theory of equivalence. Equivalence can be said to
University and obtained a BA be the central issue in translation although its definition, relevance,
(Hons) in Modern Languages,
then between 1998-1999 she
and applicability within the field of translation theory have caused
undertook a MSc in Translation heated controversy, and many different theories of the concept of
Studies at UMIST (Manchester). equivalence have been elaborated within this field in the past fifty
She is currently doing a Ph.D in
Translation Studies and
years.
Comparative Literature in the
Italian Department of the The aim of this paper is to review
University of Leeds, focusing on whenever there is the theory of equivalence as
the question whether women
and men translate differently. deficiency, interpreted by some of the most

Ms. Leonardi occasionally works

terminology may be innovative theorists in this field—
as a translator, and she enjoys qualified and Vinay and Darbelnet, Jakobson, Nida
reading and researching in any and Taber, Catford, House, and
field related to that of
amplified by finally Baker. These theorists have
Translation Studies. loanwords or loan studied equivalence in relation to the
Her current research interest lies translations, translation process, using different
in the field of Translation
Studies; in particular, she is
neologisms or approaches, and have provided
interested in the following areas: semantic shifts, and fruitful ideas for further study on this
topic. Their theories will be analyzed
Gender and Cultural Studies in
Translation, Multimedia
finally, by in chronological order so that it will
Translation, and the dubbing circumlocutions be easier to follow the evolution of
industry in Italy. Another area in
which she is interested is this concept. These theories can be
Machine Translation and the substantially divided into three main groups. In the first there are
complexity of automatic
translation from a linguistic point
those translation scholars who are in favour of a linguistic approach
of view. to translation and who seem to forget that translation in itself is
not merely a matter of linguistics. In fact, when a message is
Ms. Leonardi can be reached at:
illvle@ARTS-
transferred from the SL to TL, the translator is also dealing with
01.NOVELL.LEEDS.AC.UK. 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).
Front Page

July ‘00 Issue 1.1 Vinay and Darbelnet and their definition of equivalence
in translation
April ‘00 Issue
Vinay and Darbelnet view equivalence-oriented translation as a
 January ‘00 Issue procedure which 'replicates the same situation as in the original,
whilst using completely different wording' (ibid.:342). They also
October ‘99 Issue suggest that, if this procedure is applied during the translation
process, it can maintain the stylistic impact of the SL text in the TL
July ‘99 Issue text. According to them, equivalence is therefore the ideal method
when the translator has to deal with proverbs, idioms, clichés,
April ‘99 Issue nominal or adjectival phrases and the onomatopoeia of animal
sounds.
January ‘99 Issue
With regard to equivalent expressions between language pairs,
October ‘98 Issue Vinay and Darbelnet claim that they are acceptable as long as they
are listed in a bilingual dictionary as 'full equivalents' (ibid.:255).
July ‘98 Issue However, later they note that glossaries and collections of idiomatic
expressions 'can never be exhaustive' (ibid.:256). They conclude
April ‘98 Issue by saying that 'the need for creating equivalences arises from the
situation, and it is in the situation of the SL text that translators
January ‘98 Issue 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
October ‘97 Issue quoted in a dictionary or a glossary, it is not enough, and it does
not guarantee a successful translation. They provide a number of
July ‘97 Issue 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).

The World Is Our Oyster

by Gabe Bokor 1.2 Jakobson and the concept of equivalence in difference

Index 1997-2000 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
Translator Profiles
language and his aphorism 'there is no signatum without signum'
Experience Counts!
(1959:232), he suggests three kinds of translation:
by Eva Eie
Intralingual (within one language, i.e. rewording or
The Profession paraphrase)
The Bottom Line
by Fire Ant & Worker Bee
Interlingual (between two languages)

Intersemiotic (between sign systems)

Translation Theory

Equivalence in Translation: Jakobson claims that, in the case of interlingual translation, the
Between Myth and Reality translator makes use of synonyms in order to get the ST message
by Vanessa Leonardi across. This means that in interlingual translations there is no full
The Sociosemiotic Approach
equivalence between code units. According to his theory,
and Translation of Fiction
'translation involves two equivalent messages in two different
by Yongfang Hu
codes' (ibid.:233). Jakobson goes on to say that from a
grammatical point of view languages may differ from one another
Translation and Meaning
to a greater or lesser degree, but this does not mean that a
by Magdy M. Zaky
translation cannot be possible, in other words, that the translator
may face the problem of not finding a translation equivalent. He
Portuguese acknowledges that 'whenever there is deficiency, terminology may
Into English—Seven survival be qualified and amplified by loanwords or loan-translations,
tools for translating Brazilian neologisms or semantic shifts, and finally, by circumlocutions'
Portuguese into English (ibid.:234). Jakobson provides a number of examples by
by Danilo Nogueira comparing English and Russian language structures and explains
that in such cases where there is no a literal equivalent for a
Translator Education
particular ST word or sentence, then it is up to the translator to
choose the most suitable way to render it in the TT.
Poor Results in
Foreign>Native Translation:
There seems to be some similarity between Vinay and Darbelnet's
Reasons and Ways of
theory of translation procedures and Jakobson's theory of
Avoidance
by Serghei Nikolayev translation. Both theories stress the fact that, whenever a linguistic
approach is no longer suitable to carry out a translation, the
Science & Technology translator can rely on other procedures such as loan-translations,
neologisms and the like. Both theories recognize the limitations of
A Translator’s Guide to
a linguistic theory and argue that a translation can never be
Organic Chemical
impossible since there are several methods that the translator can
Nomenclature XXI
choose. The role of the translator as the person who decides how
by Chester E. Claff, Jr., Ph.D.
to carry out the translation is emphasized in both theories. Both
Vinay and Darbelnet as well as Jakobson conceive the translation
Caught in the Web task as something which can always be carried out from one
Web Surfing for Fun and language to another, regardless of the cultural or grammatical
Profit differences between ST and TT.
by Cathy Flick, Ph.D.

Translators’ On-Line It can be concluded that Jakobson's theory is essentially based on

Resources his semiotic approach to translation according to which the
by Gabe Bokor translator has to recode the ST message first and then s/he has to
transmit it into an equivalent message for the TC.
Search Engines Revisited
by Gabe Bokor

1.3 Nida and Taber: Formal correspondence and dynamic

Translators’ Tools equivalence
Translators’ Emporium
Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence,
Translators’ Events 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
Call for Papers and
the message itself, in both form and content', unlike dynamic
Editorial Policies
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.

* It should be noted that House's model of situational dimension is adapted from Crystal
and Davy's model elaborated in 1969. House gives an extensive explanation of the
reasons which motivated her to change, and sometimes omit, some of the information
given by Crystal and Davy. Further details can be found in House (1977:38-41), or in D.
Crystal and D. Davy, Investigating English Style (London: Longman, 1969).

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

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

London: Routledge.

Catford, John C. (1965) A Linguistic Theory of Translation: an

Essay on Applied Linguistics, London: Oxford University Press.

Fawcett, Peter (1997) Translation and Language: Linguistic

Theories Explained, Manchester: St Jerome Publishing

House, Juliane (1977) A Model for Translation Quality Assessment,

Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

Kenny, Dorothy (1998) 'Equivalence', in the Routledge

Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies, edited by Mona Baker,
London and New York: Routledge, 77-80.

Jakobson, Roman (1959) 'On Linguistic Aspects of Translation', in

R. A. Brower (ed.) On Translation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, pp. 232-39.

Nida, Eugene A. (1964) Towards a Science of Translating, Leiden:

E. J. Brill.

Nida, Eugene A. and C.R.Taber (1969 / 1982) The Theory and

Practice of Translation, Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Vinay, J.P. and J. Darbelnet (1995) Comparative Stylistics of French

and English: a Methodology for Translation, translated by J. C.
Sager and M. J. Hamel, Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.

© Copyright Translation Journal and the Author 2000

Send your comments to the Webmaster
URL: http://accurapid.com/journal/14equiv.htm
Last updated: 07/19/2018