MNOR DE TRADUCCIN / 2014-5

TEORA DE LA TRADUCCIN / H-O Unit 3

Marta Mateo

UNIT 3 .
The concept of equivalence
and the role of the receptor in the study of translation
0. Introduction:
-Most prominent issues in the 1950s and 1960s: meaning, equivalence, translatability
1. Jakobson (1959): equivalence in difference
-"There is ordinarily no full equivalence between code-units."
-Interlingual translation: "The translator recodes and transmits a message received from
another source. Thus translation involves two equivalent messages in two different
codes."
"Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern
of linguistics."
-"Languages differ essentially in what they must convey and not in what they may
convey."
2. Catford's formal correspondent vs textual equivalent
"The central problem of translation practice is that of finding TL translation equivalents.
A central problem of translation theory is that of defining the nature and conditions of
translation equivalence." (Catford 1965: 21)
Formal correspondence

Textual equivalence

(Hatim and Munday 2004: 27-28)

MNOR DE TRADUCCIN / 2014-5

TEORA DE LA TRADUCCIN / H-O Unit 3
Marta Mateo

-Textual equivalence achieved when the source and target items are "interchangeable in
a given situation" (Catford 1065)
3. Nida and the principle of equivalent effect. The focus on the receptor.
-Nida's functional definition of meaning: linguistic meaning, referential meaning and
emotive meaning.
-Nida's "two basic orientations" in translation or "types of equivalence":
-formal equivalence:
"Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and
content [...] One is concerned that the message in the receptor language should
match as closely as possible the different elements in the source language" (Nida
1964: 159).
-dynamic equivalence:
-based of 'the principle of equivalent effect", where "the relationship between
receptor and messsage should be substantially the same as that which existed
between the original receptors and the message" (Nida 1964: 159).
-the goal of dynamic equivalence: "seeking the closest natural equivalent to the
source-language message" (Nida 1964: 166).
-adjustments
-Placing the receiver at the centre of the equation:
"The role of the receptors in the development of principles and practices of translation is
far more important than has often been thought to be the case" (Nida 1976: 59).
-Nida's attitude to the principles of translatatibility and comprehensibility: "Anything
which can be said in one language can be said in another, unless the form is an essential
element of the message" (Nida and Taber 1969: 4).

4. Peter Newmark's semantic and communicative translation

Approaches to Translation (1981) and A Textbook of Translation (1988)
"Communicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as
possible to that obtained on the readers of the original. Semantic translation attempts to
render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow,
the exact contextual meaning of the original" (Newmark 1981: 39).
-Not watertight categories, but representing the 'middle ground' of translation practice
between strategies such as adaptation and interlinear translation (Newmark 1988).

MNOR DE TRADUCCIN / 2014-5

TEORA DE LA TRADUCCIN / H-O Unit 3
Marta Mateo

(in Munday 2001: 45)

MNOR DE TRADUCCIN / 2014-5

TEORA DE LA TRADUCCIN / H-O Unit 3
Marta Mateo

5. Werner Koller: Korrespondenz and quivalenz

(Munday 2001: 47)

-Five different types of equivalence:
-denotative
-connotative
-text-normative
-pragmatic
-formal
6. Later developments in equivalence
-Gideon Toury and his equivalence postulate:
"The question to be asked in the actual study of translations (especially in the
comparative analysis of TT and ST) is not whether the two texts are equivalent (from a
certain aspect), but what type and degree of translation equivalence they reveal" (1980:
47).
>> a historical, relative notion of equivalence
-Later contributions to the concept: Baker (1992), Newman (1994), Pym (1992).
"Equivalence is crucial to translation because it is the unique intertextual relation that
only translations, among all conceivable text types, are expected to show." (Baker's
Encyclop. 2001, pp. 80).
-Intrinsically variable nature of equivalence: the translator may focus on various
factors: ST form or content, TT reader, translator's interests, ideology, purpose of
translation, etc. (Hatim & Munday 2004: 48)
************************
Recommended reading for Unit 3:
-Munday 2001, chapter 3
-Hatim & Munday 2004, chapters 6 (& section B)
-Fawcett 1997, chapter 5