Sei sulla pagina 1di 6

SOURCE:

BOOK TITLE: READINGS IN TRANSLATION THEORIES

98
10. Equivalence in translation theory
W. Koller
"Equivalence" is obviously a central concept in translation theory, and much has been

written on it. The general consensus nowadays seems to be that it is not helpful to think of the

notion as a uniform one, nondifferentiated. Rather, there are several types of equivalence, some

more important than others, some applicable to one type of text and others to other types. Each text
needs its own hierarchy ofpriorities.
Much of the modern discussion starts with Nida's advocation of dynamic equivalence
against formal equivalence (see the introduction to chapter 9 above). Koller, in this extract from his

book (1979), differentiates more types and sets out to clarity some of the confusion surrounding the
term.
The increasing use of computers in linguistic research has an obvious application in, for instance,

the study of "connotations of frequency" (cf. 2(f) below), with respect to the both items and
structures in different text types. We can surely expect more studies of this "statistical equivalence"
in future.
"Text normative-equivalence" (cf. section 3) is obviously linked to the study of text types;
see chapter 11 below, which also discusses Bühler's analysis referred to by Koller here. Koller's
"pragmatic equivalence" (section 4), with its stress on translating for a particular readership, has

close points of contact with Vermeer's chapter 16, below.


To Koller's references to studies focusing on literary translation one might also add at least
these in English: Brower (1959), Brislin (1976), Holmes (1970), Steiner (1975), Bassnett-McGuire
(1980), Rose (1981), Frawley (1984), Hermans (1985).
0. The concepts "equivalence", "equivalent to", "the equivalent" appear in definitions and
descriptions of the translation process, particularly in studies with a linguistic or communication
approach. Examples are: equivalent elements (Oettinger 1960: 110); equivalent textual material
(Catford 1965: 20); as equivalent as possible (Winter 1961: 68); the closest natural equivalent (Nida
and Taber 1969: 12); a maximally equivalent target language text (Wilss 1977: 72);
communicatively equivalent (Jäger 1975: 36). Such definitions reveal quite different concepts of
equivalence; and the picture becomes even more confusing when one looks at the various categories
of equivalence that have been
99 .
proposed in the literature on translation theory: content equivalence (often also: content invariance),
stylistic equivalence, formal equivalence, functional equivalence, textual equivalence,
communicative equivalence, pragmatic equivalence, equivalence of effect. The following analysis is
an attempt to specify the concept of equivalence more precisely, bearing in mind these various
categories.
(a) The concept of equivalence postulates a relation between SL text (or text element) and TL text (or
text element). The concept as such does not say anything about the kind of relation: this must be
additionally defined. The mere requirement that a translation should be "equivalent" to a given
original is vacuous.
(b) The kind of equivalence relation is defined in terms of the frame and the conditions to which one
refers when using the concept of equivalence. In other words, a normative statement is made: there
exists equivalence between a given source text and a given target text if the target text fulfils certain
requirements with respect to these frame conditions. The relevant conditions are those having to do
with such aspects as content, style, function, etc. The requirement of equivalence thus has the
following form: quality (qualities) X in the SL text must be preserved. This means that the SL
content, form, style, function, etc. must be preserved, or at least that the translation must seek to
preserve them as far as possible.
Five factors can be argued to play a relevant role in the specification of equivalence types:
1. The extralinguistic content transmitted by a text; the kind of equivalence oriented towards this
factor I call denotative equivalence (terms commonly found in the literature are "invariance of
content" or "invariance at the content level").
2. The connotations transmitted by means of the word choice (especially where there is a specific
choice between synonymous expressions), with respect to level of style (register), the social and
geographical dimension, frequency, etc; this is connotative equivalence (cf. "stylistic equivalence").
3. The text and language norms (usage norms) for given text types: this kind of equivalence, having
to do with text-type specific features, I call textnormative equivalence (cf. "stylistic equivalence",
again).
4. The receiver (reader) to whom the translation is directed (who is supposed to be able to
understand the text), and to whom the translation is "tuned" in order e.g. to achieve a given effect;
this is pragmatic equivalence (cf. the commonly used term "communicative equivalence").
100
5. Certain formal-aesthetic features of the SL text, including word play, metalinguistic aspects,
individual stylistic features; the kind of equivalence that relates to these textual characteristics I call
formal equivalence, although this is admittedly a heterogeneous concept (the literature also refers in
this sense to "artistic-aesthetic equivalence", "expressive equivalence" etc, especially with respect to
the translation of poetry).
1. Translation as the achievement of denotative equivalence sets translation theory the task of
describing the potential equivalence relations between any two languages, together with the textual
factors that determine the choice of a given equivalent in any specific case. Correspondences of
different types (one to many, many to one, one to zero, one to part) need to be analysed in order that
the translation process can achieve referential identity between SL and TL units. The central area of
concern here is the lexicon (the words and syntagma of a language), since it is here that languages are
(or should be) at their most productive (particularly regarding the use of existing or new methods of
word formation), in order to account for ever-changing and expanding communication needs and
aims. From the translation point of view, it follows that denotative equivalence is in principle
attainable, even though the language may not always be very economically used in attaining it. "In
principle" means disregarding the other factors which play a role in translation (readability and
comprehensibility, the receiver, the connotative and formal value of the text, etc).
2. With respect to translation equivalence, the term connotative indicates that individual expressions
in the textual context, and also complex texts themselves, do not only have a denotative meaning;
according to the specific means of linguistic expression of the denotatum, additional values are also
transmitted, particulary those with what Bühler (1934) called a symptom function. A single
denotative meaning can be expressed in various ("synonymous") ways:

eat : dine : nosh


die : pass away : kick the bucketcomplete : bring to completion
we are the guilty ones : the guilty ones are we.

The following connotative dimensions are thus relevant for translation (see e.g. Rossipal 1973,
Baldinger 1968):
101
(a) connotations of speech level (connotative values such as + elevated, + poetic, + normal, +
colloquial, + slang, + vulgar);
(b) connotations of socially determined usage (+ student language, + military usage, + working-class
language, + educated class, etc);
(c) connotations of geographical relation or origin (+ non-regional, + American English, + dialect X,
etc);
(d) connotations of medium (+ spoken language, + written);
(e) connotations of stylistic effect (+ archaic, + pompous, + artifical,
+. fashionable, + euphemistic, + plain, + descriptive, etc);
(f) connotations of frequency (+ common, + uncommon);
-(g) connotations of register (+ normal usage, + technical, + medical);
(h) connotations of evaluation (+ positively evaluative, + pejorative,
+ ironic,, etc);
(i) connotations of emotion (+ emotive [i.e. using emotive language to describe a given topic], +
neutral).
1
A major task of translation theory is to characterize the connotative dimensions of individual
languages (e.g. with the support of stylistic studies), to analyse their features and structural elements,
and then relate these to the connotative dimensions of a given target language. Further research could
examine problematic cases in translations of particular texts, and also the translation procedures
involved in the area of connotation.
The achievement of connotative equivalence is one of the hardest problems of translation, and can
seldom be absolute; this makes it all the more important to set up corpus-oriented studies of
individual languages and texts, focusing on particular lexical and syntactic areas that are
connotatively "loaded" (cf. e.g. Boecker 1973).
3. Legal contracts, instructions for use, business letters, scientific texts and the like all follow lexical
and syntactic norms of both selection and usage (i.e. norms of style); to translate in accordance with
these norms is to aim at textnormative equivalence. In a similar sense, in his discussion of translation
criticism, Wilss (1974:37) speaks of "usage norms"
because both SL and TL have certain pre-established schemata of linguistic expression, accepted
forms of linguistic behaviour and restrictive rules, where the communicative effect of the translation
therefore lies in the TL realization of quite specific performance norms; these norms are basically
intralingual, and hence also interlingually conventionalized to some extent, and they must be
correlatable.
102
The description and correlation of these patterns of speech usage in particular text types is an
important goal of a translation theory oriented towards two given languages. This kind of research
can make good use of the methods and results of functional text analysis, which looks at the
functionally differentiated, obligatory patterns of language usage in a variety of actual com-
munication situations.
4. The concepts of "usage norm" and "functional norm" introduce a pragmatic point of view: in
observing the usage norms for particular texts one takes account of the linguistic/textual expectation
norm, the expectations that the reader brings to a given type of text. Now, it often happens that a text
- e.g., a legal text - needs to be translated in such a way that the TL text does not follow the usage
norms, because the TL readership is not restricted to a narrow circle of legal experts. In such a case
the text must be translated, and in fact edited, into a form that will reach the intended receivers, i.e.
be comprehensible to them. The achievement of pragmatic equivalence, then, means translating the
text for a particular readership (see e.g. Heger 1976). This may - or even must - result in deviating
from the requirements of text-normative, connotative or even denotative equivalence. A translation
of a political commentary which sought to persuade the original readers to a particular political
action usually has a different function in the target language, and addresses its readers with different
presuppositions.
From this point of view, translation theory should analyse the communicative conditions appropriate
for different receiver groups in different language-pairs and texts, and establish the principles and
procedures whereby pragmatic equivalence can be achieved.
5. To achieve formal equivalence in a TL text is to produce an "analogy of form" in the translation,
by exploiting the formal possibilities of the TL or even by creating new forms if necessary. Reiss
(1976: 21) describes this kind of equivalence as follows:
It [the translation] orients itself towards the particular character of the work of art, taking as its
guiding principle the author's creative will. Lexis, syntax, style and structure are manipulated in such
a way that they bring about in the target language an aesthetic effect which is analogous to the
expressive individual character of the source text.
Here, translation theory needs to analyse the possibilities of formal equivalence with the respect to
categories such as rhyme, verse forms, rhythm. 103
special stylistic forms of expression in syntax and lexis, word play, metaphor and so on. There
already exist a large number of individual literary studies of different texts and authors, and there are
also some general discussions of literary translation such as those of Kloepfer (1967), Levy (1969)
and Savory (1968).

6. In his study of the translation of scientific and technical literature, Jumpelt (1961: 46) refers with
good reason to the empirical fact that "translation carinot guarantee a global, undifferentiated
preservation of all values; translation always involves the necessity of a choice." With every text as a
whole, and also
with ;every segment of a text, the translator who conciously makes such a choice must set up a
hierarchy of values to be preserved in the translation; from
this he can derive a hierarchy of equivalence requirements for the text or segment in question. This
in turn must be preceded by a translationally relevant text analysis. It is an urgent task for translation
theory - and one on which no more than some preliminary work has so far been done - to develop a
methodology and conceptual apparatus for this kind of text analysis, and to bring together and
systematize such analyses in terms of translationally relevant typologies of textual features.
104

Potrebbero piacerti anche