Four Approaches towards the Notion of Equivalence and effect of

Equivalence

 Roman Jakobson: Nature of the linguistic meaning and equivalence.

Roman Jakobson, in his paper 'On linguistic aspects of translation', describes three types of
translation: intralingual, interlingual and intersemiotic. On the basis of his semiotic approach to
language and his aphorism 'there is no signatum without signum',he suggests three kinds of
translation:

 Intralingual(within one language, i.e. rewording or paraphrase)

 Interlingual (between two languages)
 Intersemiotic (between sign systems)

This structuralist focuses on interlingual in order to explain linguistic meaning and equivalence.
Jakobson supports the relation laid out by Saussure between the signifier and signified, which
forms the linguistic sign. This sign, according to Saussure, is arbitrary or unmotivated.
Jakobson explains the problem of equivalence in meaning between words in different languages.
Thus, cheese in English is not the same thing as syr in Russian or queso in Spanish because the
word cheese includes more than one kind of cheese. However in Russia are called with different
terms. This example shows us that there is no full equivalence between words. This linguist
thinks interlingual translation must substitute messages not for separate code-units but for
complete message.

Jakobson claims that, in the case of interlingual translation, the translator makes use of synonyms
in order to get the ST message across. This means that in interlingual translations there is no full
equivalence between code units. According to his theory, 'translation involves two equivalent
messages in two different codes'. Jakobson goes on to say that from a grammatical point of view
languages may differ from one another to a greater or lesser degree, but this does not mean that a
translation cannot be possible, in other words, that the translator may face the problem of not
finding a translation equivalent. 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' .Jakobson provides a number of examples by comparing English
and Russian language structures and explains that in such cases where there is no a literal
equivalent for a particular ST word or sentence, then it is up to the translator to choose the most
suitable way to render it in the TT.

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 s/he has
to transmit it into an equivalent message for the TT. For Jakobson, differences between
languages centre on grammatical and lexical forms. These differences are shown, for example, at
the level of gender, the level of aspect or the level of semantic fields. In spite of this fact,
Jakobson says that only poetry, which needs ‘creative transposition’, can be considered
‘untranslatable’.

 Nida and the Science of Translating

Eugene Nida’s theory of translation began when he was translating the Bible. His theory gave
rise to two books: Toward a Science of Translating and Theory and Practice of
Translation. Influenced by Chomsky, Nida added a recent work in linguistics in order to turn
translation into more systematic way.

The Nature of meaning:Advances in Semantics and Pragmatics:Eugene Nida changes the

idea in which a word in the past used to have a fixed meaning to another in which word meaning
varies depending on context. Meaning is separated into linguistic meaning, referential
meaning(Denotative or distionary meaning) and emotive meaning(connotative meaning). Some
techniques help the translator to determine the meaning of the different words. These techniques
are hierarchical structuring which differentiates series of words according to their level (for
instance,the superordinate animal and its hyponyms goat, dog, cow, etc.), techniques
of componential analysis that is to identify and discriminate specific features of a range of
related words. The results can be plotted visually to assist in making an overall comparison. One
example is the plotting of relationship terms (grandmother, mother, cousin, etc.) according to the
values of sex (male, female), generation (the same, one, two or more apart) and lineality (direct
ancestor/descendant or not). Such results are useful for a translator working with languages that
have very different kinship terms. The last one is semantic structure analysis in which Nida (p.
separatesout visually the different meanings of spirit (‘demons’, ‘angels’, ‘gods’, ‘ghost’, ‘ethos’,
‘alcohol’, etc.) according to their characteristics (human vs. non-human, good vs. bad, etc.). The
central idea of this analysis is to encourage the trainee translator to realize that the sense of a
complex semantic term is ‘conditioned’ by its context. Spirit thus does not always have a
religious significance.

Nida emphasizes the relevance of context when we are talking about metaphorical meaning. In
almost all cases, these techniques tend to clarify ambiguities, avoid linguistic problems and
compare differences between cultures.

The Influence of Chomsky

Chomsky created a generative-transformational model in which sentences are analyzed into a

series of connected levels that follow some rules. Chomsky says that these relations have to be
universal in human language. The most basic structures are simple sentences, called kernel
sentences.
Nida affirms that Chomsky’s model is useful to decode the ST and encode TT. Because of this,
Nida turned this model into his ‘science’ of translation. Nida and Taber stress the ‘scientific and
practical’ advantages of this technique in order to create a list of equivalence between specific
pairs of SL and TL systems. For Nida, kernels ‘are the basic structural elements out of which
language builds its elaborate surface structures.’ Kernels are to be obtained from the ST
structure by a reductive process of back-transformation. Four types of functional class are
implicated:event,objects,abstracts and relational.Nida and Taber believe that all languages have
between six and twelve basic kernel structures. Kernels represent the level at which the message
is translated into the TL before being transformed into the surface structure in three phases:
Literal transfer,minimal transfer and literal transfer.

Formal and dynamic equivalence and the principle of equivalent effect

Nida preferred the terms ‘formal equivalence’ and ‘dynamic equivalence’ instead of the old
terms like 'literal', 'free' and 'faithful' translation.

 Formal equivalence (focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and
content);
 Dynamic equivalence (based on the principle of equivalent effect, i.e. that the
relationship between receiver and message should aim at being the same as that
between the original receivers and the SL language).

The equivalent effect is based on the “four basic requirements of a translation”:

o Making sense
o Conveying the spirit and manner of the original
o Having a natural and easy form of expression
o Producing a similar response.

Discussion on the Importance of Nida’s Work

Nida's most important influence to translation theory is the withdrawal of word-for-word

translation. Nevertheless, the principle of equivalent effect and the concept of equivalence have
been much criticized. This critic went on during 1990s because the equivalence was thought to
be connected with word.Experts believed that his work was subjective, so they wondered if it
was 'scientific'. They thought that it wasn't used in practice. In spite of the criticism of Edwing
Gentzler and certain religious groups, Nida was the first person to produce a systematic
analytical procedure for translators' working and bearing in mind the receivers' culture.
  Newmark semantic and communicative translation
Newmark’s Approaches to Translation (1981) and A Textbook of Translation (1988) do not aim
to promote any monolithic translation theory but rather attempt to describe a basis for dealing
with problems encountered during the translation process. More specifically, Newmark replaces
Nida’s terms of formal and dynamic equivalence with semantic and communicative translation
respectively. The major difference between the two types of translation proposed by Newmark is
that semantic translation focuses on meaning, attempts to render, as closely as the semantic
and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the
original whereas communicative translation concentrates on effect. In other words, semantic
translation looks back at the ST and tries to retain its characteristics as much as possible. Its
nature is more complex, detailed and there is also a tendency to over-translate. On the other
hand, communicative translation looks towards the needs of the addressees, thus trying to satisfy
them as much as possible. In this respect, communicative translation tends to under-translate; to
be smoother, more direct and easier to read. Hence, in semantic translation a great emphasis is
placed on the author of the original text whereas communicative translation is meant to serve a
larger readership. It should be pointed out that during the translation process, communicative
translation need not be employed exclusively over semantic or vice versa. It may well be the case
in a literary text that a particular sentence requires communicative translation whereas another
sentence from the same text may require a semantic one. Hence, the two methods of translation
may be used in parallel, with varying focuses where each is employed.

Features of Semantic and Communicative Translation

Although in theory, both of communicative and semantic translation are separable, but in
practice of translation of a long text there are no one communicative nor one semantic
unvarnished. There is a translation inclined to communicative or to semantic, or in certain part is
communiativelly and in other semantically. To more clearly, we can study the features of
semantic and communicative translation in this table:

Features of semantic and communicative translation (Newmark, 1991: 11-13)

Semantic Translation Communicative Translation

1. Author-centered Reader-centered

2. Pursues author’s thought Pursues author’s intention.

process.
Related to speech.
Related to though.

3. Concerned with author as Adapts and makes the thought and

individual cultural content of original more
 accessible to reader.

4. Semantic-and syntactic- Effect-oriented. Formal features or

oriented. original sacrificed more readily.

Length of sentences, positions and

integrity of clauses, word position,
etc., preserved whenever possible.

5. Faithful, more literal. Faithful, freer.

6. Informative Effective.

7. Usually more awkward, more Easy reading, more natural, smoother,

detailed, more complex, but briefer. simpler, clearer, more direct, more
conventional, conforming to particular
register of language, but longer.

8. Personal Social

9. Source language biased Target language biased

10. Over-translated: more Under-translated: us of ‘hold-all’

concentrated and more specific than terms.
original

11. More powerful Less powerful

12. Always inferior to the original May be better than original because of
because of loss of meaning. gain in force and clarity, despite loss in
semantic content.

13. Out of time and local place Ephemeral and rooted in its context,
‘eternal’. ‘existential’.

14. Wide and universal ‘Tailor-made’ or targeted for one

category of readership; does one job,
fulfils one particular function.

15. Inaccuracy is always wrong A certain embroidering, a stylistic

synonymy, a discreet modulation is
condoned, provided the facts are
straight and the reader is suitably
impressed.
 16. The translator has no right to The translator has the right to correct
improve or to correct. and improve the logic and style of the
original, clarify ambiguities, jargons,
normalize bizarre personal usage.

17. Mistakes in the original should The translator can correct mistakes of
(and must) be pointed out only in fact in original.
footnote.

18. Target: a ‘true’ version, i.e. an Target: a ‘happy’ version, i.e. a

exact statement. successful act.

19. Unit of translating: tends to Unit of translating: tends to sentences

words, collocations and clauses. and paragraph.

20. Applicable to all writings with Applicable to impersonal texts.

original expressiveness.

21. Basically the works of Basically the work of translating is a

translating is an art. craft.

22. Usually the work of one Sometimes the product of a translation

translator. team.

23. Conforms to the ‘relativist’ Conforms to the ‘universalist’ position,

position of cultural relativity. assuming that exact translation may be
possible.

24. Meaning Message

Moreover, Newmark (1981) strongly believes that literal translation is the best approach in both
semantic and communicative translation (p. 39). However, he is careful to note that when there is
a conflict between the two forms of translation, then communicative translation should be
favoured in order to avoid producing an abnormal, odd-sounding or semantically inaccurate
result. In order to illustrate his point, he uses the example of the common sign bissiger Hund and
chien méchant, which should be translated communicatively as beware the dog! instead of
semantically as dog that bites! and bad dog! so that the message is communicated effectively.

Although Newmark has been criticized for his prescriptivism ,the wealth of practical examples in
his books constitutes a good advisory guide for both trainees and established translators.
  Koller: Korrespondenz and Aquivalenz
Nida's science of translation had a great influence in Germany. The most recognized german
experts in the field of translation during the 1970s and 1980s were Wolfram Wilss, Otto Kade,
Albert Neuber and Werner Koller who wrote Einfürung in die
Übersetzungswissenschaft (Research into the science of translation.) In this work he examines
the terms of equivalence and correspondence.

Correspondence belongs to the field of contrastive linguistics and describes structures and
sentences of both languages ( equivalent to Saussure's langue.) Equivalence looks for equal
terms in SL and TL (it's like Saussure's parole.)

Koller claims that it isn't correspondence but equivalence what is indicative of competence in
translation.

Contrastive Linguistics Translation Studies

equivalence (= “sameness” in the broadest sense) as central concept:

o ambiguous, no unified definition

o understood and used in a variety of ways

o often leads to confusion and misunderstandings

translation equivalence = relation of a word/expression

correspondence = structural similarities and
in a SL1 and its translation in a TL2:
differences:
o refers to la parole (language use)

o refers to la langue (language system) o rendition of a text/text element from one language to
another
o systematic comparison between grammatical
patterns of two languages in all grammatical o focus on the text, the act of speech or writing

domains

goal: make foreign language teaching and learning goal: preserve SL content, form, style and function in TL
more efficient

o problem: no fundamental theory, isolated

observations, juxtaposed descriptions
method: method:

requirements: consideration of particular frames which specify the

different translational equivalence relations:
o languages to be compared are genetically related,
based on the same grammatical theory 1. denotative: extralinguistic content
2. connotative: lexical choices
o competent bilingual informant/translator
3. text-normative: textual and linguistic norms

1. selection and characterization of items 4. pragmatic: addresee(s)

5. formal: form and aesthetics of the text, stylistic
2. juxtaposition features

3. comparison and specification of degree and type of —> hierarchy of equivalence requirements; contrastive
correspondence between compared items linguistics may have useful implications

In order to answer what is equivalent to what,Koller distinguishes five types of equivalence.

 Denotative equivalence:Related to the extralinguistic content of a text (“content

invariance”);
 Connotative equivalence:Related to the lexical choices, especially between near-
synonyms (“stylistic equivalence”);
 Text-normative equivalence: Related to text types;
 Pragmatic/ communicative equivalence:Oriented towards the receiver of the text or
message;
 Formal equivalence: Related to the form and aesthetics of the text, includes word plays
and the individual stylistic features of the ST (“expressive equivalence”).

Koller ordered the equivalences in conformity with the communicative context: language
function, content characteristics, language-stylistic characteristics, formal-aesthetic
characteristics and pragmatic characteristics. Having identified different types of equivalence,
Koller (1979) goes on to argue that a hierarchy of values can be preserved in translation only if
the translator comes up with a hierarchy of equivalence requirements for the target text.Although
the hierarchical ordering of equivalences is open to debate, Koller’s contribution to the field of
translation studies is acknowledged for bringing into translators’ attention various types and
ways in which the then fashionable desideratum of equivalence may be achieved.
  Later development in equivalence
There are other theories too that are of great importance but in this paper they’ll be looked as
minor as our main focus was on four major theories.We will describe these theories in brief way
for understanding their phenomenon.

Vinay and Darbelnet view equivalence-oriented translation as a procedure which 'replicates the
same situation as in the original, whilst using completely different wording' (ibid.:342). They
also suggest that, if this procedure is applied during the translation process, it can maintain the
stylistic impact of the SL text in the TL text. According to them, equivalence is therefore 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 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.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, but when translation involves selection of a non-
corresponding term in the TL system'.For instance, when the SL singular becomes a TL plural.

House 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'.

Baker’s Approach: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 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.
 Conclusion

In conclusion,it could be argued that many translation theories are based on two opposing ways
of translating. For example, Nida distinguishes between formal and dynamic equivalence,
Newmark between semantic and communicative translation,Jackobson’s three types of
translation and Koller’s two correspondence and contrastive These bipolar views of equivalence
soon faded away and more attractive translation paradigms came to the forefront. Contrary to
linguistic-oriented approaches to translation which assume that the source text occupies a
supreme position and that it is considered to be of crucial importance in determining not only the
translation process but also the extent to which it has been successful, target-oriented approaches
view the source text as the point of departure for the translation process and mostly focus on the
cultural, historical, and socio-political factors surrounding translation, thus looking at it as a
culture-bound phenomenon. Despite of its shortcomings, it should be stressed that equivalence is
still one of the pivotal definitory axes of translation since it functions as a reminder of the central
problems a translator encounters during the translation process.

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.
 Introduction
Translation studies is the academic discipline related to the study of the theory and phenomena
of translation. By its nature it is multilingual and also interdisciplinary, encompassing any
language combinations, various branches of linguistics, comparative literature, communication
studies, philosophy and a range of types of cultural studies.

After the centuries of circular debates around literal and free translation, theoreticians in the
1950s and 1960s began to attempt more systematic analyzes of translation. The new debate
revolved around certain key linguistics issues. The most important and prominent of these issues
were those of meaning and equivalence.Holmes Describes the notion of equivalence as:

Preservation of the sound, the sense, the rhythm, the textual “material” and recreation of
those specific sensation-sound, sense and association- despite inherent limitations in the
TL.

Hence equivalence is equal value of the SL and TL text (sense- and content-related
identity.According to Albert,The concept of equivalence is viewed differently by the:

 Reader/listener  assume equivalence (instinctive view),

 Translator  creates equivalence (more or less conscious view)
 Researcher  investigates equivalence (complex, differing views)

There are some approaches that must be kept in view while analyzing the theories of
equivalence.Firstly,Precondition,replacement of the SL text by the TL equivalent.Secondly,
Normative view: prescribes what the translator has to do to produce an equivalent translation;
what it is that translator has to definitely preserve, or can sacrifice from the original text.
Thirdly,Descriptive view,describes, on the basis of the analysis of numerous translating facts,
how translators create equivalence, what it is that they have preserved or sacrificed.

The aim of this paper is to review the theory of equivalence as interpreted by some of the most
innovative theorists in this field—, Jakobson, Eugene Nida,New Mark and Koller.These theorists
have studied equivalence in relation to the translation process, using different approaches, and
have provided fruitful ideas for further study on this topic. Their theories will be analyzed in
chronological order so that it will be easier to follow the evolution of this concept.
 Contents

 Introduction to translation studies and Equivalence

 Roman Jackobson and the Nature of Meaning

 E.Nida’s The Science of Translating

 NewMark’s Semantics and Communicaion Translation

 Koller’s Correspondence and Equivalence

 Later theories on Equivalence

 Conclusion

 Bibliography
Assignment-Equivalence and the Effect of Equivalent

Submitted to:Ma’m Maida

Submitted by:11021502-11(Javeria)
11021502-12(Zainab)
110121502-13(Nayab)
11021502-14(Rafay)
11021502-15(Hamna)
11021502-16(Saleha)
11021502-17(Fariha)

Course Title:Translation Study

Discipline:B.S(hons)English
Semester:6th

GCWU,Sialkot.
 Reference

 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.

 Werner Koller. 1979. „Das Problem der Äquivalenz.“ In: Koller, Werner: Einführung in
dieÜbersetzungswissenschaft. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 176-191.

 Dollerup, Cay. 2006. Basics of Translation Studies. Iasi: Institutul European.

 Croitoru, Elena. 1996. Interpretation and Translation. Galati: Editura Porto-Franco.

Google Sites:

o Wikipedia.com

o Webopedia.com

o Slideshare.net

o Translationstudies.routeledge.com

o Translationsrudiesforuums.com