Third Level LMD Module :Translation

The Concept of Equivalence in Translation(part 01)

a-Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet

b-Roman Jakobson

c-Eugene Nida

Objectives:

At the end of this unit you should be able to:

 Discuss the concept of Equivalence.

 Give examples in both source or target Language.

After centuries of debates around Literal and Free Translation, theoreticians began to

attempt more systematic analyses of translation in the 1950s and 1960s(see translation

in the 20th century, previous lecture).New debate revolved around certain key

linguistic issues, the most prominent were those of “meaning and Equivalence“. To

argue for the necessity of translation Equivalence we should first clarify its features.

First of all, it is necessary for us to understand exactly the meaning of the word

Equivalence itself.

As “equivalence” is a term which is also broadly used outside of the field of enquiry at

hand, it may be useful to start with a more general definition of the concept before

mentioning more specific ones. The necessity of considering more general perceptions

has been argued convincingly by Snell-Hornby (1988, 1990), who maintains that the

discrepancy between the fuzziness of a more general understanding of the concept (its

English usage) and the stringency of a more specific definition (as it is most of ten

used in German) is the origin of much of the confusion surrounding its use today.

According to Mary Snell-Hornby (17: 1988), for the last 150 years, the word

"equivalence" in English has been used as a technical term in different kinds of exact

sciences to refer to a number of scientific phenomena or processes. For instance, in

mathematics, it indicates a relationship of absolute equality that involves guaranteed

reversibility. At the same time, however, it can also be used as a common word in the

general vocabulary of English, and, in this sense, it means "of similar significance". In

Third Level LMD Module :Translation

other words, the word "equivalence" is used in the English language both as a

scientific term and as a common word. As a central concept in translation theory,

"equivalence" cannot be interpreted in its scientific sense. It can only be understood in

its common sense as a general word. As J.R Firth points out in his writing on

translation, it was in the common sense and as an item of the general language that the

word "equivalence" was originally used in English translation theory.(Snell-Hornby:

17)

Philosophically speaking, there are no things that are absolutely identical.

Nida expresses this view as follows:

“There are no two stones alike, no flowers the same, and no two people who are

identical. Although the structures of the DNA in the nucleus of their cells may be the

same, such persons nevertheless differ as the result of certain developmental factors.

No two sounds are ever exactly alike, and even the same person pronouncing the same

words will never utter it in an absolutely identical manner“. (Nida 1986: 60)

As far as languages are concerned, there are no two absolute synonyms within one

language. Quite naturally, no two words in any two languages are completely identical

in meaning. As translation involves at least two languages and since each language has

its own peculiarities in phonology, grammar, vocabulary, ways of denoting

experiences and reflects different cultures, any translation involves a certain degree of

loss or distortion of meaning of the source text. That is to say, it is impossible to

establish absolute identity between the source text and the target text. Therefore, we

can say that equivalence in translation should not be approached as a search for

sameness, but only as a kind of similarity or approximation, and this naturally

indicates that it is possible to establish equivalence between the source text and the

target text on different linguistic levels and on different degrees. In other words,

different types of translation equivalence can be achieved between the source text and

the target text such as phonetic equivalence, phonological equivalence, morphological

equivalence, lexical equivalence, syntactical equivalence and semantic equivalence.

(Le Meiyun 1989).

Third Level LMD Module :Translation

 Peter Newmark defines translation as "rendering the meaning of a text into

another language in the way that the author intended the text." (Newmark 1988:

5）

 Eugene Nida defines translation as " reproducing in the receptor language the

closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first in terms of

meaning and secondly in terms of style." (Nida 1982: 12).

 The traditional definition: "the process of transfer of message expressed in a

source language into a message expressed in a target language, with

maximization of the equivalence of one or several levels of content of the

message...." (Huang Long: 19) (see definitions of translation, previous lecture)

As can be easily seen in the above, no matter how translation is defined, the concept of

equivalence is inseparable and is implied in one way or the other. In a sense, each of

the above definitions is constructed round the basic concept of equivalence, or as

Marry Snell-Hornby points out that definitions of translation may be regarded as

variations of the concept of equivalence. (Snell-Hornby: 15). The essentiality of the

concept of equivalence in any definition of translation demonstrates adequately the

necessity of equivalence in translation.

a- Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet:

Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet produced their Stylistique Comparée du

Françaiset de l' Anglais (1958) which is a comparative stylistic analysis of the

different translation strategies used in French and English. The First English version,

was published after four decades, Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet made a

distinction between direct and indirect (oblique) translation, the former referring to

literal translation and the latter to free translation (p. 84). Moreover, they propose

seven procedures, the first three covered by direct translation and the remaining four

by oblique translation. These procedures are: borrowing, calque, literal translation,

transposition, modulation, equivalence and adaptation. In particular, it is argued that

equivalence is viewed as a procedure in which the same situation is replicated as in the

original but different wording is used (Vinay and Darbelnet, 1995, p. 32). Through this

procedure, it is claimed that the stylistic impact of the source-language (henceforth

Third Level LMD Module :Translation

SL) text can be maintained in the target-language (henceforth TL) text. Hence, when

dealing with proverbs, idioms and clichés, equivalence for them is sought at the level

of sense and not image. For example, the idiom comme un chien dans un jeu de quilles

meaning literally like a dog in a set of skittles could be translated like a bull in a china

shop (cited in Munday, 2001, p. 58). Furthermore, Vinay and Darbelnet (1995)

consider as a necessary and sufficient condition for equivalent expressions between

language pairs to be acceptable to be listed in a bilingual dictionary “as full

equivalents” (p. 255). Nevertheless, they realized the utopia of such a statement by

admitting that glossaries and collections of idiomatic expressions are non-exhaustive

(p. 256). In other words, the rendering of an equivalent of an expression in the SL text

in a dictionary or glossary does not suffice or guarantee a successful translation since

the context surrounding the term in question plays an equally important role in

determining the translation strategy employed. They conclude by stating that the

situation is what determines the need for creating equivalences. So translators are

encouraged to firstly look in the situation of the ST in order to come up with a solution

(p.255).

References:

 Munday, J. (2001). Introducing Translation Studies. London and New York:

Routledge.

 Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice Hall.

 Nida, E. (1964). Towards a Science of Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

 Nida, E. and Taber, C.R. (1969). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E.J.

Brill.Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

 Sandra Halverson, (2006).The concept of Equivalence in Translation Studies.

 Snell-Homby, Mary. (1988). Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach.

Amsterdam.

 Vinay, J.P. and Darbelnet, J. (1958). Stylistique Comparée du Français et de

l' Anglais.