High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
SOURCE:BOOK TITLE: READINGS IN TRANSLATION THEORIES
98
10. Equivalence in translation theoryW. Koller
"Equivalence"
is
obviously a central concept in translation theory, and much has beenwritten on it. The general consensus nowadays seems to be that it is not helpful to think
of
thenotion as a uniform one, nondifferentiated. Rather, there are several types
of
equivalence, somemore 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 equivalenceagainst formal equivalence (see the introduction to chapter 9 above). Koller, in this extract from hisbook (1979), differentiates more types and sets out to clarity some
of
the confusion surrounding theterm.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, hasclose 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 anddescriptions of the translation process, particularly in studies with a linguistic or communicationapproach. 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 categoriesof equivalence that have been99. 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 isan attempt to specify the concept of equivalence more precisely, bearing in mind these variouscategories.(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 beadditionally defined. The mere requirement that a translation should be "equivalent" to a givenoriginal is vacuous.(b) The kind of equivalence relation is defined in terms of the frame and the
conditions
to which onerefers when using the concept of equivalence. In other words,
a
normative
statement is made: thereexists equivalence between a given source text and a given target text if the target text fulfils certainrequirements with respect to these frame conditions. The relevant conditions are those having to dowith such aspects as content, style, function, etc. The
requirement
of equivalence thus has thefollowing form:
quality (qualities) X in the SL text must be preserved.
This means that the SLcontent, 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 thisfactor 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 specificchoice between synonymous expressions), with respect to level of style (register), the social andgeographical 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, havingto 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 tounderstand 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").1005. 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 inthis sense to "artistic-aesthetic equivalence", "expressive equivalence" etc, especially with respect tothe 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 textualfactors 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 thatthe 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 andaims. From the translation point of view, it follows that denotative equivalence is in principleattainable, 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 andcomprehensibility, the receiver, the connotative and formal value of the text, etc).2. With respect to translation equivalence, the term
connotative
indicates that individual expressionsin 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 alsotransmitted, particulary those with what Bühler (1934) called
a
symptom
function. A singledenotative meaning can be expressed in various ("synonymous") ways:
eat : dine : noshdie : pass away : kick the bucketcomplete : bring to completionwe are the guilty ones : the guilty ones are we.
The following
connotative dimensions
are thus relevant for translation (see e.g. Rossipal 1973,
Add a Comment