The Concept of

Equivalence

Week 2
 Equivalence

= “equal value” of the SL and TL text

(sense- and content-related identity)
The equivalence perception of
readers, translators, researchers

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)
(Albert 1988).
Approaches to equivalence (3)

(1) a precondition/requirement of
translation (different from other
types of FL transformations:
adaptation, abridgment,
summary, etc)  translation =
replacement of the SL text by the
TL equivalent (no subtypes or
degrees exist in translation!)
Approaches to equiv. cont.
(2) never being complete  the TL text is
identical with the original text only from certain
(formal, situational, contextual,
communicative, etc.) aspects (various types
and degrees of equivalence exist!)
2 trends:
(2.1) normative view: prescribes what the
translator has to do to produce an equivalent
translation; what it is that he/she has to
definitely preserve, or can sacrifice from the
original text;
(2.2) 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.
Approaches to equiv. cont.

(3) being text-type dependent  no

identical equivalence requirements
can be established for different text
types (e.g., a users’ manual, a movie
script, lyrical poem): the number of
text types determines the number of
equivalence types possible (Reiss,
1971).
Overview of the various types
of equivalences
(1) Catford’s (1965) view on equivalence

Makes a distinction between “formal

correspondence” and “textual equivalent”
________________________________
Formal correspondent
= any TL category, which may be said to
occupy, as nearly as possible, the ‘same’
place in the system hierarchy of the TL as
the given SL category occupies in the SL
(1965, p.32)
 only approximate: e.g., English brother  a
formal correspondent of Hungarian fivér:
elder brother/báty and younger brother/öcs
 Catford cont.
Textual equivalence
= “any TL form (text/portion of text) which is observed to be
equivalent of a given SL form (text/portion of text)”
+ “SL and TL texts or items are translational equivalents when
they are interchangable in a given situation” (1965, p.27,49)

 main criterion for text equivalence = the identity of

contextually relevant features: e.g., I have arrived. –
Megérkeztem.  Lically relevant information:

• (1) the speaker (I and not you or he),

• (2) she has arrived and not left (arrive and not leave),
• (3) it is about an event that has already happened and not
something that will happen (have arrived and not will arrive),
• (4) the prior event is linked to the current situation (have
arrived and not arrive, or arrived),
• (5) the current situation is present (have arrived and not had
arrived).
(1)-(4) coincide  H and E are interchangeable  may be
considered text equivalents
(2) Nida’s (1964) view on equivalence

It is not the identity of situationally

relevant features that is the main
criterion for equivalence, but rather the
identity of the receiver’s reaction

 2 main types of equivalence:

“formal equivalence” + “dynamic
equivalence”
Nida cont.
Formal equivalence
= if the translator attributes priority to the SL text, and
tries to render the SL text as faithfully as possible,
not only in its content but also in its form including
(1) grammatical units, (2) consistency in word
usage, (3) meanings in terms of the source
context.
 to faithfully give back the grammatical units:
(1) verbs are translated into verbs, and nouns into
nouns,
(2) the boundaries of the sentences remain
unchanged,
(3) punctuation, paragraphing, etc. also stay the
same.
E.g., classical text (Plato’s dialogues, to understand
the essence of Plato’s philosophical system and to
be able to follow the development of his
terminology)
Nida cont.
Dynamic equivalence
= “the closest natural equivalent” of the SL text
 to produce a “natural” translation, the translator has to
bear in mind 3 important factors:
(1) the receptor L and culture as a whole,  adaptation on
the level of
(1.1) grammar: simple task, dictated by the structure of
the L
(1.2) lexicon: demanding task, may happen on 3 levels:
(a) terms for which there are readily available
parallels (e.g., river, tree, stone, knife, etc.)
(b) terms which identify culturally different objects but
with somewhat similar functions (e.g., book)
(c) terms which identify cultural specialities (e.g.,
synagogue, homer, cherubim).
(2) the context of the particular message (intonation, rhythm
of sentences, style)
(3) the receptor-L audience (translation should produce the
same effect in the receptor L readers as the original piece
did in the SL audience!)
(3) Some other views on
equivalence
German translation research (Kade, 1968)  4 types
of equivalences:
total equivalence: a SL unit has a permanent
equivalent in the TL (e.g., terms, institutional
names),
optional equivalence: a given SL unit has several
equivalents in the target language (e.g., in
German: Spannung, in English: voltage, tension,
suspense, stress, pressure)
approximate equivalence: the meaning of a SL
unit is divided between two TL equivalents (e.g.,
German: Himmel, English: heaven/sky),
zero equivalence: the SL unit does not have a TL
equivalent (e.g., realia)
Some other views cont.

Gert Jäger’s (1975) view:

communicative equivalence: the
“communicative value” of the original
text does not change in translation
functional equivalence: the “functional
value” of the text is preserved (= the sum
of the functions of linguistic signs, the sum
of their meanings) -- can be described with
the tools of Lics
What should be preserved in
translation?
(the “invariant” of translation)

the contents of the original text,

its sense,
its functional value,
its meaning, and
its information structure
 normative view
(4) Komissarov’s (1973) view on
equivalence
 argues against a normative view
(researcher has to refrain from any
evaluative or critical comments)

• he does not intend to describe the criteria

for creating equivalence; instead he sets
out to explore and systematise the
equivalence relations observed in
translations (based on the Russian
translation of English texts)
Komissarov’s five levels of transfer
correspond to five different levels of
equivalence:
(1) equivalence on the level of the communicative goal (=the
lowest degree of semantic similarity with the original text)
(2) equivalence on the level of (the identification) of the
situation (=higher degree of similarity, even though it is
not so evident at first sight)
(3) equivalence on the level of message / of method of
description (of the situation) (=higher degree of similarity:
it is not only the communicative goal and the situation that
are identical, but also the way in which the situation is
described)
(4) equivalence on the level of utterance /of syntactic
meanings (=besides the communicative goal, the situation
described, and the manner of describing the situation, the
grammatical structures are also partly identical, i.e. their
differences are only due to the differences between the
systems of the two languages.
(5) equivalence on the level of linguistic signs / of word
semantics (=the maximum possible similarity
(5) Klaudy (2003): The conditions
of communicative equivalence
3 types of equivalence relations characterise a
communicatively equivalent translation:
referential equivalence: the TL text should refer to
the same segment of reality, to the same facts,
events and phenomena as the SL text
contextual equivalence: individual sentences
should occupy the same position in the whole of
the TL text as their correspondents in the whole of
the SL text
functional equivalence: the TL text should play
the same role in the community of TL readers as
the SL text in the community of SL readers (this
role may involve transfer of information, provoking
certain emotions, appeal, etc.)
(6) Baker’s (1992) typology of
equivalences

word level
above word level
grammatical
textual 1: thematic and information
structures
textual 2: cohesion
pragmatic
Textual equivalence: cohesion

Halliday and Hasan: continuum of

cohesive elements:
repetition,
synonym,
superordinate,
general words,
pronominal reference
Reference
= the relationship of identity which holds between
two linguistic expressions (textual reference,
situational reference; co-reference also)
differs across discourse types and languages
English: relies heavily on pronominal reference
Hebrew: uses proper names to trace participants
through a discourse
Brazil: refer to participant by using a noun
several times in succession before shifting into a
pronominal form
Brazilian Portuguese: prefers lexical repetition (+
inflects person and number = additional
relations)
Japanese, Chinese: pronouns hardly ever used
(once a participant is introduced, continuity of
reference is signaled by omitting the subjects of
following clauses)
Substitution and ellipsis:

Arabic: prefers pronominal reference

above all
Conjunction
Languages differ tremendously in the type of
conjunction they prefer (provide information
into the whole logic of discourse); reflects the
rhetoric of the text and controls its
interpretation
German: many subordinations and complex
structures, many conjunctions (more than in
English
Chinese, Japanese: simple, shorter structures
and mark relations explicitly where possible
English: many conjunctions (and presents
information in relatively small chunks)
Arabic: small number of conjunctions, prefers
punctuation instead (and large chunks)
Lexical cohesion
Languages differ in the number of
lexical repetitions they normally
tolerate
Arabic: repetition is more dominant in
Arabic than in English (differing lexical
networks: reiterations and
collocations
Greek also tolerates repetition more
than English
(7) Rejection of the concept of
equivalence
the concept of equivalence or identity is generally related
to the SL text, trying to assess whether the translation
and the SL text are of equal value
Gideon Toury (1980) directed the attention to the TL: the
text of the translation must function in a TL context, and
so it should meet the genre and stylistic requirements of
the TL  Important:
- equivalence to the SL text ( =“adequacy”),
- its ability to meet the requirements presented by the
TL (=“appropriacy”)
- the TL reader (=“acceptability”)
Mary Snell-Hornby (1988) integrates the Lic and the
literary approach: the concept of equivalence is cannot
be a central category in translation studies; it can do
harm by suggesting an atomistic view, producing the
false illusion of symmetry between Ls (e.g., the
etymology of the English term equivalence and the
German term Äquivalenz -- even these two terms cannot
be regarded as truly “equivalent”)
The importance of the concept of
equivalence
research on equivalence has great theoretical
significance: as a result of translation totally
different Lic structures may enter into
equivalence relations, and without translation
their identical functions would never be detected
 provides data for research into the
relationship between form and function
the practical significance of the concept: it may
provide scientifically sound criteria (vs. intuition)
for translation criticism (equivalence appears in
various degrees, and translations on the market
cannot always be regarded as communicatively
equivalent to the original texts)
***