Lecture 4: Equivalence

The aim of today’s lecture is to explore the most influential equivalence

theories that have been proposed by scholars in the field of translation ,
such as Vinay and Darbelnet (1958), Jakobson (1959), Nida and Taber
(1969), Catford (1965), House (1997), Koller (1979), Newmark (1981),
Baker (1992), and finally, Pym (2010).
 Equivalence: Introductory Remarks
The concept of equivalence can be said to hold a central position in translation studies.
 It has become an essential feature of translation theories in the 1960s and 1970s, and
continued to be so even nowadays theories (see Munday, 2016); equivalence has been meant to
indicate that source text (henceforth ST) and target text (henceforth TT) share some kind of
„sameness‟ .
 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 among theorists/translators as to its nature, definition and
applicability. This term has been analyzed, evaluated and extensively discussed from different
points of view and has been approached from many different perspectives.
 It has been of particular concern to translation scholars since it has been inextricably linked with
both definitional and practical aspects of translating.
 It has been a rather controversial one, causing many heated debates among
theorists/translators as to its nature, definition and applicability.
 Nature of Equivalence?
 The debatable nature of the concept lies in both the philosophical questions
it implies, i.e. equality, sameness, identicality, exactness, appropriateness,
comparison, viability, and the like, and in its problematic questions remain:
what entities are/can be equivalent, how alike/similar/equal are they and
how do we define 'alike/similar/equal’ and in which feature are they
equivalent?, (Halverson cited in Sanchez-Ortiz 2000: 90).
 Bayar (2007: 214) states that equivalence is by definition an
approximation of the ST, the identical duplication of which is indeed
impossible in another.
 Consequently, translation scholars speak of viable translation rather than
full-equivalent one.
 Equivalence Defined: Sameness or
Identicality?
 Equivalence is defined in varieties of ways, depending on the approach the theorist/translator adopts in the translation
process; thus one may have types of equivalence that mark approaches or strategies the theorist/translator uses in translating
a text cross-lingually: formal equivalence, dynamic, functional, optimal, directional, textual, pragmatic, cultural, and the
like.
 Cambridge Learner’s Dictionary (2001: 238) offers the following definition of the word ‘equivalence’: Something that has
the same value, importance, size, or meaning as something else
 Vinay and Darbelnet (1995:342). view equivalence-oriented translation as a procedure which 'replicates the same
situation as in the original, whilst using completely different wording’
 House (1997: 26) comments that equivalence should not be envisaged as “virtually the same thing” since, linguistically
speaking, it would be naïve to think of equivalence as a complete identity.
 Bassnett (2002: 36) is of a view that equivalence “should not be approached as a search for sameness, since sameness
cannot even exist between two TL versions of the same text, let alone between the SL and the TL versions”. However, the
question is as to the kind and degree of sameness which gives birth to different kinds of equivalence.
 The contentious nature of the concept lies in both the philosophical questions it implies, i.e. comparison and sameness,
and in its problematic questions remain: what entities are/can be equivalent, how alike/similar/equal are they and how do
we define 'alike/similar/equal', and in which feature are they equivalent? ( Halverson cited in Sanchez-Ortiz 2000: 90).
 Types of Equivalence
Farghal (1994, 2009, 2012) argues that all types of equivalence can be boiled down to a trichotomy, namely
'formal equivalence', 'functional equivalence' and 'ideational equivalence’/ (2009: 7, 2011: 7-8, 2012: 45-
48).
 By and large, local strategies, such as cultural translation, paraphrasing, omission, addition, etc. lead to one
of the three types of equivalence: formal vs. functional vs. ideational equivalence ( see Baker 1992: 72-78).
 Let’s take the following English example: They are like two peas in a pod.
 Formal equivalence: focuses attention on the message in both form and content:‫هما متشابهانت شابه حبتينف ي‬
‫ق رنب ازالء‬
 Functional equivalence is obtained when special attention is paid to the function of the SL expression,
independently of the form and its image conjured up in the mind of the SL reader, it is a functional
equivalent‫هما ف ولة وانقسمت‬
 Ideational equivalence is when the interfacing languages conceptualize the world experience linguistically
in a similar way, giving rise to 'optimal equivalence' in which both formal and functional equivalents coincide
(see Baker 1992: 72; Farghal 2012: 47). ‫هما متشابهانت شابه ا لبيضة ب ا لبيضة‬
 Is Equivalence Achievable?
 Equivalence is by definition an approximation of the ST, the identical duplication of
which is indeed impossible in another language.
 Jakobson (1959) stresses the fact that there can be no full equivalence between two
words. He cites the example of cheese (similar to the Arabic word‫ ) جبن‬in English by
saying that it is not identical to the Russian syr – the concept of cottage cheese ( as the
case with the Arabic type of cheese‫ )جبنع*رب‬not being included in the latter.
 Gutt (1996) and, later, advocated by Farghal (2009: 7) holds that optimum translation
is unattainable, “hence the suggestion to replace the 'translation equivalence' with
'translation resemblance' in translation studies literature”.
 Even-Zohar (1975: 43 quoted in Toury 1995: 56) argues that any translation is
considered adequate (but not an exact translation of an ST) when it reflects “in the
target language the textual relationship of a source text with no breach of its own
linguistic system”.
 Equivalence & Indeterminacy
 The idea of indeterminacy was associated with the American Philosopher Quine where he claimed that “the one set of data can be

accounted for by more than one theory, and that there is no way to decide between the theories”. Thus any ST is relatively open to

more than one interpretation, consequently, leading to more than one TT. Quine posits a situation of 'radical translation', where there

has been no previous contact between the cultures concerned (he immediately admits that real life provides no such situations). To

exemplify his view, let’s take the example of the ‘class’ usually translated into Arabic as‫ص فاو ق اعة درس‬, however, if we check the realities

of what constitutes that class we come out with varieties of types or forms of class: classes built of mud (no desks or chairs), averaged

classes, technology supported classes, virtual classes (google class, etc.), or many others. The question now is: which class we are after

or could stand as an exact translation of the English word or vice versa. Quine's analysis locates degrees of certainty for various kinds of

propositions, but concludes that there can be no absolute determination of the translation. Similar to this example are the kinship terms

like aunt or uncle and their Arabic equivalents ‫ خا لة او عمة‬or ‫ خا لاو عم‬.

 Quine’s theory of indeterminacy has a strong connection with the hermeneutic theory based on interpretation.

 Chau (1984) summarizes the hermeneutic approach in terms of a few basic tenets. Since there is no truly objective understanding of a

text, no TT can fully represent its ST and all translations cannot but change the meaning of the ST. Chau claims that this general

approach makes the translator at once humble and more responsible, taking part in the active creation of a translation rather than

remaining a slave to illusions of necessary equivalence.

 Equivalence & Quality
There is a strong connection between equivalence and quality.
 Translation equivalence and translation quality can take different shapes, depending on: the client’s instructions &
needs (as encoded in the translation brief), the nature of the text (literary, scientific, legal, media, religious, etc. the text
type and function (informative, expressive, appellative, etc.) the person who evaluates the text (be it a translator,
translation teacher, translation critic, assessor, commissioner and so on as well as the ideology dominates thereof). For
example, given the different motivations for assessing the quality of a translation, a translation done for pedagogical
(class) purposes and another conducted to be published will be assessed differently and with different criteria.
 Though most often than not based on objective criteria, any translation assessment involves a subjective element, and
the assessor must keep it to the minimum. This means one cannot always guarantee the exact equivalence cross-
lingually.
 What is considered a correct equivalent by one person might not be so by another. So, here, one would not hesitate to
say that the appropriateness of equivalent would depend on the type of equivalent the translator tries to achieve along
with other factors.
 The quality of the equivalent word, phrase, expression, message , or text would be influenced by other factors, for
examples, the translator’s level of competence, the source text difficulty or complexity, the purpose of the translation,
the intended audience or readership, the publishing policy, and the translator’s social, religious and ideological
background. Professional issues such the translator’s fees or time allocated to finish the translation could count also
when it comes to evaluating the final product.
 Jakobson’s Theory of Equivalence
 The structuralist Roman Jakobson (1959) maintains that there are three kinds of
translation, that is, intralingual (rewording or paraphrasing within one language,
such as icy and chilly, or ‫)ي**بتاع ويشتري‬, interlingual (rewording or paraphrasing
between two languages, such a Macdonalized market = ‫س***وقت***طب*قا*س*ترا*تيجياتش**رك*ة‬
‫)ماكدونا**لد‬, and intersemiotic (rewording or paraphrasing between sign systems, like the
case in gesturing where waving one’s hand can be translated intersemiotically into
‘hi’).
 Jakobson adopted a linguistic approach, arguing that translation is possible despite
cultural or grammatical differences between SL and TL. He advocated the principle of
equivalence in difference as the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal
concern of linguistics. It means that “the translator recodes and transmits a message
received from another source; thus translation involves two equivalent messages
from two different codes”.
GOOD LUCK FOR YOU
ALL