11. Translation Equivalence

V. Ivir (1981) 'Formal Correspondence vs. Translation Equivalence Revisited', Poetics Today, 51-59

Ivir (1978) Teorija i tehnika prevođenja. Centar “Karlovačka gimnazija”

Chesterman, A. (1998) Contrastive Functional Analysis. J. Benjamins

Fawcett, P. (1997) Translation and Language. J. Benjamins

Munday, J. (2001) Introducing Translation Studies. Routledge

Marton (1968), Ivir (1978, 1970, 1991), Krzeszowsky (1071, 1972), Raabe (1972)

FC & TE:different though not unrelated concepts

FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE TRANSLATION EQUIVALENCE

- CA -metalanguage of TR

- role of FC in TR

- concerns the role of linguistics in translation

- TE in CA concerns the role of CA in translating

- concerns the place of linguistics in TR theory

Aim of paper:

place an role of CA & TR in FC place and role of CA & TR theory in

TE: both FC & TE are needed in TR and

CA

Main topics:

TE FC FC & TE in the Process of TR

(Model)

TRANSLATION EQUIVALENCE - views

TE as a product TE as a process

TE viewed as a TEXT / product

STATIC VIEW, i.e. linguistic view: TEXT as a unit of TR

TR - 'the replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another language

(TL)' - Catford 1965-20) 'rendition of a text from one language to another

(Bolinger 1966:130) TE holds between linguistic units (texts):

TLR's task - to find those units in SL and TL TR - also concerned with: textual features text structure (lower units) text typology (Bühler, Reiss, Nord)

TR viewed as a process

DYNAMIC VIEW, i.e. COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH = message as the basic unit of comunication

TR = substituting messages in one language for messages in another language' (Jakobson 1959:235), i.e.:

TR = 'reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the message of the source language (Nida 1969:495)

COMMUNICATIVE VIEW of TR:

TRANSLATION viewed: NOT as a static relationship between

texts in different languages BUT: TR as a product of the dynamic

process of communication between: the SENDER of the original message and the ULTIMATE RECEIVER of the translated

message via the TRANSLATOR, who is the receiver of the original message and

the sender of the translated message

MESSAGE = DEF:

'configurations of extralinguistic features communicated in a given situation' (Ivir 1981:52)

COMMUNICATION - as a PROCESS:

ORIGINAL SENDER starts from the extralinguistic features in the communicative situation

(extralinguistic content) relies on the resources of SL to express/convy these features depends on his own command of SL (age, sex, profession, education…) must assess the nature of sociolinguistic relationship between him and

his actual potential receivers CODES all the above to produce SL text

TRANSLATOR: the coded message reaches the TLR via the spatio-temporal channel decodes the SL message / text CODES THE MESSAGE AGAIN, relying on: The resources of the TL (linguistic nature) His command of the TL (linguistic person) His assessment of the relationship between him and the TL receiver

ULTIMATE RECEIVER receives and decodes the translated message restrictions & limitations

Key issue:

WHAT DOES / SHOULD REMAIN CONSTANT?

WHAT IS REVERTED TO? message rather than text

TRANSLATOR:

does not proceed directly from the SLT to TLT

goes back to the configuration of extralinguistic features of the SL message

re-codes the message produces a text in the TL (BUT in a new

and different communicative situation) for the benefit of the (ultimate), i.e. TL receiver

COMMENTS: (TR & TE):

1. TRANSLATOR'S job (TLR/SLsender vs TLR/TL receiver)

2. LOSSES in communicating the message

3. RELATIVITY OF communication (and translation):

1. TRANSLATOR'S job (TLR/SLsender vs TLR/TL receiver)

TLR's job: essentially not different from the job of other SL receiver of the message (in the normal process of comm.)

TLR's job in encoding the received message into Tl is not unlike the task performed by the original sender

only the communication situation is different (TLR/orig.sender) - TLR = a different linguistic person

TLR codes the message for different receivers than the original sender

2. LOSSES in communicating the message

Messages are not communicated absolutely (MODIFICATIONS):

a) modification of SLM in the process of coding: DEPENDS on:

structure, potential of SL sender's command of SL the intended audience

b) modification of SLM in the process of transmission ('noise in the channel')

c) modification in the process of decoding: receiver's command of TL (his SL) his ability to grasp the sender's message

MODIFICATIONS:

when TLR receives the original message

when TLR codes the message when the message passes through

the communicative channel/transmission

when the ULTIMATE RECEIVER decodes the message

3. RELATIVITY OF communication (and translation):

Ivir 1985: 'equivalence holds between messages (Sender - TLR - Receiver) which changes as little and as much as necessary to ensure communication'

Steiner 1975:47: 'An act of translation takes place each time that a text is produced as a coded expression of a particular configuration of extralinguistic features and is decoded to enable the receiver to receive the message'

EQ is matter of relational dynamics in a comm. act

EQ is realized only in an act of communication, not outside it

EQ only exists in communication, not separately

Cf.: e.g. phonemes (abstract unit of a

linguistic system): only exist (physically) within the speech act

in which they are realized each new realization is a product of

different speech act (comm. situation) e.g. a person's signature: no 'ideal

signature' - yet it is recognized as 'same' as long

as the characteristic features are presented - to ensure equivalence with any other realizations

FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE AND TRANSLATION

? Why FC: if TE is achieved at the level of

messages rather than linguistic units?

There is a sense in which FC holds together the SLT and TLT!

FC – definitions

Catford 1965: Identity of functions of correspondent

items in two linguistic systems A formal correspondent is ‘any TL

category which may be said to occupy, as nearly as possible, the same place in the economy of the TL as the given SL category occupies in the SL (1965:37)

Marton (1968), Krzeszowski (1971, 1972): concept of

congruence/equivalence: presence in any two languages of the

same number of equivalent formatives arranged in the same order (at highly abstract levels)

Krzeszowski 1972: Equivalence exists only between

‘sentences possessing identical deep structures’ (i.e. semantic representations of meaning) rather than those which were translations of each other

Equivalent sentences at the level of deep structure are also congruent, which later disappears in the derivational stages towards the surface structure

FC and congruence/equivalence = attempt at bringing linguistic units: of the SL and TL into some kind of

relationship for the purpose of contrasting

tertium comparationis provided by: identity of FUNCTION identity of MEANING

TR vs CA:

CA also deals with elements of two languages which stand in a translational relationship =

tertium comparationis based upon a common feature (form/function or meaning)

FC vs TC

FC: impossible without TC –

But: What can serve as TC?

TERTIUM COMPARATIONIS

1. independently described (unique) semantic system:

categories held constant linguistic expressions (in pairs of languages)

contrasted BUT: NO such system has yet been

proposed (lexical sematics?)2. common metalanguage in describing both SL

and TL3. The concept of TE – necessary to arrive at FC

for contrastive purposes

2. Common metalanguage (?):

provides categories to hatch the appropriate parts of the two systems

if descriptions are matchable – Contrasting:

mapping one description upon the other to establish the degree of fit

BUT: ling. descriptions of NO two languages meet this requirement

Catford:

no such FC exists even betwwen closely related pairs of languages

no/hardly any category in SL that performs the same FUNCTION in TL

the probability of substitutability decreases with typological and genetic distance

Krezsowski:

deep structure – a notion from metalanguage - is far from clear

e.g. ‘transformations’ and their meaning preserving nature – not clear

3. The concept of TEThe concept of TE – necessary to arrive at FC for

contrastive purposes: CA begins with sentences which are

obviously translation pairsBUT: TE rests upon and holds between messages

and not linguistic units !!! To find the necessary TC we must go beyond

equivalenceFC – a good candidate for tertium comparationis

TWO APPROACHES TO FC:

language-based text-based

- system-based

- one-to-one relationship

between correspondents

- equivalence-based- one-to-many correspondence- dependent on each particular communicative situation- never hatched in totality- match: only in those of their meanings with which they participate in the particular SLT and TLT

FC – TE – TC (examples)

e.g. 1 HR – instrumental case: ENGL. 1. prep.:

with by on through acros along in

2. subject position o the N in question 3. plural of the N in question 4. adv. –ly 5. etc.

NB: different correspondents stand for different meanings of the CRO instrumental case:

with /instrument/ rezati nožem (cut with the knife) /company/ doći s nekim (come with someone)

by /means of transp./ doći vlakom (come by train) on /time/ muzej zatvoren utorkom (on Tuesday) plural N /time/ (Tuesdays) in /place/ šetati parkom (walk in the park) through /place) prolaziti šumom (walk through the forest) across / place/ prelaziti poljem walk across the field) along /place/ ići cestom (walk along the road) subject N /place/ pijev ptica odzvanja šumom (the forest

resounded with the chirping of birds) Ø case ovim kjučem mogu se otvoriti sva vrata

(this key will open all the doors) adv. –ly /manner/ s indignacijom (indignantly)

Notes:

1. FC for (instrumental in CRO) – in all translationally equivalent texts

2. FC establishes a list of formal ling. elements each of which corresponds not to CRO instrumental as acategory but to some particular aspect of menaing

3. Pedagogical implications – (for the learner)

4. One-to-many relationship – not only in contrasting BUT also in one and the same language (/time/, /on Monday/Mondays)

CONTRASTIVE LINGUISTICS & ANALYSISTRANSLATION EQUIVALENCE vs FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE

TR: replacing something in SL for something in TL that is equivalent to SL.

What is replaced? linguistic forms ? texts ? messages in communication ?

Indisputable: replacing must ensure equivalence!

EQUIVALENCE: key-issue in TR

replaceability of linguistic forms / texts ?

replaceability depends on factors of a particular communicative situation (e.g. M1 vs L1; M2 vs L2, extralinguistic information, S vs L1, R vs L2; S vs TLR vs R, non-linguistic factors)

THEREFORE:

TE should be looked upon NEITHER as a relationship between

linguistic units of two linguistic systems or their parts,

NOR as a simplified transformation of SLT into TLT under some unidirectional rules.

(Ivir 1976:89)

such relationships (ling. forms and texts) are accounted for by formal correspondence (FC), not translation equivalence (TE)

FC vs TE ?

FC is established on the level of linguistic systems

TE is established on the level of communicative situations

FC: the relationship between a linguistic unit in L1 and its corresponding unit in L2, i.e. the one that in the TL system occupies the same place as the L1 unit does within the SL system (Catford 1965)

FC of units which are given the same name (category) in the (meta)language – language used to describe the two linguistic systems; e.g.: FC between English and Croatian tenses

or a single tense, aspect (CRO – Rus, Engl. Poss. Adj. And

Cro Poss. Adj. …) = tertium comparationis

TC: tertium comparationis – the category/term that holds together the units of the two linguistic systems; a pre-requisite for CA: Pairing of those elements or categories of

two language systems which possess some common formal or semantic property;

to be comparable, there must be a third means against which the two are compared - tertium comparationis

Tertium Comparationis may be:

any formal or semantic feature (e.g. eventual – eventualan; kandidat – candidate/applicant);

any grammatical feature: locative in Cro vs. corresponding categories in English (e.g. prep. Phrase and nominative subject: U kovčegu …/ In the suitcase / This suitcase will …); progressive tense = aspect in Cro; possessive = dative in Cro; definite article = Cro word order

same semantic content used as TC (possessive adjective = possessive adjective / reflexive / personal pronoun / ø correspondent / :

e.g.: I took his advice – Primio sam njegov

savjet He took his books – Uzeo je svoje knjige You’ve endangered his life – Ugrozili ste

mu život He shrugged his shoulders – Slegnuo je

ramenima.

Contrastive analysis A thorough CA should specify all the

conditions under which one particular linguistic element or grammatical category is selected – sometimes a very complex procedure

CA – examines the extent to which L1 and L2 differ or agree according to form, syntactic function/behaviour and meaning

APPLICATION OF CA: CA – useful in explaining TR process between

any pair of languages and therefore useful for the theory and practice of TR

CA – useful in producing bilingual dictionaries CA – useful to produce bilingual lists/manuals

of contrastive grammatical structures between any two languages, also specifying the conditions for selecting a particular structure or item

CA studies the categories of one language against the corresponding categories of the other language

The relationship between CA and TR is reciprocal:

CA TR & TR CA However, CA ≠ TR and TR ≠ CA:

CA studies the elements in two languages undergoing a reciprocal TR relationship. These elements are the elements of comparison (TC)

CA, though using TR and serving TR, is not the same as TR, and TR is to the same as CA.

Back-translation as a test on FC

RULE 1: any Formal Correspondent is necessarily a potential Translational Equivalent

RULE 2: Any Translational Equivalent is not necessarily a Formal Correspondent

Ivir 1993

“Since TE takes place on the level of message, within the communicative act, and FC occurs on the level of linguistic units in the text, it can be inferred that TR (i.e. realisation of TE) is not a one-directional process of transforming units of one language into FC units of another”;

TRANSLATION PROCESS:

TR involves a complex a multi-directional relationship between: the message and its encoded form, TLR’s decoding and acceptance of the

message, its re-encoding into TL, and finally decoding by the ultimate receiver.

THEREFORE, in a communicative situation / act, equivalence is often realised into linguistic units which are NOT formal correspondents to the un its in SL.

FC is tested by back-TR, i.e. FCs are only those units of a translated text

which can be back-translated into the units that existed in SL text.

Back-TR translation must be literal, not free, i.e. the semantic content of the linguistic units must be preserved:

They lived on the same block Živjeli su u istoj ulici. (TE) – equivalency on the

message level (US urban feature, close & intimate neighbourhood)

Živjeli su u istom bloku (FC) – cultural element is lost: (back-translation): They lived on the same street

TOTAL vs PARTIAL CORRESPONDENCE:

‘one-to-one correspondence’ (total: between formal units via TC)

‘one-to-many correspondence’ (partial: established through text, i.e. textual correspondents correspond to each other only in those meanings/senses which they contribute to the particular text)

Role of FC in TR

FC established by CA of linguistic units in the texts of two languages represents the linguistic component in the communicative theory of translation

Levels of contrastive analysis

phonological morphological syntactic lexical / semantic pragmatic cognitive textual

II

TRANSLATION EQUIVALENCE TR: - a procedure involved in conveying /

transfer of EXT.LING. information between participants not sharing a common

ling. code ASSUMPTION: one and the same

EXT.LING. content can be coded in a number of ling. expressions

equivalence can be achieved between different expressions (within the same lang. and among different languages) of the same EXT.LING. content

The concept of EQUIVALENCE

-in the focus of any communic. theory of TR

goal and objective of any translation Assumption: - L1 TEXT (SLT)

equivalent to L2 TEXT (TLT) a fact admitted by all theories also intuitively felt & known by common

people

TE & THEORIES OF TR - dichotomy (throughout history):

linguistic theories - based on the EQ relations between

linguistic units in SL and TL communicative theories

based on the EQ of information / messages in SL and TL -

search for ling. means in TL to express the ext. ling. content in SL

TLR - acts as the Sender and chooses in TL the most adequate ling. expression to convey the ext.ling. content and intent

The dichotomy - present in theory and practice of TR: i.e. in dilemmas such as:

LINGUISTIC COMMUNICATIVE literal vs. freeexact (SL-oriented) vs. natural (TL-

oriented)semantic (opaque) vs. communicative

(transparent)faithful vs. elaborated, neat

(poetry, art)

REALISTIC APPROACH:

combination of I and II (renouncing on extremes)

'some of the best translations: between literal TR and paraphrase'

(Vinay - Darbelnet 1958 - Stylistique comparée du français et de l'anglais)

EQUIVALENCE vs (UN)TRANSLATABILITY

linguistically: TR is impossible: (no equivalence among formal linguistic units of two

different languages because of different ling. organisation (different systems in

SL and TL) except in the sense of formal correspondence (Catford) FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE: formal correspondent' any TL category which may be

said to occupy, as nearly as possible, the same place in the economy of TL as the given SL category occupies in the SL' (Catford 1965:32-34)

BUT: Do such categories function in the same way (within each system) both in SL and TL?

formal correspondence vs translation equivalence: FC - established at the level of language systems TE - established at the level of the extralinguistic content

communicatively: EQ is possible only indirectly: NOT through the linguistic units

(words, sentence, text/Catford) BUT through the extralinguistic

situation

TRANSLATION, i.e. ensuring equivalence, therefore is:

NOT a simple transformation of SL TEXT into a translated TEXT according

to unidirectional rules of formal-semantic correspondence

BUT a process involving multidirectional relationships between:

the INFORMATION (extralinguistic content) and its linguistic form (in SL),

translator's decoding (receipt) of the message translator's re-coding of the SL message in the TL, and final decoding of the TRANSLATOR's message by the

ultimate receiver in theTL (cf. Ivir 1992) impact of the communication channel(s)

TR: a dynamic process of constant reverting to the ext.ling. content within the

influence of all the factors of elastic tension of the requirements on equivalence in the communication process

EQ: a dynamic relationship in a communicative act (EQ only exists in a comm. act)

cf. phoneme vs their realization in speech (allophones)

cf. a person's signature

CONDITIONS OF EQUIVALENCE

Leipzig school of the theory of TR: linguistic appr. to EQ

Nida 1964, 1969, 1977 - 'dynamic equivalence' - established by finding the

'closest natural equivalent' in the TL for the message contained in the SL

ensuring the 'equivalence in difference' (Jakobson 1959)

Dynamic equivalence

established at the level of ext. ling. content in a communicative act,

NOT - at the level of ling. units BUT: - linguistic units of SL and TL

also enter some kind of a relationship: i.e. the relationship of - formal

correspondence

The relationship of formal

correspondence: a) Catford: identity of linguistic forms/units between

two languages Tert. Comp. : functional identity of formal

categories in two ling. systems WHY IMPOSSIBLE ??? (an, independently

described, semantic system whose categories are constant - T. comparat. - whereas their ling. expressions in pairs of language would be contrastes)

BUT: no such system has yet been proposed!

b) common metalanguage: by which both SL and TL would be described to the same degree of exhaustiveness - this metalanguage should supply CATEGORIES in terms of which the appropriate parts of the two systems would be contrasted - matchable descriptions = contrasting would consist simply in mapping one description upon thenother to establish the degree of fit.

WHY IMPOSSIBLE ??? - the description of no two languages meet this requirement

FC- as described by Catford hardly exist (only simple / exemplary sent. - on deep structure level) - BUT:

status of DS and meaning-preserving nature of transformations are far from clear;

it is hard to find categories that would perform the 'same' function in two ling. systems - such probability decreases with typological and genetic distance

c) return to TE for the search of a suitable TERTIUM COMPARATIONIS for contrastive purposes

Nida/Ivir: identity of function / meaning in two texts (SLT and TLT) - we must go beyondequivalence to findthe necessary TC : FC is a good candidate, but a FC defined NOT as referring to linguistic systems BUT with reference to TRANSLATIONALLY EQUIVALENT TEXTS:, I.E.: all those isolable elements of linguistic form which occupy identical positions (i.e serve as formal carriers of identical units of meaning) in their respective (translationally equivalent) texts.

TE: is text-based (performance-parole)

formal correspondents stand in ONE-TO-ONE relationship of correspondence

formal correspondents stand in ONE-TO-MANY relationships i.e. one formal element in TL (=carrier of a specific meaning)

may have one or more different formal elements (carriers of the SAME meaning) in TL

Only such formal correspondents are relevant for the translator in the re-coding of the Message into the

TR process = matching formal elements (=carriers of meaning) in SL with all the formal elements (=carriers of meaning) in TL

BUT: only those textual formal correspondents which are carriers of adequate meanings are taken in the translation in TLT.

in the process of this matching: - parts of the meaning of SL formal element may be /are lost connotations of the chosen element cannot be excluded

alltogether

Therefore: a set of formal correspondents does NOT yield

equivalence BUT - an inventory of semantic content of the original

text The TRANSLATOR chooses from the above set and

combines those formal elements which will produce in the TL 'the closest natural equivalent' for the original message.

NATURAL (?) - in order to be equivalent (i.e. be a natural expression of the

communication situation in TL - because it so functioned in the SL comm. sit.)

CLOSEST (?) - because relativity of any comm. act excludes absolute equivalence

When deciding on transfer into a TL the TLR must:

accept the untranlatability of a SL phrase in TL on the linguistic level

accept the lack of a similar cultural convention in TL for the one in SL

consider the range of TL phrases available and make a choice:

class / status / age / sex of a speaker / speaker’s relationship to the listeners / context of their meeting in Tl, etc.

consider the meaning of a particular content replace / substitute in the TL the ‘invariant core’ of the

SL phrase (concerning system of text & system of culture (functional view)

(‘invariant core’ – stable, basic, constant semantic element in the text)

SUBSTITUTION:

NOT on the basis of linguistic elements of the phrase

NOT on the basis of coresponding or similar image in the phrase

BUT on the FUNCTION (semantic / cultural / sicioling.) of the idiom ON CONDITION - that the subsitutes serve

the SAME PURPOSE

TYPES OF EQUIVALENCE (Popovič 1970):

1. linguistic - correspondence on the linguistic level (word-for-word TR)

2. paradigmatic – EQ on the paradigmatic axis (elem. of grammar)

3. stylistic - functional EQ. of SL & TL text – aiming at an expressive identity (with an invariant of identical meaning)

4. textual / syntagmatic EQ. – of form and shape in the syntagm. structuring of the text

TRANSLATION, therefore, involves

the REPLACEMENT of: lexical elements between two

languages grammatical elements, and also

BEYOND 1. & 2.: the expressive identity between SLT

and TLT may even involve moving away from 1 & 2 (e.g.: idioms, metaphor)

FORMAL EQUIVALENCE:

focuses on the message itself in bot a) for & b)

content, i.e. on correspondences such as (SL-bound TE):

sentence to sentence concept to concept poem to poem (text to text)

DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE:

based on the principle of EQUIVALENT EFFECT = the inter-relationship between the Sender , the TLR, and the Receiver of the Message

the relationship between the R and TRL should aim to be the same as that between the orig Receivers and the SL message

overall equivalence:

= relationship betwee signs and what they stand for and those who use them e.g. swearing: ‘porca Madonna’

(blashemous – untranslatable) ‘fucking hell’ (pragmatic TR: to

produce the same SHOCKING effect) e.g. letter writing: (woman to a friend):

‘with love’ (in 1812 vs. 1998)

Concl. 1:

‘To ask for the SAMENESS is ‘perverse’, i.e. - asking too much’ (Snell-Hoenby 1988)

Concl 2: EQUIVALENCE IN TR

should NOT be approached as a search for the sameness: i.e. linguistic, paradigmatic, stylistic, & textual) – a goal impossible to articulate even within the same language,

BUT (b) as adialiectic between the signs and the structures within and

surronding SLT and TLT Neubert: One should look upon TR as (i) a

process and (ii) as a product – therefore there is a need for a theory of equivalence relations

ABSENCE OR LACK OF TR EQUIVALENCE:

in puns, word-plays, idioms, metaphor (i.e culture-bound concepts)

e.g. beat about the bush: - is to be translated by idioms in TL:

IT: ‘Giovanni sta menando il can per l’aia’ <avoid talking about smtg embarassing> E: ‘John is leading his dog around the

threshing floor’ - literal TR (meaningless)

E: ‘John is beating about the bush’ (dog) - communic. TR

HR ‘Ivan se ponaša kao mačak oko vruće kaše’

e.g. bathroom E: Where is the bathroom? (US restaurant) HR: Gdje je kupaonica? - literal TR (underTR) HR: Gdje je WC?

e.g. HR: Dobar tek. E: 0-TR IT: Buon apetito.

e.g. (greeting on arrival and departure) HR: Dobra večer. … …Hvala. Doviđenja E: Good evening. … … Thanks. (Good-bye) IT: Buona sera. … … Grazie. Buona sera.

e.g. (greeting at 11.10) E: Good morning HR: Dobar dan (‘Dobro jutro!’ sarcastic, comic

effect)

European Translation Studies, une science qui dérange, and Why Equivalence Needn’t Be a Dirty Word    © Anthony Pym 2000  First version published in TTR 8/1 (1995), 153-176.