Understanding Equivalence in Translation: Different Perspectives and Approaches, Slide di Teoria delle Traduzioni

Scarica Understanding Equivalence in Translation: Different Perspectives and Approaches e più Slide in PDF di Teoria delle Traduzioni solo su Docsity!

Translation Studies

5. The concept of

equivalence

Krisztina Károly, Spring, 2006 Sources: Baker, 1992; Klaudy, 2003

Equivalence

= “equal value” of the SL and TL text

(sense- and content-related identity)

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.

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

(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)

(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

(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

(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