1

Equivalence (Jakobson/Nida/Newmark/Koller) No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality: Edward Sapir Equivalence: a complicated and contentious concept. Some initial considerations: Equivalence neednt be sameness, isomorphism, but can also be equality of values (equi-valence); Languages are the same, but values can be the same. Nida: Translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the SL message. Natural equivalence: Malone, Vinay & Darbelnet: all concerned basically with natural, linguistic equivalence (cane=dog; cream= (diffuses into) panna/ crema, etc.) and recommend various strategies to obtain it, from very literal, one-on-one moves to reordering and modification. Is lentement the natural equivalent of slow? Or should it be ralentir? Directional equivalence: Vinay and Darbelnet also look at directional equivalence which is chosen by the translator and not dictated by the ST, and they give as equivalents of, e.g. cyclisme not cycling but 1) cricket (G.B.) and 2) baseball (US). These are dichotemised poles: we chose which aspects to render into TL. Directional equivalence in particular can hide an ideological, domesticating agenda (we linguistically colonise the French by making them play cricket, etc.). All presumption of symmetry means we are forgetting Sapir-Whorf, and presuming the world is like ourselves: or, worse, deliberately making it like ourselves. Solution? Venuti would say resistancy and foreignisation. Sometimes translation is horizontal, from SL > TL, and sometimes vertical (cf. Nidas 3part transfer diagram), when ST meaning is broken down into non-verbal kernels, when we listen to the sense (Danica Seleskovitch), deverbalise, and translate this basic, kernel meaning, the tertium comparationis, up into the new TT.

Nida, Newmark, Koller begin to look less at linguistic equivalents and consider different types of equivalence in context, e.g. : What is the natural equivalent of the Spanish bad luck day, Martes 13: -- the literal linguistic equivalent, Tuesday 13, or the functional, pragmatic equivalent, Friday 13 in G.B. and venerdi 17 in Italy? The natural equivalent of dressing in black, as a sign of mourning, in a culture where that colour is traditionally white? The natural equivalent of (Nidas famous e.g.) the lamb of God in a culture which has never seen a lamb? Etc.. 1

I. Meaning and equivalence were seminal concepts, central to Translation Studies in 50s and 60s (for 2 decades) - the Linguistic Turn. Attempts were made too be more systematic than simply the free/literal binary opposition. Some pairings: Literal/faithful Reader-to-writer Alienation Foreignization Formal Semantic quivalenz Free Writer-to-reader Naturalization Domestication Dynamic Communicative Korrespondenz

What has to be equivalent? word? Message? Invariant core? What text unit do we translate?word? phrase ? sentence? Unit of translation (the linguistic level at which ST is recodified in TL: word? Phrase? Sentence? Paragraph ? Nida talks of Meaningful mouthfuls of language; Vinay & Darbelnet of Lexicological unit (e.g. tout de suite = immediately) or units of thought (all those involved in the disaster). II. Jakobson, On linguistic aspects of translation (1959) 1) Intralingual translation, rewording (interpretation of verbal signs through other signs in the same language)*, paraphrase: substituting code-units 2) Interlingual. Interpretation of verbal signs through some other language. Translator recodes and transmits messages received from another source. 2 equivalent messages in 2 different codes. Translation = substituting messages in one language not for separate code-units, but for entire messages in some other language. (interlingual transposition) 3) Intersemiotic, transmutation (interpretation of verbal signs through non-verbal sign system): novel-to-film, poem-to-music, etc. Follows Saussure: signifier / signified arbitrary. Equivalence, then? Adequate transference, but no true equivalence, even with synonyms: e.g. Russian syr, butter/burro, etc. Equivalence in difference is the central problem of language (& translation). Differences centre round compulsory grammar & lexis: Languages differ essentially in what they must convey, not what they may convey: language differences in obligatory grammatical/lexical forms e.g. gender (house feminine in most Romance lang.s, neutral in German and English; aspect of verb Russian distinguishes between completed action or not, etc.; level of semantic field: fratelli, Geschwister, siblings, brothers and sisters, hijas (Spanish) if both female, etc.(p.37 Munday) If grammar wont translate something, lexis will. How to decode/recode? How to get equivalence given non-isomorphism of most languages and cultures: Shall I compare thee to a summers day?: but if summer is bad? (Albert Neubert); equivalence of idioms: unaltro paio di maniche another pair of sleeves another kettle of fish. Not linguistic equivalence, but functional. Cf. also Say when?.

3 III. Jakobson: Everything is translatable (universalist). Understand ambrosia tho never drunk it. Use loans, neologisms, or semantic shifts. In new literary language of Northern Siberian Chukchees; screw = rotating nail; chalk = writing soap; watch = hammering heart. First Russian word for plane = flying steamship. These do not impede communication, just as there is no sematic noise and disturbance in the double oxymoron cold beef-and-pork hot dog. (On Linguistic Aspects of translation 59) IV. J. functions on level of word. Move towards larger unit of meaning in Eugene Nida: Towards a Science of Translation (64); Nida & Charles Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden, 1969). Translation theory underwent a quantum leap with Eugene Nida (Munday) Moves away from idea that a word has a fixed meaning, towards the functional meaning in context. Hello: French: a va? Hallo German: wie gehts? hallo Italian: ol, pronto, ciao English: hi, hello, how are you Italian Ciao. Phone? Face to face? Arrival or departure? Like Jakobson, universalist: Anything which is said in one language can be said in another, unless the form is an essential element of the message. Pragmatic focus on communicative requirements of text receiver and purpose of translation without losing sight of communicative preferences of original message producer or function of original text. V. 3-stage Transfer model (SL analysis TRANSFER - RESTRUCTURING RECEPTOR LANGUAGE see Munday: 40) Nida: It is both scientifically and practically more efficient to reduce the ST to its structurally simplest and most semantically evident kernels, to retransfer the meaning from SL to receptor L on a structurally simple level, and to generate the stylistically and semantically equivalent expression in the Receptor L (Nida, 64). Borrows from Chomskys generative-transformative model (kernels) (Aspects of the Theory of Syntax). All lang.s have 6-8 deep-structure kernels common to all languages, vehicle of meaning. Basic structural elements out of which language builds its elaborate surface structures. Translator analyses SL into simplest, structurally clear forms (kernels), transfers message mentally at kernel level; reconfigures SL ready for TL; restructures message in TL, making sure has same impact (cf. pigs). Translator transfers / transforms them through 1. literal transfer 2. minimal transfer 3. literary transfer

4 Dynamic equivalence. Munday 41. BUT: Ambiguity? Different cultures Nidas linguistic techniques for disambiguation : I Semantic structure analysis: to decide whats core meaning, whats not. 1. non-correspondence of semantic field. A. Spanish email, invitation to conference: we expect you will attend Esperar: covers wider semantic field. Hope/want/expect/look forward to. Esperar | \ \ 1. To wish but not nec. with expectation 2. to wish 3. to wish/require, strong expectation 4.to await eagerly 1. = to hope 2. =to want 3.=to expect 4. = to look forward to (cf Italian: aspettare. Aspettiamo una vostra risposta. Expecting a baby) Disambiguate through context or co-text. Cf. Bassnett spirit diagram e.g. 2. to disambiguate 2 homonyms (same form, different meaning). Monte Cassino: Der Abt ist im Kloster. Abt (abbot) read as short for Abteilung (battalion), trans. battalion in monastery, and Allies bombed). II Hierarchical structuring & componential analysis: Where the problem is to find word on same level; to examine basic meaning of word and contrast with other terms in same field. e.g. family: grandmother, cousin, in-law, according to number, gender, generation, linearity (direct ancestor or not/male-female): mostly irrelevant in European languages (but NB nipote/nipotino) but vital in many others. e.g. generic verb: move hyponyms : walk run skip hop crawl walk : march, stroll Analyse into component parts, then decide on the definitions below: 1. 2. 3. 4. Kidnap/abduct/hijack Table/desk/worktop/bench Fond/attached/devoted Detached house/semi-(detached house)/flat/maisonette/studio/bedsit

5 1. a) To steal a person, often for ransom b) remove a person by force or fraud, to kidnap c) to stop and steal a vehicle; to steal in transit; to force a driver to take a vehicle to the hijackers chosen destination 2. a) an article of furniture consisting of a flat top on legs, pillars or trestles for use at meals, work, play, etc. b) a sloping or flat table for reading or writing, often fitted with drawers; a pulpit or lectern c a surface designed to be to be used for working on, or fitted e.g. on top of kitchen units d) long seat or form with or without a back, a work-table 3. a) foolishly loving (arch.), very affectionate; kindly disposed b) feeling affection or fidelity towards c) attached as by a vow; strongly attached to; zealous 4. a) a house standing alone, unconnected to other buildings b) a house which is partly separated; joined by a party wall to one other house only c) a set of rooms for living which are part of a larger building, usually on one floor d) small apartment on two levels which is part of a larger building but has its own entrance e) small apartment designed to be lived in by one or two people, comprising usually one large room for living and sleeping, a bathroom and possibly separate kitchen f)rented, furnished room with galley-kitchen or incorporated cooking-area. Bachelor: +human +male married OR +human +male/female +university degree III How to assess connotative meaning. St. Johns gospel: Gk. gunai trans. woman (King James), which Nida translates mother: positive connotation. Posits a cline: 5 4 3 2 1 Good bad Strong weak (where to place adolescent/teenager, daughter/girl, domestic animal/pet?) *** Nidas definition of dynamic equivalence: A pragmatic focus on the communicative requirements of the text receiver and purpose of translation without losing sight of the communicative preferences of original message producer or function of original text. True? How does he achieve it? Nidas 3-stage Transfer model A (SL) (analysis) X (transfer) B (receptor language) (restructuring) Y

A (SL) Hello Friendly greeting on arrival

B Ciao! decision to distinguish: phone?tu/lei etc. 5

(transfer) Y

Chomskys generative-transformative model (kernels) (Aspects of the Theory of Syntax). 6-8 deep-structure kernels common to all languages. Basic structural elements for all language production, surface structures. Get kernels from ST structure by reductive back-transformation, using 4 functional classes of generative-transformational grammar: Events (often verbs) Objects (often nouns) Abstracts (often adjectives, quantities, qualities) Relationals (including gender, prepositions, conjunctions) e.g. creation of the world: B, world, object, is the goal of A, event, creates e.g. la sconfitta del Lazio: B, Lazio, object, victim of A, event, loses Translator analyses SL into simplest, structurally clear forms (kernels), transfers message mentally at kernel level; reconfigures SL ready for TL; restructures message in TL, making sure has same impact. Scientific & practical (Nida) Translator transfers / transforms them through 4. literal transfer 5. minimal transfer 6. literary transfer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Greek ST: egeneto anthropos, apestalmenos para theou, onoma auto Ioannes Literal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Became/happened man, sent from God, name to-him John Minimal transfer 1 2 There came/was a man Literary transfer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John Or: A man 2, named 6 John 7/8, was sent 3 by 4 God 5 (N.T. in Modern English) (Less formal, different effect) OR: Paradise Lost, VII, 319-321) Forth flourished thick the clustering vine, forth crept 6 3 4 5 6 7 8 sent from God, whose name was John

7 The swelling gourd: up stood the corny reed, Embattled in the field. Literal: rigogliosa fiori la vite a grappoli, striscio fuori La zucca crescente; si raddrizzo lo stelo di grano Schierato in campo. Literary (Lazzaro Papi, 1829): Di fior s'adoma La racemosa vite, e lenta striscia La tumida cucurbita: schierate Rizzansi in campo Ie granose ariste. (Baldi, reason for preferring Papi: 'ci sembrata la piu originale, poeticamente quindi la piu vicina a Milton, nonostante tutte Ie sue infedelt letterali') *** Nida: Formal and dynamic equivalence (his equivalent of literal / free) Since there are, in translating, no such things as identical equivalents, one must seek to find the closest possible. However, there are fundamentally 2 different types: one which may be called formal, and another, which is primarily dynamic. Nida. Dynamic: based on what he calls equivalent effect, where 'the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message' (Nida '64) TT and TCulture oriented; the foreignness of ST is minimized. 'Dynamic equivalence in translation is far more than mere correct communication of information' (Nida) A translation of dynamic equivalence aims at complete naturalness of expression, and tries to relate the receptor to modes of behaviour relevant within the cultural patterns of his own culture; it does not insist that he understand the cultural patterns of the SL context. ..One of the modern English translations which perhaps more than any other seeks for equivalent effects is J.B. Phillips rendering of the NT. In Romans 16:16 he quite naturally translates greet one another with an holy kiss as give one another a hearty handshake all round. During the past 50 yrs there has been a marked shift from the formal to the dynamic dimension. (1964) WHEREAS "Formal equivalence focuses all the attention on the message itself, in both form and content... One is concerned that the message in the receptor language should match as closely as possible the different elements in the source language. The type of translation which most completely typifies this structural equivalence might be called a gloss translation in which the translator attempts to reproduce as literally and meaningfully as possible the form and content of the original. E.g. a rendering of some Medieval French text into English, intended for students of early French literature not requiring a knowledge of the original language. Their needs call for a relatively close approximation to the structure of the early French text, both as to form (e.g. syntax and idioms) and content (e.g. themes and concepts). Such as translation would require numerous footnotes to make the text fully comprehensible Typically, formal correspondence distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language, and hence distorts the message, so as to cause the receptor to misunderstand or to labor unduly hard'.

8 NB Fawcetts comment: The use of formal equivalents might at times have serious implications in the TT since the translation will not be easily understood by the target audience. (Fawcett, Nida: the success of a translation depends on achieving equivalent response. For this there are 4 basic requirements: making sense conveying spirit and manner of original natural, easy form of expression producing similar response If a conflict arises between content and form: 'correspondence in meaning must have priority over correspondence in style. DISCUSSION of Nida: Virtues: moved from word-for-word, purely linguistic approach to a receptor-based theory. Vices: Still too focused on word level still (Andre Lefevere, 1993: Translating Literature.Practice and Theory); equivalent effect considered 'impossible to measure (van den Broeck) and 'Inoperant if text is out of TL space and time' (Newmark); How can it elicit equivalent response in different cultures / times? Qian Hu ('93): difficulty with cultural references: cf famous hearty handshake;'Inoperant if text is out ofTL space and time' (Newmark); Edwin Gentzler (deconstructionist): Nidas aim to convert all readers / cultures to dominant discourse of Protestant Christianity.

*** PETER NEWMARK: Approaches to Translation (81) A Textbook of Translation (88): semantic and communicative. Much practical good sense and many good examples, but less influential than Nida; prescriptive. Departs from Nida's receptor-orientation; considers a full equivalent effect 'illusory'; the conflict of loyalties, the gap between emphasis on source and target language will always remain as the overriding problem in translating theory into practice. Instead of Nidas formal and dynamic he posits semantic and communicative. Communicative translation: cf. Nidas dynamic equivalence. To produce on the T reader an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original. Semantic translation : cf. Nidas formal equivalence. Attempts to render, as closely as semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact meaning of the original. NOT literal: it respects context, interprets, explains (e.g. metaphors) BUT: The literal is the best approach: In communicative as in semantic translation the literal word-for-word translation is not only the best, it is the only valid method of translation. (81).

9 His objection: there can be no real equivalent effect: equivalent effect is inoperant if the text is out of TL space and time e.g. modern translation of Homer? The Scarlet Letter?. And readers shouldnt be handed everything on plate. Parameter Transmitter/addresse Focus Culture Time & origin semantic translation Focus on thought processes of the transmitter; should only help TT reader with connotations if seminal to message Stays within SL culture (cf foreignisation) communicative translation Subjective, TT reader focused, oriented to specific language & culture Transfers foreign elements into the TL culture Ephemeral: rooted in own contemporary context May be better than ST; gain of force v.loss of semantic fidelity Respect for SL form, but ultimate loyalty to TL norms Smoother, simpler, more conventional/referential: tendency to undertranslate. Vast majority of texts: non-literary, technical, informative texts, publicity, popular fiction Accuracy of communication of whole ST message in TT

Not fixed in any time/local space: translation needs to be successively redone Relation to ST Always inferior; loss of meaning Use of SL norms If SL norms deviate, this must be reproduced in TT; loyalty to ST author TL form More complex, awkward, nonnormative. other; detailed, tendency to overtranslation. Appropriateness: field of Serious literature, autobiography, application personal effusion, all authoritative statement Evaluation criteria Accuracy of reproduction of ST meaning & significance

Discussion of Newmark: his terms received less discussion than Nidas, prob because very similar, and both stress TT reader . Aware that text-type and function of the translation can decide the type of equivalence. Prescriptive and pre-linguistic, but provides lots of good e.gs. *** Equivalence (Contd.; see also Munday & Hatim, Translation: An Advanced Resource Book) Translation as a practice shapes, and takes shape within, the asymmetrical relations of power that operate under colonialism(Naranjana, 1992). After Nida. Nida was very influential on German theorists 70s/80s: Wolfram Wilss, Leipzig School (Otto Kade, Albert Neuber), & Werner Koller. Nidas scientific approach congenial to them. Publications in 79 emphasize science of translation: cf.: Koller: Einfhrung in die bersetzungswissenschaft 79; Research into the Science of Translation 79

10 Examines concept of Equivalence (Aquivalenz) & related term Correspondence (Korrespondenz). Equivalence: Langue: equivalence in language systems: contrastive linguistics, (Saussures Langue): identifying false friends, syntax interference, etc. Correspondence: Parole: specific ST-TT pairs, actual language of those partic texts. Knowledge of Correspondence is the mark of a good linguist; of Equivalence, a good translator. Koller basically concerned with Equivalence (Parole). But what /which/where/what level? Sees equivalence as process constrained by texts DOUBLE LINKAGE: to ST & TT: a) potentially conflicting SL/TL linguistic factors, textual & extra-textual, b) communicative conditions on receivers side: historical-cultural conditions in which texts & their translations are produced / received. What has to be equivalent? How? Linguistic/textual units of TT are equivalent if correspond to ST elements in some or all of following: Kollers different types of equivalence: 1. Denotative, referential equivalence: when SL /TL words refer to exactly same thing in real world: (Sapir-Whorf!) Koller: some call this content invariance/tertium comparationis. 2. Connotative equivalence: SL/TL triggering same associations: Koran, coffee, summers day, river (Hoffman, Lost in Translation). 3. Text-normative equivalence: different texts behaving in similar or different ways (Reiss, Ch. 5) 4. Pragmatic equivalence: when translation aimed to have same effect on respective readers: (Newmarks communicative, Nidas dynamic). Say when dimmi se basta. Chien mchant, beware of the dog). 5. Formal equivalence: In purest form, the rare case in which SL/TL signifiers happen to have same orthography or phonology: caff French /Italian. More generally, equivalence of form/aesthetics, word-play. S.t. called expressive equivalence (expressive form of lang.). Nidas formal, Newmarks semantic. Not all these variables are relevant to every situation: translators have to decide, & prioritise: with every text, and every segment of text, the translator who consciously makes such a choice (1-5 above) must set up a hierarchy of values to be preserved in translation: from this he (sic)= can derive a hierarchy of equivalence requirements. This in turn must be preceded by a translationally relevant text-analysis. e.g. from Munday & Hatim, 50-51: I had wanted for years to get Mrs Thatcher in front of my camera. As she got more powerful she got sort of sexier. (Newsweek) TL= Arabic. 1. formal (NB order inverted from list above) sexier. No language calques it, as Arabic, e.g., does with strategy: stratiijiiya), tho many European langs do plus sexy, pi sexy etc.. No aesthetic-formal features to maintain, so move up equivalence hierarchy: 2. when 1) impossible, or insufficient denotative. SL form replaced by TL form referring basically to same thing: something like physically inviting.

10

11 3. for many rhetorical, cultural, linguistic reasons, denotative may not do justice to sexy. Might give pornographic idea (cf. Arabic). If so, connotative equivalence, next level, similarity of association . Perhaps attractive. 4. attractive in Arabic partly satisfactory, but semantically conveys physical gravity. So next step, text-normative. Text norms go beyond connotations, to sort of language right in that sort of text., attitude, etc.. Perhaps, then, we should jettison sexy completely, and modify sexual attractiveness to attractive femininity, perhaps glossing with so to speak (cf. originals sort of, apologising for being to explicit), akin to saying for want of better word. 5. Usage isomorphic, effect on ST/TT reader too, so, having catered for similarity of effect / reader expectations, (cf. equivalent effect) weve got pragmatic equivalence. ***

11

12

12