Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Translation
equivalent/equivalence
Adj.
equal or interchangeable in value, quantity,
significance, etc.
having the same or a similar effect or meaning
N.
Logics/maths:
the binary truth-function that takes the value
true when both component sentences are true or
when both are false, corresponding to English if
and only if. Symbol: or , as in --(p q) --p
--q, =biconditional
TE
Unity in difference
Sameness in diference
R. Jakobson 1957
What is equivalence?
Not reversible
SIMILARITY cognitive
aspects
A, A, A, ...
Chesterman, p. 13-15
Recap.:
It
simultaneously refers to a relation-in-the-world and a perception in
the mind. The element of subjective perception is always present.
Two entities are percieved to be similar to the extent that their
salient features match
Two entities count as the same within a given frame of reference if
neither is percieved to have salient features which the other lacks
Assessment as to what counts as a feature and how salient it is
are both context-bound (purpose of assessm.) and assessor-bound
Assessment of similarity are thus constrained by relevance
Degree of similarity correlates inversely with the extension of the
set of items judged to be similar
Two main types of similarity relation: divergent and convergent
heads facing opposite ways, C16: from Latin, from janus archway).
TRANSLATION THEORY
vs
CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS
Equivalence in TR theory
1.
2.
3.
Conclusion:
Heated controversy:
Key theorists:
1.
2.
3.
2. R. Jakobson: 'equivalence in
difference' , 'unity in
diversity'
R. Jakobson:
R. Jakobson:
Nida:
Formal
Correspondence:
Nida:
Dynamic
Equivalence:
A. Formal
correspondence
= a TL item which represents the closest equivalent of a SL word
or phrase
HOWEVER:
B. Dynamic equivalence
= a translation principle according to which a translator seeks to
translate the meaning of the original in such a way that the TL
wording will trigger the same impact on the Tl audience as the
original wording did upon the ST audience.
Chomskian influence (TG Grammar):
Nida: CONCLUSION:
types of translation
shifts of translation
2.
3.
Catford's claim:
textual equivalence:
Catford (1965)
Catford
&
textual equivalence
linguistics is NOT the only discipline which enables people to carry out
a translation, since
In an overt translation
Covert translation:
6. M. Baker's approach to
translation equivalence
grammatical,
textual,
pragmatic equivalence,
etc.
Types of equivalence:
Bottom-up approach to
translation:
equivalence at word level:
Pragmatic equivalence
7. Peter Newmark
Newmark
BUT:
TR of Homer: it is impossible to
expect to produce the same effect
on 20th cent. TT reader as it had
on listeners in ancient Greece
Newmark
However 1:
LITERAL: the best initial approach in Sem and
Comm. Approach:
- provided that eq. effect is secured (LIT TR
not only the best but the only valid method of
TR)
However 2:
If there is a conflict between SEM and COMM
(if SEM TR would result in an 'abnormal' TT or
would not secure eq. effect COMMUNICATIVE
TR is the only way out:
Newmark
e.g.
Bissiger Hund; Chien mchant; Pazi, otar pas
= Beware of the dog!
(?dog that bites, bad dog)
Criticism:
overabundance of terminology (free-lit, formal
eq-eq effect, covert-overt, sem comm)
strong prescriptivism smooth vs qwkwar TR,
TR = art (semantic) = craft (communicative)
- a good guidance for TR training (abundant
examples)
8. Werner Koller:
Korrespondenz vs quivalenz
- bersetzungswischenschaft (W.
Wills, O. Kade, A. Neubert)
- 'Einfuehrung in die
Uebersetzungswissenschaft'
(1979/89)
Koller
DENOTATIVE
CONNOTATIVE
PRAGMATIC
TEXT-FORMATIVE
'communicative equivalence'
oriented to the receiver of the text message
Nida's 'dynamic equivalence'
FORMAL
Koller - Checklist:
language function
content characteristics
language-stylistic characteristics
formal aesthetic characteristics
pragmatic characteristics
(see Text Linguistics, Types of texts
Koller, Reiss, Nord)
TE: Koller
TE: Mounin
TE: Koller
TE 1970s
However:
In the first case, science is empirical investigation; it goes out into the world
and can advance on the basis of the material it analyzes.
In the second, science is a matter of knowing what others have to find out;
students come to you and advance on the basis of your theoretical
expertise (and if social agents dont always know what a translation really
is, they too can become your students).
Koller published in 1979, but his text survived through four editions to
1992 and is still worth reading.
Toury was published in book form in Israel in 1980, but his work has
taken years to filter through to some kind of general recognition.
The writings of Vermeer and friends, published mostly in German and
often in small university editions, have been so slow to catch on that
the group still feels revolutionary more than ten years after the
Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie of 1984.
The space of European translation studies is spread so thin and remains
so fragmented that these various paradigms have mostly managed to
co-exist in tacit ignorance of each other. There is no evidence of any
catastrophic debate being resolved one way or the other.
the general trend was away from equivalence and toward target-side
criteria.
Of course, this was more or less in keeping with the movement of
linguistics toward discourse analysis, the development of reception
aesthetics, the sociological interest in action theory, and the general
critique of structuralist abstraction.
Critic views of
translation
equivalence
Almost ten years after Kollers Einfhrung, Mary Snell
Snell-Hornby:
Snell-Hornby:
Snell-Hornby:
But, if the term equivalence were really so polysemous Snell-Hornby elsewhere claims to have located fifty-eight
different types in German uses of the term (1986: 15) -, how
could she be so sure it presents an illusion of symmetry
between languages?
The term apparently means nothing except this illusion.
And yet none of the numerous linguists cited in Koller ever
presupposed any symmetry between languages.
had she looked a little further, Snell-Hornby might have found
that concepts like Nidas dynamic equivalence presuppose
substantial linguistic asymmetry.
More important, Kollers actual proposal was based on
studying equivalence on the level of parole, leaving to
contrastive linguistics the entire question of symmetries or
dissymmetries between language systems
Snell-Hornby
Neubert
Yet this is not the story of just one person. There is more at stake in
the movement away from equivalence. Strangely, while European
translation studies has generally been expanding, a center of strong
equivalence-based research at Leipzig, closely associated with
Professor Neubert, has been all but dismantled by west-German
academic experts.
Further, the one west-European translation institute that has been
threatened with reduction - Saarbrcken - is precisely the one that,
through Wilss, is most clearly aligned with linguistics and the
equivalence paradigm.
This is not to mention the numerous east-Europeans who still - heaven
forbid! - talk about linguistics and equivalence, awaiting
enlightenment from the more advanced western theorists.
The institutional critique of equivalence surreptitiously dovetails into
facile presumptions of progress, and sometimes into assumptions of
west-European superiority. Perhaps we should take a good look at the
bandwagon before we hop on.
Understanding
Equivalence - A. Pym
In Stecconis terms,
Pym (2005):
To produce equivalence is
nowadays not the end of the story,
neither for the theorist nor for the
pedagog.
Komissarov
Conclusion
A Summary
References 1
References 2
Baker, Mona (1992) In Other Words: a Coursebook on Translation, London:
Routledge.
Chesterman, A. (1998) Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam, Benjamins
Fawcett, Peter (1997) Translation and Language: Linguistic Theories Explained,
Manchester: St Jerome Publishing
House, Juliane (1977) A Model for Translation Quality Assessment, Tbingen: Gunter
Narr.
Kenny, Dorothy (1998) 'Equivalence', in the Routledge Encyclopaedia of Translation
Studies, edited by Mona Baker, London and New York: Routledge, 77-80.
Jakobson, Roman (1959) 'On Linguistic Aspects of Translation', in R. A. Brower (ed.)
On Translation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 232-39.
Leonardi, V. (2002) Equivalence in Translation: Between Myth and Reality.
http://accurapid.com/journal/14equiv.htm
Nida, Eugene A. (1964) Towards a Science of Translating, Leiden: E. J. Brill.
References 3
Pym, A. (1992). Translation and Text Transfer.
Frankfurt/Main: Lang
Pym, A. (2000)European Translation Studies,
une science qui drange, and Why Equivalence
Neednt Be a Dirty Word
Vinay, J.P. and J. Darbelnet (1958/1995)
Comparative Stylistics of French and English: a
Methodology for Translation, translated by J. C.
Sager and M. J. Hamel, Amsterdam /
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.