Equivalence effect
:
Complicated, contentious concept. Some initial considerations: equivalence
needn’t be sameness, isomorphism, but can also be equality of values
(‘equi-valence’); Languages aren’t 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, shifts dictated by the SL-TL pair (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:
Malone (‘Substitution’), Vinay & Darbelnet (‘Adaptation’) also look at directional equivalence, chosen by the
translator and not dictated by the ST; equi-valent translations: 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 answer: resistancy
and foreignisation.
Sometimes
translation is ‘horizontal’, from SL > TL, and sometimes ‘vertical’ (cf.
Nida’s 3-part 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.
Roman
Jakobson (USSR/US), Eugene Nida (US), Peter Newmark (UK), Werner Koller
(Germany) 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 (Nida’s famous e.g.) the lamb of God in a culture which has never
seen a lamb? Etc.. Is meaning in the word or in the sense?
-
‘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. (‘literal / free’)
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) T-Text and T-Culture oriented; the foreignness of ST is
minimized.
'Dynamic equivalence
in translation is far
more than mere correct communication of information' (Nida) It is ‘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’.
‘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)
‘Formal equivalence
focuses
attention on the message itself, in both form and content. In such a
translation one is concerned with such correspondences as poetry to poetry,
sentence to sentence, and concept to concept. Viewed from this formal
orientation, one is concerned that the message in the receptor language should
match as closely as possible the different elements in the source language.
This means, for example, that the message in the receptor culture is constantly
compared with the message in the source culture to determine standards of accuracy
and correctness.. … ‘
gloss translation’
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'.
NB Fawcett’s 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:
1 making sense
2
conveying spirit and manner of original
3 natural, easy form of expression
4 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):
Nida’s aim to convert all readers / cultures to dominant discourse of
Protestant Christianity.
Try to think of a) formal b) dynamic
TT:
- Have a break, have a kitkat’
- ‘ ‘For very Ypsilon people’
- ‘Every cloud has a silver lining’
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 Nida’s ‘formal and dynamic’ he posits
semantic and communicative.
Communicative translation: ( Nida’s dynamic ). To produce on
the T reader an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of
the original.
Semantic translation : (Nida’s formal). 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).
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 shouldn’t ‘be handed everything on plate’.
Discussion of Newmark:
his terms
received less discussion than Nida’s, 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment