Equivalence in Translation Theories

Equivalence in Translation Theories

 (1) Vinary and Darbelnet' theory :   ( definition of equivalence in translation ) 

* It is  a procedure that replicates the same situation as in the original, while using different wording

*It is the ideal method when the translator has to deal with proverbs , idioms , clichés and adjectival phrases and onomatopoeia of animal sounds .

* They say that the need for creating equivalences arises from the situation , and it is in the situation of the SL ( source language ) text that translators have to look for a solution .

* (2) Jacobson : ( the concept of equivalence in difference )                                             *H suggests three kinds of translation ;

a- Itralingual ( within one language – Ex . rewording or paraphrasing  )

b- Interlingual  ( between two languages )

c- Intersemiotic  ( between sign systems )

* In interlingual :There is no no full equivalence between code units . He sees " translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes . " .

* Grammatically , he sees that ' languages may differ from one another to a greater or lesser degree"

* Ex. He compares English and Russian language structures . There is no a literal equivalent for particular ST word ,then it is up to the translator to choose the most suitable way to render it .

(3)  Nida and Tiber :           (formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence )

 They said there are two kinds of equivalence  ,

A- Formal equivalence  "formal correspondence " : focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content .

B- Dynamic equivalence : which is based on the principle of equivalent effect .

* They believe  that there are not always formal equivalents between language pairs . formal equivalents should be used wherever possible .

* They assert that "Typically , formal correspondence distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns  of the receptors language and then distorts the message .

*Nida is much more interested in the message of the text .

(4) Catford :              ( the introduction of translation shifts )

* His theory concentrates on : the introduction of the concepts of types and shifts of translation .

* Types of translation :

A- The context of translation  ( full translation  vs  partial translation )

B- The grammatical rank at which the translation equivalence is established                                                   ( rank-bounded translation  vs unbounded translation )

C- The levels of language involved in translation                                                                                             ( total translation  vs restricted translation )

* In rank-bounded translation , an equivalent is sought in the TL for each word in the ST .

* In unbounded translation , equivalences are not tied to a particular rank , and we may find equivalences at sentence , clause and other levels .

* There are two main types of translation :

1- Level shifts : where the SL item at one linguistic level                                                             (ex. Grammar) has a TL equivalent at a  different level (ex. Lexis ) .

2- Category shifts which are divided into four types :

A-  Structure – shifts , ( involves a grammatical change between                                                                          the structure of the ST )

B- Class-shifts, (when a SL item is translated with a TL item which belongs to a different  grammatical class  , Ex.  A verb may be translated with a noun )

C- Unit- shifts , ( which involves changes in rank )

D-Intra-system shifts : ( which occur when ST and TL possess systems which nearly correspond   formally as to the constitution )

* He doesn't believe that linguistics is the only discipline which enables people to carry out a translation because translation involves different situations at the same time and they don't always match from one language to another .

*****************************************************************

(5) House :    ( elaboration of overt and covert translation  )

* She is in favour of semantic and pragmatic equivalence and argue that ST and TT should match one another in function .

* According to her theory , every text is in itself is placed within a particular situation which has to be correctly identified and taken into account by the translator .

*She also sees that , a translation text should not only match its source text in function , but employ equivalent situational – dimensional means to achieve that function .

*In Overt translation : The TT audience is not directly addressed  , so there is no need to recreate a " second original " .

* In Covert translation : Here , the ST ' is not specifically addressed to a TC audience "

*House's theory of equivalence is so flexible where she gives examples , uses complete texts , relates linguistic features to the context of both source and target text .

*******************************************************************

(6) Baker :           ( approach to translation equivalence )

* She distinguishes between :

1- Equivalence : that can appear at word level and above word level when translating from one language to another . The translator should pay attention to a number of factors considering a single word , such as , (  number ,  gender  and  tense  )

2- Grammatical equivalence , when referring to the diversity of grammatical categories across languages  . She  claims that different grammatical structures in the ST and TL may cause remarkable changes in the way the message is carried across .So the translator may add or omit information  . So, Baker focuses on  ( number , tense ,voice ,person and gender )

3- Textual equivalence :

+ when referring to the equivalence between a SL text and a TL text in terms of information .

+ It provides useful guidelines for the comprehension and analysis of the ST .

+ The translator will be guided by ( the target of the audience , the purpose of translation and the text type )

4- Pragmatic equivalence :

* The role of translator is to recreate the author's intention in another culture in such a way that  enables the TC reader to understand it clearly .