3.2 TYPES OF EQUIVALENCE JACKOBSON AND THE CONCEPT OF EQUIVALENCE IN...

4.3.2 Types of equivalence

Jackobson and the concept of equivalence in difference

Roman Jakobson's study of equivalence gave new impetus to the theoretical

analysis of translation since he introduced the notion of 'equivalence in

difference'. On the basis of his semiotic approach to language and his aphorism

'there is no signatum without signum' (1959:232), he suggests three kinds of

translation:

- Intralingual (within one language, i.e. rewording or parapharase)

- Interlingual (between two languages)

- Intersemiotic (between sign systems)

Jakobson claims that, in the case of interlingual translation, the translator makes

use of synonyms in order to get the ST message across. This means that in

interlingual translations there is no full equivalence between code units.

According to his theory, 'translation involves two equivalent messages in two

different codes' (ibid.:233). Jakobson goes on to say that from a grammatical

point of view languages may differ from one another to a greater or lesser

degree, but this does not mean that a translation cannot be possible, in other

words, that the translator may face the problem of not finding a translation

equivalent.

Nida and Taber: Formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence

Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal

equivalence—which in the second edition by Nida and Taber (1982) is referred

to as formal correspondence—and dynamic equivalence.

Formal correspondence consists of a TL item which represents the closest

equivalent of a SL word or phrase. Nida and Taber make it clear that there are

not always formal equivalents between language pairs. They therefore suggest

that these formal equivalents should be used wherever possible if the translation

aims at achieving formal rather than dynamic equivalence. 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, 1997).

Dynamic equivalence is defined as 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 TC audience as the original wording

did upon the ST audience. They argue that 'Frequently, the form of the original

text is changed; but as long as the change follows the rules of back

transformation in the source language, of contextual consistency in the transfer,

and of transformation in the receptor language, the message is preserved and the

translation is faithful' (Nida and Taber, 1982:200).

Baker’s approach to translation equivalence

She explores the notion of equivalence at different levels, in relation to the

translation process, including all different aspects of translation and hence

putting together the linguistic and the communicative approach. She

distinguishes between:

Equivalence that can appear at word level and above word level, when

translating from one language into another. Baker acknowledges that, in a

bottom-up approach to translation, equivalence at word level is the first element

to be taken into consideration by the translator.

Grammatical equivalence, when referring to the diversity of grammatical

categories across languages. She notes that grammatical rules may vary across

languages and this may pose some problems in terms of finding a direct

correspondence in the TL.

Textual equivalence, when referring to the equivalence between a SL text and a

TL text in terms of information and cohesion. Texture is a very important

feature in translation since it provides useful guidelines for the comprehension

and analysis of the ST which can help the translator in his or her attempt to

produce a cohesive and coherent text for the TC audience in a specific context.

Pragmatic equivalence, when referring to implicatures and strategies of

avoidance during the translation process. Implicature is not about what is

explicitly said but what is implied. Therefore, the translator needs to work out

implied meanings in translation in order to get the ST message across.