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.
Bạn đang xem 4. - THE STUDY ON ENGLISH NOMINAL CLAUSE AND VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENCE