Equivalence

By Marouane Zakhir,
English translator,
University of Soultan Moulay Slimane, Morocco

Much ink has flown on discussing the term equivalence in translation. The proponents of this notion, as Nida (1964), Newmark (1981), Jacobson (1959-2000), Bayar (2007) and others, try hard to define its nature, types and also compare its degrees as a crucial subject of research in translation, whereas other opponents like Vander Broek (1978), Mehrach (1997) and Van Leuven (1990) consider it as an impossible point for the translator to reach, and a hindering matter in the development of translation theory. The aim of this discussion is to shed as much as possible light on theories and writings that have dealt with the notion of equivalence and its degrees.

In fact, the increase in studying equivalence in translation coincides with the birth of a strong wave of research in machine translation. Van Leuven Zwart (1990:227 cited by Mehrach, 1997) states:

It [equivalence] was used then in its strict scientific sense, to refer to an absolute symmetrical relationship between words of different languages.[1]

That is, the aim of researchers to develop automatic translation led to concentrate on the equivalent effects that exist between words from different languages, hence the proliferation of equivalence studies.

The Russian-born American structuralist Roman Jacobson (1959-2000: 114) is considered to be one of the earliest theorists who were occupied by the study of equivalence in meaning. Jacobson claims that "there is ordinarily no full equivalence between code units" (qtd by Munday, 2001).[2] To corroborate his idea, Jacobson uses the example of ‘cheese’, which does not have the same equivalent of the Russian ‘syr’. For the latter's code unite does not have the concept ‘cottage cheese’ in its dictionary (for more clarifications see Munday, 2001).[3] So, the term is better to be translated by ‘tvarok’ not ‘syr’. Jakobson also points out that the problem of both meaning and equivalence is related to the differences between structures, terminology, grammar and lexical forms of languages. Jacobson stated that "equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics." (qtd by Munday, 2001)[4]

In his work on Bible translation, Nida (1964) concentrates on studying meaning in both its semantic and pragmatic natures. He breaks with the old stories, which regard meanings of words as fixed and unchanged, to give meaning a more functional nature. For him, words get their meanings according to the context and can be changed through the culture in which they are used. Needless to say that Nida distinguishes between many types of meaning: linguistic meaning, referential meaning and emotive meaning (Munday, 2001).[5]

Besides, Nida's concept of meaning in translation is, to some extent, influenced by the Chomskyan theory of 'generative transformational model'. The latter theory focuses on the universal features of human language. For Chomsky, each language is composed of a deep structure that undergoes the process of transformations and a surface structure produced by these transformations and is subject to phonological and morphophonemic rules. In his translation of the Bible, Nida adopts these two structures; i.e., deep and surface structures, and focuses more on the former structure, since it contains the core of meaning. Yet, Nida's treatment of meaning is different from that of Chomsky. Edwin Gentzler (1993)[6] said that:

Chomsky investigates the meaning inherent in the sign cut off from cultural context; Nida's primary concern is not with the meaning any sign carries with it, but with how the sign functions in any given society.

Actually, the relegation of cultural context from the Chomskyan theory is the core of difference between him and Nida. But, despite the differences in goals and interests between the two theories, both of them share the same view about the nature of language as including a deep structure and a surface one (E. Gentzler, 1993).[7]

Nida's theory of translation is characterized by the distinction between two types of equivalence: formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. For formal equivalence, the translator focuses on the message itself, that is, its form and content, and there should be a close similarity between the ST and the TT message (Nida, 1964).[8] This source-oriented type is described by Kelly (1979: 131 qtd in Mehrach, 1977)[9] as an approach that "depends on one-to-one matching of small segments, on the assumption that the centre of gravity of text and translation lies in the significance for terminological and artistic reasons."

In the same context, Munday, (2001)[10] points out that ‘gloss translation’, with scholarly ‘footnotes’ are the most typical of formal equivalence, as they allow the student to understand the source culture's language and customs.

Concerning dynamic equivalence, Nida mentions that this type is based on "the principle of equivalent effect", in which "the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptor and the message." (Nida, 1964: 159, qtd by Munday)[11]

Nida gives paramount importance to the notion of ‘naturalness’. He claims that the main aim of ‘equivalent effect’ is to achieve "the closest natural equivalent to the source language" (Nida, 1964).[12] Actually, ‘naturalness’ as a basic key-word in Nida's theory relies on the adaptation of grammar, cultural references and lexicon of the ST. It goes without saying that Nida privileges the preservation of the text meaning on its style, since it allows the translator to create the same equivalent effects.

To sum up, Nida's aim in his book Towards A Science of Translation is to redefine principles and rules that govern and evaluate the degree of sufficiency of translation (Gentzler, 1993).[13] Comparing form and content of texts, Nida mentions that content should come first in translation. He argues that formal translators who focus more on forms of poetry, for instance, are more likely to misinterpret the "intention of the author", and more apt to "distort the meaning" (Nida, 1964).[14] According to Nida, the dynamic translator is more faithful than the literal one, since he (DT) may perceive "more fully and satisfactorily the meaning of the original text" (Nida, 1964).[15] Finally, using Munaday's words, we can say that Nida's notion of ‘equivalent response’ is of paramount importance for any translator to achieve an advanced level of success (Munday, 2001).[16]

It should also be noted that Newmark's distinction between 'communicative translation' and 'semantic translation' in his book Approaches to Translation (1981)[17] is similar to Nida's types of equivalence. For 'communicative translation', which tends to create the same effects on the reader of the TT as those obtained by readers of the ST, resembles Nida's notion of dynamic equivalence, whereas, 'semantic translation', which focuses on the rendition of the contextual meaning of the SLT according to the syntactic and the semantic characteristics of the TLT, is similar to Nida's formal equivalence.

However, many critics of the 'equivalent effect' by Newmark come in his Textbook of Translation (1988). Newmark sees Nida's 'equivalent effect' as:

The desirable result, rather than the aim of any translation. […] It is an unlikely result in two cases: (a) if the purpose of the SL text is to affect and the TL translation is to inform (or vice versa); (b) if there is a pronounced cultural gap between the SL and the TL texts.[18]

We infer from this quotation that the 'equivalent effect' is a result which all translators long to achieve. However, this result can be unachievable if the SLT and the TLT do not share the same goal; i.e., to inform or to affect, or if they do not have the same cultural equivalents. The possession of cultural references, together with the remoteness in time and space reduce the possibility of achieving 'equivalent effects', except in case the reader is imaginative, sensitive and has a good knowledge of the SL culture (Newmark, 1988).[19]

Further, Newmark (1988) argues that the text may reach a 'broad equivalent effect' only if it is 'universal', as in this case the ideals of the original text exceed all cultural frontiers.[20]

The other figure of translation theorists who devotes a great deal of research to the notion of equivalence is Koller (1979). The latter, according to Mehrach (1997: 14) and Munday (2001:47), distinguishes between five types of equivalence: 'denotative equivalence' refers to the case where the ST and the TT have the same denotations, that is conveying the same extra linguistic facts; 'connotative equivalence', also referred to as 'stylistic equivalence', is related to the lexical choices between near synonyms; 'text normative' refers to text types, i.e., the description and analysis of a variety of texts behaving differently; 'pragmatic equivalence', also called 'communicative equivalence', is oriented towards the receptor of the text, as he should receive the same effect that the original text produces on its readers; 'formal equivalence', may also be referred to as 'expressive equivalence', is related to the word-for-word rendition of forms, aesthetic and stylistic features of the ST.

It goes without saying that Koller (1979: 176-91, qtd by Munday, 2001)[21] devotes a large part of his research to the examination of the relation between ‘equivalence’ and ‘correspondence’. For the former examines the equivalent items in both the ST and the TT and it is based on De Saussure's parameter of ‘langue’, while the latter can be related to contrastive analysis, as a field of comparative linguistics and is based on the De Saussure's ‘parole’.

Moreover, the term equivalence continues to be a central issue for many years. Theorists and scholars try hard to define it as a way to enhance its role in translation. According to Broek (1978), J. C. Catford defines 'translation equivalence' as:

Translation equivalence occurs when an SL [source language] and TL [target language] texts or items are related to (at least some of) the same relevant features of situation substance. [22]

Newmark (1986) uses the term 'text-bound equivalence', while North (1991) works on 'functional equivalence'. Mona Baker also devotes her work to equivalent types, and argues that equivalence is always relative in the sense that it is influenced by many linguistic and cultural factors (Mona Baker, 1992).[23]

Additionally, the development in equivalence research is also characterized by the work of the Syrian theorist Monia Bayar (2007). In her book To Mean Or Not To Mean, Bayar distinguishes between formal equivalence, semantic equivalence, cultural equivalence and pragmatic equivalence. For her, formal equivalence "designates an area of correspondence ranging around the word, albeit involving lower units such as the phoneme or the morpheme".[24] She also states that transliteration; categorical correspondence such as the correspondence of 'noun to noun, verb to verb' between ST and TT; and textual correspondence such as length, stylistic aspects, meter, rhythm and rhyme, are all instances of 'formal equivalence' (Bayar 2007).

As far as semantic equivalence is concerned, Bayar (2007)[25] notes that this type relies on the preservation of many semantic criteria: denotation, connotation and propositional content. According to her, words which do not have the same equivalent meanings could be translated by 'explanatory expressions' as a way of compensation. For instance, the English word ‘nod’ that has not an equivalent word in Arabic, can be translated by the expression /?anζama bi ra?sihi/ (p.163-7). For the third type, 'cultural equivalence', Bayar (2007) considers it to be the most difficult and 'controversial kind of equivalence', since it is related to 'human identity'. She defines it as follows:

Cultural equivalence aims at the reproduction of whatever cultural features the ST holds into the TT. These vary from things specific to the geographical situation, the climate, the history, the tradition, the religion, the interpersonal or inter-community social behavior, to any cultural event having an effect on the language community.[26]

It is clear from this definition that 'cultural equivalence' consists of the rendition of the SL cultural features into a TL in a way that helps the reader understand these foreign cultural features through his own cultural ones. Actually, 'cultural equivalence' can be easily reached in case the cultural words under translation are universally known. However, this can be diminished with cultural differences that languages may have. Arabic and English are a case in point. Further, Bayar (2007)[27] discusses the importance of preserving the author's ideology if the translation is to be qualified as equal to the ST.

As far as 'pragmatic equivalence' is concerned, Bayar (2007)[28] points out that this type tends to reproduce the context and text goals of the SL. She also shares the same idea with Hatim and Mason (1990: 236-8) that "pragmatic equivalence subsumes all of the semio-pragmatic-communicative layers of communication."[29] Examples of these semiotic and communicative dimensions are genre, field, mode, tenor, text type and translation purpose (skopos).

In brief, it is true that Bayar's types of equivalence have already been tackled by many western theorists, but her illustrative views on the phenomenon enhance its importance in translation studies, and helps in the development of research in equivalence.

However, the notion of equivalence or equivalent effect is not tolerated by many theorists. The opponents of equivalence refuse its existence in translation. In his essay The Concept of Equivalence in Translation, Van den Broek states that "we must by all means reject the idea that the equivalence relation applies to translation." (Broek, 1978)[30]

He also opposes the idea of equivalence in translation as a form of linguistic synonymy, ensuring that the latter does not exist even with words of the same language (p.34). Besides, Broek rejects terms like similarity, analogy, adequacy, invariance and congruence, and the implications they may have in translation.

Broek also redefines the term equivalence by the concept of "true understanding" (p.29). In the same context, Van Leuven notes that the concept of equivalence "not only distorts the basic problem of translation, but also obstructs the development of a descriptive theory of translation" (Van Leuven, 1990: 228 qtd by Mehrach).[31] Van Leuven also mentions that equivalence proponents relegate the importance of crucial factors such as 'the situation of the utterance', 'the intention of the speaker' and 'the effect on the hearer' (Van Leuven 1990:228 qtd by Mehrach, 1997). Further, the Moroccan scholar M. Mehrach (1997) also considers equivalence "an impossible aim in translation." He corroborates his saying by the idea that no two languages share the same linguistic structures, and social or cultural aspects. Instead, he proposes the use of the term 'adequacy' as a reference for the 'appropriate' translation, that is, "a translation that has achieved the required optimal level of interlanguage communication under certain given conditions."[32]

In brief, it is clear from the above conflicting views and theories that the notion of equivalence is arbitrary and relative as well. It is, in fact, difficult to determine since no one could objectively define the point at which the TT becomes equal to the ST. Thus, to be moderate as much as possible, we will not define equivalence as a point of translation proficiency or reject its existence in translation as some wished, but we will, instead, use it as a form of approximation in which the TT approximates the ST. we will also use the term equivalence as a scale that ranges from optimum degree to zero degree. So, what are these degrees of equivalence? And what characterizes each one?

According to Monia Bayar (2007),[33] equivalence consists of seven degrees: optimum translation, near-optimum translation, partial translation, weaker and stronger translation, poor translation, mistranslation and zero equivalence/non-translation. Each degree has specific characteristics that keep it distant from the other. In our distinction of these degrees, we will focus on the pragmatic and cultural aspects as the two main dimensions that may assess the degree of preservation of the ST goal, or as Bayar calls it 'the superordinate goal'.

It refers to the highest level of approximation to the ST. Monia Bayar (2007) defines it as "the closest equivalence degree attainable, given the circumstances, the linguistic and extralinguistic resources actually available to the translator."[34] In other words, a TT may reach the optimal degree when it preserves the 'superordinate goal' of the ST and its five requirements (genre, field, mode, tenor and type). Additionally, the TT is said to be optimal when it looks semantically and grammatically well-formed, with sentences that cohere to each other to serve the ST goal and preserve its content, and also when the TT is readable and easy to understand by receptors. Any deviation from these characteristics distances the translated text from the optimal degree. To illustrate these points let us work on the samples below:

Despite their smooth readability and well-formed grammar, the examples (2) of these idiomatic expressions are rejected and distanced from reaching the optimum degree in translation. This is because of their detraction from the ST's goals and contents. On the contrary, examples (3) show a fine degree of optimality, since they succeed in carrying the same implicatures and cultural aspects of the STs. In brief, optimum translation is a feasible translation, and the more simple the text is, the more possible for the translator to reach the optimal degree of translation. The example below clarifies this:

The simplicity of the ST helps to reach the optimum degree in translation. Yet, the problems with optimum translation rise while dealing with literary translation and more specifically poetic translation, since its rendition is governed by many aesthetic and stylistic rules.

Near-optimum translation refers to the case where the ST superordinate goal and sub-goals are cohesively and coherently rendered to the TT, but do not reach the readability of the optimal degree from a textual point of view. For the sake of clarification, we will use the example given by Monia Bayar (2007).[35]

SL: If you happen to have read another book about Christopher Robin, you may remember that he once had a swan.

TT1: S'il vous est arrivé de lire un autre livre sur Christopher Robin, vous pourriez peut-être vous rappeler qu'il avait un cygne. (Near optimal)

TT2: S'il vous est arrivé de lire un autre livre qui parle de Christopher Robin, vous vous rappelleriez alors qu'il avait un cygne. (Optimal)

Reading this example, we notice that the French version TT1 wrongly uses the adverb ‘sur’ and the verb ‘peut-être’ in translation, the fact that negatively affects the smooth readability of the TT. The TT2, on the contrary, is an example of the optimal translation, since it preserves the smoothness and fluency of its readability.

Partial translation refers to the case in which the ST is partially rendered to the TT; that is, the translator partially translates the text’s superordinate goal. In this type, it should be noted that readability and correctness of the TT do not mean its preservation of the ST, for the TT might be read smoothly, without conveying the ST goal.

Arb, TT2: (optimal translation) أطلبوا العلم من المهد الى اللحد

Here, we can see that the first (1) TT does not cover the whole superordinate function or goal of the ST as in the TT2; hence, TT1 is partial, while TT2 is optimal.

Using Monia Bayar's words, some translations are called weaker versions because they reproduce the ST goals in 'attenuated terms' if compared to the original, whereas, others are named strong versions for their use of stronger terms in their rendition of ST goals.[36] To clarify these types let us observe the differences in the examples below:

Arb, TT1: (weaker version) عندما تلدغ مرة تصبح خجولا مرتين

The distance or the approximation of these versions (weak/strong) from the optimum degree depends on the degree of their alteration of the ST goal.

In poor translation, readability is the core of the problem. Though the TT may or may not preserve the ST superordinate goal, it is read with great difficulty by the receptor. In other words, poor translation occurs when the translator fails to transfer the ST goals into a readable TT and in an obvious way that helps the reader grasp them easily.

Arb, ST: يلومونني في حب ليلى عواذلي ولكنني من حبها عميد

Eng, TT1: (poor translation). My reproachers blame me for loving Laila / but I am with her love smitten.

TT2 (optimal): My reproachers blame me for loving Laila / but I am deeply smitten with love for her.[37]

The TT1 shows a poor translation because the reader cannot easily comprehend the ST goal.

In mistranslation the TT neither sounds readable nor preserves the superordinate goal of the ST.

Here, we see that TT1 not only distorts the superordinate goal of the ST, but also seems out of context and unreadable.

Zero equivalence occurs when there is no one-to-one equivalent between the ST and the TT. This happens when the translator deals with texts that contain many culturally-bound words or expressions. Examples of this are the words ‘kassāl’, ‘tajin’ and ‘innur’ in Moroccan Arabic, and the English word ‘nuts’, which hasn't a word equivalent in French (see Bayar, 2007).[38] In fact, zero equivalence rarely occurs at the text level, except in some literary forms as poetry and fairytales, and in case it happens, the translator may use translation recreation instead.

In general, equivalence in translation can be measured by a scale of degrees that ranges from optimal equivalence to zero equivalence. These degrees of equivalence might be measured by the levels of approximation or distance from the ST 'superordinate goal'. While optimal equivalence is considered as the highest level in equivalence, or the most approximate degree from the ST, zero equivalence is related to the lowest degree of equivalence or the most distant degree from the ST goal.

[1] Mohamed Mehrach. (1977) Towards a Text-Based Model for Translation Evaluation. Ridderkerk: Ridden print, p. 14.

[2] Jeremy Munday. (2001). Introducing Translation Studies, Theories and applications. London and New York: Routledge, p. 36.

[3] Ibid, pp. 36-37.

[4] Ibid, p. 37.

[5] Ibid, p. 38.

[6] Edwin Gentzler. (1993). Contemporary Translation Theories, London and New York: Routledge, p. 53.

[7] Ibid., p. 55.

[8] Eugene A. Nida, (1964). Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill, p. 159.

[9] Mohamed Mehrach, op. cit., (1977), p. 44

[10] Jeremy Munday, op. cit., (2001), p.41.

[11] Ibid, p. 42.

[12] Eugene A. Nida, op. cit., (1964), p. 166.

[13] Edwin Gentzler. (1993). Contemporary Translation Theories, London and New York: Routledge, p. 58.

[14] Eugene A. Nida, op. cit., (1964), pp. 191-2.

[15] Ibid, p. 192.

[16] Jeremy Munday, op. cit., (2001), p. 42.

[17] Peter Newmark, (1981). Approaches to Translation. Oxford and New York: Pergamon, p. 39.

[18] Peter Newmark. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. London and New York: Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd, p. 49.

[19] Ibid, p. 48.

[20] Ibid, p. 49.

[21] Jeremy Munday, op. cit., (2001), pp. 46-7.

[22] Broek, Raymond Van Der, (1981). "The Limits of Translatability Exemplified by Metaphor Translation", in Itamar Even-Zohar and Gideon Toury (eds) Translation Theory and Intercultural Relations, Poetics Today, p. 38.

[23] Mouna Baker. (1997). The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, Part II: History and Traditions. London and New York: Rutledge, p. 6.

[24] Monia Bayar, (2007). To Mean or Not to Mean, Kadmous cultural foundation. Khatawat for publishing and distribution. Damascus, Syria, p. 163.

[25] Ibid, pp. 163-7.

[26] Ibid, p. 177.

[27] Ibid, pp. 186-203.

[28] Ibid, p. 206.

[29] Ibid, p. 208.

[30] Broek, Raymond Van den, (1978) "The Concept of Equivalence In Translation Theory: Some Critical Reflections", in J. S. Holmes, J. Lambert and R, Van den Broek (eds), Literature and Translation, Leuven: Academic, p. 33.

[31] Mohamed Mehrach, op. cit., (1977), pp. 14-15.

[32] Ibid, p. 16.

[33] Monia Bayar, op. cit., (2007), pp. 213-223.

[34] Ibid., p. 214.

[35] Ibid, p. 220.

[36] Ibid., p. 221.

[37] Mohammed Addidaoui, op. cit., (2000), p. 32.

[38] Monia Bayar, op. cit., (2007), p. 223.