7. Levels of equivalence.

Equivalence is a measure of semantic similarity between ST and TT.

In the first type of equivalence it is only the purport of communication which is retained.

e.g. A rolling stone gathers no moss. – Кому на місці не сидиться, той добра не наживе.

The second type of equivalence is designated as “identification of the situation”.

e.g. He answered the telephone. – Він зняв трубку.

The third type of equivalence implies retention in the translation of the method of its description plus the identification of the situation and the purport of communication.

e.g. You are not serious? – Ви шуткуєте?

The fourth type of equivalence presupposes retention in the translation of the invariant meaning of the syntactic structures plus the three above-mentioned meaningful components of the original , namely: the purport of communication, the identification of the situation, the method of its description.

e.g. He was standing with his arms crossed. – Він стояв, схрестивши руки на грудях.

The fifth type of equivalence suggests the retention of the five meaningful components of the original: the word semantics, the invariant meaning of the syntactic structures, the method of the description, the identity of the situation and the purport of communication.

e.g. Ukraine gained its independence in 1991. – Україна отримала незалежність в 1991 році.

A translation event is accomplished at a definite level of equivalence.

In practice the levels of equivalence are encountered as 1) substitution of printed letter for printed letter; 2) substitution of morpheme for morpheme; 3) substitution of word for word; 4) substitution of phrase for phrase; 5) substitution of sentence for sentence; 6) substitution of context larger than a sentence for a similar one; 7) substitution on the rank of situations.

8. Types of correspondences. Regular and occasional correspondences, absence of correspondences.

The structural similarity of ST and TT implies that relationships of equivalence are established between correlated units in the two texts. TL units in TT that are used to render the meaning of the respective SL units in ST can be said to substitute for the latter as their functional equivalents (or correspondences). Since language units are often used in their accepted meanings many SL units have regular equivalents in TL which are used in numerous TT as substitutes to those units. Some of the SL units have permanent equivalents in TL, that is to say, there is a one-to-one correspondence between such units and their equivalents. Thus "London" is always rendered into Russian as «Лондон». Other SL units may have several equivalents each. Such one-to-many correspondence between SL and TL units is characteristic of most regular equivalents. Depending on the type of the language units involved regular equivalents can be classified as lexical, phraseological or grammatical. Such an exceptional translation of a SL unit which suits a particular context can be described as an occasional equivalent or a contextual substitute. An occasional equivalent may be found through a change of the part of speech: He has a friendly attitude towards all. Он ко всем относится по-дружески. The absence of correspondences does not imply that the meaning of an equivalent-lacking SL unit cannot be rendered in translation or that its translation must be less accurate. We have seen that words with regular equivalents are not infrequently translated with the help of contextual substitutes.