Equivalence and adequacy

Both of them are used when we try to render the same meaning factual and emotional in another language. If we can’t find equivalents we produce an adequate text, which fulfils the same function. Equivalence of the SL and TL items may be found on the level of morpheme, word, phrase, clause sentence, paragraph and the whole text as a linguistic entity. The comparison of texts in different languages involves a theory of equivalents and they are the central issue of translation, although its definition, relevance and applicability have caused controversy. Translation is a matter of linguistics and the translator is always dealing with two different cultures at the same time. This aspect was studied by linguists from the point of view of functionally oriented approach. Then come the scholars who are in favor of a linguistic approach and who seem to forget that translation isn’t merely a matter of linguistics. Some scholars stand in the middle and claim that equivalence is used for the sake of convenience, because most translators are used to it rather than because it has any theoretical status.

Equivalence can be said to exist only between factors equally present in SL and TL texts. Those TL factors requested that are not contained in the SL text can hardly be said to be equivalent, because there’s no textual basis of comparison; it doesn’t make much sense to speak of equivalence in these cases. Here adequacy is the better term. The notion of fidelity or being faithful seems to make sense in both translation situations referred to. If so wished, the translator should be faithful to SL text factors as well as to any factors not present in the SL text itself. In each case s/he will be faithful to the wishes expressed by the client if conforming to the factors laid down.

Equivalence in meaning can’t be taken as a satisfactory criterion for a correct translation, because first of all in order to define the still undefined notion of translation one would have to employ a notion as obscure as equivalence of meaning; and some people think that meaning is what remains unchanged in the process of translation. We can’t even accept the naïve idea that equivalence in meaning is provided by synonymy, since it is commonly accepted that there are no complete synonyms in a language. “Father=/= daddy=/= papa”

Equivalence on the different levels is different. What is being carried onto the TL text is the united semantic-pragmatic function of the S text. It means that the original text is being reconstructed in a new semantic-pragmatic entity, redesigned within the textual universe of the TL community.

Scholars:

Mona Baker

John Catford

Peter Fawcett

J. House

Dorothy Kenny

Roman Jacobson

Eugene Naida

J. Vinay

Vinay.

Vinay views equivalence oriented translation as a procedure, which replicates the same situation as in the original whilst using completely different wording. It is a procedure applied during the translation process can maintain the stylistic impact of the SL text in the TL text. According to him equivalence is the ideal method when the translator deals with proverbs, idioms, clichés, nominal or adjectival phrases and the onomatopoeia of animal sounds. With the regard of equivalent expression they rely on language pairs and they say that these pairs are acceptable as long as they are listed in bilingual dictionaries as full equivalents.

Though they admit that the collections of idiomatic phrases can never be exhaustive they conclude that the need of creating equivalents arises from the situation and that even if the semantic equivalent of an expression of the SL text is quoted in a dictionary, it is not enough because it doesn’t guarantee a successful translation. So the similarity of the situation and the choice of equivalent is the main criterion according to Vinay and his colleagues.

Some scholars believe that equivalents should be registered in dictionaries and if not, they cannot be of great help for translation. But in some cases the collocations of expressions that convey the same meaning may be different and this cripples the translation.

Contextual surroundings can change its meaning

We can have a similar expression in the TL and this expression will be culturally misleading