1. Equivalence and adequacy. Different approaches in the notion of Equivalence and adequacy.

The two terms of equivalence and adequate have been used a long time in literature connected with the theory of translation. These terms are sometimes treated as different terms and sometimes synonyms.

Catford – a scientist of translation and translator. He used the notion of translation equivalence as the synonym of translation adequacy. That is he considers these terms interchangeable.

V. Kamissarov in his theory on the contrary opposes the notions of the Equivalence and Adequate. He prefers the term Equivalence to the term Adequate and considers these terms when speaking about different types of translation. He uses the term Equivalence Translation and Adequate Translation. But he doesn’t consider them identical through they are close to each other. According to Kommisarov an Equivalence Translation is synonymous with a good translation. A translation which ensures complete interlingual communication which is necessary in specific conditions. Equivalence is a semantic measure in comparing ST and TT.

K Paas and G. Veemeer – these scientists try to solve the problem on the correlation of Adequacy and Equivalence differently. They are the founders of the so called Scopas Theory. They consider Equivalence as a special case of Adequacy. Equivalence to their mind embraces the relations bw single items (w-s, w-s combinations) and bw the entire texts. Equivalence of items doesn’t mean Equivalence of texts. As for Adequacy it is such a correlation of the ST and TT, which is consistently directed to achieving of the purport of translation.

Both the categories Adequacy and Equivalence have an assessment nominative character. (оценочно- нормативный характер)

3. The theory of translation Equivalence levels. Types or levels of translation Equivalence.

Komisarov defines Equivalence as a measure of semantic similarity bw ST and TT. If we compare a number of TT with their ST we shall discover that the degree of semantic similarity bw the two texts involved in translation process may vary. It may be based on the reproduction of different parts of the ST contents. Accordingly several types of translation Equivalence can be distinguished.

1. Here the degree of semantic similarity with the ST seems to be the lowest. In this type only the part of the contents which contains information about the general intent of the message is preserved. This type is called the purport of communication.

These type can be illustrated by a number of examples:

e.g. – “May be there is some chemistry bw us that doesn’t mix”

“Бывает, что люди не сходятся характерами”

The communicative effect achieved by means of artistic description of human directions which are compared to the interaction of chemical elements.

• “A rolling stone gathers no mass”

“Кому дома не сидится, тот добра не наживет”

The purport of communication in the original cant be achieved, because the situation doesn’t distinctly show, how it is should be treated, where that it is good or bad, there is no moss.

The English receptor knows that moss means wealth, good and it is absence is negative phenomenon. The situation contained in the original, that one should not wonder and travel and save reaches.

2. Here the information which characterizes this type of equivalence can be designated as identification of the situation.

e.g. - “He answered the telephone”

- “Он снял трубку”

- “You see one bear, you have seen them all”

- “Все медведи похожи друг на друга”

This group of examples is similar to the 1^st one. As the equivalence of translation doesn’t involve any parallelism of lexical and structural units.

Most of the words and syntactical structures of the original have no direct correspondence in the translation but if we compare the 1^st and the 2^nd we see that in this type of which has the greater proximity of contest than in the preceding group. The purport of communication. There is some additional information contained in the original that is retired.

In the 1^st type the things referred to are different. So that there is hardly any logical connection bw the 2 statements. (English and Russian). The similarity of the original and translations is restricted to the fact that in both cases we can draw identical conclusions about the speaker’s sentiments.

In the 2^nd type the incomparable lg unites in the original and the translation describe in fact the same action referred to the identical reality.

e.g. – “A telephone call can not be answered unless the one picks up the receiver. ”

both texts give different information about the same idea they expressed. In the 2^nd type of translation the equivalence implies international of 2 types of information contained in the original. The purport of communication retained as the identification of the situation.

3. In this type the type of contents which is to be retained is still larger.

e.g. – “Scrubbing makes me bad-tempered. ”

- “От мытья полов у меня настроение портится.”

- “Are you not serious?”

- “Вы шутите?”

The translations contain the same general notions as the original. This means that the translation is a semantic paraphrase of the original preserving its basic semes and allowing their free rearrangement in the sentence.

The common senses are discovered in the comparative analyses of the translations of this group.

Both in the translation and the original the situation is described as a “cause-effect event” with a different pattern of identical semes.

1. A (scrubbing) causes B (I) to have C (temper) characterized by the property D (bad).

2. C (temper) belonging to B (I) acquires the property D (bad) a (scrubbing). The use of the identical notions in the two texts means that the basic structure of the messages they contain, remains intact (nonviolated). If in the previous types of equivalence the translation gives the information of what the original message for and what is about. What is said in the original what aspect of described situation is mentioned in the combination. This type implies relation in the translation of the 3 parts of the original contents. The purport of communication, the identification of the situation, the method of its description of the situation.

4. e.g. – “He was never tired of old songs. ”

- “Старые песни ему никогда не надоедали. ”

- “I don’t see that I need to convince you. ”

- “не вижу надобности доказывать это вам.

In this group the semantic similarity of the previous types of equivalence reinforced by the invariant meaning of the syntactic structures in the original and the translation. In such translations the syntactical structures can be regarded as derived from those in the original. Though direct or backward transformations, this includes cases when the transformation makes use of similar or parallel structures. An important feature of this type of equivalence is that it implies the retention of the linguistic meaning. Here the translation conveys something of how it is said in the original, means of expression. The meaning of lg unites is an important part of the contents of the text and the translator tries to preserve it in his translation. So the 4^th type of equivalence presupposes retention in the translation of the 4 meaningful components of the original. It is called the invariant meaning of the syntactic structures.

4. In this type of equivalence we find the maximum possible semantic similarity bw texts in different ls-s. These translations try to retain the meaning of all the words used in the original text.

e.g. – “I saw him at the theatre.”

- “Я видел его в театре.”

- “He was sure we should both fall ill.”

- “Он был уверен, что мы оба заболели.”

We can observe the equivalence of semes which make up the meaning of correlative words in the original text and the translation; parallelism of syntactic structures imply the maximum invariants of their meanings, the similarity of the notional categories which determines the method of describing the situation; the identity of the situation; the identical functional aim of the utterance or the purport of communication. We have discovered that there are semantic several types bw equivalent texts in 2 lg-s. Thus all translators can be classified into 5 types of equivalence, which differ as to the volume and character of the information retained in each. Each subsequent type of equivalence remains the part of the original contents which includes the information preserved in the previous types. Every translation can be regarded as belonging to a certain type of equivalence. Since each subsequent type implies a higher degree of semantic similarity we can say that every translation is made at a certain level of equivalent. Each level of equivalence is characterized by the part of information, the retention of which distinguishes it from the previous level.

The list of levels includes:

1. The level of the purport of communication;

2. The level of identification of situation;

3. The level of the method of description of the situation;

4. The level of the word semantics.

A translation event is accomplished at a definite level of equivalence. A translation can be goog at any level of equivalence.

1. The Classification of Regular Equivalents (V. Komissarov):

1. According to the Character of the Relation to the ST Unit to Be Translated:

1. Permanent Equivalents;

2. Non-Permanent Variable Equivalents.

An equivalent – соответствие, эквивалент.

The founders of the theory of regular equivalents are Retzker and Fyodorov. It was the 1^st theory and it was changed.

1. The Classification of Regular Equivalents (V. Komissarov):

The structural similarity of ST and TT implies that the relationships of equivalents are established bw correlative unites in the 2 texts lg units are often used in their accepted meanings so many source lg unites have RE in the TL which are used in numerous TT as substitutes to these unites.

RE – a lg unite regularly used to translate the given SL unite is called a translation equivalent of the SL unite. Some of the SL unites have permanent equivalents in TL. Otherwise we can say that there is a one-to-one correspondence (единичное соответствие). There is a lg-to-lg bw such unites and their equivalents. Thus “London” is always rendered in Russian as “Лондон”.

As a rule thus type of correspondence is found with words of specific character, mainly scientific and technical terms, proper or geographical names and similar words whose meaning is more or less independent of the particular contextual situation. This type of equivalence is called permanent.

Non-Permanent Variable Equivalents.

There are other ST unites that may have several equivalence each. In this case one-to-one correspondence takes place, i.e. a one-to-many correspondence bw SL and TL unites to characteristic of most regular equivalents. These one-to-many correspondence unites are called non-permanent, or variable equivalents. The existence of a number of variable equivalents to a SL unite implies the necessity of selecting of 1 of them in each particular case. The selection is determined by context. In these cases each variable correspondence partly conveys a source lg unite analogous to meaning in it.

e.g. “attitude” – отношение, позиция, политика.

“actual” – действительный, подлинный, ткущий, современный.

Both monosemantic words and various meanings of a polysemantic words may have various correspondence.

e.g. – “trade-union” – профсоюз, тред-юнион.

- “chamber” – 1. комната, горница, аппарт-ты, покои.

2. зал, палата, конференц. зал.

3. камера, контора, кабинет.

2. According to the Level the SL Unit and its Equivalent Belong to;

1. Lexical Equivalents. Context. Types of Context. An Occasional Equivalent;

2. According to the Level the SL Unit and its Equivalent Belong to.

Depending on the type of the lg unites involved RE classified as lexical, phraseological and grammatical.

1. Lexical Equivalents. Context. Types of Context. An Occasional Equivalent;

Coordinated words in 2 lg-s may correspond to each other in 1 or several components of their semantic structures while not fully identical in their semantics. The choice of the equivalent will depend on the relative importance of a particular semantic element in the act of communication.

e.g. – “ambitiuos” – 1. praise-worthy

2. inordinate (чрезвычайный, неумеренный)

due to this its translation will depend on which of these comes to the fore.

e.g. “the ambitious plans of the would-be conquerors” (inordinate desires).

“the ambitious goals set by UN” (praiseworthy)

The 1^st phrase has the following correspondence in Russian “честолюбивые планы на роль завоевателей всего мира” “грандиозные цели, поставленные ООН”

A variety of equivalence may also result in more detailed description of the same object in TL. The word “attitude” is translated “отношения, позиция, политика” depending on the variant the Russian lg prefers in a particular situation. The choice bw equivalents is determined by the TL factors.

An equivalent is but a potential substitute because the translators’ choice to a lg extent depends on the context in which the SL unite is paced in the ST.

Context

• Linguistic – is made up by the other SL unites in the ST.

  • Narrow

    • Syntactical

    • Lexical

  • Broad

• Situational - includes the temporal special and other circumstances under which ST was produced as well as all factors which the receptor is expected to know so that he could adequately interprete the message SC is outside lg.

A narrow (micro) context is a word combination or a sentence context.

A broad context is a given unite environment beyond a sentence. It may embrace a group of sentences, a paragraph, a chapter and even the whole text of a story novel (a NC in its turn).

A syntactical context is a syntactical construction within which a given word, a word-combination or even a subordinate clause used.

A lexical context implies lex-l unites, words and sent.- phrases – all lex-l unites within which a given unite is used.

e.g. – “I don’t like your attitude to your work” (отношение – n-lexical)

- “There is no sign of any change in the attitudes of the two sides” (позиция)

- “He stood there in a threatening attitude” (поза)

- “He is known for his reactionary attitude” (взгляды)

There are cases when the translator should resorts to broad context/

e.g. - “chair”

- “Then I get this book I was reading and sat down in my char.”

- “The arms were in sad shape, because everybody was sitting on them.” (context is broad). Accordingly to the word ”arms” makes us chose the equivalence “кресло”. Rather often the correct substitute can’t be chosen unless the situational context is used.

e.g. “abolitionist” – the choice of the substitute will depend not only on linguistic factors but on the period described, because in different historical periods “abolitionists” were people who seek “the abolition of slavery prohibition laws or death penalty”. Accordingly in the Russian translation - the person will be described as “аболиционист, сторонник отмены сухого закона, сторонник отмены рабства”

The fact that a SL unite has a number of regular equivalents doesn’t necessary mean that one of them will be used in each particular translation. Rather often the context doesn’t allow the translator to use any of the regular equivalents; in this case the translator has to look for a translation which suits for a particular context. It can be described as an occasional equivalent “a contextual substitute” (окказициональное соответствие и контекстуальная замена)

e.g. – “He has a friendly attitude towards all.” (narrow, lexical)

- “Он ко всем относился по-дружески.”

In this case the regular equivalent can’t be used but instead an occasional equivalent maybe found by means of transforming the part of speech. The particular context situation can make the translator give up even a permanent equivalent. Here we have linguistic context, but in some cases is not enough, the particular contextual situation can make the translator even a permanent equivalent.

e.g. – “New Haven” – “Нью Хевен”

- “I graduated from New Haven in 1945.”

- “Я окончил Иельский университет в 1915.”