5.5 Langue- Oriented vs Parole-Oriented Equivalence

In trying to work out a notion of equivalence that steers clear of either extreme –the narrowly quantitative approach vs the open-ended text-and-beyond view – Koller maintains a distinction between formal similarity at the level of virtual language systems (langue), and equivalence relations obtaining between texts in real time at the actual level of parole (Koller, 1979).

Koller advocates that it is the latter, parole-oriented notion of equivalence (which the Germans call Äquivalenz) that constitutes the real object of enquiry in Translation Studies. Textual equivalence proper may thus be seen as obtaining not between the languages themselves at the level of the linguistic system but between real texts at the level of text in context.

One way of reconciling the two extremes of langue- vs parole-oriented approaches to translation is to define equivalence in relative (not categorical) terms and in hierarchical (not static) terms. That is, equivalence is not an “either/or” choice, nor is it an “if X, then Y” formula. Translation approaches informed by pragmatics as the study of intended meaning are ideally suited for this dynamic view of equivalence, and the model of equivalence proposed by Koller is an excellent example of an approach that is variable and flexible in accounting for relationships between comparable elements in the SL and TL.

5.6 Equivalence: Double Linkage

Koller views equivalence as a process constrained on the one hand by the influence of a variety of potentially conflicting SL/TL linguistic textual and extra-textual factors and circumstances and on the other by the role of the historical-cultural conditions under which texts and their translations are produced and received (Koller, 1995).

Equivalence relations are differentiated in the light of this “double-linkage”, first to the ST and, second, to the communicative conditions on the receiver’s side. A number of what Koller specifically calls frameworks of equivalence (Koller, 1989:100-4) emerge. Linguistic-textual units are regarded as TL equivalents if they correspond to SL elements according to some or all of the following relational frameworks of equivalence. These “frames of reference” are “hierarchical” in that each type of equivalence (and the level of language at which translation equivalence is achieved) tends to subsume (i.e. retain and add to) features of the preceding level.

Let us work through these relations with the help of the following example – the quote by photographer Helmut Newton on his eye for the former British prime minister:

I had wanted for years to get Mrs Thatcher in front of my camera. As she got more powerful she got sort of sexier. (Newsweek, 21 May 2001)

Equivalence is said to be fully achieved if SL and TL words happen to have similar orthographic or phonological features. This is the ultimate formal equivalence, where a SL form is strictly replaced by an identical TL form. Focusing on sexier, we need a language which deals with this item in the same way as many languages do with English words like strategy, bureaucracy. Obviously, this does not seem to be possible in the case of sexy, which means that we have to move up one level in the equivalence hierarchy.

When formal equivalence proves either unattainable or insufficient we tend to aim for the next level of referential or denotative equivalence. Here, a SL form is replaced by a TL form that basically refers to the same “thing”. At face value, this is possible to achieve with the majority of words in any language. The Newsweek translator can conceivably opt for this level of equivalence in any language, with the relationship of “sex-sexy” highlighted.

For a variety of linguistic, rhetorical and cultural reasons, the referential option may not do justice to sexy in the case of the Thatcher text. A denotative rendering may convey something like “pornographic” if used on its own or trigger different associations in the minds of speakers of the two languages. In such cases, we should seek equivalence at the next higher level of “similarity of association”. This is connotative equivalence, which in the case of sexy might yield a TT element which links sexy, say, with “attractiveness”.

The connotative option goes some way towards a solution of the problem sexy in Arabic, but still falls short of an optimally satisfactory rendering. In this language, the semantic element “attractiveness” can convey associations with the physical term “gravity” that are too “direct” and “scientific” for this context. Here, we should seek equivalence at the higher level of textual context and aim for so-called text-normative equivalence. Textual norms are conventions which go beyond connotations and which enable us to work with the kind of language that is typical of a certain kind of text, a mood of writing, a certain attitude, etc. To account for this level of equivalence in the case of sexy or “sexual attractiveness”, for example, we need to bear in mind the communicative purpose of the ST and the use for which the TT is intended. This is the “point” of the quote which, in this context, is perhaps to do with the incongruity emanating from the association of “iron lady” with “sexy”. To achieve this level of equivalence in the case of sexy, we might need to (a) jettison “sexual” and modify “sexual attractiveness” in favour of something like “attractive femininity”, and (b) gloss the translation with something like “so to speak” which in a way also captures the ST sort of intended by the speaker as an apology for being too explicit with use of language, akin to saying “for want of a better word”.

Contexts of use match in this case, and so does the effect on the TT reader which will here be sufficiently close to that experienced by the ST reader. To achieve similarity of effect and cater for reader expectations is to attain full pragmatic or dynamic equivalence.