Equivalence and Adequacy in Translation

1. A Brief Outline of Approaches to Defining Equivalence in Translation

There are different approaches to defining equivalence in translation, but even the brief outline of the issue indicates its importance within the framework of the theoretical reflection on translation.

I. Vinay and Darbelnet use this term to refer to cases where languages describe the same situation by different stylistic or structural means.

II. E.V. Breus distinguishes between syntactic, semantic and pragmatic levels of equivalence.

The syntactic equivalence implies the word-for-word translation. It means that the word forms and the syntactic structures in the SL utterance coincide with those in the TL. But such a close correspondence between the syntactic structures of the sentence in both languages is rare, so quite often to produce an adequate and effective translation we have to resort to various transformations. For example, it concerns predicative constructions with the participle and gerund and infinitive constructions when translating them from English into Russian, and the adverbial participle (деепричастие), when translating it from Russian into English.

Compare:

The semantic level of equivalence implies the maximal semantic identity of the elements of the SL and the TL utterances.

Compare:

The pragmatic equivalence is achieved by means of interpreting extra-linguistic factors. It implies a close fit between communicative intent and the receptor’s response is required at all levels of equivalence.

III. According to Komissarov there are five levels of equivalence in translation.

Some linguists consider the terms equivalence and adequacy synonymous, but according to V. Komissarov they denote non-identical but closely related notions. In his opinion adequate translation is broader in meaning than equivalent translation. Adequate translation is good translation, as it provides communication in full: it should be accurate, readable and correct, while equivalent translation is the translation providing the semantic identity of the target and source texts. (Komissarov, p.) Therefore, translation equivalence is defined as a measure of semantic similarity between the SL text and the TL text. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics gives a broader definition of the term translation equivalence: it is the degree to which linguistic units (e.g. words, syntactic structures) can be translated into another language without loss of meaning. Two items with the same meaning in two languages are said to be translation equivalents.

In this connection it makes sense to move to the consideration of the types of meaning, which is the most vital part of the translation process. As a rule, word meaning is represented by to types of meaning: lexical and grammatical.

Types of Meaning: Lexical and Grammatical

Grammatical meaning is any aspect of meaning described as part of the syntax and morphology of a language as distinct from its lexicon (Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, p. 164). In other words it is the meaning of a word by reference to its function within a sentence rather than to a world outside the sentence. Compare the following sentences:

1. If you are not late, we will be able to finish our work on time. (Here if is used as a conjunction.)

2. I asked him if he could come in time. (Here if is used as the marker of an indirect question.)

Lexical meaning is the meaning of a word in relation to the physical world or to abstract concepts (a thing, quality, state or action), without reference to any sentence in which the word may occur. For example, the verb to receive implies taking what is offered, given, or sent (to receive a letter / news / an invitation). To receive describes simply the act of taking (the person who receives is passive). The verb to obtain almost always implies activity, or intent, or hope in the one who obtains; it means ‘to succeed in gaining possession of as the result of planning or endeavor’ (to obtain a position, to obtain experience, to obtain money).

Both the linguistic and the grammatical meaning make up the content of the word and neither can exist without the other.

For example, the grammatical meaning of the noun news is expressed by only plural form of the word. The lexical meaning of the word is: facts that are reported about a recent event or events; new information – известие / известия, новость / новости.

Types of Lexical Meaning

The Degree of Preservation of Meaning

The degree of preservation of meaning in the process of translation is different; it mostly depends on the type of meaning.

There are three main types of the above mentioned semantic correspondences between the lexical units of two languages:

1) complete correspondence;

2) partial correspondence;

3) absence of correspondence (non-equivalent lexis).

Complete Correspondences

Complete correspondence in translation is typical of mono-semantic words, that is, the words which have one meaning in both languages. These lexical units can be presented by the following groups:

Partial Correspondences

Partial correspondence is the most widely spread case in the process of comparing lexical units of two languages. In this case one word in the SL has several semantic equivalents in the TL. For example, let’s consider the meanings of the noun table – стол.

Absence of Correspondences (Non-equivalent lexis)

Non-equivalent lexis is words and word-combinations of the source language, denoting objects, processes and other realia which do not exist or have correspondences at present in the target language.

It should be noted that each exercise involves some kind of loss of meaning due to a number of factors. The basic loss can result from overtranslation (increased detail - детализация) or undertranslation (increased generalization - обобщение).

Firstly, if the text describes a situation, which has elements peculiar to the natural environment, institutions and culture of its language area, there is an inevitable loss of meaning unless there is already recognized translation equivalent in the target language.

Secondly, as the two languages have different lexical, grammatical and sound systems, they determine many physical objects and intellectual concepts differently. Usually the closer is the language and the culture, the closer is the translation and the original.

Thirdly, very often the individual usage (словоупотребление) of the language of the text by the writer and the translator don’t coincide. Everybody has lexical, if not grammatical idiosyncrasies, or peculiarities (индивидуальная или групповая отличительная особенность (характера, стиля)) and attaches “private” meaning to some words. The translator usually writes in a style that comes naturally to him unless the text prevents it.

Fourthly, the translator and the writer of the text have different theories of meaning and different values. The translator’s theory colors his interpretation of the text. He may set greater value than the writer of the text on connotation (коннотация (дополнительное, сопутствующее значение языковой единицы или категории)) and correspondingly less on denotation (значение; смысл).

Thus, the translator requires knowledge of literary and nonliterary text criticism (критика (анализ, истолкование и оценка литературных и художественных произведений)) since he has to estimate and assess the quality of the text before he decides how to interpret it and then translate it.

3. Translation of Internationalisms (Borrowings) and the Problem of False Friends

Internationalisms (Borrowings)

Borrowing is a word or phrase which has been taken from one language and used in another language.

Borrowed terms often pass into general usage, for example in the fields of technology ("software") and culture ("punk"). It can be pure (without any change, when speakers pronounce them as they are pronounced in the original language), e.g., lobby (English) and лобби (Russian), or it can be naturalized (when speakers pronounce it according to the sound system of their own language), e.g., globalization – глобализация (Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics, p. 57).

False Friends

False friend is a word or expression in one language that, because it resembles one in another language, is often wrongly taken to have the same meaning

Classification of False Friends

Discussing false friends of a translator it should be noted that some of them differ in their denotative meaning. For example, the English noun politician means a person actively engaged in politics, esp. a full-time professional member of a deliberative assembly and is translated as политик, государственный/политический деятель. The Russian false friend политикан sounds disparagingly in this case, because it stands for a person who engages in politics out of a wish for personal gain, as realized by holding a public office.

Поиск по сайту: