!

Three Theories of Equivalence

Perhaps no concept has proved more central to translation and translation studies than that of equivalence. Ideally, equivalence implies 'sameness' a goal much sought after in the practice and theory of translation. Therefore, it is no coincidence that sometimes definitions of translation overlap with definitions of equivalence. Wilss !"#$%&$' defines translation as rendering into the T( a te)t which 'as close an equivalent as possi*le'. +teiner !""#%,&-' contends that equivalence, or translation, is a case of su*stituting 'equal' ver*al signs for those in the original te)t. .owever, *eyond the simplicities of mere sameness and flat/out su*stitution, equivalence comes across as a truly pro*lematic and polari0ing issue in translation studies this is mainly due to the diversity of angles from which the pro*lem of equivalence can *e addressed. 1n a narrow level, equivalence varies in degree full or partial', level of presentation conte)t, semantics, grammar, etc', or ran2 word, phrase, or sentence' .artmann and +tor2 !"3$%3!4'. 5roadly, approaches to equivalence fall into three categories% linguistic theories of equivalence, functional6pragmatic theories and integrative theories. This paper sets out to discuss these three categories of theories of equivalence as represented in the wor2 of 7atford, 8oller, and .ouse. 9rawing heavily on the models of :irth and .alliday, 7atford in his *oo2 A Linguistic Theory of Translation !"&;' adopts a strictly linguistic approach to translation, in general, and equivalence, in particular. .is *road definition of translation as <the replacement of te)tual material in one language +(' *y equivalent te)tual material in another language T('< *rings to *ear the concept of equivalence as a vital factor in translation i*id.%$-'. 7atford's contri*ution to theories of equivalence pours down to his famous distinction *etween 'formal correspondence' and 'te)tual equivalence'. = formal correspondent refers to <any T( category unit, class, element of structure, etc' which can *e said to occupy, as nearly as possi*le, the 'same' place in the 'economy' of the T( as given +( category occupies in the +( i*id.%$3'. 7atford is, however, careful to point out in this respect that formal correspondence is *y no means a*solute due to the inevita*le uniqueness of every language. = te)tual equivalent is <any T( te)t or portion of te)t which is o*served on a particular occasion > to *e equivalent of the given +( te)t or portion o te)t< i*id.%$3'. In order to spot a te)tual equivalent, 7atford conducts a commutation test, where*y 'a competent *ilingual informant or translator' is consulted on the translation of various sentences whose +T items are changed in order to o*serve 'what changes if any occur in the T( te)t as a

consequence' i*id.%$#'. .e cites the translation of My son is six from English to Mon fils a six ans in :rench as an e)ample. +nell/.orn*y !"##', nonetheless, is vocally critical of 7atford's approach and distinction. +he argues that 7atford's definition of te)tual equivalence is 'circular', his theory's reliance on *ilingual informants 'hopelessly inadequate', and his e)ample sentences 'isolated and even a*surdly simplistic' i*id.%!"/$-'. In fact, she discards the whole concept of equivalence as an illusion generated *y simplistic accounts of translation that reduces the activity to a mere linguistic e)ercise. Influenced *y *oth ?ida and 7atford, 8oller !"3"' sets out to draw a line of demarcation *etween the concepts of 8orresponden0 correspondence' and @quivalen0 equivalence'. .e concludes from 7atford's distinction that te)tual equivalence is 'tied to a particular +T/TT pair', whereas formal correspondence functions within a larger scope where entire language systems are compared, and therefore falls within the scope of contrastive linguistics. :rom this point, 8oller goes on to map out five different types of equivalence, compiled in the following ta*le *y Aunday $--!% ,#'%

8oller stresses that the translator <must set up a hierarchy of values to *e preserved in translation< as cited in Aunday, $--!%,#'. These values *oil down to% language function, content characteristics, language/stylistic characteristics, formal/aesthetic characteristics and pragmatic characteristics.

.ouse !""3' adopts a more functional approach to equivalence that matches her semantic and pragmatic interests. Bnli2e 7atford's deconte)tuali0ed theory, .ouse argues that the function of a certain te)t is to *e determined *y e)ploring the situational dimensions of the +T. 1nce the situational dimensions of the +T are identified, the TT can *e evaluatedC if the +T and TT are situationally incompati*le, then the translation is of *ad quality and a functional equivalence cannot *e esta*lished i*id.%,"'. +he ma2es a distinction *etween two types of translation that set fle)i*le parameters for the degree of equivalence in every unique te)t. Therefore, in 'overt translation', no need is perceived to create a 'second original' with a high degree of equivalence, since the audience are <quite overtly not *eing directly addressed< i*id%&&'. +he ma2es the case for functional equivalence in this respect citing the e)amples of translated literature and political speeches where the function of the +Ts cannot possi*ly *e the same for the TT receivers, who were not addressed in the first place. In this case, overt translation will see2 equivalence at the level of language, genre and register. Aoving a level up higher, nonetheless, toward functional equivalence will allow the TT receivers to eavesdrop on the +T. In covert translation, where the function of the TT is the same of the +T, <the translation enDoys the status of an original source te)t in the target culture< i*id,%&"'. Equivalence is, in this case, performed at the language6te)t and register levels. Aoreover, a cultural filter is applied so as to render a TT that may easily *e mista2en for an original. 7ertain te)t types such as tourist *rochures or manuals ma2e use of covert translation. 1ther te)t types, such as academic articles, allow for *oth overt and covert translation. .ouse's model comes across as more fle)i*le and practical with solid e)amples and realistic orientation in comparison to 7atford's. the distinction *etween overt and covert translations in terms of te)t types and function har2s *ac2 at 8oller's te)t/normative and pragmatic equivalence, which indeed is a witness to the successes of 8oller's equivalence theory as a transitional model from purely linguistic approaches to functional approaches.

Reference List
7atford, E.7. !"&;' A Linguistic Theory of Translation: an Essay in Applied Linguistics, (ondon% 1)ford Bniversity Press. .artmann, F.F.8., and :.7. +tor2. !"3$. Dictionary of language and linguistics. (ondon% =pplied +cience. .ouse, E. !""3'. Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. TG*ingen% ?arr. Aunday, Eeremy $--!' ntroducing Translation !tudies, (ondon% Foutledge. +nell/.orn*y, Aary !"##'. Translation !tudies. An ntegrated Approach. =msterdam and Philadelphia% Eohn 5enDamins. +teiner, Heorge. !"3;. After "a#el. (ondon% 1)ford Bniversity Press. Wilss, W. !"#$'% The !cience of Translation. $ro#lems and Methods, TG*ingen, ?arr.