Principles of Correspondence, Translation Equivalence

Introductions :

Since no two languages are identical, either in the meanings given to corresponding
symbols or in the ways in which such symbols are arranged in phrases and sentences,
it stands to reason that there can be no absolute correspondence between languages.
Hence there can be no fully exact translations. The total impact of a translation may be
reasonably close to the original, but there can be no identity in detail. Constance B.West
(1932:344) clearly states the problem: “Whoever takes upon himself to translate
contracts a debt; to discharge it, he must pay not with the same money, but the same
sum.” One must not imagine that the process of translation can avoid a certain degree
of interpretation by the translator. In fact, as D.G.Rossetti stated in 1874 (Fang 1953),
“A translation remains perhaps the most direct form of commentary.”

Different types of translations:

No statement of the principles of correspondence in translating can be complete
without recognizing the many different types of translations (Herbert P.Phillips 1959).
Traditionally, we have tended to think in terms of free or paraphrastic translations as
contrasted with close or literal ones. Actually, there are many more grades of
translating than these extremes imply. There are, for example, such ultraliteral
translations as interlinears; while others involve highly concordant relationships, e.g.
the same source-language word is always translated by one— and only one—receptor-
language word. Still others may be quite devoid of artificial restrictions in form, but
nevertheless may be over traditional and even archaizing. Some translations aim at very
close formal and semantic correspondence, but are generously supplied with notes and
commentary. Many are not so much concerned with giving information as with creating
in the reader something of the same mood as was conveyed by the original.
There are main part of different types of translations :
- Free or paraphrastic, close or literal translations.
- There are also ultraliteral translations as interlinears; but others may involve
highly concordant relationships, e.g. the same SL word is always translated
by only one word in receptor-language word.

Three different basic factors in translating :

1. the nature of the message,
2. the purpose of the author and, by proxy, of translator, and
3. the type of audience

The nature of the message

Content and form takes the higher consideration in the message. In most
cases content and form goes hand in hand with each other, but sometimes
content takes the primary consideration or visa versa form takes the primary
considerations. And very rarely they can be produced in a translation, so form
in most cases is sacrificed for the sake of content.

The purpose of the author and, by proxy, of translator

Translator’s purpose is similar to that of the original author. Another
one may be information about the content and form, or this may not be enough
he might want to make his translation meaningful into TL for example by
translation idioms with their exact meaning in TL not translating them word by
word.
The type of audience
The decoding ability of the audience should be important. Nida points four
principal levels in decoding abliity in any language:
1. The capacity of children,
2. The double-standard capacity of new literates,
3 The capacity of the average literate adult,
4. The usually high capacity of specialists (doctors, theologians,
philosophers, scienti sts, etc.).

- Translation Equivalence
Translation equivalence is the similarity between a word (or expression)
in one language and its translation in another. This similarity results from
overlapping ranges of reference.

Based on oxford dictionary equivalence is equal or interchangeable in

value, quantity, significance. Vinay and Darbelnet as cited in Munday,
stated that “equivalence refers to cases where languages describe the same
situation by different stylistic or structural means.

Equivalence consists of the concept of sameness and similarity; it has the

same or a similar effect or meaning in translation.

There are types of equivalence defined by Nida, which are also called two
basic orientations of translation:

- Formal equivalence
The attention is on the message, both in form and content. In this
translation the translator is concerned with such correspondence as poetry
to poetry, sentence to sentence, and concept to concept. The message of the
receptor language should be compared to the source language message as
in this way it can determine standards of accuracy and correctness.
 In this type of translation the translator tries to reproduces as literally and
meaningfully as possible the form and content of the original.

- Dynamic equivalence
 It is focused more on “the principle of equivalent effect”
 The translator is not focused on the matching the message of the
receptor language to that of the source language. But he is more
concerned with the dynamic relationship between receptor and
message as it was to the original receptors and the message. The
translator tries to uses a complete natural expressions of his own
language making the message of the text comprehensible to the
reader even though he might not understand the patterns of the
source-language.

Linguistic and Cultural distance

Languages and cultures can be closely related for example Hebrew and
Arabic. And when translating from one to another a translator might not
expect to have lots of problems, but he most pay attention to false friends,
even if languages are related they may have only superficial similarities.
Languages aren’t the same even though they belong to the same
language family but their culture is very different, e.g. German and
Hungarian.

Definitions of translating
Definitions of proper translating are almost as numerous and varied as
the persons who have undertaken to discuss the subject. There are a lot of
translation definitions because a vast number of people undertook to discuss
the same subject. Also the differences in the material translated and the
audience are different.
Principles governing a translation oriented toward formal equivalence
- Formal equivalence is basically source oriented in both the form and
content.
- And it attempts to reproduce formal elements:
1. grammatical units,
2. consistency in word usage,
3. meaning in terms of source context.

Grammatical Unites
In general, the grammatical modifications can be made the more readily,
sinc many grammatical changes are dictated by the obligatory structures of the
receptor language. That is to say, one is obliged to make such adjusments as
shifting word order,using verb in places of nouns, and subtitusing nouns or
pronouns.

Consistency in word usage

- Formal equivalence translation usually aims at so-called concordance of
terminology; that is, a source term in render by the corresponding term in
receptor document.

Meaning in terms of source context

- To produce meaning Formal equivalence doesn’t change anything not even
in translating idioms when we translate them literally.

Principles governing translations oriented toward dynamic equivalence

In contrast with formal-equivalence translations others are oriented toward
dynamic equivalence. In such a translation the focus of attention is directed, not
so much toward the source message, as toward the receptor response. A
dynamic-equivalence (or D-E) translation may be described as one concerning
which a bilingual and bicultural person can justifiably say, “That is just the way
we would say it.” It is important to realize, however, that a D-E translation is
not merely another message which is more or less similar to that of the source.
There are several characteristics of dynamic equivalence:
- Dynamic equivalence is not concerned with source message, but with the
receptor response. In Dynamic equivalence translations we attempt to make
our translation sound as if it were written in our own language. But the our
translation most reflect the meaning and the intent of the source text.
- Nida defined Dynamic equivalence as the closest natural equivalent to the
source-language message.

This definition contains three terms:

1. equivalence, which points toward the source-language message,
2. natural, which points toward the receptor language, and
3. closest, which binds the two orientations together on the basis of the
highest degree of approximation.

TRANSLATION
PRINCIPLES OF CORRESPONDENCE, TRANSLATION
EQUIVALENCE

UNMAS DENPASAR

BY:

1. I PUTU DODIK EKA PUTRA (1601882030074)

2. NI MADE ASTINI (1601882030087)
3. KADEK ERIK CAHYADI (1601882030092)
4. I.A MD SARIRA CAHYA PERTIWI (1601882030093)
5. NI KETUT SURYA PURNAMA DEWI (1501882030034)

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PRGOGRAM

FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION

UNIVERSITAS MAHASARASWATI DENPASAR

2019