1 / 103

Equivalence in Translation

Equivalence in Translation . equivalent /equivalence. Adj. equal or interchangeable in value, quantity, significance, etc. having the same or a similar effect or meaning N. the state of being equivalent or interchangeable Logics/maths:

omer
Télécharger la présentation

Equivalence in Translation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Equivalence in Translation

  2. equivalent/equivalence Adj. • equal or interchangeable in value, quantity, significance, etc. • having the same or a similar effect or meaning N. • the state of being equivalent or interchangeable Logics/maths: • the binary truth-function that takes the value true when both component sentences are true or when both are false, corresponding to English if and only if. Symbol: º or « , as in --(p Ù q) º --p Ú --q, =biconditional

  3. TE • ‘Unity in difference’ • ‘Sameness in diference’ • R. Jakobson 1957

  4. What is equivalence? • Concepts of sameness & similarity • SIMILARITY (logics): • Not necessarily symmetrical This copy of M. Lisa is incredibly like the original The M. Lisa is incredibly like this copy of it. • Not reversible • Richard fought like a lion • ?The/A lion fought like Richard • Not necessarily transitive • If A is similar to B and B is similar to C, it is not logically implied that A is similar to C

  5. SIMILARITY – cognitive aspects • Two entities are similar • Two entities are are thought of as similar • Objective vs similartity ‘in the mind’ • Models of similarity in cogn. science: • Mental distance model • (concepts located closer to each other in the mind- proximity of values) • Feature or contrast model • Degree of overlap of features (shared and distinctive)

  6. Two entities are similar if they share at least one feature • Two entities are the same if neither has features that the other lacks • Salience / Relevance (with respect to some purpose), • Similarity-as-attribution • Similarity judgements (e.g. in poetry)

  7. Hamlet: Do you see yonder cloud that’s almost in shape of a camel? • Polonius: By the mass, and ‘tis like a camel indeed. • Hamlet: Methinks it’s like a weasel. • Polonius: It is becked like a weasel. • Hamlet: Or like a whale? • Polonius: Very like a whale.

  8. Similarity(Sovran 1992) divergent & convergent: • The ‘oneness’ starting point: • A A’, A’’, A’’’, ... • The seaparateness staring point: • A B • Chesterman, p. 13-15

  9. Recap.: • The concept of similiarity is Janus-faced(In art he is depicted with two heads facing opposite ways, C16: from Latin, from janus archway). It simultaneously refers to a relation-in-the-world and a perception in the mind. The element of subjective perception is always present. • Two entities are percieved to be similar to the extent that their salient features match • Two entities count as the same within a given frame of reference if neither is percieved to have salient features which the other lacks • Assessment as to what counts as a feature and how salient it is are both context-bound (purpose of assessm.) and assessor-bound • Assessment of similarity are thus constrained by relevance • Degree of similarity correlates inversely with the extension of the set of items judged to be similar • Two main types of similarity relation: divergent and convergent

  10. ‘Why is a raven like a writing-desk?’ (Alice in Wonderland) • LINGUIST: they both begin with /r/ sound (FORMAL) • LITERARY SCHOLAR: they can both serve as a source of inspiration for poetry • CARROLL: ‘Because it can produce a few notes, to they are very flat’ (HOMONYMIC) • OTHERS:‘because Poe wrote on both’; because it slopes with a flap; because they both stand on legs’, etc. (SEMANTIC, FUNCTIONAL)

  11. TRANSLATION THEORYvsCONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS • Notion of equivalence - primarily a translation theory concept • Sameness is understood differently in TR and CA • Contrastiveness – a CA concept, also useful in TR • Langue vs parole; competence vs performance

  12. Equivalence in TR theory • The equative view • The taxonomic view • The relativist view

  13. 1. The equative view • classical view, Jerome, Erasmus; the Holy Script; (Kelly 1979, Renner 1989): • A = A’ • A A + A’ • A = A, A’ , A’’, A’’’ • A A, A’ , A’’, A’’’

  14. 2. The taxonomic view • Jerome: non-sacred texts should be translated more freely that sacred ones • G. Mounin (1958) • Jakobson (1959): denotative eq. is always possible (denied by other theorists) • Nida (1964) – formal equivalence & dynamic equivalence • Catford (1965) formal correspondence between SL & TL categories when they occupy, as nearly as possible, the ‘same’ place in the economies of the two languages – maximal closeness, not true identity. • Koller (1979, 1992) Denotative, connotative, text-normative, pragmatic, formal/aesthetic eq. • Ivir (1981) formal correspondence and translation equivalence • Newmark (1985) semantic vs communicative eq. • Snell-Hornby (1986)TE practically irrelevant issue (cf. 58 types of Aequivalenz in German studies)

  15. 3. The relativist view – campaign against equivalence • Snell-Hornby (1988): rejects identity assumption; equivalence is an illusion • Holmes / Toury (1988, 1980): three main lines of arguments: • Reject samenes as a criterion for any relation betwee SLT and TLT • Equivalence is to be replaced by a more relative term: similarity, matching, family resemblance (a number of resemblances) • Translator’s rationality is descriptive (more than one possible solution); using norms TLR is to find the most suitable solution • Chesterman (1997): introduction of the relation norm governing professional translation behaviour • Pym (1992): eq. is fundamentally an economic term (=exchange value in a particular situation), (Eq. depends only on what is offered, negotiated and accepted in the exchange situation)

  16. Gutt (1991): eq. depends on the utterance itself and the cognitive state of the interpreter (e.g. TR of the Bible – for two time-distant recipents) • Toury (1980, 1995) – comparative literary studies: • TL culture is the starting point, not SL culture: • start with existing translations and study the resemblances existing betweeen these and their SL texts; • deduce what TR strategies have been used (throughout history); • establish various constraints & norms impinging on the TLR’s decision-making (Lefevere 1992) • Vermeer / Reiss / Nord (1984, 1993) – skopos theory: do not seek to achieve the same skopos as the original, but what the skopos of the translation is (e.g. poetry, purpose, ets) • Relativist views on TR go hand in hand with the relativist view of language, as opposed to universalist views

  17. Conclusion: • Most scholars in TR theory today reject EQ as an identity assumption in all its forms (formal, semantic, pragmatic, situational...) • EQ is theoretically untenable • EQ misinterprets what translators actually do • The EQ or relevant similarity between SLT and TLT is not given in advance; BUT • It takes shape within the mind of the TLR under a number of constraints (purpose of TLT and the act of translation (in an act of communication) • Chesterman (1998: 27)

  18. TE - the central issue in translation • Heated controversy: • (a) definition, (b) relevance, (c) applicability • Key theorists: • Vinay and Darbelnet, Jakobson, Nida • Catford, House, Baker, Newmark, Ivir, Koller

  19. Three main approaches to TR and TE: • linguistic approach to TE – BUT translation in itself is not merely a matter of linguistics • TE - a transfer of the message from the Source Culture to the Target Culture: • when a message is transferred from the SL to TL, the translator is also dealing with two different cultures at the same time • pragmatic/semantic or functionally oriented approach Some translation scholars stand in the middle (M. Baker): • equivalence is used 'for the sake of convenience — because most translators are used to it rather than because it has any theoretical status' • TE – a technical term, for the lack of a better one

  20. Vinay and Darbelnet: equivalence intranslation • equivalence-oriented translation - a procedure which 'replicates the same situation as in the original, whilst using completely different wording' (ibid.:342)

  21. Vinay and Darbelnet: • this procedure (if applied during the translation process) can maintain the stylistic impact of the SL text in the TL text • TE: ideal method when dealing with proverbs, idioms, clichés, nominal or adjectival phrases and the onomatopoeia of animal sounds • equivalent expressions between language pairs - acceptable as long as they are listed in a bilingual dictionary as 'full equivalents': • However, (glossaries and collections of idiomatic expressions) 'can never be exhaustive

  22. Vinay and Darbelnet: • Therefore: 'the need for creating equivalences arises from the situation, and it is in the situation of the SL text that translators have to look for a solution' • even if the semantic equivalent of an expression in the SL text is quoted in a dictionary or a glossary, it is not enough, and it does not guarantee a successful translation

  23. Vinay and Darbelnet: examples (to prove the theory): Take one (a fixed expression) = (equivalent French translation) Prenez-en un) • (It. Prendetene uno; Cro. Uzmite!) • But, (Take one as a notice next to a basket of free samples in a large store!), the translator would have to look for an equivalent term in a similar situation ... (Probajte!) • and use the expression • Échantillon gratuit: • (Besplatan primjerak/uzorak; Poklon); Take away(to bear off to another place : carry away) • Take away (to derogate or detract; as from merit or effect) often to a specified extent : lessen reputation • Take away food/pizza

  24. 2. R. Jakobson: 'equivalence in difference' , 'unity in diversity' • semiotic approach to language ('there is no signatum without signum' (1959:232) - three kinds of translation: • Intralingual (within one language, i.e. rewording or paraphrase) • Interlingual (between two languages) • Intersemiotic (between sign systems) • interlingual translation (use of synonyms in order to get the ST message across): • i.e.: in interlingual translations there is no full equivalence between code units

  25. Jakobson: the notion of 'equivalence in difference': • 'translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes' • from a grammatical point of view languages may differ from one another to a greater or lesser degree, but this does not mean that a translation cannot be possible, in other words, that the translator may face the problem of not finding a translation equivalent • 'whenever there is deficiency, terminology may be qualified and amplified by: loanwords or loan-translations, neologisms or semantic shifts, and circumlocutions'

  26. R. Jakobson: • examples (English and Russian) language structures: • where there is no literal equivalent for a particular ST word or sentence, then it is up to the translator to choose the most suitable way to render it in the TT • syr: curd – cottage cheese - cheese

  27. similarity between Vinay and Darbelnet's theory of translation procedures and Jakobson's theory of translation (Translatability!!!) • whenever a linguistic approach is no longer suitable to carry out a translation, the translator can rely on other procedures such as loan-translations, neologisms and the like • recognize thelimitations of a linguistic theory and argue that a translation can never be impossible since there are several methods that the translator can choose. • the role of the translator as the person who decides how to carry out the translation • conceive the translation as a task which can always be carried, regardless of the cultural or grammatical differences between ST and TT

  28. R. Jakobson: • Jakobson's theory - essentially based on his semiotic approach to translation: • the translator has to recode the ST message first and then s/he has to transmit it into an equivalent message for the TC

  29. 3. Nida and Taber: Formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence Two different types of equivalence: • formal equivalence (Nida 1964) or formal correspondence (Nida and Taber (1969/1982) • dynamic equivalence

  30. Nida: Formal Correspondence: • 'focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content'

  31. Nida: Dynamic Equivalence: • based upon 'the principle of equivalent effect' (1964:159)

  32. A. Formal correspondence = a TL item which represents the closest equivalent of a SL word or phrase HOWEVER: • there are not always formal equivalents between language pairs • therefore these formal equivalents should be used wherever possible if the translation aims at achieving formal rather than dynamic equivalence • serious implications at times in the TT since the translation will not be easily understood by the target audience • Nida and Taber assert that: • 'Typically, formal correspondence distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language, and hence distorts the message, so as to cause the receptor to misunderstand or to labor unduly hard'.

  33. B. Dynamic equivalence = a translation principle according to which a translator seeks to translate the meaning of the original in such a way that the TL wording will trigger the same impact on the Tl audience as the original wording did upon the ST audience. Chomskian influence (TG Grammar): • 'Frequently, the form of the original text is changed; • but as long as the change follows the rules • of back transformation in the source language, • of contextual consistency in the transfer, and • of transformation in the receptor language, • the message is preserved and the translation is faithful' (Nida and Taber, 1982:200). • - dynamic equivalence - a more effective translation procedure (cf. esp. in translating the Bible

  34. Nida: CONCLUSION: • the product of the translation process (i.e. the text in the TL) must have the same impact on the different readers it was addressing • BUT: • 'dynamic equivalence in translation is far more than mere correct communication of information' • Despite using a linguistic approach to translation, Nida is much more interested in the message of the text, in its semantic quality • Therefore: We must 'make sure that this message remains clear in the target text'

  35. 4. Catford: translation shifts a more linguistic-based approach to translation • (J.R. Firth and M.A.K. Halliday) • main contribution to translation theory – concepts of: • types of translation • shifts of translation

  36. Catford: Types of translation (based on three criteria): • The extent of translation (full translation vs partial translation); • The grammatical rank at which the translation equivalence is established (rank-bound translation vs unbounded translation); • The levels of language involved in translation (total translation vs restricted translation)

  37. Catford: A2. Grammatical rankat which TE is established: • First dimension of correspondence: • In rank-bound translation an equivalent is sought in the TL • for each word, or • for each morpheme encountered in the ST • In unbounded translation equivalences are not tied to a particular rank (i.e. equivalences at sentence, clause and other levels)

  38. Catford's claim: • a formal correspondence could be said to exist between English and e.g. French if relations between ranks have approximately the same configuration in both languages • problems with formal correspondence: • despite being a useful tool to employ in comparative linguistics, • it seems that it is not really relevant in terms of assessing translation equivalence between ST and TT

  39. Catford: A2 – Second dimension of correspondence: • textual equivalence: • occurs when any TL text or portion of text is 'observed on a particular occasion ... to be the equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text' • This is implemented by a process of commutation, whereby: • 'a competent bilingual informant or translator' is consulted on the translation of various sentences whose ST items are changed in order to observe 'what changes if any occur in the TL text as a consequence'

  40. formal correspondence between SL & TL categories when they occupy, as nearly as possible, the ‘same’ place in the economies of the two languages – maximal closeness, not true identity.

  41. Catford (1965) • Textual and translation equivalence – the relation between a text-portion in a SLT and whatever text-portion is observed to be equivalent to it in a given tTLT. • Textual equivalents are not defined by TR theory but discovered in practice via the authority of a competennt TLR or bilingual

  42. The condition for TR EQ is ‘interchangeability in a given situation • The common ground is found in the situation itself not in the semantics of the sentence: there is no equivalence of meaning since meanings are language-specific (I have arrived – Došla sam) • Translated as Došla sam (Ja prišla) not because they ‘mean the same’ but because there is an overlap between the sets of situational features which both utterence select as relevant (the speaker, the arrival, the arrival is a prior event)

  43. Three potential kinds of EQ • FORMAL EQ: which can only be approximate • SEMANTIC EQ: which is theoretically impossible • SITUATIONAL EQ: which is the basis for translation • The underlying BELIEF: the situational equivalence actually exists! (at least in the sense of ‘the same features of substance’ present in the SL and TL situations

  44. Catford • rejects the movement metaphor: • ‘nothing is transferred from A to B in translation. • Rather, TR is the process of ‘replacing’ textual material in one langauge with the textual material in another’ (p. 20) • Translate – carry accross the river

  45. Catford: Translation Shifts • the notion based on the distinction between: formal correspondence • & textual equivalence

  46. Catford: Translation Shifts (def) 'departures from formal correspondence in the process of going from the SL to the TL'

  47. Two main types of translation shifts: • level shifts, where the SL item at one linguistic level (e.g. grammar) has a TL equivalent at a different level (e.g. lexis), and • category shifts

  48. category shifts, divided into four sub-types • Structure-shifts, which involve a grammatical change between the structure of the ST and that of the TT; • Class-shifts, when a SL item is translated with a TL item which belongs to a different grammatical class, i.e. a verb may be translated with a noun; • Unit-shifts, which involve changes in rank; • Intra-system shifts, which occur when 'SL and TL possess systems which approximately correspond formally as to their constitution, but when translation involves selection of a non-corresponding term in the TL system' (ibid.:80). For instance, when the SL singular becomes a TL plural.

  49. Criticism of the shift aproach: Snell-Hornby (1988): • Catford's definition of textual equivalence is 'circular' • his theory's reliance on bilingual informants 'hopelessly inadequate', and • his example sentences 'isolated and even absurdly simplistic' • the concept of equivalence in translation is an illusion • the translation process cannot simply be reduced to a linguistic exercise, since there are also other factors: • textual, cultural and situational aspects, • which should be taken into consideration when translating • linguistics is NOT the only discipline which enables people to carry out a translation, since • translating involves different cultures and different situations at the same time and • they do not always match from one language to another

  50. 5. J. House: overt and covert translation • in favour of semantic and pragmatic equivalence • argues that ST and TT should match one another in function • House suggests that it is possible to characterize the function of a text by determining the situational dimensions of the ST • In fact, according to her theory, every text is in itself is placed within a particular situation which has to be correctly identified and taken into account by the translator.

More Related