Equivalence was introduced in Translation Studies as an alternative path from the traditional one-to-one literal translation. The last decades, from 50’s until today, it has been one of the most controversial terms in translation theory and many scholars, with dominants Jakobson and Nida, attempted to analyse it systematically. This essay will review and discuss the most representative theories about equivalence in chronological order starting from Vinay and Darbelnet to Mona Baker.

To start with, Jean Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet consider equivalence as a procedure of translation. We could say that they view it as a natural consequence of translation because they support that translators strive to produce equivalent texts, thus choose their methods based on that. They refer to the example of the pain expression which is ‘’ouch’’ in English, and ‘’aie’’ in French. The reason we make this choice is because we always have equivalence in mind when translating. They also observe that many phrases like idioms are standard from one language to another which is a typical method to create equivalent effect, suggesting that we should be careful when trying to introduce new calques and we shouldn’t misuse foreign elements and respect the linguistic heritage of the TL. (J.P. Vinae, J. Darbelnet, p.38). In fact, this theory prepared the ground for more systematic studies on equivalence. They defined equivalence and methods to achieve it an a very initial stage for the history of Translation Theory, but the equivalence is just a part of the translation process, not the ultimate goal and it hardly can be said that we use our translation methods merely based on achieving equivalence.

Gideon Toury was the first who talked about ‘’norms’’ in translation. This means that the translation process and product and inevitably, translator’s decisions are broadly affected by dominant norms in each language. Consequently, the type of equivalence is determined by norms (Venuti, 2012, p. 170). Toury believes that norms are relevant to a specific setting, constantly changing through time, culture and circumstances. This theory has been adopted from other scholars over the last years, in a more developed way (see Bassnett, Lefevere, 1998). It also justifies a range of translation choices that might had been left unexplained or inadequately justified without this theory.

Jakobson defines equivalence in linguistic terms. He supports that equivalence is possible for all words, as long as we have ‘’linguistic acquaintance’’ of that term, giving the example of ‘’ambrosia’’. Even if we have never tasted it we can still understand what it is if someone gives us a broader explanation, using more terms that are familiar to us (what he calls ‘’circumlocution’’), but absolute equivalents between ‘’code units’’ is impossible to exist. Moreover, he distinguishes three ways of translation;

· Intralingual translation (within the same language system)

· Interlingual translation (from one language system to another)

· Intersemeotic translation/transmutation (non-verbal sign system)

(Venuti, 2012, p.126)

Jakobson thinks that poetry has not absolute equivalents. (Venuti, 2012, p.126)

Overall, Jakobson’s theory sees equivalence from a linguistic point of view. The part of his theory referring to ‘’nonverbal sign system’’ offers an alternative solution to the problem of ‘’untranslatability’’.

Catford has also a linguistic approach on translation. Specifically, he states that translation process in every case must be based on a linguistic theory and distinguishes between ‘’textual equivalence’’ and ‘’formal correspondence’’ and sees ‘’translation equivalence’’ as ‘’empirical phenomenon’’. When Catford speaks for ‘’textual equivalent’’ he refers to ‘’any TL text or portion of text which is observed on a particular occasion to be the equivalent of a given SL text or portion of a text’’ and as ‘’formal correspondence’’ he defines ‘’any TL category which occupies as nearly as possible the same place in the economy of the TL as the given SL category occupies in the SL text’’. (J.C Catford, 1978, p.27). For the case of the textual equivalents he takes as an example the sentence ‘’My son is six years old’’ translated into French ‘’Mon fil a six ans’ but if we change the sentence into ‘’Your daughter is six years old’’ then the equivalent French translation will be ‘’Votre fille a six ans’’, concluding that a ‘’translation textual equivalent is that portion’’ (in this case ‘’your daughter’’) of the TL text which is changed when and only when a given portion of the SL text is changed’’. 

According to Catford we basically depend on our experience and knowledge of the languages in simple cases like the above when the translator is not present but for more complex situations the method of ‘’commutation’’, as Catford calls it, can be very helpful. (J.C Catford, 1978, p. 28). Commutation is a method that could be called a method of reflection. We make changes in the original test and then we observe the respective changes in the TT. Catford believes that this is the ideal method when it comes to textual equivalents. More complicated examples of textual equivalents can be found in languages with different structures such as Russian and English. A very representative case is the case of the article which does not exist in Russian language system. In this case the equivalent doesn’t exist in the TT, thus is ‘’nil’’. Moreover, Catford introduced the term of ‘’probabilities’’ in equivalents. In other words, this estimates how many chances there are if we randomly choose a word as an equivalent how possible it is to be the right one (eg the term ‘’dans’’ in French) to the TT (eg ‘’into’’ in English could be 19). Nil means 0 probability and 1 means certainty. Catford distinguishes the ‘’conditioned’’ from the ‘’unconditioned’’ probabilities (see above), recognising the fact that a text is influenced by other factors. As an example the above ‘’dans’’ has actually more chances to have ‘’into’’ as equivalent with certain verbs that show of motion (J.C Catford, 1987, p.32). Catford distinguishes translation in total and district and believes that translation equivalence occurs when ‘’ a SL and TL text or item are relatable to at least some of the same features of substance’’, but stresses the problem of ‘’sameness’’ which can be problematic in the terms of ‘’total translation’’ when it comes to different cultures. (J.C Catford, 1987, p.52). Finally, his most broadly known theory is ‘’Translation Shifts’’, which means changes happening during the journey from ST to TT which result, at many cases ‘’departure from formal correspondence’’ He distinguishes two basic types of shifts:

· The Level Shifts occur when an SL item has a TL equivalent at a different level (for instance grammar to lexis). An example is the verb in Russian which distinguishes perfectiveness from imperfectiveness in contrast with other languages e.g English. In this case if the translator wants to keep the nature of the perfectiveness he/she can use an alternative verb which shows perfectiveness e.g ‘’achieved instead of did’’ (Catford, 1987, p.73)

· The Category Shifts can be subcategorised in

1.Structured Shifts which are the most common and obviously happen when the structure of the TT changes.

2.The Class Shifts when the equivalent that is produced in the TT is of a different class (a medical student > un étudiant en médecine)

3. A unit shift which is a change of ‘’rank’’ (see above the example with the article in Russian) (Catford, 1987, p. 77)

4. Intra-System Shifts where the changes happen into the system (eg French and English typically have a numerical system, however in some cases the plural/singular changes (departure from formal correspondence) eg. Advice (singular)>les conseils (plural)

For Catford translation equivalence can’t absolutely fit with formal correspondence (1987,p. 77)

Generally, it could be said that Catford’s theory especially the part of translation shifts is a theoretical approach which can easily find practical application. However, (as Jakobson’s theory) it focuses more to the structure of the ST and the changes that occur from the translation process, rather than in the translation process itself. Moreover, in contrast with Newmark’s or Baker’s theory it doesn’t dedicate enough space to talk about cultural gaps between SL and TL and strategies to overcome them.

Nida, like Jakobson (with the exception of poetry for the latter one) believes that ‘’Anything that can be said in one language can be said to another, unless the form is an essential element of the message’’. To support his theory about equivalence, he gives two representative examples from the Bible. The one is the phrase ‘’white as snow’’, saying that the word ‘’snow’’ does not affect the message because even if the reader has never seen snow, he still has a word for it or an equivalent idiom and most importantly for his theory, because in this case the word ‘’snow’’ doesn’t play a crucial role for the meaning.(E.Nida,C.Taber,1982,p.4) He continues his argument giving as an example the Hebrew word ‘’hesed’’ which doesn’t have a full equivalent in English because the closest translation would be ‘’covenant love’’, so the word to word translation leaves the socio-cultural import of the term unsaid, but sometimes we have to stay loyal to the meaning and set it as a priority. The extend to which one term will change during the process of translation depends on the ‘’cultural and linguistic distance between languages’’ (E.Nida, C.Taber, 1982,p.5)

Finally, Nida’s greatest contribution was the fact that he introduced a ‘’new concept of translating’’, that transferred the importance from the ‘’message’’ to the ‘’receptor’s response’’ in its ‘’original setting’’ (‘’dynamic equivalence’’). (E.Nida,C.Taber, 1982, p.4). He argues that translators should set priorities and ‘’dynamic equivalence is more important than ‘’verbal’’ (literal) translation (‘’formal correspondence’’). As a consequence of the ‘’shift from the message to the receptor’’, he believes that we should take into account our audience when making a choice between two or more equivalents and set as criteria which term is more acceptable or familiar to our target audience. (E.Nida,C.Taber,1982, p.14) and sets three factors for translation: 1. The type of the audience 2. The purpose(s) of the author/translator 3 the type of the message (L.Venuti, 2012, p.142)

As a general evaluation of Nida’s theory it’s obvious that it is one of the most influential theories with a modern approach about translation that goes beyond the literal translation and sets a new paradigm for theory. Nida focuses on translator’s dynamic relationship with his/her audience during the translation process. Indeed, target audience is one of the first parameters when we translate, but we should keep in mind that these three factors might not apply at the same extend in all types of translations.

Moving to Newmark’s theory for equivalence, he considers that equivalence is more the ‘’desirable result’’ rather than the goal of every translation, let alone that in two cases, equivalence is impossible to be achieved. The first case is if the goal of the ST is to affect and the goal of the TL translation is to inform and the second one is if there is a ‘’pronounced cultural gap between the SL and the TL. For Newmark, translators should set equivalence as a priority. Translator’s aim shouldn’t be to generate an identical TT with the ST but to achieve the ‘’closest natural equivalent’’. Sometimes the closest translation in terms of meaning might sound unnatural and odd. He gives the example of the biblic Greek word ‘’egeneto’’ which literally means ‘’it happened’’ but doesn’t sound as a proper and natural equivalent rather than an identical translation. (P.Newmark, 1988 p.12). Newmark considers that the equivalent effect does not have the same importance in all types of texts. For instance, in the ‘’vocative’’ texts it is essential, but in the ‘’informative’’ texts it is not. He considers the cultural difference a serious obstacle for equivalence, supporting that ‘’the more cultural a text is the less unlike for a translation to achieve equivalence’’ (1988, p.48). One example is the French word ‘’pelican’’ which means ‘’affectionate father’’ but the English translation still does not preserve the symbolic import of the original word. He suggests two strategies to overcome that problem. The first one is to find a ‘’cultural equivalent’’ in the TL, for instance the French word ‘’baccalaureate’’ could be translated as ‘’A Levels’’ or find a ‘’functional equivalent’’ in the TL which has the same function with the TL word and is a cultural-free word which we choose through the process of ‘’cultural componential analysis’’ that is the most reliable way to describe the original word accurately. (Newmark, 1988, p.49)

Newmark’s point of view on equivalence in contrast with the linguistic approaches and what has been said during the previous decades (eg Jakobson,1959) is focused on the issue of the cultural gaps that might occur during the translation process. Over the last years the above strategies that he has proposed have been a valuable guidance for translators. Inevitably, Newmark distances his theory from the linguists and the structuralism, setting a more cultural-focused theoretical approach.

Finally, Mona Baker in her book ‘’In Other Words’’ (1992) discusses the various types of equivalence that can be identified in the grammar, lexical, textual and pragmatic level of the text and stresses the problem of non-equivalence occurring from the different parameters related to each level (p.6). Before referring to the types of non-equivalence that she suggested it is worth to mention that she goes a step further from the lexical level and supports that even in the level of ‘’morphemes’’ which is the simplest unit of the text (e.g the word dog>dogs where ‘’s’’ in this case is the morpheme that marks the plural) we can face problems with equivalence (eg man>men where the morpheme is part of the main word) (p.10). Baker believes that each type of non-equivalence demands different strategy. The problems occurring from non-equivalence according to Baker are : A concept that can’t be lexicalised from the SL to the TL, a semantically complex word, a semantic distinction that might be used in one word might not be applicable to the other, the TL might lack of a ‘’superordinate’’ (general term- e.g facilities) or the opposite (lack of a specific term-subordinate), the ‘’physical perspective’’ might be less or more important from the SL to the TL (for example Japanese has 5 potential equivalents for the word ‘’give’’ depending on who gives to whom), differences in ‘’expressive meaning’’ (eg the word ‘’homosexuality’’ in Arabic is hard to be used in a neutral background as it literally expresses a very negative meaning) and finally differences in form, for instance some types might not exist in the TL (employer-employee or suffixes eg childish). Baker’s work refers to all the potential problems that might arise from non-equivalence, similarly with Newmark et al., considers the method of cultural substitution essential in order to overcome the cultural gaps, according to his/her judgment and circumstances (p.95). Her influential work ‘’In Other Words’’ has been a guide for translators over the last years.

Concluding, through the last decades the way that scholars view the issue of equivalence has changed. Starting with more equivalence-centred theories (J.P. Vinae, J. Darbelnet), later theories were influenced by the field of Linguistics and Structuralism (Jakobson) moving away from word to word mathematical model (Nida) and finally, following the cultural turn in 90’s, theoretical approaches were formulated by cultural diversity between languages leading to cultural-focused theories (Newmark, Baker). Adopting Susan Bassnett’s overall evaluation on equivalence, it is shouldn’t be approached as a ‘’search of sameness’’ but as a ‘’dialectic between the signs and the structures within and surrounding the SL and the TL’’ (2013, p.37).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Baker, Mona (1992). In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation, London: Routledge.

2. Bassnett, Susan and Lefevere André (1998). Constructing cultures: essays on literary translation, Clevedon : Multilingual Matters.

3. Bassnett, Susan. (2013). Translation studies. 4th ed. London: Routledge.

4. Catford, John C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay on Applied Linguistics, London: Oxford University Press.

5. Jakobson, Roman (1959). 'On Linguistic Aspects of Translation', in R. A. Brower (ed.) On Translation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

6. Newmark, P. (1987). A textbook of translation. 1st ed. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice-Hall International.

7. Nida, Eugene A. and C.R.Taber (1969 / 1982). The Theory and Practice of Translation, Leiden: E. J. Brill.

8. Venuti, L. (2012). The Translation studies reader. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.

9. Vinay, J.P. and J. Darbelnet (1995). Comparative Stylistics of French and English: a Methodology for Translation, translated by J. C. Sager and M. J. Hamel, Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.