Utente:SSapsan/Sandbox4

Vinay & Darbelnet  

Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet, French scholars, explain equivalence as something almost inherently cultural.

According to Vinay & Darbelnet, equivalence is a procedure which “replicates the same situation as in the original, whilst using completely different wording”. It is thus used for instance to translate fixed expressions such as idioms, proverbs or clichés where source language and target language units which bear little or no external resemblance are used to translate each other.

In English the term "ouch!" is used, while in French, a literal rendering of the sound would be of no use to the reader. Instead, the equivalent of "ouch!" in French is "aïe!". Both words would immediately indicate to readers that there is some level of pain involved.

Jakobson Roman

Roman Jakobson, one of the most influential linguists of the twentieth century, examines key issues of interlingual (translation between two different written languages) translation, notably linguistic meaning and equivalence.

Jakobson follows the relation set out by Saussure between the signifier (the spoken and written signal) and the signified (the concept signified). Together, the signifier and signified form the linguistic sign, but that sign is arbitrary or unmotivated.

Thorny problem of equivalence in meaning between words in different languages ‘there is ordinarily no full equivalence between code-units’. He gives the example of cheese in English, which is not identical to the Russian syr (or, for that matter, the Spanish queso, the German Käse, etc.) since the Russian ‘code-unit’ does not include the concept of cottage cheese. In Russian, that would be tvarok and not syr.

For the message to be ‘equivalent’ in source text and target text, the code-units will be different since they belong to two different sign systems (languages).

From a linguistic and semiotic angle, Jakobson approaches the problem of equivalence with the following, now-famous, definition: ‘Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics.’ In Jakobson’s discussion, the problem of meaning and equivalence thus focuses on differences in the structure and terminology of languages rather than on any inability of one language to render a message that has been written in another verbal language. Thus, Russian can still express the full semantic meaning of cheese even if it breaks it down into two separate concepts.

Eugene Nida

A new approach to equivalence was introduced by American linguist Eugene Nida. His theory was based on his own practical work on translating and organizing the translation of the Bible and took concrete form in two major works in the 1960s: Toward a Science of Translating (1964) and the co-authored with C. R. Taber The Theory and Practice of Translation (1969). His most notable contribution to linguistic theory was concept of Dynamic and Formal Equivalence.

Firstly, Nida describes various ‘scientific approaches to meaning’ and moves from the old idea that an orthographic word has a fixed meaning and towards a functional definition of meaning in which a word ‘acquires’ meaning through its context and can produce varying responses according to culture. Afterwards the old terms such as ‘literal’, ‘free’ and ‘faithful’ translation are discarded by Nida in favor of two types of equivalence’: (1) formal equivalence and (2) dynamic equivalence.

1. Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content. The message in the receptor language should match as closely as possible the different elements in the source language. Formal equivalence, or ‘formal correspondence’ is thus keenly oriented towards the source text structure.
2. Dynamic, or functional, equivalence is based on what Nida calls ‘the principle of equivalent effect’, where ‘the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message’. The message has to be tailored to the receptor’s linguistic needs and cultural expectation and ‘aims at complete naturalness of expression’. ‘Naturalness’ is a key requirement for Nida. Indeed, he defines the goal of dynamic equivalence as seeking ‘the closest natural equivalent to the source-language message’. This receptor-oriented approach considers adaptations of grammar, of lexicon and of cultural references to be essential in order to achieve naturalness; the target text language should not show interference from the source language, and the ‘foreignness’ of the source text setting is minimized in a way that would now be criticized by later culturally oriented translation theorists.

For Nida, the success of the translation depends above all on achieving equivalent response. It is one of the ‘four basic requirements of a translation’, which are: (1) making sense; (2) conveying the spirit and manner of the original; (3) having a natural and easy form of expression; (4) producing a similar response.

Nida’s great achievement is to have drawn translation theory away from the stagnant ‘literal vs. free’ debate and into the modern era. His concepts of formal and dynamic equivalence place the receiver in the centre of the equation and have exerted huge influence over subsequent theoreticians, especially in Germany.