Dialectical Analysis of Equivalence in Translation Theory and Practice

谷巍

1. Introduction

The notion of equivalence has been a major concern in translation theory and practice. For many translation scholars （Catford， 1965， Nida， 1964， etc.）， it embodies the success of translation activities. However， in spite of its significant role in defining translation and guiding translation activity， it has still caused some controversy and has been challenged by many translation theorists. One of the criticism proposed by Snell-Hornby （1988） is that equivalence is ‘‘imprecise” and “ill-defined， and represents “an illusion of symmetry between languages. Equivalence has also been criticised for lacking consistency， ignoring cultural aspects and communicative situations， and subordinating the translator to the source text （Kashgary， 2011）. In this essay， I will argue that in spite of some criticism， equivalence is still necessary in translation. It should not be understood as almighty or in its “absolute mathematical sense” （Kashgary， 2011）， rather， in multifaceted dimensions.

In order to demonstrate this， this essay will first focus on the concept of equivalence and its relation to translation in translation studies. Secondly， doubts and criticism towards equivalence will be exhibited and analysed in detail， from the perspectives of its pure linguistic nature， restriction to the translators originality， and non-equivalence. Finally， views from proponents of equivalence are introduced to prove the unreasonableness of the above criticism one by one and to highlight the validity of equivalence. Examples provided in this essay are mainly Chinese to English translation or vise versa.

2. The concept of equivalence

The notion of equivalence has been considered central to translation studies. Most definitions of translation employ the term or a similar concept. Catford （1965） defined translation as ‘‘the replacement of textual material in one language by equivalent textual material in another language. He also distinguished between two types of equivalence： formal equivalence， which is the occupation of the same place as in the SL text； and textual equivalence， which can give a probable indication of meaning.

By contrast， Nida （1964） advocated a formal-functional dichotomy of equivalence and favoured functional equivalence， which takes the communicative situations into consideration. In terms of the definition of translation， Nida （1993） thought of it as ‘‘reproducing in the receptors language the closest natural equivalent of the message of the SL. It can be seen that two points are stressed in this definition： the pursuit for meaning as well as the receptors response. Thus， though belonging to the linguistic domain， Nidas translation theories go beyond the pure emphasis on the source text and begin to take into account the social-cultural norms of the receptor language.

In addition， the notion of equivalence has been categorised into various other sub-groups by translation theorists. For example， Newmark distinguished between semantic and communicative translation， Pym between natural and directional equivalence， and House between overt and covert translation. It is obvious that there are many levels and types of translation equivalence， and the understanding of it varies from scholar to scholar. Thus， the concept of equivalence appears to be a ‘troubled notion with uncertainty and inconsistency. In fact， it could be understood as a multi-dimensional concept， composed of lexical， syntactic， semantic and pragmatic equivalence etc. since translation itself is a rather intricate process， requiring us to consider many parameters： texts， participants （sender， receiver， translator， and client）， and conditions and determinants including context as well as participants competence and socio-psychological status （Kashgary， 2011）.

3. Criticism to equivalence

In spite of forming the key term of the definition of translation， equivalence has been constantly criticised both theoretically and in practice. Some critics mainly targeted at the pure linguistic nature of translation equivalence. For instance， Eco （2011） believed that：

The translator does not translate a text on the basis of the dictionary， but rather “on the basis of the whole history of two literatures. Therefore translating is not only connected with linguistic competence， but with inter-textual， psychological， and narrative competence. Thus， the translator is forced at all times to go beyond linguistic competence to the cultural spectrum. Consequently， translations do not constitute a comparison between two languages but the interpretation of two texts in two different languages.

In other words， the writer equaled equivalence merely to the approximation of the source text and the target text at the linguistic level. Therefore， equivalence was not a legitimate concept to explain translation activity， which also involves numerous extra-linguistic factors such as social and psychological features of a specific language.

Moreover， it is argued that equivalence would hinder the translators creativity and originality because equivalence advocates faithfulness to the original text and treats the translator as subordinating to the source text （Panou， 2003）.

Translation equivalence is also believed to be problematic as it can very rarely be achieved in the translation practice， leading to the huge existence of its counterpart， non-equivalence. According to Kashgary （2011）， if equivalence is essential to translation， non-equivalence forms an equally legitimate notion in translation. The rationale behind this is that “l(fā)anguages articulate or organize the world differently”. Baker （1992） in her book In Other Words outlined some common types of non-equivalence at word level. For instance， the culture-specific concepts where the concept of the original-language word may be completely new to the target culture， either relating to a religious belief or a social custom. An example of a culture-specific term in Chinese is 秀才which refers to one who passes the examination at the county level in ancient Chinese empire. Due to the special cultural connotation of this word， it is rather difficult to find its proper correspondence in English. Neither “scholar” nor “skillful writer” will express its full meaning.

Secondly， the receptor language may lack a hyponym. In this situation， languages tend to have superordinates or general words but lack hyponyms or specific ones since a specific language makes distinctions in meaning according to its particular situations. “Article” in English could have many hyponyms for which it is hard to identify close equivalents in other languages， such as feature， survey， report， critique， commentary， review， etc.

Moreover， sometimes the terms in source language and target language may be “false friends” which means words or expressions in two languages have the same form but convey distinct meanings. For example， goose flesh refers to 雞皮疙瘩（goose bump） rather than 鵝肉 （goose meat）. Birthday suit means 裸體（nakedness） instead of the new suit one wears on his or her birthday. Misunderstanding of these words or expression may result in non-equivalence in meaning.

Apart from non-equivalence at the word level， equivalence at the syntactic or semantic levels might also not be realised. One of the arguments is that one cannot achieve equivalence at all levels at the same time and semantic equivalence is sometimes reached at the expense of non-equivalence at the lexical or syntactic levels.

Example

Source text： It is a truth universally acknowledged， that a single man in possession of good fortune must be in want of a wife. （Pride and Prejudice）

Target text： 公認有這樣一個真理： 一個擁有一大筆家產(chǎn)的單身漢必然需要一個妻子。

[Universally acknowledged there is a truth， that a single and wealthy man must be in want of a wife.]

The translation of this excerption precisely denotes the meaning of the source text. Yet， in the target text the attributes， 公認（universally acknowledged） and 擁有一大筆財產(chǎn)的（in possession of good fortune） are put before their respective modified nouns “truth” and “man” so as to produce a semantically natural and accurate Chinese translation version. Consequently， the syntactic equivalence is compromised.

From the above it could be concluded that， because of the wide existence of non-equivalence， equivalence seems to be extremely hard to obtain and only an illusion or rather ideal notion. As a matter of fact， the more different two language systems are， the more difficult to achieve translation equivalence between them.

4. Defense of equivalence

However， in spite of all the doubts on equivalence as a whole or of its specific type， it is still claimed to be absolutely necessary in translation. The first and most common criticism to equivalence is its linguistic nature. In fact， equivalence is by no means the complete identity of the target language text to the source text. As is suggested by Cuéllar （2002）， the idea of equivalence as the identity between the source text and translation are linguistically naive， since languages are by definition complex and distinct linguistic systems. Furthermore， translation takes place not merely between languages but in intricate communicative conditions. Cuéllar （2002） regarded equivalence as the essence of translation studies and a dynamic relation between the source text and target text. Panou （2003） quoted Kollers observation that the notion of translation equivalence is a “double linkage” of translation to the original text and to the communicative situations on the part of the receiver.

The second doubt on equivalence lies on its restriction to translators creativity. Far from focusing solely on the fidelity to the source text and thus limiting the status and creativity of the translator， equivalence actually helps to make a distinction between translation proper and other secondary linguistic products of the receptor language， summaries， adaptions， paraphrases， etc.， which are remotely related to the source text thematically or structurally.

With regard to the translation practice， a view held by the opponents of equivalence is the numerous existence cases and types of non-equivalence as proposed by Baker （1992）， which I have mentioned in the former part of my essay. However， Baker （1992） also advanced many strategies to tackle these problems of non-equivalence， for instance， translation by a more general word. An example from Mona Baker （1992） is “a few mountain strongholds” can be translated to “一些山區(qū)”（certain mountain areas）in Chinese. This example illustrates the use of a superordinate to make up the relative lack of a specific word in the target language compared with the original language.

Another strategy is translation by cultural substitution.

Example

Source text：

He is as stupid as a goose.

Target text：

他蠢得得像頭豬。

[He is as stupid as a pig.]

Here pig in Chinese has the similar cultural-specific connotation of stupidity. Thus， it works as a proper substitution for goose when no connection is made between goose and stupidity in China.

Sometimes there is no correct substitution in the target language for a word in the source language， which is common in dealing with buzzwords， cultural-specific items and modern concepts. Under such circumstances， a loan word or loan word plus explanation can be employed. For instance， 餃子 - jiaozi， 乒乓 – pingpang， talk show - 脫口秀， marathon - 馬拉松， etc.

Due to the difficulties of obtaining equivalence in practical translation at the linguistic level， some scholars turned to the looser and most widely acknowledged concept of equivalence， dynamic or functional equivalence represented by Eugene Nida. This notion was still severely attacked by some critics. They insisted equivalence to be problemiatic and some even discard it as an unnecessary concept in translation theory. For instance， Newmark （1981） believed it was hard to know how readers of the original language understand the original text and how readers of the target text respond to the translation. Here a possible solution proposed by Sharina in advertising translation was to evaluate the sales of the advertised products to judge customers' response to the advertisement （2011）. In addition， Gentzler （1993） deemed Nida used the concept of functional equivalence merely to proselytize readers and instill in them the ideas of Christianity. Similarly， some scholars thought the concept can only guide Bible translation （Xie， 2008）. However， Nidas translation theories mainly aimed to explain translation phenomina and guide translation practice major task and translation. He is first a translator and then a disseminator of Christianity since it is exactly his identity as translation theoriest and linguistist that brought him fame and offered him the opportunities to translate Bible. Furthermore， they believed functional equivalence was mainly applicable to texts focusing on conveying messagee， and might not be applied to texts types stressing formal beauty such as poetry （Shi and Du， 2004）. However， this is where formal equivalence （also proposed by Nida） could be demployed as the translation principle.

In fact， the success of translation is often influenced by a wide variety of factors， both linguistic and extra-linguistic. As Baker （1992） put it：

The choice of a suitable equivalent will always depend not only on the linguistic system or systems being handled by the translator， but also on the way both the writer of the source text and the producer of the target text， that is the translator， choose to manipulate the linguistic systems in question； on the expectations， background knowledge and prejudices of readers within a specific temporal and spatial location； on translators own understanding of their task， including their assessment of what is appropriate in a given situation； and on a range of restrictions that may operate in a given environment at a given point in time， including censorship and various types of intervention by parties other than the translator， author and reader.

However， it does not mean all of the factors should be taken account of equally and at the same time. The translation strategy and selection of equivalence should always take the prevalent factor or factors as the priority. In this way， non-equivalence can be overcome and equivalence can be achieved.

5. Conclusion

To sum up， translation equivalence is not at all an illusion or a troubled concept. Criticism to the notion of equivalence， which believes it is too static and one-dimensional， is flawed. Several points should be highlighted in relation to the notion. First and foremost， it is the key concept that allows people to recognise the relation between a source text and its correspondent target text as a translation. This distinguishes translation from other secondary linguistic products， including summaries， paraphrases， adaptations， etc. Secondly， there exists a double-bound link of equivalence with the original text and the target language receiver， preventing us from reaching extreme cases such as original target texts and word-for-word translations. Thirdly， equivalence has multi-faceted dimensions which are interlinked with each other but not in isolation. Prevalent type or types of equivalence determine specific translation strategies. In this sense， translation is not a matter of absolute equivalence but a certain degree and type of equivalence （Baker， M. and Saldanha， 2009）. Instead of totally abandoning the concept of equivalence， it should be used flexibly to reminder us of the central problems a translator encounters during the translation process and to provide guidance and translation strategies for us in the translation process.

Word count： 2503

6. Bibliography

Baker， M. and Saldanha， G （ed）. （2009）. Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies. 2nd ed. London and New York： Routledge， pp.96-99.

Baker， M. （1992）. In other words： a course book on translation. London： Routledge.

Catford， C. （1965）. A linguistic theory of translation： an essay on applied linguistics. London： Oxford University Press.

Cuéllar， S. （2002）. Equivalence revisited： a key concept in modern translation theory. Forma y Función， 15， pp. 60-88.

Eco， U. （2001）. Experiences in translation. Toronto： Press of Toronto University.

Gentzler， E. （1993）. Contemporary translation theories. London： Routledge.

Kashgary， A. （2011）. The paradox of translating the untranslatable： equivalence vs. non-equivalence in translating from Arabic into English. Journal of King Saud University， 23（1）， pp. 47-57.

Panou， D. （2013）. Equivalence in Translation Theories： A Critical Evaluation. Theory and Practice in Language Studies， 3（1）， pp. 2-3.

Newmark， P. （1981）. Approaches to translation. Oxford： Pergamon Press.

Nida， E. （1964）. Towards a science of translating. Leiden： E.J. Brill.

Nida， E. （1993）. Language， culture， and translating. Shanghai： Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

Sharina. （2014）. On the feasibility of applying Nida's functional equivalence to advertising translation. Journal of Inner Mongolia Normal University， 40（6）， pp.130-133.

Shi， X. and Du， P. （2014）. 辯證地看待奈達的“功能對等”理論. Journal of Sichuan College of Education， 5， pp.10-11.

Snell-Hornby， M. （1988）. Translation studies： an integrated approach. Amsterdam： John Benjamin Publishing Company.

Xie， J. （2008）. Refutations on criticism for Nida's functional equivalence theory. Journal of Hunan Metallurgical Professional Technology College， 8（2）， pp.99-101.