Chapter 3 – Equivalence and equivalent effect

1. Roman Jakobson: the nature of linguistic meaning and equivalence

1.1 Works: On linguistic aspects of translation《》
1.2 Three kinds of translation:
 Intralingual: ‘rewording’ – ‘an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other
signs of the same language’
 Interlingual: ‘translation proper’ – ‘an interpretation of verbal signs by means of
some other language’
 Intersemiotic: ‘transmutation’ – ‘an interpretation of verbal signs by means of
signs of non-verbal sign systems’
1.3 Basis: Saussure’s theory / Distinguish several concepts:
Langue 语言(linguistic system) & Parole 言语 (specific individual utterances)
Signifier 能指(the spoken and written signal) & Signified 所指 (the concept)
Sign (signifier and signified, arbitrary or unmotivated)
Eg. cheese is the acoustic signifier ( 声 学 上 的 能 指 ) which ‘denotes’ the concept ‘food
made of pressed curds’ (the signified).
The sign is arbitrary or unmotivated.
1.4 Concerns of Jakobson:
 Jacobson moves to consider the thorny problem of equivalence in meaning
between words in different languages, part of Saussure’s parole
 ‘there is ordinarily no full equivalence between code-units’(语码)通常在代码单位之间不存在
完全对等
1.5 This general principle of interlinguistic difference between terms and
semantic fields importantly also has to do with basic issue of language and
translation:
 Linguistic universalism 语言共性论: Although languages may differ in the way they
convey meaning and in the surface realizations of that meaning, there is a (more
or less) shared way of thinking and experiencing the world.
 Linguistic relativity or determinism in its strongest form 语言相对论/最极端的语言决定论:
Differences in languages shape different conceptualizations of the world.
1.6 Opinions of Jakobson:
 In Jakobson’s description, interlingual translation involves ‘substitut[ing]
messages in one language not for separate code-units but for entire messages in
some other language’.
 Translatability then becomes one of degree and adequacy.可译性的问题成为一个关于程度和充
分性的问题。
 In Jakobson’s discussion, the problem of meaning and equivalence 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 or uttered in
another verbal language.
 For Jakobson, cross-linguistic differences, which underlie the concept of
equivalence, centre around obligatory grammatical and lexical forms:
‘Languages differ essentially in what they must convey and not in what they may
convey’. They occur at: 语言差异在：
（1）the level of gender 性的层次 （阴阳性）
（2）the level of aspect 体的层次 （动词变位）
（3）the level of semantic fields 语义场的层次 （亲属关系称谓）
 As Jakobson puts it, ‘[a]ll is conveyable in any existing language’. For him, only
poetry, with its unity of form and sense and where ‘phonemic similarity is sensed
as semantic relationship’, is considered ‘untranslatable’ and requires ‘creative
transposition’.

2. Nida and ‘the science of translating’

Works:
Toward a Science of Translating《》
The Theory and Practice of Translation 《》
Brief Introduction:
Bible translation - more scientific era - linguistics.
more systematic approach: semantics 语义学; pragmatics 语用学; Chomsky’s generative–
transformational grammar 乔姆斯基的转换生成语法
2.1 Chomsky’s influence
Generative–transformational model 转换生成语法模式:
Analyses sentences into a series of related levels governed by rules. In very simplified
form, the key features of this model can be summarized as follows:
（1）Phrase-structure rules generate an underlying or deep structure which is
短语结构规则生成一个潜在结构或深层结构
（2）transformed by transformational rules relating one underlying structure to another
(e.g. active to passive), to produce
深层结构由转换规则转换，转换规则把一个个潜在结构（如主动和被动结构）联系起来，生成最终的表层结构
（3）a final surface structure, which itself is subject to phonological and morphemic
rules.
表层结构本身服从于语音规则和构词规则
The most basic of such structures are kernel sentences 核心句, which are simple, active,
declarative sentences that require the minimum of transformation.
Nida’s Science’ of translation:
A technique for decoding the ST and a procedure for encoding the TT.
Three-stage system of translation (analysis, transfer and restructuring)
Kernels ‘are the basic structural elements out of which language builds its elaborate
surface structures’. Kernels are to be obtained from the ST surface structure by a
reductive process of back transformation.
This entails analysis using generative–transformational grammar’s four types of
functional class: 如何分析核心：转换生成语法的四种功能类型
（1）events: often but not always performed by verbs (e.g. run, fall, grow, think);
（2）objects: often but not always performed by nouns (e.g. man, horse, mountain,
table);
（3）abstracts: quantities and qualities, including adjectives and adverbs (e.g. red,
length, slowly);
（4）relationals: including affixes, prepositions, conjunctions and copulas (e.g. pre-,
into, of, and, because, be). 包括词缀，借此，连接词和系动词
Kernels are the level at which the message is transferred into the receptor language
before being transformed into the surface structure in a process of: 信息转移过程
(1) ‘literal transfer’ 直接转移
(2) ‘minimal transfer’ 最小限度转移
(3) ‘literary transfer’ 书面转移
2.2 The nature of meaning: advances in semantics and pragmatics
 Analysing individual words: ‘scientific approaches to meaning’ in semantics and
pragmatics. Central to Nida’s work is the move away from the old idea that a
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.
Meaning is broken down into the following: 意义的层次
（1）Linguistic meaning 语言意义: the relationship between different linguistic structures,
borrowing elements of Chomsky’s model.
（2）Referential meaning 所指意义: the denotative ‘dictionary’ meaning.
（3）Emotive or connotative meaning 情绪意义/内涵意义: the associations a word produces.
Techniques to determine the meaning of different linguistic items:判断意义的技巧
 Hierarchical structuring 层级结构法: differentiates series of words according to their
level (eg. animal-dog/cat)
 Componential analysis 成 分 分 析法 : identify and discriminate specific features of a
range of related words. The results can be plotted visually to assist in making an
overall comparison. (eg. Family relationship terms: sex, generation, linearity, )
 Semantic structure analysis 语义结构法: separates out visually the different meanings
of spirit (‘demons’, ‘angels’, ‘gods’, ‘ghost’, ‘ethos’, ‘alcohol’, etc.) according to
their characteristics, to realize that the sense of a complex semantic term such as
spirit (or, to take another example, bachelor) varies and most particularly is
‘conditioned’ by its context.
To clarifying ambiguities, elucidating obscure passages and identifying cultural
differences.
2.3 Formal and dynamic equivalence and the principle of equivalent effect
Two basic orientations or types of equivalence:
（1）Formal equivalence: Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message
itself, in both form and content . . . One is concerned that the message in the
receptor language should match as closely as possible the different elements in
the source language.
Explain:
Formal equivalence, later called ‘formal correspondence’, is thus keenly oriented
towards the ST structure, which exerts strong influence in determining accuracy and
correctness. Most typical of this kind of translation are ‘gloss translations’释词翻译, with
a close approximation to ST structure, often with scholarly footnotes. This type of
translation will often be used in an academic or legal environment and allows the
reader closer access to the language and customs of the source culture.
（2）Dynamic equivalence: Dynamic, later ‘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’.
Explain:
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 adjustments of grammar, of lexicon and of cultural
references to be essential in order to achieve naturalness. The TT language should not
show interference from the SL, and the ‘foreignness’ of the ST setting is minimized in
a way that would be criticized by later culturally-oriented translation theorists.
Four basic requirements of a translation:翻译的四大基本要求
（1）making sense;词句达意
（2）conveying the spirit and manner of the original;传达了原文的精神和表达方法
（3）having a natural and easy form of expression;表达形式自然易懂
（4）producing a similar response.产生相似的反应
Opinions:
 A graded concept
 Nida accepts that the ‘conflict’ between the traditional notions of content and
form cannot always be easily resolved.
 Nida considers that ‘correspondence in meaning must have priority over
correspondence in style’ if equivalent effect is to be achieved.
 Similarity with Tytler’s principles of translation.
 This suggests that the scientific approach is still supported by the essential
subjectivity of some of the language of the literal vs. free debate.
2.4 Discussion of the importance of Nida’s work
Pros:
（1）Away from strict word-for-word equivalence; formal and dynamic equivalence
was crucial in introducing a receptor-based (or reader-based) orientation to
translation theory; a systematic analytical procedure for translators working with
all kinds of texts and he factored into the translation equation the receivers of the
TT and their cultural expectations; influence Peter Newmark in the UK and
Werner Koller in Germany.
（2）Detailed description of real translation phenomena and situations in a wealth of
varied languages; ‘the artistic sensitivity which is an indispensable ingredient in
any first-rate translation of a literary work’.
Cons:
（1）Equivalence was still overly concerned with the word level,
（2）Equivalent effect or response to be impossible. (How is the ‘effect’ to be
measured and on whom? How can a text possibly have the same effect and elicit
the same response in two different cultures and times?)
（3）Qianhu: ‘Implausibility’ of equivalent response: 对 等 反 应 的 不 合 理 impossibility of
achieving equivalent effect when meaning is bound up in form, for example the
effect of word order in Chinese and English, especially in literary works (‘the
closest natural equivalent may stand in a contradictory relation with dynamic
equivalents’. 最贴切的自然对等可能和动态对等相互冲突 （animal vegetable monster / object）&
Cultural references

3. Peter Newmark: semantic and communicative translation

Works: Approaches to Translation (1981); A Textbook of Translation (1988)
Brief Introduction:
Newmark feels that the success of equivalent effect is ‘illusory’ and that ‘the conflict
of loyalties, the gap between emphasis on source and target language, will always
remain as the overriding problem in translation theory and practice’.
Newmark suggests narrowing the gap by replacing the old terms with those of
‘semantic’ and ‘communicative’ translation:
Communicative translation: 语义翻译-尽可能传达源语精确的语境意义，类似形式对等
attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the
readers of the original; resembles Nida’s dynamic equivalence
Semantic translation: 交际翻译-让读者获得的效果与源语读者获得效果尽可能接近，类似动态对等
attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second
language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original; similar to Nida’s formal
equivalence.
Opinions:
Newmark distances himself from the full principle of equivalent effect, since that
effect ‘is inoperant if the text is out of TL space and time’.
Newmark indicates that semantic translation differs from literal translation in that it
‘respects context’, interprets and even explains (metaphors, for instance). Literal
translation means word-for word in its extreme version and, even in its weaker form,
sticks very closely to ST lexis and syntax.
Approches:
Importantly, as long as equivalent effect is achieved, Newmark holds literal
translation to be the best approach:
“In communicative as in semantic translation, provided that equivalent effect is
secured, the literal word-for-word translation is not only the best, it is the only valid
method of translation.”
Discussion of Newmark:
Cons:
 Despite Newmark’s relevant criticisms of equivalent effect, they raise some of the
same points concerning the translation process and the importance of the TT
reader.
 Overabundance of terminology: Defines Juliane House’s pair of ‘overt’ and
‘covert’ translation in terms of his own semantic and communicative translation
and considers communicative translation to be ‘identical’ to Nida’s functional or
dynamic equivalence.
 Newmark has been criticized for his strong prescriptivism, and the language of
his evaluations still bears traces of what he himself called the ‘pre-linguistics era’
of translation studies.
Pros:
 Large number of examples in Newmark’s work provide ample guidance and
advice for the trainee, and many of the questions he tackles are of important
practical relevance to translation.
 In his later discourse, he emphasized the aesthetic principles of writing, the
difference between ‘social, non-literary’ and ‘authoritative and serious’ translation
and an ethical and truth-seeking function for translation.

4. Koller: equivalence relations

Works: Research into the science of translation 1979
Correspondence and Equivalence can be differentiated as follows:
（1）Correspondence 对应: contrastive linguistics 属于对比语言学范畴, which compares two
language systems and describes differences and similarities contrastively.两种语言体
系的差异和相似点 Its parameters are those of Saussure’s langue. 属于索绪尔的语言范畴 This
would include the identification of false friends and of signs of lexical,
morphological and syntactic interference.包括识别假朋友，识别词义，语音，句法上的干扰
（2）Equivalence 对等, relates to equivalent items in specific ST – TT pairs and contexts
具体语境中源语和目的语的对等物. The parameter is that of Saussure’s parole 属于索绪尔的语言.
Five types of equivalence relations 五种对等关系, constrained by double linkage, the ST
and by the communicative conditions of the receiver 受限于原文和接受者交际条件的双重联系 .
These equivalence types are listed below (hierarchically ordered):
（1）Denotative equivalence 外 延 对 等 , related to equivalence of the extralinguistic
content of a text 文本的语言外部内容对等.‘content invariance’.
（2）Connotative equivalence 内 涵 对 等 , related to lexical choices 词 汇 选 择 , especially
between near-synonyms. Koller considers this type of equivalence to be referred
to by others as ‘stylistic equivalence’.
（3）Text-normative equivalence 文本规范对等, related to text types 文本类型, with different
kinds of texts behaving in different ways. This is closely linked to work by
Katharina Reiss.
（4）Pragmatic equivalence 语用对等, or ‘communicative equivalence’交际对等, is oriented
towards the receiver of the text or message 文本或信息的接受者. This is Nida’s dynamic
equivalence. （类似 Nida 动态对等）
（5）Formal equivalence 形式对等, which is related to the form and aesthetics of the text
文本的形式和美学效果,includes wordplays and the individual stylistic features of the ST.
It is referred to by others as ‘expressive equivalence’ 表 达 对 等 and should not be
confused with Nida’s term ‘formal equivalence’.

5. Later developments in equivalence

Pym defines two types of equivalence and describes how the rise of Computer-
Assisted Translation (CAT) tools has given a new twist to these types:
（1）‘natural’ equivalence, where the focus is on identifying naturally-occurring
terms or stretches of language in the SL and TL. Translation glossaries and term
bases, for example, routinely seek to plot ‘natural’ equivalents in the relevant
languages;
（2）‘directional’ equivalence, where the focus is on analysing and rendering the ST
meaning in an equivalent form in the TT. Translation memories, working on a
corpus of already translated material, impose existing ‘directional’ equivalents on
the translator through the flagging up of exact and fuzzy matches with stretches
of language in the database.

Explanations:
In descriptive studies, perhaps the biggest bone of contention in the comparison of a
ST and a TT is the so-called tertium comparation is (‘the third comparator’) 第三对照物,
an invariant against which two text segments can be measured to gauge variation from
a core meaning.
Whether the suggested target segment is an appropriate equivalent would depend on
circumstances, audience and the type of equivalence envisaged.

Summary
This chapter has examined important questions of translation raised by linguistics in
the 1950s and 1960s. The key terms are ‘meaning’ and ‘equivalence’. These were
discussed by Roman Jakobson in 1959 and crucially developed by Nida, whose books
analyse meaning systematically and propose that a translation should aim for
‘equivalent effect’ (the same effect on the TL audience as the ST had on the SL
audience). Despite the subsequent questioning of the feasibility of that goal, 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.