The nature of equivalence in translation

1.1.2.2. Types of equivalence in translation

Munday (2001) seems to stick to numeracy and suggests:

• 
  One-to-one equivalence: A single expression in TL is equivalent to a single expression in SL.
  
• 
  One-to-many equivalence: More than one TL expressions are equivalent to a single SL expression.
  
• 
  Many- to-one equivalence: there is more than one expression in the source language but there is a single expression in target language which is equivalence to them.
  
• 
  One-to-part-of-one equivalence: A TL expression covers part of a concept designated by a single SL expression.
  
• 
  Nil equivalence: no TL expression is equivalent to a single SL expression -> loaned/borrowed equivalents should be used.
  

Koller (1979) considers five types of equivalence:

• 
  Denotative equivalence: the SL and the TL words refer to the same thing in the real world.
  
• 
  Connotative equivalence: this type of equivalence provides additional values besides denotative value and is achieved by the translator’s choice of synonymous words or expressions.
  
• 
  Text-normative equivalence: The SL and the TL words are used in the same or similar context in their respective languages.
  
• 
  Pragmatic equivalence: With readership orientation, the SL and TL words have the same effect on their respective readers.
  
• 
  Formal equivalence: This type of equivalence produces an analogy of form in the translation by their exploiting formal possibilities of TL, or creating new forms in TL.
  

An extremely interesting discussion of the notion of equivalence can be found in Baker (1992) who seems to offer a more detailed list of conditions upon which the concept of equivalence can be defined. She distinguishes between:

• 
  Equivalence that can appear at word level and above word level, when translating from one language into another. This means that the translator should pay attention to a number of factors when considering a single word, such as number, gender and tense (1992:11-12).
  
• 
  Textual equivalence, when referring to the equivalence between a SL text and a TL text in terms of information and cohesion. It is up to the translator to decide whether or not to maintain the cohesive ties as well as the coherence of the SL text. His or her decision will be guided by three main factors, that is, the target audience, the purpose of the translation and the text type.
  

Nida (1964) distinguishes formal equivalence and dynamic translation as basic orientations rather than as a binary choice:

• 
  Formal equivalence is achieved when the SL and TL words have the closest possible match of form and content.
  
• 
  Dynamic equivalence is achieved when the SL and TL words have the same effect on their effective readers.
  

1.1.3. Common problems of non-equivalence

As we all share the view that equivalence is the vital part of translation, we may easily agree that the problem of non-equivalence is the hardest hurdles of translation. Many theorists has showed their concerns in the issue of “untranslatability”. The following are some common types of non-equivalence at word level suggested by Barker (1994: 72):

a. Culture-specific concepts

The source-language word may express a concept which is totally unknown in the target culture. The concept in question may be abstract or concrete; it may relate to a religious belief, a social custom, or even a type of food.

b. The source-language concept is not lexicalized in the target language

The source-language word may express a concept which is known in the target culture but simply not lexicalized, that is not ‘allocated’ a target-language word to express it.

c. The source-language word is semantically complex

The source-language word may be semantically complex. This is a fairly common problem in translation. Words do not have to be morphologically complex to be semantically complex (Bolinger and Sears, 1968). In other words, a single word which consists of a single morpheme can sometimes express a more complex set of meanings than a whole sentence.

d. The source and target languages make different distinctions in meaning

The target language may make more or fewer distinctions in meaning than the source language. What one language regards as an important distinction in meaning another language may not perceive as relevant.

e. The target language lacks a superordinate

The target language may have specific words (hyponyms) but no general word (superordinate) to head the semantic field. Russian has no ready equivalent for facilities, meaning ‘any equipment, building, services, etc. that are provided for a particular activity or purpose’

f. The target language lacks a specific term (hyponym)

More commonly, languages tend to have general words (superordinates) but lack specific ones (hyponyms), since each language makes only those distinctions in meaning which seem relevant to its particular environment.

g. Differences in physical or interpersonal perspective

Physical perspective may be of more importance in one language than it is in another. Perspective may also include the relationship between participants in the discourse (tenor).

h. Differences in expressive meaning

There may be a target-language word which has the same propositional meaning as the source-language word, but it may have a different expressive meaning.

i. Differences in form

There is often no equivalent in the target language for a particular form in the source text. Certain suffixes and prefixes which convey propositional and other types of meaning in English often have no direct equivalents in other languages.

j. Differences in frequency and purpose using specific forms

Even when a particular form does have a ready equivalent in the target language, there may be a difference in the frequency with which it is used or the purpose for which it is used.

k. The use of loan words in the source text

The use of loan words in the source text poses a special problem in translation. Quite apart form their respective propositional meaning, loan words such as au fait, chic, and alfresco in English are often used for their prestige value, because they can add an air of sophistication to the text or its subject matter.

Каталог: jspui -> bitstream -> 123456789 -> 2884
123456789 -> Vò Quúnh Thu Cao häc K18
123456789 -> Khoa Báo chí Đhkhxh&NV
123456789 -> Acknowledgements
123456789 -> Danh mục chữ viết tắT
123456789 -> Chương TỔng quan vật liệu mao quản trung bình (mqtb) trật tự 1 Giới thiệu chung
123456789 -> Khoa hóa họC (141 142 báo cáo)

tải về 191.14 Kb.

Chia sẻ với bạn bè của bạn: