Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
pushed to its extreme, it forces in the conclusion that for any linguistic unit (text
of portion of a text) in the source language there is an equivalent unit in the
target language and the it is translator's job to find that unit. Hence the search for
different textual types and their characteristics in different languages.
Another picture of translation and translation equivalence is obtained
when a dynamic view is taken and translation is regarded as a process rather
than as a result. One then speaks about substituting messages in one language
for messages in some other language (Jakobson, 1959: 235), about reproducing
in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the message of the
source language (Nida, 1969: 495), or about the nature of dynamic
equivalence in translating Nida, 1977).
This letter view of translation is the communicative view, and it sees,
translation equivalence not as a static relationship between pairs of texts in
different languages but rather as a product of the dynamic process of
communication between the sender of the original message and the ultimate
receivers of the translated message via the translator, who is the receiver of the
original message and the sender of the translated message, Messages are
configurations of extralinguistic features communicated in the given situation.
The original sender starts from these features and relying on the resources of
his language, on his command of that language, and on his assessment of the
nature of the sociolinguistic relationship between him and his (actual of
potential) receivers codes them to produce the source text. The coded message
(source text) reaches the translator through the (spatio-temporal) channel of
communication. He decodes it and receives the original sender's message, which
he then proceeds to code again in the target language, relying on the resources
of that language, on his command of that language, and on his assessment of his
relation to the ultimate receivers.
Under this view, what is held constant (i.e., equivalent) are not texts but
rather messages, and it is messages that the participants return to at every step in
the process of communication. The translator, in particular, does not proceed
directly from the source text to the target text: rather, he goes from the source
text back to that configuration of extralinguistic features which the original
sender has tried to communicate as the his message and having arrived there he
codes that message again, in a new and different communicative situation,
producing a text in the target language for the benefit of the ultimate receivers.
Several points must be made in connection with the view of translation
and equivalence presented here. First, the nature of the translator's job in
receiving the original sender's message does not essentially differ from the job
of other source-language receivers of that message, and his job in coding the
received message again in the target language is not unlike the task performed
by the original sender (only the communicative situation is different, that is, the
translator is a different linguistic person than the original sender, he uses a
different language and codes the message for different receivers than the original
sender).
Second, messages are not communicated absolutely. The original message
undergoes modifications in the process of coding (depending on the potential of
the language, the sender's command of that language, and the intended
audience), in the process of transmission (owing to the noise line the channel),
and in the process of decoding (depending on the receiver's command of the
language and his ability coming from the shared experiential background . to
grasp the sender's message).
Clearly, such modifications also take place when the translator receives
the message, when he codes it again in the target language, when he transmits
the coded message through the channel of communication linking him with his
receivers, and when the ultimate receivers decode the translated message. This
relativity of communication any communication, and not jus that involving
translation -. places the concept of equivalence in translation in a new
perspective: equivalence holds between messages (communicated by the
original sender, received and translated by the translator, and received by the
ultimate receivers) which change as little as possible and as much as necessary
to ensure communication. Thus, true translation is by no means limited to
communicative situations involving two languages. An act of translation takes
place each time that a text is produced as a coded expression of a particular
configuration of extralinguistic features and is decoded to enable the receiver to
receive the message (cf. Steiner, 1975: 47),
The third point that can be made about translation equivalence follows
from what has just been said: equivalence is a matter of relational dynamics in a
communicative act it is realized in that act and has no separate existence
outside it. It can thus be compared to abstract units of the linguistic system, such
as phonemes, which do not exist physically outside the speech act in which they
are realized and whose realization in speech is somewhat different and is yet
produced and received as the same phoneme. Or it could be compared to a
person's signature; there is no ideal signature of a given person, and in each
act of signing it comes out a little different visually; yet, it is recognized as
equivalence with any other of it realizations allowing for the fact that
different realizations take place in different communicative situations.
2
mapping one description upon the other to establish the degree of fit. Again, the
descriptions of no two languages meet this requirement. Formal correspondence
as defined by Catford can hardly be said to exist: even in pairs of closely related
languages it is practically impossible to find categories which would perform the
same functions in their respective systems, and that probability decreases with
typological and genetic distance. Marton-Krzeszowski's concepts of
congruence/equivalence in fact make use of the metalanguage of the
transformational-generative grammar, in particular of the notion of deep
structure, to avoid relying on the postulate of translational equivalence. But the
postulated of deep structure and transformation are no easier to work with: the
status of deep structures is far from clear, as is also the meaning-preserving
nature of transformations.
So, one falls back on the concept of translation equivalence in one's
search for a suitable tertium comparationis for contrastive purposes. (One feels
all the more justified in doing this when one observes actual contrastive practice:
no matter what they otherwise profess, contrastive analysts begin with sentences
which are obviously translational pairs and proceed to demonstrate the bilingual
person's, that is the analyst's, intuition of their equivalence.) However, we must
remember that translation equivalence holds together communicated messages
and not linguistic units used to communicate them and that we must go beyond
equivalence to find the necessary tertium comparationis which hold linguistic
units together. It has been suggested (Ivir, 1969: 18) that a good candidate for
the job would be formal correspondence but formal correspondence defined
not with reference to linguistic systems (as Catford would have it) but rather
with reference to translationally equivalent texts. Formal correspondents to
modify Catford's definition given above would be all those isolable elements
of linguistic form which occupy identical positions (i.e., serve as formal carriers
of identical units of meaning) in their respective (translation ally equivalent)
texts.
The difference between language-based and text-based (or system-based
and equivalence-based) formal correspondence is seen in the fact that while the
former type of correspondents stand in a one-to-one relationship, the
relationship in the latter type is on-to-many. Typically, a given formal element of
the source language, used in different texts produced in different communicative
situations, will have several target-language formal elements which will
correspond to it in translated target texts. But it should be realized that precisely
for that reason the formal elements which are correspondent in translationally
equivalent texts are never matched in totality, as they would be if parts of the
systems of the two languages were contrasted. Rather, they are matched in those
of their meanings with they participate in the particular source and target texts.
Formal correspondence
source text
target text
Formal correspondence
The contrastive pair of formal correspondence links forms the base of the
triangle of communication by translation and servers as a basis for the
establishment of translation equivalence. The translator begins his search for
translation equivalence from formal correspondence, and it is only when the
identical-meaning formal correspondent is either not available or not able to
ensure equivalence that he resorts to formal correspondents with not-quiteidentical meaning or to structural and semantic shifts which destroy formal
correspondence altogether. But even in the latter case he makes use of formal
correspondence as a check on meaning to know what he is doing, so to speak.
A realistic theory of translation will have to account for the
communicative and for the linguistic (in the narrow sense) aspects of the
translators work. The linguistic aspects are contrastive in nature. Equivalence
appears as a product of the contrasting of textually realized formal
correspondents in the source and the target language and the communicative
realization of the extralinguistic content of the original senders message in the
target language. Both components are present in the process of translation and
together ensure dynamic equivalence which avoids both literalness and
paraphrase.
References
BOLINGER, d., 1966. Transformulation: Structural Translation, Acta Linguistica
Hafniensia IX, 130-144,
CATFORD, J.C., 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation (Oxford UP)
FILIPOVI, R., 1971. The Yugoslav Serbo-Croatian English Project, in: G. Nickler, ed.,