EQUIVALENCE

Equivalence is a concept very discussed in translation studies.

• Catford and textual equivalence: John Catford contributed to the concept of translation
shifts. One of the criteria that Catford indicated was that of the grammatical rank at which
translation equivalence is established (rank-bound translation vs. unbounded translation). In
rank-bound translation, an equivalent is sought in the target language for each word or
morpheme encountered in the source language, while in unbounded translation are not tied
to a particular rank (es: morpheme, word, rank…). One of the problems is that the formal
correspondences which we can find between English and Italian may not guarantee
equivalence and that while formal correspondence is a useful tool in comparative linguistics,
it has limitations when we are seeking textual equivalence in translation. He indicates that
there are four main types of shifts: structure shifts (a grammatical change between the
structure of the ST and that of the TT); class shifts (when an SL item is translated with a
TL item which belongs to a different grammatical class  a verb translated as a noun); unit
shifts (which involve changes in rank); intra-system shifts (these occur when SL and TL
possess systems which approximately correspond formally but when translation involves
selection of a non-corresponding term in the TL system  SL singular becomes TL plural);
• Nida and dynamic equivalence: dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence are two
approaches to translation. The dynamic (also known as functional equivalence) attempts to
convey the thought expressed in a source text (if necessary, at the expense of literalness,
original word order, the source text's grammatical voice, etc.), while formal attempts to
render the text word-for-word (if necessary, at the expense of natural expression in the target
language). The two approaches represent emphasis, respectively, on readability and on
literal fidelity to the source text. There is, however, in reality no sharp boundary between
dynamic and formal equivalence. Broadly, the two represent a spectrum of translation
approaches;
• Komissarov’s sharp and fuzzy equivalence: equivalence can be stablished only at the
level of general message (es: maybe there is some chemistry between us doesn’t mix  Io e
te siamo incompatibili). In addition to the communicative intention and the identification of
a situation, this type preserves the general situation descriptors.