TRANSLATION 1

(EQUIVALENCE OF TRANSLATION)

GROUP 8
JUSNIATI : 10535 6360 15
FIRNA : 10535 6346 15
RASFIKA RAHMADANI : 10535 6328 15

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

THE FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION

MAKASSAR MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY

2019
 PREFACE

First of all thanks to Allah SWT because of the help of Allah, our group

finished writing the paper entitled “ Equivalence of Translation” right in the

calculated time the purpose in writing this paper is to fulfill the assignment that

given by Mom Ratu Yulianti as lecture in translation 1 in arranging this paper, our

group truly gets lot challenges and obstructions but with help of many individuals,

those obstructions could passed. Our group also realized there are still many mistakes

in process of writing this paper.

Because of that, our group says thank you to all individuals who helps in the

process of writing this paper. Hopefully Allah realized that this paper still imperfect

in arrangement and the content. Then the writer hope the criticism from the readers

can help the writer in perfecting the next paper. Last, but not the least. Hopefully, this

paper can helps the readers to gain more knowledge about “ Equivalence of

Translation”.
 TABLE OF CONTENT

PREFACE

TABLE OF CONTENT

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

A. Definition Of Translation

B. Definition Of Equivalence

CHAPTER II DISCUSSION

A. Definition Of Equivalence Of Translation

CHAPTER III CONCLUSION

REFERENCE
 DEFINITION OF TRANSLATION

Definition of translation according to Experts:

 Catford ( Chouliludin, 2009:4) Translation is the replacement of textual

material in one language (SL) by Eguivalent textual material in another

language (TL).

 Hatim and Munday (2004) define translation as “the process of

transferring a written text from source language (SL) to target language (TL)”.

In this definition they do not explicitly express that the object being

transferred is meaning or message. They emphasis on translation as a

process.

 Moentaha (2008) translation is a process of replacing text from source

language (SL) into target language (TL) without changing any level content of

the source language. Yet, it needs to be emphasizing here that “ level content”

should understand widely, not only concern about basic meaning (material

meaning), idea, or concept that is contained in level content, but also all kind

of information within source language : all norms of language such as lexical

meaning, grammatical meaning, stylistic nuance/expressive nuance.

 Nida and Taber ( Choliludin, 2009 : 3), proposes that trasnlation consist in

duplicating in the recepter language the closet natural equivalent of the source
language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style.

The emphasis of this definition is on the closest natural equivalent part.

Translator have to make every rffort to render the meaning, not the

grammatical forms, of the source text as natural as possible.

 DEFINITION OF EQUIVALENCE

If a specific linguistic unit in one language carries the same intended meaning /

message encoded in a specific linguistic medium in another, then these two units are

considered to be equivalent. The domain of equivalents covers linguistic units such as

morphemes, words, phrases, clauses, idioms and proverbs.

So, finding equivalents is the most problematic stage of translation. It is worth

mentioning, however, it is not meant that the translator should always find one-to-one

categorically or structurally equivalent units in the two languages, that is, sometimes

two different linguistic units in different languages carry the same function.

For example, the verb "happened" in the English sentence "he happens to be

happy" equals the adverb "etefaghan" (by chance) in the Persian sentence: "u

etefaghan khosh hal ast". The translator, after finding out the meaning of an SL

linguistic form, should ask himself / herself what the linguistic form is in another

language—TL—for the same meaning to be encoded by.

Base on oxford dictionary equivalence is equal or interchangeable in value,

quantity, significance, etc. Vinay and Darbelnet as cited in Munday, stated that

“equivalence refers to cases where languages describe the same situation by different

stylistic or structural means”

 Nida (1964: 159) proposes two basic orientations in translating: formal

equivalence and dynamic equivalence.

 Bell (1991: 6) states that text in different languages can be equivalent in

different degrees (full or partly equivalent), in respect of different levels of

presentation (equivalent in respect of context, of semantics, of grammar, of

lexis, etc.) and different ranks (word-for-word, phrase-for-phrase, sentence-

for-sentence).
 EQUIVALENCE OF TRANSLATION

Equivalence of Translation is the similarity between a word (or expression) in

one language and its translation in another. Base on oxford dictionary equivalence is

equal or interchangeable in value, quantity, significance, etc. Vinay and Darbelnet as

cited in Munday, stated that “equivalence refers to cases where languages describe

the same situation by different stylistic or structural means” Equivalence consists of

the concept of sameness and similarity; it has the same or a similar effect or meaning

in translation.

There are types of equivalence defined by Nida, which are also called two

basic orientations of translation:

1. Formal correspondence

It focuses attention on the message itself, in both of form and content.

Once is concerned that the message in the receptor language should match as

closely as possible the different elements in the source language.

2. Dynamic equivalence

It is the principle equivalent effect, where the relationship between

receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed

between the original receptor and the message.

The goal of the dynamic equivalence is seeking the closest natural

equivalent to the source message. This receptor oriented approach considers

 adaptations of grammar, of lexicon, and of cultural reference to be essential in

order to achieve naturalness.

Vinay and Darbelnet view that equivalence-oriented translation as a

procedure which ‘replicates the same situation as in the original, whilst using

completely different wording’. Equivalence is therefore the ideal method

when the translator dealing with proverbs, idioms, clichés, nominal or

adjectival phrases and the onomatopoeia of animal sounds.

According to Jakobson’s theory, ‘translation involves two equivalent

messages in two different codes’. Jakobson goes on to say that from a

grammatical point of view languages may differ from one another to a greater

or lesser degree, but this does not mean that a translation cannot be possible,

in other words, that the translator may face the problem of not finding a

translation equivalent.

An extremely interesting discussion of the notion equivalent can be

found in baker who seems to offer more detail list of conditions upon which

the concept equivalent can be defined at different levels as follow:

1) Equivalence that can appear at word level. Baker gives a definition of the term

word since it should be remembered that a single word can be regarded as

being a more complex unit or morpheme, and it discuss about lexical

meaning.
2) Above word level equivalence, when translating from one language into

another. In this section, the translator concentrates on the type of lexical

pattering, they are collocation, idioms, and fixed expression.

3) Grammatical equivalence, when referring to the diversity of grammatical

categories across languages. Baker focuses on number, tense and aspects,

voice, person and gender. In the process of translation; such differences

between SL and the TL often imply some change in the information content.

When the SL has a grammatical category that the TL lacks, this change can

take the form of adding information to the target text. On the other hand, if it

is the target language that lacks a category, the change can take the form of

omission.

4) Textual equivalence when referring to the equivalence between a SL text and

a TL text in terms of thematic and information structure. She also adds the

discussion in this section about cohesion.

5) Pragmatic equivalence, when referring to implicaturs and strategies of

avoidance during the translation process.

According to Vinay and Darbelnet state that view equivalence-oriented

translation as a procedure which 'replicates the same situation as in the original,

whilst using completely different wording' (ibid.:342).

According to Roman Jakobson's study of equivalence gave new impetus to the

theoretical analysis of translation since he introduced the notion of 'equivalence in

difference'. On the basis of his semiotic approach to language and his aphorism 'there

is no signatum without signum' (1959:232), he suggests three kinds of translation:

 Intralingual (within one language, i.e. rewording or paraphrase)

 Interlingual (between two languages)

 Intersemiotic (between sign systems)

Jakobson claims that, in the case of interlingual translation, the translator makes

use of synonyms in order to get the ST message across. This means that in

interlingual translations there is no full equivalence between code units. According to

his theory, 'translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes'

(ibid.:233).

Jakobson goes on to say that from a grammatical point of view languages may

differ from one another to a greater or lesser degree, but this does not mean that a

translation cannot be possible, in other words, that the translator may face the

problem of not finding a translation equivalent. He acknowledges that 'whenever

there is deficiency, terminology may be qualified and amplified by loanwords or

loan-translations, neologisms or semantic shifts, and finally, by circumlocutions'

(ibid.:234).

Jakobson provides a number of examples by comparing English and Russian

language structures and explains that in such cases where there is no a literal

equivalent for a particular ST word or sentence, then it is up to the translator to

choose the most suitable way to render it in the TT.

 There seems to be some similarity between Vinay and Darbelnet's theory of

translation procedures and Jakobson's theory of translation. Both theories stress the

fact that, whenever a linguistic approach is no longer suitable to carry out a

translation, the translator can rely on other procedures such as loan-translations,

neologisms and the like.

Both theories recognize the limitations of a linguistic theory and argue that a

translation can never be impossible since there are several methods that the translator

can choose. The role of the translator as the person who decides how to carry out the

translation is emphasized in both theories.

Both Vinay and Darbelnet as well as Jakobson conceive the translation task as

something which can always be carried out from one language to another, regardless

of the cultural or grammatical differences between ST and TT.

It can be concluded that Jakobson's theory is essentially based on his semiotic

approach to translation according to which the translator has to recode the ST

message first and then s/he has to transmit it into an equivalent message for the TC.