Equivalence in TR theory

1. The equative view

2. The taxonomic view
3. The relativist view
 1. The equative view
• classical view, Jerome, Erasmus; the Holy
Script; (Kelly 1979, Renner 1989):
• A = A’
• A A + A’
• A = A, A’ , A’’, A’’’
• A A, A’ , A’’, A’’’
 2. The taxonomic view
• Jerome: non-sacred texts should be translated more freely that sacred ones
• G. Mounin (1958)
• Jakobson (1959): denotative eq. is always possible (denied by other theorists)
• Nida (1964) – formal equivalence & dynamic equivalence
• Catford (1965) formal correspondence between SL & TL categories when they
occupy, as nearly as possible, the ‘same’ place in the economies of the two
languages – maximal closeness, not true identity.
• Koller (1979, 1992) Denotative, connotative, text-normative, pragmatic,
formal/aesthetic eq.
• Ivir (1981) formal correspondence and translation equivalence
• Newmark (1985) semantic vs communicative eq.
• Snell-Hornby (1986) TE practically irrelevant issue (cf. 58 types of Aequivalenz in
German studies)
 3. The relativist view – campaign against
equivalence
• Snell-Hornby (1988): rejects identity assumption; equivalence is an illusion
• Holmes / Toury (1988, 1980): three main lines of arguments:
– Reject samenes as a criterion for any relation betwee SLT and TLT
– Equivalence is to be replaced by a more relative term: similarity, matching,
family resemblance (a number of resemblances)
– Translator’s rationality is descriptive (more than one possible solution); using
norms TLR is to find the most suitable solution
• Chesterman (1997): introduction of the relation norm governing
professional translation behaviour
• Pym (1992): eq. is fundamentally an economic term (=exchange value in a
particular situation), (Eq. depends only on what is offered, negotiated and
accepted in the exchange situation)
• Gutt (1991): eq. depends on the utterance itself and the cognitive state of
the interpreter (e.g. TR of the Bible – for two time-distant recipents)
• Toury (1980, 1995) – comparative literary studies:
– TL culture is the starting point, not SL culture:
– start with existing translations and study the resemblances existing betweeen
these and their SL texts;
– deduce what TR strategies have been used (throughout history);
– establish various constraints & norms impinging on the TLR’s decision-making
(Lefevere 1992)
• Vermeer / Reiss / Nord (1984, 1993) – skopos theory: do not seek to
achieve the same skopos as the original, but what the skopos of the
translation is (e.g. poetry, purpose, ets)
• Relativist views on TR go hand in hand with the relativist view of
language, as opposed to universalist views
 Conclusion:
• Most scholars in TR theory today reject EQ as an identity
assumption in all its forms (formal, semantic, pragmatic,
situational...)
• EQ is theoretically untenable
• EQ misinterprets what translators actually do
• The EQ or relevant similarity between SLT and TLT is not given
in advance; BUT
• It takes shape within the mind of the TLR under a number of
constraints (purpose of TLT and the act of translation (in an
act of communication)
• Chesterman (1998: 27)
 Three main approaches to TR and TE:

1. linguistic approach to TE – BUT translation in itself is not merely a matter of

linguistics
2. TE - a transfer of the message from the Source Culture to the Target Culture:
– when a message is transferred from the SL to TL, the translator is also dealing with
two different cultures at the same time
3. pragmatic/semantic or functionally oriented approach

Some translation scholars stand in the middle (M. Baker):

• equivalence is used 'for the sake of convenience — because most translators
are used to it rather than because it has any theoretical status'
• TE – a technical term, for the lack of a better one