Adequacy and equivalence as major concepts

Equivalence and adequacy of translation: points of difference

The terms equivalence and adequacy of translation have both been used in translation studies for a long time, yet the borderline between the two is not always clear-cut. Not infrequently the notion of translation equivalence is treated as the adequacy of translation. In view of such a discrepancy, it is necessary to consider each term separately first.

The term equivalence is considered by many scholars as one of the most important ontological features of translation, and yet its proper definition is still a matter of debate. There are several reasons for it. The first cause is connected with its polyfunctional character when it is used in the translation theory, therefore it is necessary to specify what equivalence is really meant in each particular case. According to L.L. Nelyubin [Нелюбин 2003: 253-255] it can be used in a most general sense as a sense proximity of any two elements which are equated with each other, as well as in more narrow senses it is common to speak about (a) equivalence of a SLT and a TLT, (b) equivalence as a type of lexical correspondence between SLT units and TLT correspondences, (c) equivalence of translation which presupposes identity of all levels of a SLT and a TLT content and (d) equivalent translation.

Besides, it is possible to compare equivalent and adequate translation, equivalent substitutions, etc. Very often equivalence is used indiscriminately to refer to cases which should be termed properly by the term adequacy.

Prof. V.N. Komissarov has advanced the theory of the levels of equivalence which is based on the understanding of equivalence as a measure of semantic community of a SLT and its translation on various levels. In keeping with this principle the author establishes 5 levels of equivalence:

· the level of the aim of communication

· the level of the situation described

· the level of the way of describing the situation

· the level of the meaning of syntactic structures

· the level of the meanings of lexical units [Комиссаров 2002].

Compare translations of the following sentences that are made on different levels of equivalence: «На дне» (М. Горький) - “Down and Out” (G.Rapall Noyes and A. Kaun), «Одноэтажная Америка» (И.Ильф и Е. Петров) – “Provincial America” (J.H.C. Richardson), «Крутой маршрут» (Е. Гинзбург) - “Within the Whirlwind” (Ian Boland) (equivalence on the level of the aim of communication);

Watch the head! – Осторожно, низкий потолок. Сюда, пожалуйста – This way, please (equivalence on the levels of the aim of communication and the situation described);

This summer saw a number of terrible air-crashes. – Этим летом произошло несколько ужасных авиакатастроф (equivalence on the levels of the aim of communication, the situation described and the way of describing the situation).

She was driven away, never to re-visit this neighbourhood. – Она была вынуждена уехать и больше не вернулась в эти места (equivalence on the levels of the aim of communication, the situation described, the way of describing the situation, the meaning of syntactic structures).

The fog stopped the traffic – Из - за тумана остановилось движение транспорта (equivalence on the levels of the aim of communication, the situation described, the way of describing the situation, the meaning of syntactic structures and the meaning of lexical units).

The comparison of the two approaches shows that W. Koller singles out types of equivalence that can co-exist on one and the same language level pointing at various aspects of a speech unit, while V.N. Komissarov’s classification brings different levels of equivalence into a hierarchical structure moving from the top level (the aim of communication) which is a decisive factor of equivalence to the lowest.