Roman Jacobson’s Theory of Equivalence

“These three kinds of translation are to be differently labeled:

1 Intralingual translation or rewording is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs of the same language.

2 Interlingual translation or translation proper is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language.

3 Intersemiotic translation or transmutation is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal sign systems” (1959, p. 233).

“Most frequently, however, translation from one language into another substitutes messages in one language not for separate code-units but for entire messages in some other language. Such a translation is a reported speech; the translator recodes and transmits a message received from another source. Thus translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes”.

 

Eugene Nida’s Theory of Translation

Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal equivalence (or formal correspondence) and dynamic equivalence.

Formal correspondence 'focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content', unlike dynamic equivalence which is based upon 'the principle of equivalent effect' (1964:159).

This theory is mainly expressed in the book Nida, Eugene A. and C. R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation ( Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969 / 1982).

Formal correspondence consists of a TL item which represents the closest equivalent of a SL word or phrase.

Dynamic equivalence is defined as a translation principle according to which a translator seeks to translate the meaning of the original in such a way that the TL wording will trigger the same impact on the TC audience as the original wording did upon the ST audience.

 

The advantage of the Nida-Taber’s concept is in their interest in the message of the text or, in other words, in its semantic quality.

• The disadvantage of this approach is in its inability to render poetry: poetical text demands not only semantic adequacy, but aesthetic-emotional aspects of communication.

“It is hard, however, to empirically test whether the translator has succeeded in producing a dynamic equivalence. The methods suggested by Nida-Taber provide means to make sure that the translation is idiomatic, but they lack reference to the source text regarding form and semantics”.

Christoffer Gehrmann

 

John Catford’s theory

John Catford had a preference for a more linguistic-based approach to translation. His main contribution in the field of translation theory is the introduction of the concepts of types and shifts of translation. Catford proposed very broad types of translation in terms of three criteria:

— The extent of translation (full translation vs partial translation);

— The grammatical rank at which the translation equivalence is established (rank-bound translation vs. unbounded translation);

— The levels of language involved in translation (total translation vs. restricted translation).

Only the second type of translation concerns the concept of equivalencewhich are based on the distinction between
formal correspondence (An equivalent is sought in the TL for each word, or for each morpheme encountered in the ST.) and textual equivalence (Equivalences are not tied to a particular rank, and we may additionally find equivalences at sentence, clause and other levels.)

 

However, in the process of rendering from SL to TL a translator departs from formal correspondence. J. Catford calls these departures “shifts”. There are two main types of translation shifts:
level shifts, where the SL item at one linguistic level (e.g. grammar) has a TL equivalent at a different level (e.g. lexis),
and category shifts which are divided into four types:

• Structure-shifts, which involve a grammatical change between the structure of the ST and that of the TT;

• Class-shifts, when a SL item is translated with a TL item which belongs to a different grammatical class, i.e. a verb may be translated with a noun;

• Unit-shifts, which involve changes in rank;

• Intra-system shifts, which occur when 'SL and TL possess systems which approximately correspond formally as to their constitution, but when translation involves selection of a non-corresponding term in the TL system' (ibid.:80). For instance, when the SL singular becomes a TL plural.

 

Catford was criticized very much for his linguistic theory of translation. His critics denoted that the translation process cannot simply be reduced to a linguistic exercise, as claimed by Catford for instance, since there are also other factors, such as textual, cultural and situational aspects, which should be taken into consideration when translating.

Linguistics is the only discipline which enables people to carry out a translation, since translating involves different cultures and different situations at the same time and they do not always match from one language to another.