EQUIVALENCE IN TRANSLATION

Translation equivalence is defined as a measure of semantic similarity between ST and TT.

If we compare a number of TTs with their STs we shall discover that the degree of semantic similarity between the two texts involved in the translating process may vary. In other words the equivalence between ST and TT may be based on the reproduction of different parts of the ST contents. Accordingly, several types of translation equivalence can be distinguished.

Let us first of all single out translations in which the degree of semantic similarity with ST seems to be the lowest. This type of equivalence can be illustrated by the following examples (cited from the published translations):

(1) Maybe there is some chemistry between us that doesn’t mix. Бывает, что люди не сходятся характерами. – Este ceva la mijloc/ce nu merge.

(2) A rolling stone gathers no moss. - Кому дома не сидится, тот добра не наживет./ Piatra ce se rostogoleşte nimic (nu) dobîndeşte.

(3) That’s a pretty thing to say. - Постыдился бы!/ Îi uşir de spus/ Ruşine să-ţi fie !

Неге we cannot discover any common seems or invariant structures in the original and its translation. An absolute dissimilarity of language units is accompanied by the absence of obvious logical link between the two messages which could lead to the conclusion that they arc “about the same thing”, Le. that they describe one and the same situation. Yet, it is evident that the two sentences have something in common as to their meaning. This common part of their contents is obviously of great importance, since it is enough to ensure an adequate communication.

It comprises the information which must be preserved by all means even though the greater part of the contents of the original is lost in the translation.

In plain English, the translation does not convey either “what the original text is about”, or what is said in it” or “how it is said”, but only “what it is said for”, i.e. what the Source meant, what the aim of the message is.

This part of the contents which contains information about the general intent of the message, its orientation towards a certain communicative effect can be called “the purport of communication”. Thus we can deduce that in the first type of equivalence it is only the purport of communication that is retained in translation.

The second group of translations can be illustrated by the following examples:

- He answered the telephone. -Он снял трубку./ El a luat receptorul.

- You see one bear, you have seen them all.-Все медведи похожи друг на друга./ noaptea toate pisicile sunt negre.

- It was late in the day. - Близился вечер./ Se întunecă spre sfîrşitul zilei.

This group of examples is similar to the first one, as the equivalence of translations here does not involve any parallelism of lexical or structural units. Most of the words or syntactical structures of the original have no direct correspondences in the translation. At the same time it is obvious that there is a greater proximity of contents than in the preceding group.

Consider, for instance, the translations:

-(1) Maybe there is some chemistry between us that doesn’t mix. Бывает, что люди не сходятся характерами.

- (2) Не answered the telephone. Он снял трубку.

In (I) the things referred to are different, so that there is hardly any logical connection between the two statements. We can draw identical conclusions about the speaker’s sentiments: there is no love lost between him and another person.

In (2) the incomparable language units in the original and in the translation describe, in fact, the same action, refer to identical reality, as a telephone call cannot be answered unless one picks up the receiver. Both texts give different information about the same, or, as one sometimes says, they express the same idea “using different words”. It is the type of equivalence that can be well explained in terms of the situational theory. We may presume that such phrases describe identical situations but each is presented in a different way. Since in each of the two texts the situation is described in a different way, the common feature is not the method of description but the reference to the situation, the possibility of identifying the situation, no matter how it is described in the text. The information which characterized the second type of equivalence can, therefore, be designated as “identification of the situation“.

In the next group of translations the part of the contents which is to be retained is still larger. This type of equivalence can be exemplified as follows:

- Scrubbing makes me bad-tempered. Оть мытья полов у меня настроение портится.

- London saw a cold winter last year.-В прошлом году зима в Лондоне была холодной./ A fost o iarnă grea pentru Londra în anul trecut.

- You are not serious? – Вы шутите?/ Glumeşti ?? Faci glume?

The translation contains the same general notions as the original. This means that the translation is a semantic paraphrase of the original, preserving its basic semesand allowing their free reshuffle in the sentence. The common semes are easily discovered in the comparative analysis of the translations of this group. Consider the first of the examples cited. Both in thetranslation and in the original the situation is described as a “cause-effect” event with a different pattern of identical semes. In the original: A (scrubbing) causes В (I) to have С (temper) characterized by the property D (bad). In the translation: С (temper) belonging to В (I) acquires the property D (bad) because of A (scrubbing).

The use of the identical notions in the two texts means that the basic structure of the messages they convey remains intact. Here it indicates “what is said in the original”, i.e. what aspect of the described situation is mentioned in the communication.

We can now say that the third type of equivalence exemplified by the translations of the third group, implies retention in the translation of the three parts of the original contents which we have conventionally designated as the purport of communication, the identification of the situation andthe method of its description.

The fourth group of translations can be illustrated by the following samples:

- He was never tired of old songs.Старые песни ему никогда не надоедали./

- I don’t see that I need to convince you. He вижу надобности доказывать это вам./ Nu e nevoie să te conving

- Не was standing with his arms crossed and his bare head bent. Он стоял, сложив руки на груди и опустив непокрытую голову./ El stătea cu mîinele încruucişate şi cu capul plecat.

In such translations the syntactic structures can be regarded as derived from those in the original through direct or backward transformations. This includes cases when the translation makes use of similar or parallel structures.

Equivalence imply the retention of the linguistic meaning, i.e. the information fixed in the substantial or structural elements of language as their plane of content. The translation conveys something of the “how-it-is-said in the original”.

The fourth type of equivalence presupposes retention in the translation of the four meaningful components of the original: the purport of communication, the identification of the situation, the method of its description, and the invariant meaning of the syntactic structures.

The fifth group of translations can be discovered when we analyse their relationships with the respective originals. Here we find the maximum possible semantic similarity between texts in different languages. These translations try to retain the meaning of all the words used in the original text. There is considerable semantic proximity of the correlated words in the two sentences:

- I saw him at the theatre.-Я видел его в театре./ L-am văzut la teatru.

- The house was sold for 10 thousand dollars.- Дом был продан за десять тысяч долларов./ Casa s-a vîndut cu 10 000 de dolari.

- The Organisation is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.-Организация основана на принципе суверенного равенства всех ее членов./ Organizaţia se bazează pe egalitatea suzerană a tuturor membrilor săi.

Here we can observe the equivalence of semes which make up the meaning of correlated words in the original text and the translation; parallelism of syntactic structures implying the maximum invariance of their meanings; the similarity of the notional categories which determine the method of describing the situation; the identity of the situations; the identical functional aim of the utterance or the purport of communication.

We can sum up. We have discovered that there are five different types of semantic relationships between equivalent phrases (texts) in two languages, differing as to the volume and character of the information retained in each.

Every translation can be regarded as belonging to a certain type of equivalence. Since each subsequent type implies a higher degree of semantic similarity we can say that every translation is made at a certain level of equivalence.

Each level of equivalence is characterized by the part of information the retention of which distinguishes it from the previous level. The list of levels, therefore, includes: 1) the level of the purport of communication; 2) the level of (the identification of) the situation; 3) the level of the method of description (of the situation); 4) the level of syntactic meanings; 5) the level of word semantics.

A translation can be good at any level of equivalence.