Space Technology

By: Alireza Sadeghi Ghadi
Abstract 

 

The theory of equivalence is the most important topic for the comparison of texts in different languages. Equivalence can be said to be the central subject in translation. Although it's definition, relevance and applicability within the field of translation theory have caused controversial issue and many different theories of the concept of equivalence has been elaborated within this field in the past fifty years. Many theorists have studied equivalence in relation to the translation process, using different approaches and have provided useful ideas and concepts for the next study on this topic. 

 

Since translation is translation of an original, the ideas of equivalence between the translated and original text arise naturally. There have been many attempts to find criteria for equivalence. As is well known, even word for word equivalence is problematic. The referential aspect of a word creates one possible criterion for equivalence, which is usually called denotative equivalence.5 Equivalence can also be on the order of connotation, formal, pragmatic and so on. It may also be desirable to go beyond the orbit of the text and search for the notion of equivalence in the agency of the reader and the different cultures involved in translation.

 

 

Nida’s (1964) idea of dynamic equivalence, for instance, argues for a notion of equivalence based on the‘equivalent’ effect of the text on the reader. In his influential work, Popovic (1976) distinguishes between four types of equivalence arising in translation—Linguistic, Paradigmatic, Stylistic and Syntagmatic. Related to this is his emphasis on the ‘invariant core’ in each text, suggesting that

translation function to transmit and transfer this core. The idea of invariance is very suggestive of its uses in other disciplines, particularly science. Invariance is essentially a concept associated with dynamics and change. It is only under the agency of some action that we can recognize the invariance of an object or system. Invariance is, therefore, specifically linked to an act as also to that element, in part or in full, which

remains invariant. In the case of translation, the specific dynamic act is that of translation. Under this action, it may be believed that ‘something’ remains invariant, perhaps

the meaning of the text. The text by itself cannot be invariant, nor can the number of words or pages. This idea of invariance has striking philosophical similarities to the notion of invariance as it occurs in science. As is well known, the idea of symmetry in science is deeply implicated in the idea of invariance. Although I do not mean to suggest a facile analogy between the two, I mention this merely to draw attention to the close conceptual links between the concerns of translation and of science. In all these three types of translation, the problems of equivalence, identity and sameness are present.

It is important to emphasize here that the scientific discourse is not totally distinct from literary discourse. As a discourse, it has its own stylistics, aesthetics, rhetoric, metaphors and so on. But it also has something more—it is this extra space which needs to be delineated clearly. The nature of the scientific discourse, as a multiple semiotic system and in its use of multiple literary strategies, is already implicated within the notion of translation. Setting out some salient points related to translation, derived from the concerns of literature, will help broaden the understanding of the scientific discourse, as manifested in its written form.

 

This task is indeed urgent considering the widespread belief that scientific and technical texts donot exhibit the problems present in literary translation. Even Susan Bassnett (1991: 79), who otherwise champions the need to acknowledge the complexity of translation, has this to say about scientific texts:

If the text is perceived as an object that should only produce a single invariant reading, any ‘deviation’ on the part of the reader/translator will be judged as transgression. Such a judgement might be made regarding scientific documents, for example, where facts are set out and presented in unqualifiedly objective terms for the reader of SL and TL text alike, but with literary texts the position is different. This privileging of the scientific text is unnecessary and also untenable. Ironically,

the sentence following the above quote is, “one of the greatest advances in twentieth century literary study has been the re-evaluation of the reader”.

This shift to the reader reinforces the complexity that is inherent in scientific texts, which attain this status by being read as such. Barthes’ view of the reader as a producer of the text, and not merely a consumer, along with Kristeva’s positioning the" reader as realizing the expansion of the work’s process of semiotics” is comments equally applicable to the scientific discourse. In fact, this constant schizophrenia of reader/translator is a defining mark not only of translation but also of the scientific activity. If translators are readers of the source text that they translate, scientists are readers of the ‘book of nature’ which they then translate. There is no getting away from the textual character of science. Being a collection

of texts, written in natural and symbolic languages, there are various factors which regulate its form and, not so obviously, its content. It would be easy to say that scientific texts form one uniform genre. But like poetry and fiction, the boundaries defining the genre are constantly under pressure to change. Thus although texts can be' identified’ as belonging to the scientific (and/or technical) genre, this does not negate the possibility of overlaps with those characteristics which mark literary genres.

This intermarriage of different genres creates further problems, as far as translation is concerned. Each genre deals with the concerns of translation in different ways. Translators, drawing upon the practice of translating texts, have attempted to set

some basic rules of translation for different genres. Lefevere’s seven strategies for translating poetry and Hilaire Belloc’s (Ibid., 85) six general rules for translating prose are attempts in this direction. These strategies respond to the textuality specific to these different genres. Although, at this point, I do not believe that one can attempt a similar exercise for scientific discourse, more detailed analysis of that discourse might lead to such attempts in the future. Here I will only assert that the

writing of the scientific discourse already, and implicitly, involves discursive strategies dealing with translation.

Most, if not all, scientific texts are ‘structurally similar’ to prose texts. The text is bifurcated into chapters, sections, paragraphs and sentences. There is an apparent linearity to the text—the development of the text beginning with simple ideas and

equations and proceeding to more complex physical (and mathematical, if required) problems and solutions.

The first chapters are literally the foundation upon which the edifice of the text rests. In the text, we can find claims, arguments, proofs, suppositions, references and so on. All these elements go to constitute the style of the genre itself. Thus the process of translation has to negotiate with, build upon and integrate all these elements. It is also the case that the possibility of research itself is based on the ambiguities inherent in the activity of translation. In spite of translation being one of the oldest professions in the world (or maybe because of it!), Venuti (1998: 8) observes that the “study of the history and theory of translation remains a backwater in the academy.” This observation points to a fundamental tension present in according due importance to the study and practice of translation, and highlights the need for a sociological perspective, which is already inherent in this activity.

It also suggests an expansion of the academic stakes in translation. the equivalence as a theory in various points of view taken from theorists. The winter says the theorists are divided into two groups. The first group is in favor of linguists approach in translation. The second group is in favor of cultural approach toward translation and most importantly the equivalence. The writer also defines a mediocre place for scholars who do not belong to the first or second group. Scholars for the first group are Vinay, Catford, Darbelnet, Jakobson and Nida. Vinay and Darbelnet defined the equivalence as a procedure which replicates the same situation as in the original while using completely different wording. They also said that the equivalence is the ideal method in dealing with proverbs, idioms, clichés, etc. Jakobson considered three types of translation. They are inter lingual (between SL &TL), intra lingual (within one language), and inter semiotic (between sign systems). Nida`s theory was defined by the writer. Nida defined two types of equivalence. They are formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Writer says the formal equivalence focuses on the message itself. However, the dynamic equivalence is based on the equivalent effect. Catford is the next theorist who believed in linguistic approach toward translation and equivalence. He defined his theory based on the extent of translation, grammatical rank and the levels of language. He, later on, explained his notion of shifts. They are structure shift, class shift, unit shift, and intra system shift. House`s theory as a cultural or functional approach toward the notions of translation and equivalence. House defined two types of translation namely overt and covert translation. In the overt translation the TT audience is not directly addressed. On the other hand, the covert translation is the production of a text which is functionally equivalent to the ST. in the final part of the article, Baker`s theory of equivalence was defined. The writer says Baker explores the notion of equivalence at different levels. They are word level, grammatical level, textual level, and pragmatic level. Finally, the writer concluded that equivalence is still problematic in terms of definition, theoretical aspects, and practical aspects. . The writer goes on saying that some scholars opposed dynamic equivalence. One of them is Eco who is a scholar in translation. Eco criticized Nida and said that equivalence in meaning or dynamic equivalence is not a satisfactory criterion for correct translation. Eco continues that the equivalence in meaning which is provided by meaning is not accepted since there is no complete synonym in language. Eco exemplified daddy and father as not being the same. In fact, Eco believed that those who are involved in the art and craft of translation are definitely in a better position to formulate theoretical aspects of the subject. Eco said the translator should not render based on dictionary. Therefore, Eco meant that translating is not only connected with linguistic competence but also with intertexual, psychological, and narrative competence. Eco focused on the cultural aspects of translation. In the conclusion part, the theoretician defined two competing theories. Firstly, to render as exactly as possible the full meaning of words and phrases. Secondly, to render a result that does not read like a translation at all, but rather moves in its new dress near to the culture of target language. The last but not least, the good and accurate translation is the overall concern of all theories and should include the functional requirements of an accepted theory which is adequate. It means cultural elements and equivalent effect must be completely considered in the theoretical aspects of translation theory, because of the fact that it helps for translating adequate and proper. Equivalence is defined as the difference between measurement levels of within- and between- group comparisons. If the measure is biased against some cultural groups, individual difference within a cultural population and across cultural populations is not measured. At the same scale. There are three types of bias. They are construct bias, method bias, and item bias or differential item functioning. Construct bias is the dissimilarity of construct across cultures. Method bias is a general word that refers to all sources of bias resulting from methodological- procedural aspects of a study. Sample bias is subsuming all differences in scores that are related to specific aspects of a sample. Parallel to three types of bias, there are three types of equivalence. They are construct equivalence, method equivalence, and measurement unit equivalence. It should be said that these concepts namely equivalence and bias are integral part of any empirical study. Therefore, in any step of quantitative studies, there is a bias. All in all, the writer says that bias, holistically, refers to the absence or presence of nuisance factors. On the other hand, equivalence is the implication of bias on the cross cultural score comparisons to be made., in order to translate better the existence of good equivalences are urgent. Consequently, in order to get the highest possible level of equivalence, bias should be scrutinized in each and all steps of quantitative study. To put it in a nutshell, the most important part of translation is equivalence and the most important part of cultural issues in translation is the bias. Consequently, in order to translate better and more adequate, we have to know the bias, then, we will choose the best equivalence across languages. . The definition of equivalence comprises other non- specific definitions of equivalence. It is defined as generally being equal and interchangeable in value, quantity, significance, etc. the theoretician  defines the different aspects of equivalence and describes them. In other words, the all components of the equivalence are described. There is also a definition for translation studies. It is being equivalent according to different degrees of languages and ranks of languages. Another definition for equivalence is the scientific definition which states that the central problem of translation is that of finding TL translation equivalent and the central task of translation theory is that of defining the nature and conditions of translation equivalence. It is said that the main objective of translation studies is the explication of translation equivalence. The writer continues by explaining different scholars ` points of view toward equivalence like Nida`s formal and dynamic equivalence. The writer, then, considered the displacement of equivalence concept by introducing the historical- descriptive approach toward equivalence and translation. This approach emphasizes on the significance of the situation, and more specifically, the culture in which translations are to be situated. The scholars of this approach focus on the target culture. Generally, there are two approaches which are explained one is the linguistic approach and the other one is the descriptive- historical approach or functional approach. On the relation among translation, equivalence and intertextuality, the theoretician says authentication indicates the end of status as a translation. They concluded that if the equivalence spells the end of translation, it can be said that the end of translator's work happened. They say that strong equivalence is total; he posits congruence of meaning and singularity of intent and leaves no room for differential voices. They also say that as long as translations remain translations, equivalence remains beyond their grasp and different subjects inhabit their discursive space. On the topic of dynamic equivalence, Nida defines it as mostly in favor of placing strong emphasis on the effect of the translated work on the receiver. In accordance with Nida, changes in the text, including words, metaphors, and even omission or addition, are allowed as long as the target text functions in the same manner as the source text. The example of Nida is the translation of the word "lamb" in to "seal" or "pig" in order to convey the message of God. In summary, equivalent effect refers to an intended result of functional equivalence translation method. At the same time, the term is used in translation theory to refer to the procedures and techniques of functional equivalence. The most important part or results of Nida`s functional equivalence is the fact that some kinds of adjustments is necessary in order to transfer the intended meaning. All in all, cultural equivalence is kind of strategy in equivalent effect domain and it is seem in case of many translated books across the different cultures and languages. One of the domains of translation is corpus- based translation studies. As the theoretician  says it is a kind of strategy for translation. He, later on, explains the parallel corpora which comprises text in two or more languages. It means there is a monolingual corpora, there is a bilingual or bi directional corpora and so on. they, then, explains the comparable corpora. It is a corpora which includes text collections whose size and content may vary. The composition and size of the corpora and their representative ness is relevant to respective languages. they say this article is the result of a study which was the corpus- based study of a connotation of non- literary language. It scrutinized the meaning of color words as it exists in linguistic expressions like to see red, to fell blue, and green with envy. It also explains what factors are responsible for activating the connotative meanings of the color words.

They  mainly focused on the fact that corpus data can be usefully exploited in order to identify series of translation equivalents for words, expressions, idioms, … etc. Another important factor mentioned by the writer is the reference to corpora. In fact, reference makes it possible to identify where differences and similarities lie across languages. Some case studies are provided by the writer to clarify the use of corpora. To sum up, the corpora has different types. The main aspects of corpora are comparability and reference. Usually, the use of TL corpora is for the sake of natural translation. Another important factor is that the choice in translation is related to choice in source language and it is done with the help of comparing chosen expression against its possible alternative along with the paradigmatic axis. Finally, they say corpus is used very much and the word profiling is therefore a much more straight forward matter that it was a few years ago. They emphasized that the combination of automatic processing, manual analysis and greater awareness of how language makes meaning help translator to reach equivalence very easily.  As a very important matter, translation researchers and translator training are affected by linguistic oriented approaches that support the view of the empirical data they collect. They develop scientific models. Finally, Venuti seems to define the shortcomings of the linguistic- oriented approaches. According to these approaches, translation is theorized on the model of Griceun conversation maxims is which the translator communicates the foreign text by cooperating with the domestic reader. They are quantifying of information, quality or truthfulness in translation, relevance or consistency of the context, and manner or clarity. Finally, despite all these aspects and models there is one model which is drawn by the writer. It is the dynamic translation model on which translation and equivalence and even translation criticism are discussed.

 

Conclusion: 

There is no doubt that the most controversial and problematic issue in translation is the notion of equivalence. After reading the articles, I believe that the articles can be divided in to two major groups. The first group are dedicated to the pure definition and aspects of translation equivalence. The second group comprises the concrete and performable aspects of equivalence like the application of types of equivalence.

 

 

References

 

 

 

 

Leonardi, V.(2000) Equivalence in Translation,V4,No4.

Rogers, M. (2007) Terminological Equivalence : probability and consistency in technical translation.

Halverson, S. (1997) The Concept of Equivalence in Translation Studies. Target1-2(1997),207-233

Van de vijver, F.J.R.(1997) Towards a Theory of Bias and Equivalence 41.

Ahmed Al Menoufi, F.(2006) Problems of dynamic equivalence in Translation. Post-Graduate student of KNU, Iman 2111[at] hotmail.com

Karimi, L.(2006) Equivalence in Translation.V10,N 1.

Hermans, T.(2003) Translation, Equivalence and Intertextuality.Wasafiri,18:40,39-41

Philip, G.(2003) Arriving at equivalence making a case for comparable corpora in Translation Studies. University of Bologna, Italy.

Lotfipour-Saedi, K.(1997):" Lexical Cohesion and Translation Equivalence" Meta,V42,n1,P.185-192.

Bolanos Cullar, S.(1990) A key Concept in Modern Translation Theory.Universidad Nacional de Colombia.

Gerzimisch-Arbogast, H.(2001) :"Equivalence Prameters and Evaluation". Meta, V46,N2,P.227-242

Zhang,M.Jiang, H. Li, H.Ati, A. Li,S.(2002) Grammer Comparison Study for Translational Equivalence Modeling and Statitical Machine Translation. Institute for Infocomm Research, Singapore.Harbin Institue of Technology, China.

Shimonata, M. Shumita, E. Matsumoto,Y.(2000) Retrieving Meaning- Equivalent Sentences for Example-Based Rough Translation. Nara Institue of  Science and Technology.

Chung- Ling, SH.(2005) Using Trados's WinAlignTool to Teach the Translation Equivalence Concept. National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.

Tianmin, J(2004) Translational Relationship: Equivalence vs Recognizability. Sichuan International  Studies University, China.

Finch, A. Howang, Y. Shumita, E.(2002) Using Machine Translation Evaluation Techniques to Determine Sentence-level Semantic Equivalence. ATR Research Institue.

Melamed, I.Dan.(1998) Models of Translational Equivalence. Institute for Research in Cognitive Science Technical Report=/98-05.

Higashino , H. (2001) Cultural Equivalence: it's effectivenessand complications…. Has " White Gloves" achived the equivalent effect of "Shiro Tabi", University of Monash.