equivalence and equivalent effect lectured by zhu jianping

Equivalence and Equivalent Effect

Lectured by

Zhu Jianping

Key concepts

1) Equivalence in Meaning Discussed by Jakobson (1959) 2) Nida’s Adaptation of TG Model and ‘Scientific’

Methods to Analyze Meaning 3) Nida’s Concepts of Formal Equivalence and Dynamic

Equivalence and the Principle of Equivalent Effect: Focus on the Receptor

4) Newmark’s Semantic Translation and Communicative Translation

5) Theoretical Criticisms of Equivalence

Contents

1. Roman Jakobson: the Nature of Linguistic Meaning and Equivalence

2. Nida and ‘the Science of Translating’ 3. Newmark: Semantic and Communicative Translation 4. Later Developments in Equivalence

Introduction

This lecture deals with translation theories of 2 well-known scholars:

1) Eugene Nida’s formal and dynamic equivalence and the principle of equivalent effect

2) Peter Newmark’s semantic and communicative translation


Roman Jakobson examines the issues of linguistic meaning and equivalence in ‘On Linguistic Aspects of Translation’ (1959).

Saussure’s conception of “Sign”

Saussure sets out the relation between the signifier and the signified.


A sign is composed of two elements: a ‘signifier’ (i.e. the form which the sign takes) and the ‘signified’ (i.e. the concept it represents).


The sign is the whole resulting from the association of the signifier with the signified. (Saussure, 1983: 67)


The relationship between the signifier and the signified is called ‘signification’.

Figure 1Saussurean Diagram

signified

signifier

sign


A sign must have both a signifier and a signified. You cannot have a totally meaningless signifier or a completely formless signified. (Saussure, 1983: 101)


The same signifier could stand for a different signified (and thus it is a different sign).

Similarly, many signifiers could stand for the same concept. The signifier and signified together form the linguistic sign, but that sign is arbitrary or unmotivated. (Saussure, 83: 67-9)


It is possible to understand what is signified by a word even if we have never seen/experienced the concept/thing in real life. (Jakobson, 1959)

2 examples: ambrosia ( 希腊罗马神话中 ) 神仙的食物 nectar ( 希腊罗马神话中 ) 众神饮的酒


There is ordinarily no full equivalence between code-units. (Jakobson, 1959)

e.g.寒蝉凄切。对长亭晚，骤雨初歇。（柳永，《雨霖铃》）

Xu Yuanchong’s version:

Cicadas chillDrearily shrill.

We stand face to face at an evening hourBefore the pavilion, after a sudden shower.

Yangs’ version

Mournfully chirr the cicadas,As the shower of rain stops

And we face the roadside pavilion at dusk.

Gong Jinghao’s version

The chilled cicadas were shrill,We sat facing a roadside pavilion in the failing light,

A sudden shower having just passed.


cicada= 寒蝉 ? (roadside) pavilion= 长亭 ?


Interlingual translation involves ‘substitut[ing] messages in one language not for separate code-units but for entire messages in some other language’.


The translator recodes and transmits a message received from another source. Thus translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes. (Jakobson, 1959)


Jakobson approaches the problem of equivalence from a linguistic and semiotic angle:

Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics.


In Jakobson’s discussion, the problem of meaning and equivalence focuses on differences in the structure and terminology of languages, but not on any inability of one language to render a message that has been written in another verbal language.


Cross-linguistic differences center around obligatory grammatical and lexical forms: ‘Languages differ essentially in what they must convey and not in what they may convey’. (Jakobson, 1959)


Differences between languages can be rendered interlingually.

Only poetry is ‘untranslatable’ and requires ‘creative transposition’, because in poetry

▪form expresses sense； ▪‘similarity is sensed as semantic relationship’

phonemic. (Jakobson, 1959)

2. Nida and ‘the science of translating’ Nida’s translation theory developed from his own

translation practice since the 1940s. 2 works: Toward a Science of Translating (1964) The Theory and Practice of Translation (Nida &

Taber, 1969).

2. Nida and ‘the science of translating’ Nida moves translation into a more scientific era by

borrowing concepts and terminology from ◊semantics ◊pragmatics ◊Chomsky’s work on syntactic structure

2.1 The Nature of Meaning: Advances in Semantics and Pragmatics

Nida moves away from the old idea that an orthographic word has a fixed meaning and towards a functional definition of meaning:

a word ‘acquires’ meaning through its context and can produce varying responses according to culture.

2.1 The Nature of Meaning: Advances in Semantics and Pragmatics Meaning is broken down into 3 categories: ►linguistic meaning ►referential meaning ►emotive/connotative meaning


2 ways of determining referential and emotive meaning of a word:

1) analyze the structure of words 2) differentiate similar words in related lexical fields

2.1 The Nature of Meaning: Advances in Semantics and Pragmatics These include 2 techniques: hierarchical structuring (used to differentiate series

of words according to their level) componential analysis (seeking to identify and

discriminate specific features of a range of related words).


Relationship terms (like ‘grandmother’, ‘mother’, ‘cousin’, etc.) can be plotted according to such factors:

1) the value of sex (male, female) 2) generation (the same, one, two or more apart) 3) linearity (direct ancestor/descendant or not) (Nida,

1964: 84-5).


a. Sex (s): male (s1) and female (s2) b. Generation (G): two generations above ego (g1),

one generation above ego (g2), ego’s own generation (g3), one generation below ego (g4), two generations below ego (g5).

c. Linearity may be described in three degrees: (l1), in which the persons involved are direct ancestors or descendants of ego, and (l2) (colineals) and (l3) (ablineals), representing two successive degrees of less direct linea1ity.


grandfather: s1g1l1 grandson: s1g5l1grandmother: s2g1l1 granddaughter: s2g5l1father: s1g2l1 uncle: s1g1-2l1mother: s2g2l1 aunt: s2g1-2l2brother: s1g3l2 cousin: sgl3sister: s2g3l2 nephew: s1g4-5l2son: s1g4l1 niece: s2g4-5l2daughter: s2g4l1

2.1 The Nature of Meaning: Advances in Semantics and Pragmatics The central idea of the semantic structure analysis

is to encourage the trainee translator to realize that the sense of the complex semantic term varies and most particularly is ‘conditioned’ by its context.

2.1 The Nature of Meaning: Advances in Semantics and Pragmatics Nida stresses the importance of context for

communication when dealing with metaphorical meaning and complex cultural idioms.

2.2 The Influence of Chomsky

Nida uses generative-transformational model (GT model) to analyze sentences into a series of related levels governed by rules.

The important features of GT model

1) Phrase-structure rules generate an underlying or deep structure which is

2) transformed by transformational rules relating one

underlying structure to another (e.g. active to passive), to produce

3) a final surface structure, which itself is subject to phonological and morphemic rules

Phrase-structure rules phonological and morphemic rules

Deep structure transformational rules surface structure


Chomsky: The structure relations described in GT model is a universal feature of human language, and the most basic of such structures are Kernel sentences.


Nida incorporates the key features of Chomsky’s GT model into his ‘science’ of translation.


Nida’s three-stage system of translation: 1) Analysis 2) Transfer 3) Restructuring

Nida’s three-stage system of translation (Nida & Taber 1969: 33)

A (source language) B (receptor language)

(analysis) (restructuring)

X (transfer) Y

The surface structure of the ST is analyzed into the basic elements of the deep structure; these elements are ‘transferred’ in the translation process and then restructured semantically and stylistically into the surface structure of the TT.


Kernels ‘are the basic structural elements out of which language builds its elaborate surface structures.’ (Nida & Taber, 1969: 39)

Kernels are to be obtained from the ST surface structure by a reductive process of back-transformation. (Nida, 1964: 63-9)


In order to get kernels, analysis should be made by using the 4 types of functional class proposed by GT grammar:

1) events (often but not always performed by verbs); 2) objects (often but not always performed by nouns); 3) abstracts (quantities and qualities, including adjectives); 4) relationals (including gender, prepositions and

conjunctions).


All languages have between six and a dozen basic kernel structures and ‘agree far more on the level of kernels than on the level of more elaborate structures’. (Nida &Taber, 1969: 39)


Kernels are the level at which the message is transferred into the receptor language before being transformed into the surface structure in three stages:

literal transfer, minimal transfer, and literary transfer.

3.3 Formal and Dynamic Equivalence

+ Equivalent Effect Nida prefers 2 ‘basic orientations’ or ‘types of

equivalence’: 1) Formal equivalence 2) Dynamic equivalence

1) Formal equivalence

Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content … the message in the receptor language should match as closely as possible the different elements in the source language. (Nida, 1964:159)

1) Formal equivalence

Formal equivalence is keenly oriented towards the ST structure.

In ‘gloss translations’, the TT structure closely approximates to the ST structure.

2) Dynamic equivalence

Dynamic equivalence is based on ‘the principle of equivalent effect’, which means that ‘the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message’. (Nida, 1964: 159)


The translator has to achieve dynamic equivalence in translation by tailoring the message to the receptor’s

linguistic needs and cultural expectation, and ‘aims at complete naturalness of expression’.


The goal of dynamic equivalence is to seek ‘the closest natural equivalent to the source-language message’. (Nida, 1964: 166)

This receptor-oriented approach considers the adaptation of ST’s grammar, lexicon and cultural references essential to achieve naturalness.


The TT language should not show interference from the SL, and the ‘foreignness’ of the ST setting should be minimized. (Nida, 1964: 167-80)


The success of the translation depends above all on achieving equivalent response. It is one of the ‘four basic requirements of a translation’, which are:

1. making sense; 2. conveying the spirit and manner of the original; 3. having a natural and easy form of expression; 4. producing a similar response. (Nida, 1964: 164)


Nida’s four ‘basic requirements’ is similar to Tytler’s three principles of translation:

1. The translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of the original work.

2. The style and manner of writing should be of the same character with that of the original.

3. The translation should have all the ease of original composition. (Tytler, 1797: 15)


Dynamic equivalence is a graded concept, since Nida accepts that the ‘conflict’ between the traditional notions of content and form cannot always be easily resolved.


‘Correspondence in meaning must have priority over correspondence in style’ if equivalent effect is to be achieved.

3.4 The Importance of Nida’s Work

Nida’s contributions: 1) The key role played by Nida is to point the road

away from the strict word-for-word equivalence. 2) Nida introduced the concepts of formal and

dynamic equivalence, which was crucial in introducing a receptor/reader-based orientation to translation theory.


However, both the principle of equivalent effect and the concept of equivalence have been heavily criticized for some reasons:

3.4 The Importance of Nida’s Work 1) Lefevere (1993: 7) feels that equivalence is still

too much concerned with the word level.

3.4 The Importance of Nida’s Work 2) van den Broeck (1978: 40) and Larose (1989:

78) thinks that equivalent effect/response is impossible.


give one another a hearty handshake all round quite naturally translates greet one another with a holy kiss (Nida, 1964: 160)

3.4 The Importance of Nida’s Work 2 Questions: 1) Is Nida’s theory of translation really ‘scientific’? 2) Does a translator really follow these procedures in

translation practice?

3.4 The Importance of Nida’s Work Nida’s detailed description about the real translation

phenomena and situation is an important rejoinder to the previous vague writings on translation.


Gentzler (1993) attacks Nida for his theological and proselytizing ( 使人改变信仰的 ) standpoint. He thinks that the concept ‘dynamic equivalence’ serves the purpose of converting the receptors to the dominant discourse and ideas of Protestant Christianity.

3.4 The Importance of Nida’s Work Nida is also criticized by certain religious groups,

who maintain that the changes necessary to achieve dynamic equivalence verge on the sacrilegious ( 渎圣罪的 ).

3.4 The Importance of Nida’s Work However, Nida has produced a systematic analytical

procedure for translators who work with all kinds of text.

3.4 The Importance of Nida’s Work Most significantly, Nida factored one more thing into

the translation equation: the TT’s receivers and their cultural expectations

4. Newmark: Semantic and Communicative Translation

Newmark’s 2 works: Approaches to Translation (1981) A Textbook of Translation (1988).

4. Newmark: Semantic and Communicative Translation Newmark moves away from Nida’s receptor-oriented

line, for he feels that 1) the success of equivalent effect is ‘illusory’; 2) ‘the conflict of loyalties, the gap between

emphasis on source and target language will always remain as the overriding problem in translation theory and practice’. (Newmark, 1981: 38)

4. Newmark: Semantic and Communicative Translation So he distinguishes 2 types of translations: 1) Communicative translation attempts to produce

on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the source language.

2) Semantic translation attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the TL allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original. (Newmark, 1981: 39)


parameter semantic tr. communicative tr.

Transmitter/addressee focus

1) Focus on the thought processes of the transmitter as an individual;

2) should only help TT reader with connotations if they are a crucial part of message

1) Subjective.

2) TT reader focused;

3) oriented towards a specific language and culture

Culture Remains within the SL culture Transfers foreign elements into the TL culture

Table 4.1 Comparison of semantic and communicative translation (1)



Time and origin

1) Not fixed in any time or local space;

2) translation needs to be done anew with every generation

Ephemeral and rooted in its own contemporary context

Relation to ST

1) Always ‘inferior’ to ST;

2) ‘loss’ of meaning

1) May be ‘better’ than the ST;

2) ‘gain’ of force and clarity even if loss of semantic content

Use of form of SL

1) If ST language norms deviate, then this must be replicated in TT;

2) ‘loyalty’ to ST author

Respect for the form of the SL, but overriding ‘loyalty’ to TL norms



Form of TL 1) More complex, awkward, detailed, concentrated;

2) tend to overtranslate

1) Smoother, simpler, clearer, more direct, conventional;

2) tend to undertranslate

Appropriateness For serious literature, autobiography, ‘personal effusion’, any important political (or other) statement

For the vast majority of texts, e.g. non-literary writing, technical and informative texts, publicity, standardized types, popular fiction

Criterion for evaluation

Accuracy in reproducing the ST significance in TT

Accuracy in communicating the ST message in TT




Differences between Semantic translation and literal translation:

semantic translation ‘respects context’, interprets and even explains (metaphors);

literal translation means word-for-word in its extreme version and sticks very closely to ST lexis and syntax. (Newmark, 1981: 63)

4. Newmark: Semantic and Communicative Translation In communicative as in semantic translation,

provided that equivalent effect is secured, the literal word-for-word translation is not only the best, it is the only valid method of translation. (Newmark, 1981: 39)

Discussion of Newmark

Newmark has been criticized for his strong prescriptivism.

The language of his evaluations still bears traces of the ‘prelinguistics era’ of translation studies.

5. Later developments in equivalence The notion of equivalence held sway as a key issue

in translation throughout the 1970s and beyond.

5. Later developments in equivalence ‘Equivalence is obviously a central concept in

translation theory.’ (Chesterman, 1989: 99) Bassnett (1991) devotes a section to ‘problems of

equivalence’ in the chapter entitled ‘central issues’ of translation studies.

5. Later developments in equivalence Mona Baker discusses different kinds of equivalence,

but finds that equivalence ‘is influenced by a variety of linguistic and cultural factors and is therefore always relative’. (Baker, 1992: 6)

5. Later developments in equivalence Kenny notes that ‘equivalence is supposed to define

translation, and translation, in turn, defines equivalence’.

5. Later developments in equivalence Scholars working in non-linguistic translation

studies have been especially critical of the notion of equivalence.

5. Later developments in equivalence Translation involves far more than replacement

of lexical and grammatical items between languages … Once the translator moves away from close linguistic equivalence, the problems of determining the exact nature of the level of equivalence aimed for gain to emerge. (Bassnett, 1980/91: 25)

5. Later developments in equivalence Equivalence is an issue that will remain central to

the practice of translation, even if translation studies and translation theory has marginalized it.

Discussion and research points

1. Follow up the forms of analysis of meaning in Nida and the further reading section. Try out some of these techniques on STs that you yourself have to translate. What are their advantages and disadvantages?


2. Equivalence and the principle of equivalence are keystone of Nida’s theory of translation. In this lecture there has been time to summarize only a few of the main questions.

Research more deeply the arguments around the issues and how the concepts have developed over the years. Why do you consider there has been such heated debate? How can the concepts be used in translator training today?


3.‘Nida provides an excellent model for translation which involves a manipulation of a text to serve the interests of a religious belief, but he fails to provide the groundwork for what the West in general conceives of as a science’ (Gentzler

1993: 60). Do you agree with Gentzler? Is this model tied to religious

texts? How well does it work for other genres (e.g. advertising, scientific texts, literature, etc.)?


4. Look more closely at the descriptions supplied by Nida and Newmark. What differences are there between dynamic/formal equivalence and semantic/communicative translation?


5. Examine more closely English version of Charter of the United Nations (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html) and its Chinese Version 《联合国宪章》 (http://www.un.org/chinese/aboutun/charter/charter.htm ） . Can it be said that the versions have achieved dynamic or formal equivalence? What tertium comparatonis are you using in making your judgments?


6. Investigate what the Chinese translation scholars say about the issue equivalence.


7. ‘A successful translation is probably more dependent on the translator’s empathy with the writer’s thought than on affinity of language and culture’. (Newmark, 1981: 54) What examples of translation can you find that seem to support or disprove this claim?

Key texts Bassnett, S. Translation Studies(3rd edition). 上海外语教育出版社 , 2001. Jakobson, R. (1959/20000) ‘On linguistic aspects of translation’, in

L.Venuti (ed.) (2000) pp. 113-8. Newmark, P. Approaches to Translation. 上海外语教育出版社 , 2001. Newmark, P. A Textbook of Translation. 上海外语教育出版社 , 2001. Nida, E. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1964. Nida, E. & C. Taber. The Theroy and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E.J.

Brill, 1969.

THANK YOU!

equivalence and equivalent effect lectured by zhu jianping

Documents