1

“Equivalence” Term/Concept Challenges vs. Alternative

By: Mohammad Majed Mousli

Abstract

The term „equivalence‟ has been employed in translation studies literature to denote a

„translation concept‟ that reflects on inter-lingual „matching‟ of items (open to all

categories and units) across the language pair involved in any translating activity.

The wide range of relevant issues to this concept and their implications, so far, have

been discussed in the context of the general contrastive approach, and challenged,

also amongst other aspects, for the objective of finding equivalent, coined new word

and/or concept when translating at any point in time. The arguments and debates on

the validity of the mentioned term (denoting the state of being „equivalent‟) range,

according to the reviewed literature, from achieving communicatively effective

translation „equivalence‟ on the one hand and/or virtually the abandonment of the

„concept of equivalence‟ on the other. Nevertheless, there is general consensus

amongst most translation researchers and theorists quoted below, which says the

term „equivalence‟ (representing a translation concept) is a goal to be achieved

rather than accepting it in its referential property. A concept of an inter-lingual

matching of corresponding linguistic items/units being in the state of “counterpart”

interchangeably is to be suggested as an alternative for substituting the widely used

term „equivalence‟ and the concept it denotes for achieving translation that to reflect

on the ST in focus.

2

Chronological Account

A review of the translation studies literature reveals the word „equivalent‟ generally

has been used as a term that presumably encodes the „concept of equivalence‟

achieved or to be achieved across the language pair involved in translating process.

Translation studies researchers and theorists are divided on the issues of using this

mentioned term. „Equivalence‟ on the one hand means it is there and translator has to

search for or to work towards achieving it or „equivalence‟ is absent across the

language pair and translator is required to finding a relatively approximate

„equivalent‟ when matching inter-lingual correspondences is sought on the other. An

„equivalent‟ achieved or to be achieved by all means implies a „misleading‟ statement,

in particular, in relation to the controversy surrounding its‟ use. The term has been

employed in translation studies with the presumption that its application relates to a

range of linguistic levels starting at word (the composing unit of a larger syntactic

unit) right through across other levels of more complex structures of the linguistic

strata; such as phrase, collocation, clause, sentence, technical term and/or any other

stretches of words that go beyond word up to a full text. The problems entailed from

the term‟s use therefore literally result not only in ending up trying to do an

impossible task, but also in questioning the validity of produced total or partial

„equivalent‟ of language 1 unit/item that is to be matched to correspond to another

unit of language 2. Consequently, applying the term in translation reflects on the state

of presumably existing concept in the course of carrying out an inter-lingual activity.

The review also revealed the term „equivalence‟ has been used in its general sense to

relate to the transfer of a source language unit into target language unit, mainly, at the

three mentioned levels of linguistic structures. The following account is focused on

3

revealing what problem/s of what may/may not constitute „equivalent‟ unit from

various linguistic and non-linguistic perspectives.

„Equivalence‟ term vs. concept

The term „equivalence‟ use, so far, has fallen in the heart of translation studies, its

theories, issues‟ discussions and arguments. Its employment and application, which

reflect on a translation concept for research and studies, have been controversial

whenever discussed, argued for or suggested. Besides confusing the term‟s signifying

attribute, according to the literature review, this has been used variably and

ambiguously on a wider scale to describe the state of matched „sense‟ or „form‟ of a

word, „sentence‟ and/or „text‟ in one language as being corresponding to x „unit/s‟ in

another language interchangeably in translating as a process and translation as its

product. Catford (1965) wrote „… the term equivalent is the central problem of

translation practice.‟ (1965: 21). Its‟ use, however, led some researchers, at any given

stage, even to express extreme views in relation to its validity as that of Svejcer

(1981), who says “equivalence” „is one of the central issues in the theory of

translation and yet one in which linguists seem to have agreed to disagree‟. (1981:

321; cited in Gutt, 1991: 10). The term use, which triggered endless debates, led other

researchers such as Gutt (1991) even to oppose the theoretical part of substantiating

this term as a translation concept, as according to Dolitsky (1992), Gutt (1991) „is

strongly against equivalence theories‟ (cited in Dolitsky, 1992: 177). The term‟s

employment in translation studies has also become a case of abstruseness. It is may be

fair to say in this context that the term „equivalence‟, by all means, has created not

only controversy, but also one of the most complicated issues for the theory of

4

translation and its studies to encounter and/or to deal with. This statement is tenable in

terms of the reviewed literature. „Equivalence‟ (as a word) has been used on a wider

scale, mainly, in its two semantic properties. These are: (I) the semantic property of

the word „equivalence‟ vs. the „concept‟ it denotes, and (ii) the contextual meaning of

a ranked „term‟. Neubert and Shreve (1992) say

„There is no defence for linguistic equivalence‟, and that „we are

not stubbornly committed to the term equivalence.‟ (1992: 142).

The same also stated

„If scholars do not insist on definition of equivalence that imply complete

identity, then equivalence can remain a valid concept in translation studies.‟

(1992: 143), and „that equivalence can hold between constituent units of texts

and not just between texts.‟ (Ibid: 144).

Implications resulting from using the term

Achieving or producing „equivalence‟ in translation, definitely as a controversial

issue, has implications for translation studies, in particular, in terms of relating to

topics such as those of „translating‟ vs. „transferring‟ and the „translatability‟ vs.

„untranslatability‟ of any linguistic and non-linguistic (cultural) items across human

languages.

5

One of the implications resulting from the use of the term „equivalence‟ is the

handling of the issue of „transference‟ in translation studies. In the context of

achieving or seeking to achieve „equivalence‟ in translation Catford‟s (1965)

translation theory suggests the term transference to denote the act/process of

transferring an item/unit (word or compound-unit beyond word) from ST into TT.

Occasionally, transference has been extensively used in translation literature, and it is

conflated in its application with the word „translation‟. „Transference‟ is an

implantation of SL meanings into the TL text. However, in the view of other

translation theorists and in the context of the „stages of transfer‟, according to Nida &

Taber (1969), this term „is a linguistic activity that has to do with relaying message of

the SL into the TL.‟(1969: 104). When translation is not possible „transference‟ has

been suggested for application with the aim of achieving „equivalence‟ in the TL.

Catford (1965) suggests „„transference‟ … requires three linguistic activities to be

carried out; those are: (I) semantic adjustments, (II) structural adjustments and (III)

reduction adjustments.‟ (1965: 168), where according to Newmark (1988)

„transference‟ specifically „applies to „brand names‟, „geographical‟, „topographical‟

and „street names‟ and „acronyms‟‟ (1988: 84 and 181- 2). Transferred items are not

necessarily translated as those represent items such as „loan translation‟ (claque),

„names‟, „titles‟, „transliterated words‟, „cultural concepts‟ and „words‟, which have

no „equivalence‟ in the target language.

Under other implications of the term „equivalence‟ use, which also triggered pro or

against stands, are the issues of translatability and untranslatability, as these have

been in the focus of translation studies, its‟ theory and research since studying of

translation rapidly expanded some decades ago. Both concepts have been dealt with

6

separately, as they represent two poles or two issues contradicting each other in

relation to what translation, in the absolute term‟s reference, is about. The literature

reviewed reveals that „translatability‟ and „untranslatability‟ of material (any

linguistic and non-linguistic category of items/units) range in the order of relaying

meaning (or other means of transference), across one language pair, from „everything

is translatable‟ to the adverse extreme about the „untranslatability of everything‟.

Under translatability, generally speaking, it can be claimed that translation studies

literature in its majority is based on the assumption that „translation‟ is possible

between or across most human languages. This statement, however, represents

common sense in terms of its relevance to the discipline of translation as an approach,

theory and practice. The issues of „translatability‟, or the possibility of translating

everything from one language into another have been discussed in detail based, in

particular, on departing from the extreme view that there is nothing, which cannot be

translated. Nevertheless, this has been challenged within the context of selected

designated language pairs, and critique has been directed in its application at the

various levels (linguistic, cultural) of translation. „Translatability‟ for some

researchers is always a relative term. It is about a transposition that departs from the

perspectives of the linguistic world of the SL to make the journey into the opposite

system (the TL). In spite of taking such stand in relation to adopting translatability,

nevertheless, this is not a valid concept across all languages (especially between

unrelated languages) as for example translating mathematics from one of the

European languages into the Hopi language, as this latest has no words for digits in its

system.

7

At the text level vs. word, according to Neubert and Shreve (1992), experienced

translators and translation scholars corroborate the fact, that „translatability is possible

only on textual grounds.‟ (1992: 147). In the same context the review, nevertheless,

revealed the concept „translatability‟ has been discussed in its general application to

undesignated languages, but this hasn‟t been conclusively related to the concept of

„equivalence‟ as compared with that of „transference‟.

The adverse concept „untranslatability‟, as a translation issue, attracted more attention

and research than its adverse concept. Translation theorists and researchers have

pursued the issue of „untranslatability‟ to question whether translation in its absolute

concept and understanding is anywhere near being possible to be carried out, and the

literature reveals conflicting stands on the possibility of doing translation in the first

place. Due to an apparent confusion amongst some researchers in regard to possibly

doing translation, „untranslatability‟ has been brought to the fore in terms of claiming

the concept‟s legitimacy for research purposes. There is, however, a general

consensus amongst most translation researchers, which says that due to the different

systems of human languages, „untranslatability‟ in the end is an issue of translating

obstacles to be faced with. On the basis of this statement „untranslatability‟ as a

concept, brought the use of the term „equivalence‟ to the fore for debating purposes.

Untranslatability covers in its general application „linguistic untranslatability‟,

„textual untranslatability‟ and „cultural untranslatability‟, and the literature reviewed

reveals „untranslatability‟ has been linked in most cases to the cultural component

(undesignated language unit) vs. the linguistic component (within contrastive

linguistics). In translation studies the term „untranslatability‟ has been commonly used

to denote the „impossibility‟ of translating cultural words/terms that have/have not

8

corresponding units (concepts) in the target language. In the context of „cultural

untranslatability‟, according to Catford (1965), it says „untranslatability‟ arises

„when a situational feature, functionally relevant for the SL text, is completely

absent from the culture of which the TL is a part‟ (1965: 99).

Furthermore, in the same context, the review also reveals arguments were directed at

resorting to „transliteration‟ when „untranslatability‟ occurs. Due to difficulties that

may arise when transferring linguistic/cultural aspects and semantic elements across

languages takes place, and an overlap in application of „untranslatability‟ and

„transliteration‟ is therefore likely to happen. In the end, it is about arguing for or

against the linguistic designation of a language pair that has the potential to

demonstrate possibly corresponding ground for total/partial matching of items

(linguistic as well as cultural).

General approaches to the use of the term „equivalence‟

The dilemma of translation, so far, has been manifested in working towards achieving

„equivalence‟ at various linguistic/non-linguistic structural levels and aspects, and this

has resulted in producing a trail of positive as well as negative arguments postulating

claims of contribution towards the development of various trends to be pursued for

studying translation based on using the term „equivalence‟. Such trends, which claim

endeavoring towards the expansion of translation studies, mainly, are focused on

explaining and understanding the translating process and its product phenomena. In

the context of chronologically demonstrating how it came about to suggest

9

approaching „equivalence‟ (term and concept or term vs. concept) Cauer (1896) spoke

of „equivalence‟ or „equivalent effect principle‟ (Cauer 1896; cited in Farghal, 1991:

138). Nida (1964) and Catford (1965) formulated the notion about what a unit of

language for transfer means for translation, and what may correspond to an „equaling

unit‟ in the target language to be translated into. Nida‟s (1964) concept of

„equivalence‟ is not „about a state of correspondence between identical situations in

the SL and TL, but the result of reduced to deep structures or kernels…‟ (Cited in

Farghal, 1991: 138). Nida arrived at what he calls „dynamic equivalence‟, which,

mainly, means a special attention is paid to the transfer of word and sentence, where

for Catford (1965)

„a formal correspondence is any TL category which may be said to occupy, as

nearly as possible, the „same‟ place in the economy of the TL as the given SL

category occupies in the SL.‟ (1965: 32).

Komissarov (1977) shifted the debate on the validity of the term „equivalence‟ away

from its focus on linguistic aspects by sharply relating to its communicative function,

intention and situation. We find by this latest theorist „translation equivalence‟ is

achievable if „Equivalence can be established only at the level of the general message

…‟ (Komissarov 1977; cited in Fawcett; 1997: 61-2). Broek (1978), by drifting from

focusing on the linguistic aspect of the term „equivalence‟, nevertheless, derailed the

debate further away from its original focus, in particular, in the general employment

of the term, and argued in favor of focusing on a suggested hierarchical classification

of what „equivalence‟ may constitute. An „equivalence‟, according to this researcher,

10

„can be achieved on three levels; „namely: form, meaning and situation‟ [and]

„an equivalence‟ is to be achieved if the three aspects of „the syntactic,

semantic and pragmatic‟ elements of a “unit” of the SL can match their

corresponding elements in the TL‟ (Broek, 1978; cited in Fawcett; 1997: 61).

Gutknecht and Rölle (1996) spoke of what they call “zero-equivalence‟ in the context

of translating by factors from German into English (detail to follow in the

conclusions). Snell-Hornby (1988) objects to the use of the concept „equivalence‟, in

particular, in the context of linguistic approaches to translation (1988: 22; cited in

Malmkjaer, 2005: 21). Newmark (1988) adopted the term „dynamic equivalence‟ and

the concept of „reader‟s response‟ (previously suggested by Nida, 1964) in translation.

Newmark (1988) also sees in the „equivalent effect‟ and „equivalent response‟ „a task

for translation to be achieved‟ (1988: 48). In the context of locating „equivalence‟ at

textual and communicative level Neubert and Shreve (1992) found that „exact

correspondences between discrete lexical or grammatical elements are relatively rare.‟

(1992: 44). In a similar approach to pragmatic „equivalence‟ and its employment in

translation Baker (1992) suggests „pragmatic equivalence‟ (1992: 217), and Gak

(1992) spoke of three „typologies of equivalence‟ to be differentiated, and one of

those is the „stratification equivalence‟ (1992: 139; cited in Fawcett, 1997: 61). The

issues of „equivalence‟ in translation studies (the general approach) have been

discussed and challenged in the context of the general contrastive approach (Dollerup,

1993; cited in Nicholson, 1995: 45), where Holz-Mänttäri (1984) is of the view of

virtually abandoning the „concept of equivalence‟ (1984; cited in Horton, 1998: 97).

11

„Equivalence‟ at the word level

The issues of achieving „equivalence‟ at the word level have been discussed by Nida

& Taber (1969), it says

„the response in the receptor language can never be identical as of the source

language for the cultural and historical settings are too different, but there

should be a high degree of equivalence of response, …‟ (1969: 24).

In the target language, according to the same source, the receptor‟s comprehension is

the determining factor when it comes to an expressive and imperative response. The

response of the receptor (the dynamic equivalence) „is substantially equivalent to the

response of the original receptor‟ (Ibid: 27-28). For other researchers „equivalence‟ at

the word level, however, is associated with experience. Amongst the representatives

of this notion are de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) who introduced the term

„equivalence of experience‟ (1981: 261). Newmark (1995) differentiates between

„cultural equivalence‟ and „non-cultural equivalence‟ by saying the

„parameter for cultural equivalence is: (a) the existence of shared components

of culture … (b) the dynamic presence of the translator… and (c) the non-

cultural truth …‟ (1995: 49).

Fawcett (1997) also discussed the issues of „equivalence‟ at the word level through

the semantic approach, and adopts Koller‟s (1979) five frames of reference, which

are:

12

„(1) Denotation meaning (called referential meaning), (2) Connotation

meaning, … (3) Textual norms … (4) Pragmatic meaning (reader

expectations), and (5) Linguistic form (rhyme, rhythm, metaphor …‟ (1979:

188-89; cited in Fawcett, 1997: 53).

„Equivalence‟ at the sentence level

Translation researchers discussed the issues of the concept of „equivalence‟ at a level,

which goes beyond word as a unit but lesser than text. This is meant where „sentence‟

(including other units such as phrase and clause) is considered relevant. Amongst

those is Catford (1965) who spoke of „sentence equivalence‟, and found „translation

equivalence can nearly always be established at sentence-rank‟ (1965: 70). Newmark

(1988) finds the issue of „equivalence‟ beyond word level is relevant to the concept of

„collocation‟ (1988: 50-3), where Reiss (1989) correlates sentence-for-sentence

translation with equivalence on the sentence level (1989: 113 and 115). Hatim &

Mason (1991) are of the view that achieving an „equivalence‟ in „translation‟ „each

sentence needs to be treated in isolation.‟(1991:76), where Neubert and Shreve (1992)

are of a different view as that „equivalence‟ at the sentence level is possible at its

linguistic surface. (1992: 144-5).

„Equivalence‟ at the text level

At this level theorists found in using the concept of „equivalence‟ and its application

in translation a problem, which goes beyond the linguistic aspects of the term.

Jakobson‟s (1959) „equivalence‟ [communicative and textual] [is about]

13

„… the relationship between a source language text and the

corresponding target language text [which] is not fully symmetrical and

reversible‟ … [and that] „… back-translation provides overwhelming

evidence that language and meaning are culture-specific.‟(Jacobson, 1959;

cited in Jacobsen, 1993:162).

In the context of applying „equivalence at the text level‟ the review also revealed that

this is even more complex than those of lower level (Neubert, 1986: 89). The same

researcher also establishes „a hierarchy of different kinds of equivalence‟, and „argues

that the text as a whole influences grammatical-lexical choice and thus relativises

equivalents on the lower level‟ (1986: 89, cited in Gutknecht, 1996: 297-8). Neubert

(1989) also „distinguishes between pragmatic and textual equivalence‟ (1989: 154,

cited in Gutknecht, 1996: 297-8). However, according to Neubert and Shreve (1992),

it says

„Most criticisms of equivalence stem from a narrow linguistic and lexical

interpretation of equivalence. It is clear that L1 words and L2 words are

almost never equivalent in meaning.‟ (1992: 142).

The last mentioned notion about interpreting „equivalence‟, by all means, seems

untenable, in particular, when it comes to reflecting on a concept of equivalence that

may never exist even across related languages (more detail to follow in the

conclusions), and this view albeit complicates further explaining „equivalence‟ from a

wider perspective. Thus, in the view of Neubert and Shreve (1992) „Equivalence is a

14

relationship of textual effect of communicative value.‟ (1992: 144). „Textual

equivalence‟ for Baker (1992), however, is to be discussed on the basis of „cohesion‟‟

(1992:180).

The inter-changeability of „translation‟ and its source text, according to Jakobsen

(1993), is no-test of translational equivalence, and equivalence cannot be defined in

terms of it‟ (1993: 161-2), where Malmkjaer (2005) departs in her definition of

„equivalence‟ at the text level from the empirical approach to tackle its issues. She

finds

„scholars are freed from the need constantly to deliberate about the degree of

equivalence – never the total equivalence required of course …‟ (2005:15)

Proponents of the term use support using it for pragmatic and semantic property

objectives, and claim pragmatic „equivalence‟ can be achieved between texts, and

„textual equivalence‟ is the „cohesion of a text‟.

Discussion & Conclusions

The above detailed account should by now have revealed the seriousness of the

problems associated with using the term „equivalence‟ and the struggle to relate to a

presumed existing concept for doing and studying translation purposes. On the basis

of the aforementioned statement (resulting from the review), it can be claimed that

this term has been employed to refer to a „translation concept‟, which universally

presumes reflecting on the possibility of „matching‟ items (open to all categories and

15

units) assuming achieving an „equivalent‟/near-equivalent‟ effect across any language

pair to become involved in translating process. Researchers and theorists studied in

detail most aspects of this „concept‟, applied and employed the term it encodes to

resolve inter-lingual correspondences in the process of translating and to achieve the

matching of items with the objective borne to write TT for the ST in focus. The

mentioned arguments set the background to suggest an alternative concept vs. term

that is „counterpart‟ (to follow) when translating is to be carried out. It has been

already mentioned that „equivalence‟ (representing a controversial translation

concept) is a goal to be achieved rather than assuming endeavouring to accept the

term for its „semantic‟ reference only. As a result of the review it has been also

revealed that occasionally the term has been linked to „translation‟ concurrently to its

both aspects (the translating process/s and its end product the TT). The following

example about using/abandoning the concept of „equivalence‟ demonstrates how such

struggle is manifested in terms of relating to the use of a term when translator tries to

search or find an „equivalent‟ in the TL that may correspond to whatever

linguistic/cultural item of the ST in focus.

Gutknecht and Rölle (1996) spoke of “zero-equivalence” in the context of „translating

by factors‟. The researchers mentioned discuss its use, in particular, in the context of

translating linguistic items, mainly modals (from English into German) or other units

that go beyond word but lesser stretches than a „text‟. It says:

„Other cases of zero-to-one or one-to-zero correspondence are linguistic in

nature. Remember the following pair of sentences:

[89] Can you play tennis? Yes, I can/No, I can‟t.

16

[90] Kannst du Tennis spielen? Ja/Nein.

As the result of elliptical partial change factors, the second part of (90) is an

extreme case of zero equivalence to a whole clause (albeit a short one). In

other renditions at least the subject is retained.

(789) Can anyone of you play tennis? Yes, I can.

(790) Kann einer von euch Tennis spielen? Ja, ich.

Note that Yes, I can in both (89) and (789). In the latter sentence I is main

element of the answer. The corresponding pronoun ich in (790) serving the

same purpose cannot be omitted. As regards the verbal aspect, the answers in

(90) and (790) share a „zero for verb group.‟ In other examples at least the full

verb is retained:

[624] I can see two ships.

[622] Ich sehe zwei Schiffe.‟ (1996: 180).

My reading into this quotation (in the context of using the term „equivalence‟ vs.

presumed concept it encodes) leads me to suggest the followings:

1. A presumption of an existing „equivalence‟ as a concept as a departing point

to translate between English and German reflects on providing the

correspondence unit of [89] as [90]; this led both researchers to resort to

using/suggesting „zero-equivalence‟.

2. The English sentences were translated into the TL (German) based on what

their „equivalent‟ or „non-equivalent‟ can/cannot be provided. Those

translations, in the end, reflect on the linguistic independence of each system

(language) rather than being formulated or abiding by what the ST

17

requirements determining the translator‟s selection of „equivalent‟ in the TL;

as for the researchers mentioned expressing what is meant by the German

sentences vs. their English counterparts (it is implied but not spelled out)

should be in focus.

3. The German translations provided for the English sentences mean „no-

equivalence‟ is possible to be provided; this is described with “zero-

equivalence”.

4. Thus, reading into the mentioned quotation is also marked by confusing

suggested corresponding German „equivalents‟ vs. the English sentences

provided, where in actual terms no „equivalent‟ has been delivered, but a case

of German sentences that are matched to their English “equivalents” (in the

view of the researchers) as being (in my view) in the state of counterpart to

each other.

The two researchers, who found themselves confined to using a term that doesn‟t

reflect on the concept it encodes, have realized in the absence of a recognized

alternative that the mentioned translations cannot be done without having to resort to

suggest „zero-equivalence‟ a leeway to resolve the impasse they have encountered.

Such impasse the two researchers have experienced, at the same time, means that the

used term doesn‟t serve their purpose for explaining that matching inter-lingual

correspondences represents an unresolved matter, and explaining matching between

English and German (two related languages) cannot be resolved otherwise.

In the light of what already has been stated or argued about, I may suggest the term‟s

application and employment at all levels (word and stretches beyond word) of its

18

introduction (including „pragmatic‟ and/or „textual equivalence‟) always have

triggered unresolved serious problems. Consequently, this may suggest the term has

been heavily used in translation studies (open to speculations), and its concept issues

have become more and more a pressing subject that needs to be addressed in its

totality. A working alternative (as a concept vs. term in its referential meaning or vice

versa) thus needs urgently importunateness than ever before. Suggesting an

alternative first requires being distinguished between „equivalence‟ as a „term‟ or

„concept‟. Concurrently, researchers in some cases also confused both aspects of the

term‟s application and employment (through translating from L1 into L2) vs. concept

when debating the status and relevance to „translation‟ at any point in time.

The review revealed that discussing the term vs. the concept it denotes has centred on

the two major fields of the translation discipline; namely the linguistic use (or

linguistic aspects) and relevance within the context of contrastive linguistics. It has

been also revealed the application of the term to its both mentioned aspects has been

mainly confined to a general approach to the linguistic use, where designation hasn‟t

been made conspicuously enough to demonstrate how relevant it is to the concept (in

terms of translating from ST in TT) it encodes. This statement is detailed in the points

to follow. Most researchers and theorists, nevertheless, agree on the associated and

existing problems of the term‟s application and employment. Those are identified as

three categories, which are:

1. The application of the term doesn‟t lead to a possible description (literally) or

refer to a state of matched corresponding unit/s that in actual terms cannot be

matched (totally or partially) across any language pair or more.

19

2. Some researchers acknowledge the fact that there is no absolute „equivalence‟

to match corresponding units/categories across any language pair (albeit

amongst related languages).

3. In the absence of a suggested convincing alternative term, researchers and

translation studies theorists were not bothered to continue using the term,

which presumably representing a concept that is not overtly applicable and

employable in its translation absolute reference, but in the term‟s relative

semantic property.

In relation to the aforementioned third point the review revealed that under

„equivalence probability‟ measurement has been left hypothetical, and when

„equivalence‟ is discussed at the three levels of „form‟, „meaning‟ and „situation‟ and

the „equivalence‟ of a „unit‟ that goes beyond word but smaller than a sentence, no

designated language pair has been made relevant for matching purposes. In the

context of achieving „equivalence‟ at the levels of „form‟ and „meaning‟ of a unit

beyond word, the following example is to test the term „equivalence‟ use vs. the

concept it denotes. This is about the English phrase breaking news (noun and

adjective) and the suggested matching to the widely Modern Standard Arabic (MSA)

used phrases/sentences

1 خبرعاجل

1 khabar ‟aajel

or

2 خبرجاءللتو

2 khabar jaa?a liltaw

or

20

3خباراألخرآ

3 aakhir al?akhbaar

or

أ حدث األ خبار الواصلة 4

4 ?aHdath al?akhbaar alwaaSilah

as its equivalents. The translation mentioned can never function the „equivalence‟ as a

result of using the term nor for the concept it denotes. This example highlights the

seriousness of questioning continuing using the term „equivalence‟ to reflect on the

translation concept considered manifesting the state of being „equivalent‟.

Based on the aforementioned discussion and arguments (resulting from assessing the

literature reviewed) it should have become plausibly enough that the issues of using

the term has triggered not only endless debates and arguments in translation studies

research, translation theories‟ assessments, articles, books and essays (mainly

published in English) but also a serious problem for continuing carrying out

translation as a trans-lingual activity. Translation researchers‟ objectives, which have

been demonstrated either explicitly or implicitly in relation to what stand is pro or

against the term‟s use, generally, are to be defined as consenting to that debating

and/or criticising the term has to proceed on the basis of its discussion at the stage of

reading the ST, „translating/transferring‟ its items/units‟ and at formulating/writing

the equivalent in the TL. The applicability of the term to the concept it assumes

denoting to units beyond sentence (this mainly relates to the „communicative‟ and

„textual equivalence‟) again is untenable, as this constitutes another problem that

needs strong persuasive arguments. All those problems have been overtly spelled out

21

in discussing the „text equivalence‟-concept as „in the context of achieving ST and TT

„equivalence compromise‟ (Di Biase, 1987: 55). Suggesting „equivalence‟ as a

concept relevant to translation across all languages that are contrasting each other

experiences is also a universal claim the current research has not satisfied and fell

short of coming up with the needed convincing arguments that can be relevant to

translating at any point in time. The debate about the validity or invalidity of the term

use led its‟ opponents to search for a widely acceptable alternative to be suggested.

According to Jakobsen (1993),

„Reiss [1989] introduced adequacy („Adäquatheit‟) instead of „equivalence‟

(Äquivalenz‟) as the general criterion for translations in order to make

theoretical allowance for textual changes in translation which are due to

cultural differences…‟ (Cited in Jakobsen, 1993: 162-3).

In the context of a presumed existing equivalence or in the event of existing more

equivalence Reiss (1989) suggests to resort to „adaptation‟. Hatim and Mason (1991:

8) also suggest the term „adequacy‟ to substitute „equivalence‟. Gutknecht (1996: 294)

also finds the term adequacy an alternative term vs. the concept it encodes. Critique

directed at this alternative „relates „adequacy‟ to a general concept, where, according

to Jakobsen (1993),

„„equivalence‟ is a special case of „adequacy‟… there is full semantic,

pragmatic and cultural adequacy in the context of a communicative text‟

(1993: 159).

22

In the context of translation for specific purpose, adaptation has been suggested as

another alternative to substitute the concept „equivalence‟ (Gutknecht, 1996: 294).

Other researchers introduced „pragmatic equivalence‟ and „semantic equivalence‟ to

be used within the socio-linguistic approach to study and analyse translation. The

relatedness of the concept „pragmatic equivalence‟ has been very controversial in its

application. The same also applies to achieving „semantic equivalence‟ at the word

and morpheme levels. Thus, a suggested „no-equivalence‟ at the semantic level

appeared to function as an achievable or workable term, which in turn dictates what

departing points can make „semantic relatedness‟ an „equivalence‟. Consequently, the

„no-equivalence‟-concept has been made relevant to achieving „cultural equivalence‟

and/or „no-cultural equivalence‟. On the basis of arguing pro or against the suggested

alternatives mentioned, it seems that the following suggestion and arguments in the

current translation research situation are more persuasive, and the main driving force

behind the following alternative is the neutrality of the term to be suggested and the

concept it denotes.

Alternative term to substitute the concept/no concept of „equivalence‟

Based on departing from the arguments already brought in this paper, it seems that

besides the mentioned problems the major relevant serious one, however, concerns

translating from L1 into L2 in relation to the perceived concept‟s referential

implications it encodes. The following suggested alternative term/concept is to clear

the activity of carrying out translating/transferring of items (linguistic, cultural) from

any anticipated conflation of a concept with a term, as is the case of „equivalence‟ in

use.

23

Counterpart is to be suggested as an alternative term encoding the concept of inter-

lingual matching correspondences to substitute equivalence when translating from ST

into TT takes place. The suggested alternative semantic neutral reference denotes a

concept that might exist across more than one language pair. It is about a term that

linguistically and semantically works when considering matching items at the stage of

translating as an inter-lingual activity in focus. It also implies or denotes the concept

of being „simile‟, „resembling closely‟ and/or „functioning‟ in a state of sameness at

the various linguistic/semantic and textual levels, and reflects on

producing/generating textual function if this turns to be a counterpart at the various

levels of textual components such as word, sentence and up to text; and also at the

communicative and discourse levels as well. At the stage when an already produced

TT is to be compared, studied and/or analyzed with its corresponding ST the

neutrality of the suggested concept (as being in the state of counterpart of ST vs. TT),

nevertheless, this doesn‟t confuse matched correspondences of ST and TT being

„simile‟ in „context‟ or „situation‟ but not necessarily being „equivalent‟. It is always

likely, when translating from SL into TL, to allow saying things in the TL that

constitutes counterpart to what is been said/written in the SL, and this refers matched

corresponding items of language pair as being specific at any point in time and it

excludes perceived general orientation or universal application and employment.

24

References

Abu-Ssaydeh, A.F. 1995. “An Arabic-English collocation dictionary: Issues in theory

and methodology”. Babel 41:1: 12 - 23. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Al-Wahy, A.S. 2009. “Idiomatic false friends false friends in English and Modern

Standard Arabic”. Babel: 55: 2: 101 - 23. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Atkinson, D. 1990. (Review) “A Textbook of Translation”. Newmark, P. (1988). In:

ELT Journal, 44: 3: 241 - 43. Oxford.

Baker, M. 1992. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London and New

York: Routledge. 304 pp.

Barbe, K. 1994. “The Translation of Loans: Anglicism in German”. In: Perspectives:

Studies in Translatology 2: 2: 147- 60. Copenhagen.

Bhatia, V.K. 1997. “Translating Legal Genres”. In: Text Typology and Translation.

Trosborg, A. (ed.). Amsterdam. 203-14.

Broek, R. van den 1978. „The concept of Equivalence in Translation Theory : Some

Critical Reflections‟. In: James S. Holmes, Jose Lambert & R. van den Broek (eds).

Literature and Translation: New Perspectives in Literary Studies, Leuven: Acco: 29 -

43.

25

Catford, J.C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied

Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. viii + 103 pp.

Cauer, P. 1896. Die Kunst des Übersetzens. Weidemann. Berlin.

de Beaugrande, R. and Dressler, W. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London

and New York: Longman. 270 pp.

Di Biase, B. 1987. “Translating for the Community”. In: Australian Review of Applied

Linguistics. Series S. No 4: 52 - 65.

Dolitsky, M.1992. (Reviews) “Discourse and the Translator”. Hatim, B. and Mason, I.

(1990), and “Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context”. Gutt, E-A. (1991).

In: Journal of Pragmatics.17: 175 – 79.

Dollerup, C.1993. Interlingual “Transfers and Issues in Translatology”. In:

Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. 2: 137- 54.

Duff, A. 1981. The Third Language. Oxford: Pergamon. 160 pp.

Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and Power. London and New York: Longman. 96 pp.

Farghal, M. 1991. “Evaluativeness parameter and the translator from English into

Arabic and vice-versa”. Babel 37: 3: 138 - 51. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.

26

Farghal, M. 1993. (Review) “Repetition in Arabic Discourse. Pragmatics & Beyond”.

New Series. In: Journal of Pragmatics. 20: 379 - 85. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.

Farghal, M. and Shunnaq, A.T. 1992. “Major problems in students‟ translations of

English texts into Arabic”. Babel 38: 4: 203 - 10. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.

Fawcett, P. 1997. Translating and Language. Manchester, UK. St Jerome Publisher:

160 pp.

Fraser, J. 1991. “Tilting the message: community translators and their language

communities”. In: Language Issues 5: 1 (1991/92): 5 - 10.

Fraser, J. 1993. “Public Accounts: Using Verbal Protocols to investigate Community

Translation”. In: Applied Linguistics 14: 4: 325- 41 pp. Oxford University Press.

Gak, V. G. 1992. Pour un calcul logique des équivalents de traduction. Meta 37 (1):

139 - 48.

Gutknecht, C. and Rölle, L.J. 1996. Translating by Factors. State University of New

York Press. 346 pp.

Gutt, E.-A. 1991. Translation and relevance: Cognition and context. Oxford:

Blackwell publisher. 222 pp.

27

Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. 374 pp.

Hansen, J.H. 1997. “Translation of Technical Brochures”. In: Text Typology and

Translation. Trosborg, A. (ed.). Amsterdam. 185 - 202.

Hatim, B. and Mason, I. 1991. Discourse and the Translator. London and New York:

Longman. 258 pp.

He, A.W. 2003. “Discourse Analysis”. In: The Handbook of Linguistics. Aronoff, M.

& Rees-Miller, J. (eds). Great Britain: Blackwell publishers, 428 - 45 pp.

Holz-Mänttäri, J. 1984. Translatorisches Handeln: Theorie und Methode. Helsinki:

Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.

Horton, D. 1998. “Translation Assessment: Notes on the Interlingual Transfer of an

Advertising Text”. In: IRAL XXXVI: 2, May 1998: 95 - 113. Publisher: Julius Groos

Verlag, Heidelberg Hemsbach Germany.

Jakobsen, A.L. 1993. “Translation as Textual (Re)Production”. In: Perspectives:

Studies in Translatology. 2: 2: 155 - 65. Copenhagen.

Jakobson, R. 1959. “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation”. In: On Translation.

Brower, R.A. (ed.). New York: Harvard University Press. 232 - 39 pp.

Jäger, G. 1975. Translation und Translationslinguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 213 pp.

28

Kachru, Y. 1982. “Toward Defining the Notion “Equivalence” in Contrastive

Analysis”. In: TESL 5: 82 - 98. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Kanakaraj, S. 1994. “Translation and Transliteration”. In: Perspectives: Studies in

Translatology 2: 2: 161- 64.

Klein, W.G./K. – P. 1982. Grundprobleme der Linguistik. Burgbücherei Wilhelm

Schneider.

Koller, W. 1979. Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. Heidelberg: Quelle

& Meyer.

Komissarov, V. N. 1977. „Zur Theorie der linguistischen Übersetzungsanalyse‟. In

Otto Kade (ed) Vermittelte Kommunikation, Sprachmittlung, Translation. Leipzig:

VEB: 44 - 51.

Köster, J-P. 1997. (Review) “Translating by factors”. Gutknecht, C. and Rölle, L.J.

(1996). In: IRAL XXXV/1, February 1997: 77-78. Julius Groos Verlag. Heidelberg,

Hemsbach Germany.

Landheer, R. 1990. (Review) “Translation studies, An Integrated Approach”. Snell-

Hornby, M. (1988). Amsterdam: Bejamins. In: Journal of Pragmatics. 14: 823 - 27.

Elsevier Science B.V. North Holland.

29

Malmkjaer, K. 2005. Linguistics and the Language of Translation. Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press. 208 pp.

Mousli, M.M. 2002. Insertion of English acronyms and single words/terms in Arabic

translation. PhD Dissertation: 550 pp.(Unpublished). Edith Cowan University. Perth,

W.A. Australia.

Mousli, M.M. 2008. (Review) “Linguistics and the Language of Translation“.

Malmkjaer, K. (2005). In: Babel 54: 2: 192-99. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.

Mousli, M.M. 2009. (Review) “Introducing Translation Studies, Theories and

Applications”. Munday, J. (2008). In: Babel 55:3: 288 - 301.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Munday, J. 2008. Introducing Translation Studies, Theories and Applications. (2nd

Edition). London and New York: Routledge. 236 pp.

Neubert, A. & Shreve, G. 1992. Translation as Text. Kent State University Press. 184

pp.

Newmark, P. 1981. Approaches To Translation. Oxford: Pergamon. 200 pp.

Newmark, P. 1988. A Textbook of Translation. New York; London; Toronto; Sydney;

Tokyo and Singapore: Prentice Hall International. 290 pp.

30

Newmark, P. 1989. “Modern Translation Theory”. In: Lebende Sprachen. Zeitschrift

für Fremde Sprachen in Wissenschaft und Praxis. Publisher: Dr. Haenseh, G. und L.R.

Dir. München Deutscland. XL Jahrgang. Heft 1: 6 - 8.

Newmark, P. 1995. “Truth and Culture in Translation”. In: Lebende Sprachen.

Zeitschrift für Fremde Sprachen in Wissenschaft und Praxis. Publisher: Dr. Haenseh,

G. und L.R. Dir. München Deutschland. XL. Jahrgang. Heft 2: 49- 51.

Nicholson, N.S. 1995. “Translation and Interpretation”. In: Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 15: 42- 62.

Nida, E.A. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to

Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: Brill, E.J. 331 pp.

Nida, E.A. & Taber, C.R. 1969. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden:

Brill, E.J. 218 pp.

Nord, C.1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Manchester UK. 306 pp.

Palmer, F.R. 1981. Semantics. 2nd edn. Cambridge. 222 pp.

Pei, M. 1966. Glossary of Linguistic Terminology. New York & London. 299 pp.

31

Pilegaard, M. 1997. Translation of Medical Articles. In: Text Typology and

Translation. Trosborg, A. (ed.). 159 - 84.

Reiss, K. 1977/1989. Text-types, Translation Types and Translation Assessment.

Translated by Chesterman, A. (1989) (ed.) 105-15 pp.

Ruuskanen, D.D.K. 1995. (Review) Translation as text. Neubert, A. & Shreve, G.

(1992). Translation Studies Series 1. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press. In:

Journal of Pragmatics 24: 451- 62.

Snell-Hornby, M. 1988. Translation Studies, An Integrated Approach.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia. John Benjamins.172 pp.

Stansfield, C., Scott, M.L. and Kenyon, D.M. 1992. The Measurment of Translation

Ability. In: The Modern Language Journal 76: 4: 455- 67.

Wilss, W. 1987. Theoretische und Empirische Aspekte der Übersetzungwissenschaft.

In: Lebende Sprachen. Zeitschrift für Fremde Sprachen in Wissenschaft und Praxis.

XXXII/4: 145-50. Publisher: Dr. Haenseh, G. und L.R. Dir. München Deutschland.

32

Summary

The term „equivalence‟ has been employed in translation studies literature to denote a

„translation concept‟ that has been challenged for the objective of finding equivalent,

coined new word and/or concept when translating at any point in time, and the

arguments on the validity of the mentioned term (denoting the state of being

„equivalent‟) range; according to the reviewed literature; from achieving

communicatively effective translation „equivalence‟ on the one hand or virtually the

abandonment of the „concept of equivalence‟ on the other. Nevertheless, there is

general consensus amongst most translation researchers, which says the term

„equivalence‟ is a goal to be achieved rather than keeping searching for its‟

achievement at any designated level at any point in time. Achieving or producing

„equivalence‟ in translation, definitely as a controversial issue, has implications for

translation studies, in particular, in terms of relating to topics such as those of

„translating‟ vs. „transferring‟ and the „translatability‟ vs. „untranslatability‟ of any

linguistic and non-linguistic (cultural) items across human languages. The literature

review revealed discussing the term vs. the concept it denotes has centred on the

linguistic use (or linguistic aspects) and the relevance within the context of contrastive

linguistics. Counterpart is to be suggested to substitute equivalence when translating

from ST into TT takes place. This alternative term encodes the concept of inter-

lingual matching correspondences, as it embodies semantic neutral reference denoting

a concept that might exist across more than one language pair. It is always likely,

therefore, when translating from SL into TL, to allow saying things in the TL that

might constitute the counterpart to what is been said/written in the SL.

33

About the Author:

Dr. Mohammad Majed Mousli received the award of Doctor of Philosophy from

Edith Cowan University (Australia) in May 2003. The PhD thesis title is: Insertion of

English Acronyms & Single Words/Terms in Arabic Translation. He lectured in 1998

and 2002 in interpreting and translating at TAFE/Perth, and participated in

international conferences on translation, where he held lectures and read papers in the

areas of “Borrowing and Code-switching in Translation” and

“Translating/Transferring Idioms between English and Arabic”. His main

specialization field and interests are in linguistics, applied linguistics, translation

linguistics and interpretation English/Arabic, and he has been member of the

Examiner‟s Board of Australia National Body for Accrediting Translators and

Interpreters (NAATI). Currently Dr. Mousli is a member of the Editorial Board of the

Review “Babel”. The Author‟s Most Recent Publications are: (2009) Mousli, M.

Book Review “Introducing Translation Studies, Theories and Applications” by

Munday, J. (2008); Babel 55:3: 288 – 301 pp. (2008) Mousli, M. Book Review

“Linguistics and the Language of Translation” by Malmkjaer, K. (2005); Babel 54: 2:

192 - 99 pp. Mousli, M. (2005). Ma‟aarif al-tarjamah al-taHryriia (Knowledge of

Translation) (in Arabic); Homs; 248 pp.

The e-mail: mmmousli@hotmail.com.