On-Translation-Equivalence.docx

On Translation Equivalence

　　Abstract : Controversial as it is, the abstract concept of translation equivalence is of effective use in translation studies as it makes the analyses of translation more specific and more accessible. This essay attempts to present a few in-depth reflections on translation equivalence, in which three categories of equivalence are put forward according to the understanding on the part of this writer, viz. equivalence before translating, equivalence in translating and equivalence after translating. This narration, in the final analysis, identifies and verifies the theoretical importance and significance of the term “translation equivalence” in translation studies.
Key words: equivalence; equivalent; translation; translating
ⅠIntroduction
Controversial as the term “equivalence” is, it is, as we may see, of much importance within the framework of theoretical reflection on translation and has been making its appearances in such terms as “textual equivalence”, “formal equivalence”, “dynamic equivalence”, “functional equivalence”, “grammatical equivalence” and “pragmatic equivalence” put forward by the well-known theorists, such as　Catford, Eugene A. Nida, and Mona Baker, to name just a few, in their works on translation studies.
It is not by accident that the term “equivalence” has been used so often by those who are concerned with theoretical studies of translation. It is the soul of translation, if we may say so. Although it seems to be so intangible that we may even cast doubts on the necessity of its existence in the field of translation studies, it has so far identified itself as a concept giving much impetus to the theoretical analysis of translation. Like the translation principles, either the three-character principle of “信达雅” (faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance) formulated by the Chinese scholar 严复 (Yan Fu) or the well-known three principles advanced by the English theoretician Alexander Tytler, which are the guidelines on the concrete process of translating as well as the criteria for judging the validity or adequacy of translation works, the term “translation equivalence” makes the analyses of translation more specific and more accessible. On this point, I find my understanding has been confirmed by Professor Qiu, who, in his MA dissertation in 1988, indicated that “……all the … concepts about equivalence only further explained in modern linguistic terms the three famous principles of translation laid down by Alexander Tytler in 1790, , ‘Ⅰ.That the translation should give a complete transcript of the idea of the original work. Ⅱ.That the style and manner of writing should be of the same character with that of the original. Ⅲ.That the translation should have all the ease of original composition.’”. (邱 2000: 330-331)
As a concept that merits sober reflection, “equivalence” has aroused my interest and enhanced my understanding of what is translation as well. The following is to submit some of my thoughts on this subject.
ⅡWhat Is Translation?
Before dealing with translation equivalence, we have to address the issue of what is translation and what translation involves, which is still a matter of some controversy since translation can hardly be defined in a few words. At this conjuncture, what flashes into my mind is the interesting analogy between translation and love, drawn by Peter Newmark who claims “…translation is like love; I do not know what it is but I think I know what it is not…”. This analogy sounds sensible and solid in that it provokes our thoughts about what is translation and what is love, or in essence, what is the soul or nature of translation and what is true love.
In my view, translation, just like love, can be considered as an abstract concept, which has its concrete counterpart —— translating. Given this basic distinction between translation and translating, we may discover the philosophical identity of translation after further reflection. From different philosophical perspectives, translation can be considered in various ways, which leads to the dispute over the issue of what is translation. Consequently, it is just a matter of choice to define translation as “a rendering from one language into another” or “a science”, “an art”, “a craft”, “a skill”, “an operation”, “a language activity”, “communicating”, or whatever. According to George Steiner, even “understanding” can be translation.
One point commanding attention here, to my mind, is the driving force that underlies translation, or in another word, the necessity and possibility of translation. Usually, we may say the factor responsible for the inception of some thing is the necessity for this particular thing and the factor decisive to the existence of some thing is the possibility of materializing this thing. Now that translation has already been an important or sometimes even influential part of human civilization, it will be a promising job for us to get at the root of translation. If this writer is allowed to make a statement, the subsequent one is preferred. That is, the need for communication and exchanges between geographically or/and chronologically different human communities has led to the activities of translation, the fact of which is, in itself, a declaration that translation is possible.
Another point that crossed my mind is that accounts of translation had better be made in a descriptive way rather than a prescriptive one since it is almost an impossible task to exhaust all the ways translation can be conducted. Besides, any particular case of translation can be too involved to follow the prescribed directions. As to how complex translation is, the concurrent dilemmas that keep haunting the translator during the process of translating are good examples in point. A recommendable illustration of the conflicting factors contributing to these dilemmas is “the dynamics of translation” demonstrated by Peter Newmark, which is an exposition of ten major parameters creating the tensions in translation, viz. “1 SL1 writer, 2 SL norms, 3 SL culture, 4 SL setting and tradition, 5 TL2 relationship, 6 TL norms, 7 TL culture, 8 TL setting and tradition, 9 The truth (the facts of the matter) and 10 Translator”. (Newmark 2001: 4-5)
Thirdly, as for what translation involves, my understanding is that it concerns primarily the source text (or ST) and secondly the translator, the reader and the target text (or TT), to simplify the ten parameters exposed by Peter Newmark. And the original force that complicates translation is the pursuit of the truth of the souce text which is likely, or even inevitably, to be either distorted or partially missing during the process of translating as a result of the incompatibility of the two opposing parameters, viz. the source language and culture vs. the target language and culture. When it comes to whether an ideal target text is possible, we are going to negotiate the concept of equivalence to be discussed in the following part of this essay.
ⅢWhat Is Equivalence?
Firstly, regarding equivalence, a lot of adjectives have been assigned to this concept to approach the nature of translation. Deprived of any adjective, “equivalence” may be in a dictionary defined as “the state or property of being equivalent ” or “a logic operator having the property that if P is a statement, Q is a statement, R is a statement, then the equivalence of P,Q,R,…, is true if and only if all statements are true or all statements are false.” However, equivalence, when applied to the issue of translation, is an abstract concept and actually refers to the equivalence relationship between the source text and the target text, which brings about a basic philosophical question, viz. whether there are two absolutely equivalent things. The answer to this question may be unanimously negative. Thus the equivalence relationship between the ST and the TT seems to be an illusion; anyhow, equivalence can be regarded as the ideal goal when the conscientious and responsible translator is in persistent pursuit of the truth of the source text. In this sense, equivalence is just beyond the capability of the translator if it is not put in a more specific layer of translation or confined to a certain aspect of translation; to put this in another way, equivalence has to owe its significance to the adjective that precedes it. Similarly, observance, on the part of the translator, of all the three principles of translation advanced by Tytler or the three-character principle originated by Yan Fu, is out of the question; but observance of one or two of the above-mentioned three principles or characters is, in most cases, attainable. To be brief, the term “equivalence” in the discipline of translation can hardly gain its identity until it is either preceded by a modifier such as an adjective or followed by a post-modifier, or, in other words, further divided into different categories.
Secondly, different kinds of equivalences are realized by their counterparts in the process of translating, namely, equivalents. As mentioned above, “equivalence” always goes with a modifier; accordingly, so does an “equivalent”. It is precisely the different kinds of equivalents that yield different versions of translation. In another word, an absolute equivalent is as unobtainable as absolute equivalence and therefore an abstract concept or an ideal goal in the practical process of translating. This suggests that an ideal target text as an equivalent of the source text is past realization though different equivalents at different layers or aspects of translation are to be materialized to constitute the final version of the target text. In one word, just like “equivalence”, an “equivalent”, failing any modifier preceding or following it, will be taken as an unpractical concept and then dismissed in the process of translating.
Thirdly, a comprehensive and informative formula of translation equivalence has been originated by Professor Qiu Maoru, which is so detailed and exhaustive in exposition that it covers nearly all the kinds of equivalences in translation. (The full contents are available from 邱2000：339-378)
To conclude, both “equivalence” and “equivalent”, when bearing no pre-modifiers or post-modifiers, are abstract concepts. And subsequently follow a few of my reflections on translation equivalence.
　　ⅣA Few Reflections on Translation Equivalence
As mentioned previously in this short essay, “equivalence” and “equivalent” are, in my mind, two interrelated abstract concepts in translation. Besides, “translation” under discussion here is also an abstract concept, in contrast to the concrete act of “translating”. On further reflection, this writer found it seems possible to understand and analyse the concept of equivalence in some new way, which this writer ventures hereby to make a tentative account here.
To start with, translating, corresponding with translation, involves four major parameters (among many others), viz. the source text, the translator, the reader and the target text to be produced (which we had better distinguish from the target text that is already produced when we talk about translation instead of translating), each usually resolving into many, even inexhaustible, factors or variables that may exercise different effects on the act of translating. To be specific, the source text, for example, demands adequate consideration of its style, language ( the SL), time of being written, the SL culture and so on, while the target text to be produced draws the translator’s attention to its language ( the TL), the TL culture and the like; the translator has his or her particular purpose and psychology, a unique and habitual style of writing and other characteristics that vary from person to person, while the reader may be classified into several types according to different scales such as the reader’s education level, sex and age.
Secondly, the discussion here mainly focuses on the source language and culture vs. the target language and culture. As regards the relationship between language and culture, it may be concisely summarized in three statements, viz. “…language expresses cultural reality.”, “…language embodies cultural reality.”, and “…language symbolizes cultural reality.” (Kramsch 2000: 3) It follows that, translating, the rendering from one language into another, is confronted with the problem, or rather, the aim or goal, of restoring the source cultural reality embodied in the source language in the target language that usually, if not always, symbolizes the cultural reality specific to the target language. In other words, the target language is entrusted to express the cultural reality specific to the source language, which speaks of why the process of translating is so notorious for its complexity and tortuousness in the first place. Here one question recommends itself —— Whether, or to what degree, the target language is reliable or qualified to be entrusted this task of symbolizing the cultural reality that is foreign to itself in different degrees ( doing something that it usually does not do, or playing a brand-new role), which is another way of articulating the disputable issue of translatability or the equally arguable concept of equivalence, the subject-matter of our concern here.
Thirdly, concerning the question mentioned above, another topic subject to fierce controversy arises, viz. the theory of linguistic relativity, which immediately reminds us of the famous Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. As we know, the strong version of this hypothesis that language determines thought ( and which could easily give rise to prejudice and racism ) cannot be taken seriously while the weak version has been generally accepted. In other words, we may say language and thought are interdependent. Another note-worthy point here is the assumption that any language possesses the necessary resources for the speaker to express anything that he or she wants to say in that language. Then, on the understanding that human thoughts can be exchanged, we may draw a conclusion that any thought in the source language could be finally expressed in the target language. It follows naturally that, when the thought voiced in the source language gets across to the reader (who, of course, makes it by means of the target language), we may say equivalence in its abstract sense is achieved. Hence the next part of my way of understanding equivalence.
Fourthly, equivalence, in my mind, is an abstract concept here and might fall into three categories that are in accordance with the dynamic development of cultural exchanges. A tentative and descriptive exposition goes as follows:
ⅰ Equivalence before Translating
The first category is equivalence before translating, which means the kind of equivalence possible to be attained when the target text is not produced yet. It may be considered as the aim or goal of the translator who leaves no