Name: Syed M. Yasir Shah (Roll#097).

Program: BS English Literature.

Subject: Introduction to Translation Studies.
Semester: 8th (M).
Section: B.
Submitted to: Ms. Noreen Asghar.
 Problems of Equivalence

Introduction

Translation equivalence is the degree to which a translation accurately conveys the meaning
of the original text in the target language. It refers to the process of finding equivalent
expressions, structures, and cultural references in the target language that accurately reflect
the meaning of the source text.

Equivalence in Translation

In translation, equivalence is achieved when the translated text has the same message,
meaning, and impact as the original text, taking into account cultural, linguistic, and textual
differences between the source and target languages. The goal of translation equivalence is to
produce a target text that reads like an original text written in the target language, rather than
a literal translation of the source text.

Types of Equivalences according to Popovič

In his definition of translation equivalence, Popovič distinguishes four types:

1. Linguistic equivalence, where there is homogeneity on the linguistic level of both SL

and TL texts, i.e. word for word translation.
2. Paradigmatic equivalence, where there is equivalence of ‘the elements of a
paradigmatic expressive axis’, i.e. elements of grammar, which Popovič sees as being
a higher category than lexical equivalence.
3. Stylistic (translational) equivalence, where there is ‘functional equivalence of
elements in both original and translation aiming at an expressive identity with an
invariant of identical meaning’.
4. Textual (syntagmatic) equivalence, where there is equivalence of the syntagmatic
structuring of a text, i.e. equivalence of form and shape.

Types of Equivalences according to Nida

1. Formal Equivalence: It ‘focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and
content. In such a translation one is concerned with such correspondences as poetry to
poetry, sentence to sentence, and concept to concept.’ Nida calls this type of
translation a ‘gloss translation’, which aims to allow the reader to understand as much
of the SL context as possible.
2. Dynamic Equivalence: It is based on the principle of equivalent effect, i.e. that the
relationship between receiver and message should aim at being the same as that
between the original receivers and the SL message. For example, E.V.Rieu’s
deliberate decision to translate Homer into English prose because the significance of
the epic form in Ancient Greece could be considered equivalent to the significance of
prose in modern Europe.

Translation Equivalence according to Nübert

Walter J. Nübert was a German philosopher who developed the concept of "Translation
Equivalence." In his view, translation equivalence refers to a situation in which two or more
expressions in different languages have the same meaning and convey the same message.
According to him, words and expressions in a language belong to different semantic
categories, such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, and so on. The meaning of words in a given
semantic category can be influenced by cultural and linguistic factors, and this can have an
impact on the process of translation.

According to him, translation equivalence is not simply a matter of replacing words in

one language with words in another, but requires a deeper understanding of the cultural,
social, and linguistic context of the source text. For example, the shock value of Italian or
Spanish blasphemous expressions can only be rendered pragmatically in English by
substituting expressions with sexual overtones to produce a comparable shock effect, e.g.
porca Madonna—fucking hell.

Mukařovský’s View of Autonomous and Communicative Text

Jan Mukařovský was a Czech philosopher and literary theorist who developed the idea that
texts have both autonomous and communicative characters. According to Mukařovský, a text
has an autonomous character in that it has its own internal structure, style, and meaning that
is independent of the reader and the context in which it is read. The autonomous character of
a text is determined by its form and content.

At the same time, a text also has a communicative character. The communicative
character of a text depends on the reader's understanding and interpretation of the text, as well
as the context in which it is read. The communicative character of a text can change
depending on the reader and the context, and that the same text can have different meanings
for different readers.

Mukařovský's view of a text having both autonomous and communicative characters

has important implications for translation. According to him, the translator must take into
account both the autonomous character of the source text, in terms of its form and content,
and the communicative character, in terms of its intended meaning and the cultural context in
which it was written. The translator must strive to find a balance between preserving the
autonomous character of the source text and conveying its communicative character in the
target language.

Lotman’s Concept of Limited and Explicit Text

Juri M. Lotman was a Russian semiotician who developed the idea of limited and explicit
texts. According to Lotman, a text is limited if it contains only a portion of the information
that the author wants to convey. Limited texts rely on the reader's background knowledge and
context to complete the meaning of the text. On the other hand, an explicit text is one that
contains all the information the author wants to convey, and the meaning is complete in and
of itself. An explicit text does not rely on the reader's background knowledge or context to
complete its meaning.
 In terms of translation, Lotman's notion of limited and explicit texts has important
implications. When translating a limited text, the translator must take into account the
cultural and linguistic context of the source text and the target language, as well as the
background knowledge of the target audience. The translator must strive to make the limited
text explicit in the target language, so that the meaning is complete and does not rely on the
reader's background knowledge or context.

Problems of Equivalence

Translation equivalence is a complex concept, and there are several problems associated with
it. Some of the problems of equivalence in translation include:

1. Linguistic Differences: Different languages have different grammar structures,

vocabulary, and idiomatic expressions, making it difficult to find equivalent
expressions in another language. For example, the Urdu word “sunao” does not have
an English equivalent.
2. Cultural Differences: Words and expressions that are commonly used in one culture
may not have the same connotations or meanings in another culture. For example,
“smart”, in Pakistan, is used to refer to a lean person whereas, in Western states, it is
used to refer to an intelligent person.
3. Conceptual Differences: Different languages may have different ways of
conceptualizing the world, which can make it difficult to find equivalent expressions
in another language. For example, the Arabic word “Habibi”, term used for friends
and lovers in Arabic culture, translates to “beloved” and cannot be used in the same
manner in Western culture.
4. Textual Differences: The meaning of a text may be dependent on the context in
which it was written, making it difficult to find equivalent expressions in another
language. For example, the French word “Bon Appetit” is used while beginning a
meal. It translates directly to “Good Appetite” which does not make much sense.
5. Register Differences: The level of formality of a text can also affect its meaning and
make it difficult to find equivalent expressions in another language. For example,
“Hey”, a casual way to address someone, translated to Urdu is “Oye” which is an
aggressive or informal way to address someone.
6. Ambiguity: Many words and expressions can have multiple meanings, making it
difficult to determine the intended meaning and find equivalent expressions in another
language.
7. Non-verbal Communication: Some aspects of communication, such as body
language and tone of voice, cannot be translated into another language, making it
difficult to convey the same message in a different language.
8. Problems in Translating Idioms: Idioms are culturally bound. Every idiom in
unique in their own language and is translated with much difficulty. For example,
Translated literally, the sentence “Giovanni sta menando il can per I’aia.” becomes
“John is leading his dog around the threshing floor.” The English idiom that most
closely corresponds to the Italian is to beat about the bush, also obscure unless used
 idiomatically, and hence the sentence correctly translated becomes John is beating
about the bush.
9. Translating Metaphors: According to Dagut, translating metaphors presents a
unique challenge for the translator, as metaphorical expressions are often culturally
and linguistically specific, and their meaning may not be easily transferable from one
language to another. He argued that the translator must understand the cultural and
linguistic context of the source text, as well as the cultural and linguistic context of
the target language, in order to accurately translate the metaphorical expression. He
believed that the translator must strive to preserve the intended meaning of the author,
while taking into account the cultural and linguistic context of the source and target
language.

Overall, translation equivalence is a complex issue that requires a deep understanding of both
the source and target languages, as well as cultural, textual, and contextual factors.