 Translatability

 Typology of Equivalence
 Shifts
 Thequality or state of being capable of
being translated into a different language.

 The quality or state of being capable of

being transformed or of being applied to or
interpreted as something else or in a
different way.
 View 1 = reality is the same for all of us; only
the L expressions referring to the different
segments of reality

 The degree of difficulty of translation

 depends on their nature, as well as on the
translator's abilities.”
 Equivalence consists of the concept of sameness
and similarity
 it has the same or a similar effect or meaning in
translation.
 Nida argued that there are two different types of
equivalence, namely formal equivalence—which
is referred to as formal correspondence—and
dynamic equivalence. Formal correspondence
'focuses attention on the message itself, in both
form and content', unlike dynamic equivalence
which is based upon 'the principle of equivalent
effect'.
 Formal correspondence consists of a TL item
which represents the closest equivalent of a
SL word or phrase.
 Nida and Taber make it clear that there are
not always formal equivalents between
language pairs.
 They suggest that these formal equivalents
should be used wherever possible if the
translation aims at achieving formal rather
than dynamic equivalence.
 Dynamic equivalence is defined as a
translation principle according to which a
translator seeks to translate the meaning of
the original in such a way that the TL
wording will trigger the same impact on the
TC audience as the original wording did upon
the ST audience.
 .1 Vinay and Darbelnet view equivalence-
oriented translation as :
a procedure which 'replicates the same
situation as in the original, whilst using
completely different wording.
According to them, equivalence is therefore
the ideal method when the translator has to
deal with proverbs, idioms, clichés, nominal or
adjectival phrases and the onomatopoeia of
animal sounds.
 They conclude by saying that 'the need for creating
equivalences arises from the situation, and it is in the
situation of the SL text that translators have to look
for a solution'
 Indeed, they argue that even if the semantic
equivalent of an expression in the SL text is quoted in
a dictionary or a glossary, it is not enough, and it
does not guarantee a successful translation.
 Take one is a fixed expression which would have as an
equivalent French translation Prenez-en un. However,
if the expression appeared as a notice next to a
basket of free samples in a large store, the translator
would have to look for an equivalent term in a similar
situation and use the expression Échantillon gratuit
 1.2 Jakobson and the concept of equivalence
suggests three kinds of translation:

 Intralingual (within one language, i.e.

rewording or paraphrase)

 Interlingual (between two languages)

 Intersemiotic (between sign systems)
 Jakobson claims that, in the case of interlingual
translation, the translator makes use of synonyms in order
to get the ST message across. This means that in
interlingual translations there is no full equivalence
between code units. According to his theory, 'translation
involves two equivalent messages in two different codes'
 Jakobson goes on to say that from a grammatical point of
view languages may differ from one another to a greater or
lesser degree, but this does not mean that a translation
cannot be possible, in other words, that the translator may
face the problem of not finding a translation equivalent.
 He acknowledges that 'whenever there is deficiency,
terminology may be qualified and amplified by loanwords
or loan-translations, neologisms or semantic shifts, and
finally, by circumlocutions‘. He provides a number of
examples by comparing English and Russian language
structures and explains that in such cases where there is
no a literal equivalent for a particular ST word or
sentence, then it is up to the translator to choose the most
suitable way to render it in the TT.
 1.3 Nida and Taber: Formal correspondence and
dynamic equivalence

 Nida argued that there are two different types of

equivalence, namely formal equivalence—which
in the second edition by Nida and Taber (1982) is
referred to as formal correspondence—and
dynamic equivalence.
 Formal correspondence 'focuses attention on the
message itself, in both form and content', unlike
dynamic equivalence which is based upon 'the
principle of equivalent effect'
 Formal correspondence consists of a TL item
which represents the closest equivalent of a
SL word or phrase.
 Nida and Taber make it clear that there are
not always formal equivalents between
language pairs. They therefore suggest that
these formal equivalents should be used
wherever possible if the translation aims at
achieving formal rather than dynamic
equivalence.
 The use of formal equivalents might at times
have serious implications in the TT since the
translation will not be easily understood by
the target audience.
 Dynamic equivalence is defined as a
translation principle according to which a
translator seeks to translate the meaning of
the original in such a way that the TL
wording will trigger the same impact on the
TC audience as the original wording did upon
the ST audience.
 They argue that 'Frequently, the form of the
original text is changed; but as long as the
change follows the rules of back
transformation in the source language, of
contextual consistency in the transfer, and of
transformation in the receptor language, the
message is preserved and the translation is
faithful'
 1.6 Baker's approach to translation equivalence

 New adjectives have been assigned to the notion of

equivalence (grammatical, textual, pragmatic
equivalence, and several others) and made their
appearance in the plethora of recent works in this
field.
 An extremely interesting discussion of the notion of
equivalence can be found in Baker (1992) who seems
to offer a more detailed list of conditions upon which
the concept of equivalence can be defined.
 She explores the notion of equivalence at different
levels, in relation to the translation process,
including all different aspects of translation and
hence putting together the linguistic and the
communicative approach. She distinguishes between:
 Equivalence that can appear at word level and above
word level, when translating from one language into
another.
 Baker acknowledges that, in a bottom-up approach to
translation, equivalence at word level is the first
element to be taken into consideration by the
translator. In fact, when the translator starts
analyzing the ST s/he looks at the words as single
units in order to find a direct 'equivalent' term in the
TL.
 Baker gives a definition of the term word since it
should be remembered that a single word can
sometimes be assigned different meanings in
different languages and might be regarded as being a
more complex unit or morpheme. This means that
the translator should pay attention to a number of
factors when considering a single word, such as
number, gender and tense (ibid.:11-12).
 Grammatical equivalence, when referring to the
diversity of grammatical categories across
languages. She notes that grammatical rules may
vary across languages and this may pose some
problems in terms of finding a direct
correspondence in the TL. In fact, she claims
that different grammatical structures in the SL
and TL may cause remarkable changes in the way
the information or message is carried across.
These changes may induce the translator either
to add or to omit information in the TT because
of the lack of particular grammatical devices in
the TL itself. Amongst these grammatical devices
which might cause problems in translation Baker
focuses on number, tense and aspects, voice,
person and gender.
 Textual equivalence, when referring to the equivalence between
a SL text and a TL text in terms of information and cohesion.
Texture is a very important feature in translation since it
provides useful guidelines for the comprehension and analysis of
the ST which can help the translator in his or her attempt to
produce a cohesive and coherent text for the TC audience in a
specific context. It is up to the translator to decide whether or
not to maintain the cohesive ties as well as the coherence of the
SL text. His or her decision will be guided by three main factors,
that is, the target audience, the purpose of the translation and
the text type.
 Pragmatic equivalence, when referring to implicatures and
strategies of avoidance during the translation process.
Implicature is not about what is explicitly said but what is
implied. Therefore, the translator needs to work out implied
meanings in translation in order to get the ST message across.
The role of the translator is to recreate the author's intention in
another culture in such a way that enables the TC reader to
understand it clearly.
• Intralingual (within one language, i.e.
rewording or paraphrase) • Interlingual
(between two languages) • Intersemiotic
(between sign systems) Jakobson claims that,
in the case of interlingual translation, the
translator makes use of synonyms in order to
get the ST message across. This means that
in interlingual translations there is no full
equivalence between code units. According
to his theory, 'translation involves two
equivalent messages in two different codes'
 Shift represents some changes occurring in a translation
process. Translation shifts occur both at the lower level of
language, i.e. the lexicogrammar, and at the higher
thematic level of text.
 Catford states that by shift we mean the departure from
formal correspondence in the process of going from the
source language to the target language. Further, he states
that basically, in shift of translation, or transposition he
says, it is only the form that is changed. In addition, he
urges the translation shift is done to get the natural
equivalent of the source text message into the target text
(1978: 76).
 Translation shifts also occur when there is no formal
correspondence to the syntactic item to be translated

 According to Bell (1991: 33), to shift from one language to

another is, by definition, to alter the forms.
 Catford(1978) divides the shift in translation
into two major types, level/rank shift and
category shift. Level/rank shift refers to a
source language item at one linguistic level
that has a target language translation
equivalent at a different level. In other
words, it is simply a shift from grammar to
lexis.
 Category shift refers to departures from
formal correspondence in translation. What
is meant by formal correspondence is any
grammatical category in the target language
which can be said to occupy the same
position in the system of the target language
as the given source language category in the
source language system (Machali, 1998: 13).
The category shift is divided again into
structure shifts, class shifts, unit shift, and
intra-system shifts.
 Structure shift is the changing of words sequence in a
sentence.
 Class shift occurs when the translation equivalent of
a source language item is a member of a different
class from the original item.
 Unit shift is the changes of rank; that is, departures
from formal correspondence in which the translation
equivalent of a unit at one rank in the source
language is a unit at a different rank in the target
language.
 Intra-system shift refers to the shifts that occurs
internally, within the system; that is for those cases
where the source and the target language possess
systems which approximately correspond formally as
to their constitution, but when translation involves
selection of a non-corresponding term in the target
language system.
 THANK YOU