02 Translation and Language

8/8/2019 02 Translation and Language

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/02-translation-and-language 1/1

EQUIVALENCEEquivalence is a concept very discussed in translation studies.

• Catford and textual equivalence: John Catford contributed to the concept of translation

shifts. One of the criteria that Catford indicated was that of the grammatical rank at which

translation equivalence is established (rank-bound translation vs. unbounded translation). In

rank-bound translation, an equivalent is sought in the target language for each word or morpheme encountered in the source language, while in unbounded translation are not tied

to a particular rank (es: morpheme, word, rank…). One of the problems is that the formal

correspondences which we can find between English and Italian may not guarantee

equivalence and that while formal correspondence is a useful tool in comparative linguistics,

it has limitations when we are seeking textual equivalence in translation. He indicates that

there are four main types of shifts: structure shifts (a grammatical change between the

structure of the ST and that of the TT); class shifts (when an SL item is translated with a

TL item which belongs to a different grammatical class a verb translated as a noun); unit

shifts (which involve changes in rank); intra-system shifts (these occur when SL and TL

 possess systems which approximately correspond formally but when translation involves

selection of a non-corresponding term in the TL system SL singular becomes TL plural);

• Nida and dynamic equivalence: dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence are two

approaches to translation. The dynamic (also known as functional equivalence) attempts to

convey the thought expressed in a source text (if necessary, at the expense of literalness,

original word order, the source text's grammatical voice, etc.), while formal attempts to

render the text word-for-word (if necessary, at the expense of natural expression in the target

language). The two approaches represent emphasis, respectively, on readability and on

literal fidelity to the source text. There is, however, in reality no sharp boundary between

dynamic and formal equivalence. Broadly, the two represent a spectrum of translation

approaches;

• Komissarov’s sharp and fuzzy equivalence: equivalence can be stablished only at thelevel of general message (es: maybe there is some chemistry between us doesn’t mix   Io e

te siamo incompatibili). In addition to the communicative intention and the identification of 

a situation, this type preserves the general situation descriptors.