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: [email protected].