Historical Analysis of the Notion of “Equivalence”

1. Introduction

Since the second half of the twentieth century,

equivalence has been one of the most important and central

issues in translation theory. After the centuries of debate

evolving over the issues of literal and free translations,

scholars working to create more systematic translation theories

began to direct their attention towards certain key notions

such as equivalence. Even though the notion of equivalence has

captured the attention of many translation scholars, its

definition and applicability have caused heated controversy

within the field of translation studies. As a result, many

different theories dealing with the notion of equivalence have

been developed for the last fifty years.

The aim of this paper is to provide a theoretical

framework that will show the evolution of the concept

throughout the history. Different theories dealing with the

question of equivalence will be analyzed in a chronological

order. While analyzing them, focus will be directed towards the

changes each different theory brought about to the study of

equivalence. For this purpose, the paper will start its

discussion with linguistically oriented theories of translation

and move towards more contemporary developments in translation

studies. Since equivalence is a very broad concept, it is not

possible to touch upon every scholar in detail. Therefore, in

this paper the most prominent names and their theorizing of

equivalence will be examined in a contrastive and comparative

way. At the end of this paper, a recent translation theory

1

developed from uncertainty principle will be discussed in order to

emphasize how far we have moved regarding our understanding of

equivalence and equivalent effect. Giving place to opinions and

claims of the ones opposing to the idea of equivalence, it is

aimed to show how problematic this concept can become in terms

of defining the nature of translation activities.

As I mentioned above, approaches to the issue of

equivalence have been quite different throughout the history of

translation theories. Some of the translators consider that

there exist some kinds of relations between a source and target

text and these relations are defined in terms of equivalence.

Such scholars as Eugene Nida, Gideon Toury, etc. find it

indispensable to have some degree of equivalence between source

and target text. On the contrary, there are other scholars who

reject the notion of equivalence and judge it as either

irrelevant or damaging (Shell – Hornby 1988 and Gentzler 2001).

Apart from them, we have other scholars or translators that try

to offer a middle ground between these two opposing approaches.

Mona Baker can be given as an example, for she uses the notion

of equivalence “for the sake of convenience because most

translators are used to it rather than it has any theoretical

status” (1992:5). As Dorothy Kenny mentions, equivalence is

regarded as a necessary condition for translations, an obstacle

to progress in translation studies or as a useful category for

describing translation relations (2009: 189). Now, I would like

to start with the earlier theories that attempted to develop

typologies of equivalence, focusing on one level or another in

their definitions of equivalence. The scholars such as Eugene

2

Nida and Roman Jakobson working on linguistically oriented

theories of translation define translation equivalence either

on word-level, sentence level, text-level or in accordance with

the effect it creates in target language.

2. Notion of Equivalence in Linguistic Approaches

2.1 Roman Jakobson and Equivalence in Meaning

As we know, during 1950’s and 1960’s new debates began to

emerge in Translation Studies. One of the most important of

them is the theoretical framework in which the nature of

meaning and equivalence is discussed by Roman Jakobson in his

paper titled “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation”

(1959/2004). In this paper, he examines the nature of

linguistic meaning and equivalence. He argues that there exists

a vital problem of equivalence in meaning between words in

different languages resulting from the fact that every language

differs from each other to a less or more extent. Because of

this fact, he mentions that “there is ordinarily no full

equivalence between code-units” (1959/2004: 139). In order to

justify his claim, he gives examples from different types of

translations that he categorized. For instance, he says that in

intralingual translations we generally need to use either another or

synonymous word or resort to a circumlocution. As he points

out, however, “synonym, as a rule, is not a complete

equivalence” (p.114). Similarly, while talking about interlingual

translations, he accepts that it is not possible to obtain full

equivalence. In order to exemplify this claim, he uses the word

“cheese” in English to show that it is not identical to the

3

word “syr” in Russian because the Russian “code-units” does not

include the concept of cottage cheese as those of English do.

Therefore, the Russian language would most probably prefer to

use another word to denote “cheese”. As is clear from the

example, we can say that interlinguistic difference between

semantic fields of these two languages makes it sometimes

impossible to replace all structures of source text with their

equivalent ones in target language. When we accept this kind of

approach, we are likely to create some compulsory changes in

our actual translation activities.

Jakobson stresses that in order to create equivalence, the

“code-units” will be different because each of them belongs to

two different sign systems. He approaches to the problem of

equivalence from a linguistic and semiotic angle with the

following sentence: “Equivalence in difference is the cardinal

problem of language and pivotal concern of linguistics”

(p.141). As can be understood, he is innovatory in that he

introduced the notion of “equivalence in difference” into

translation studies. In his theorizing of equivalence, we see

much focus on differences existing in structures of languages,

no matter whether it happens between different languages or

within the same language. However, Jakobson does not intend to

imply that some languages are not capable of rendering a

message that is written in a foreign language. On the contrary,

he deals with the problem of equivalence and meaning, stating

that “languages differ essentially in what they must convey and

not in what they may convey”. As a result, we can conclude that

a translator who is not able to find a literal equivalent for a

4

particular ST word or sentence in target language may choose

the most suitable way to render it among possible options. In

addition, Jakobson’s notion of equivalence deals with

equivalence mostly on word and sentence level, without

expanding his arguments towards text level discussions. His

theory is based on his semiotic approach to translation in

which translators are required to recode source text message

first and then transmit it into an equivalent one in target

language.

2.2 Nida and the Principle of Equivalent Effect

Following Jakobson, many further attempts were made to

define the nature of equivalence. For instance, Eugene Nida

attempts to define translation activity in terms of equivalent

relations manifested in translation processes. Like Jakobson,

Nida believes that there do not exist identical equivalents

between different languages. Therefore, “one must in

translating seek to find the closest possible equivalents”

(Nida 2004:129). As we know, he is the first scholar who

introduced the issue of “cultural difference” into translation

studies.

Nida proposes two kinds of equivalence, namely “formal

equivalence” and “dynamic equivalence”. In his typology, these

two types determine the accuracy and correctness of translated

texts. In order to make this point clearer, we need to explain

how Nide defines these two basic equivalence types. “Formal

equivalence” focuses on the content and form of the source

text. That’s why, it is oriented towards ST structure. The

5

message in the receptor language should match the different

elements of the source language (p.159). As a result, if a

translator wants to create a target text that has a close

approximation to its original text, the type of equivalence

he/she looks for will be a “formal equivalence”. For example,

“gloss translations” can be considered to have such kinds of

relations with their source texts because in these translations

forms and content of the source text are tried to be maintained

as intact as possible (p.129). On the other hand, he talks

about “dynamic, or functional, equivalence” which is based on

“the principle of equivalent effect” (p.128). According to this

notion of equivalence, “the relationship between receptor and

message should be substantially the same as that which existed

between the original receptors and the message” (ibid). In

order to attain such an effect on target side, the message has

to be adapted to the receptors’ linguistic needs and cultural

expectations. For this purpose, Nida demands that translation

should “aim at complete naturalness of expression” (p.129).

This statement implies that translation should involve the

closest natural equivalent to the source language message.

In accordance with Nida’s theorizing of the notion of

equivalence, two ways of translating a text are possible. As he

mentions, Bible may be translated to achieve either “formal

equivalence” by rendering source text words and structures or

“dynamic equivalence” by creating the same effect on target

side.

To conclude, we can say that Nida tries to keep himself

away from strict word-for-word or sentence-for-sentence type of

6

equivalence. Rather than just focusing on creating equivalence

on word or sentence level, Nida paves the way for discussing

equivalent response on target side. Taking Nida’s framework

into consideration, we can conclude that he approaches to the

notion of equivalence in a positive way. However, both the

principle of equivalent effect and the concept of equivalence

can be criticized in some aspects. For instance, when going

from one language to another, it may not always possible to

create equivalent effect or response on target side. For

example, think of a language in which meaning is bound to

culture specific elements to a great extent. Then how can a

translation have the same effect and elicit the same response

in any target language? One of the criticisms comes from Edwin

Gentzler who attacks Nida’s dynamic equivalence in his book

titled Contemporary Translation Theories (2001). According to Gentzler,

Nida’s work has a theological and proselytizing point of view.

He claims that Nida’s dynamic equivalence aims at converting

target readers to the ideas of Protestant Christianity, which I

find a reasonable argument because when you compare these two

types of equivalence, you may easily conclude that “dynamic

equivalence” suits evangelical purposes well.

2.3 Newmark: Semantic and Communicative Translation

Now, I would like to discuss Peter Newmark’s approach to

the notion of equivalence. First of all, it is important to

mention that he departs from Nida’s response-oriented

perspective. According to Newmark, the success of equivalence

is “illusory” and that “the conflict of loyalties, the gap

7

between emphasis on source and target language will always

remain as the overriding problem in translation theory and

practice (1981: 38). As can be understood from this statement,

Newmark considers “equivalent effect” the desirable result of

any translation activity, rather than the aim which should be

attained every time when one starts to translate. In her view,

it is unlikely to have totally equivalent texts in two basic

cases: if the purpose of the SL text is to affect and TL

translation is to inform (or vice versa); if there is a big

cultural gap between SL and TL texts (1988: 49). As is clear,

Newmark is more cautious and less enthusiastic while defining

the notion of equivalence. However, in his view, this goal

cannot be achieved if target text has a different goal from

that of source text or they do not have the same cultural

references in their language repertoire. Unlike Nida, Newmark

claims that together with different cultural references,

remoteness in time and space reduces the possibility of

creating “equivalent effect” in translation (p.48). Further, he

argues that the text may reach a “broad equivalent effect” only

if it is “universal”, as in cases where the ideals of the

original text exceed all cultural frontiers. (ibid: 49). In

order to narrow this cultural gap mentioned above, Newmark

offers to use new terms such as “semantic” and “communicative”

translation. While the first one means to produce on its

readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the

readers of the original, the latter attempts to render content

and form of the source text as much as the target language

structures allow (1981: 39).

8

When you look at these definitions, you can easily point

out that they resemble Nida’s way of categorizing equivalence.

However, one should bear in mind that Newmark distances himself

from claiming “full principle of equivalent effect” as Nida

does. In my opinion, Newmark’s arguments manifest themselves

strongly when we deal with translations of ancient texts in

contemporary world. It is highly unlikely to assume that

readers of contemporary translations of ancient text can give

similar responses like those of ancient texts. As a result, any

translator starting to carry out such a translation project

would not always aim at producing the same effect on TT

readers.

As in the case of Nida, we see a polarity of “directional

equivalence” in Newmark’s arguments (Pym 2010: 30). Even though

he prefers to create equivalence on semantic level, he asserts

that translators can choose which aspect of source text to

render in their translations. Depending on the conditions,

translators are expected to orient themselves to the right

direction in their translation activities. What is more, while

previous scholars working on linguist approaches mainly base

their ideas of equivalence on word or sentence level, Newmark

approaches to translation taking text as a whole. This kind of

perspective is apparent in the criteria he proposes for

translation evaluations. According to him, either the accuracy

of reproduction of the significance of the ST or the accuracy

of communication of ST message in TT should be given highest

value in translation evaluations.

9

2.3 Equivalence as a Real Object of Inquiry

Before moving to functional theories of translation, I

would like to give some place to Werner Koller’s important work

on equivalence. In his book titled Research into the Science of

Translation, Koller examines the concept of equivalence in

detail. He makes distinction between the term “correspondence”

and “equivalence”. While the first one defines formal

similarities between languages, the latter describes relations

between real texts and utterances. In this kind of

understanding, equivalence can refer to equivalent items in

specific ST-TT pairs or ST-TT texts. Foregrounding real texts

and utterances, Koller attempts to distance himself from

interlingual definitions of equivalence seeking to find

similarities between huge number of languages and he brings the

translation from an interlingual to intertextual phenomena.

What is more, Koller presents equivalence as a real object of

study to argue against theories of general untranslatability.

Since translational equivalence is assumed to exist on the

level of translation as language use, it no longer reduces it

just to formal similarities and differences between languages.

Thus the general view in translation studies

soon comes to be that equivalence is a relationship between

texts in two

different languages, rather than between the languages

themselves (Kenny 2009: 98). What is more, Koller describes

five different types of equivalence. These include denotative

equivalence based on the assumption that the ST and TT words

refer to same thing in real world; connotative equivalence meaning

10

that ST and TT words trigger the same or similar associations

in the minds of native speakers of these two languages; text-

normative equivalence related to text types; pragmatic equivalence

which is similar to Nida’s dynamic equivalence and finally formal

equivalence where ST and TT words have similar orthographic or

phonological features.

According to Koller, in a specific translation activity,

translator carries out his/her task, trying to preserve some of

the equivalent values in his/her translation. However, he

treats equivalence as a kind of notion that describes the

hierarchy of utterances and texts in SL and TL. In relation to

this, he defines the task of translator as follows:

With every text as a whole, and with every segment of text as a

whole,

the translator who consciously makes such a choice must set up

a

hierarchy of values to be preserved in translations; from this

he can

derive a hierarchy of equivalence requirements for the text or

segment

in question. (1989: 104)

From this excerpt, we can conclude that Koller discusses the

notion of equivalence on text level and the type of equivalence

needs to be hierarchically structures in accordance with the

dominant function of ST.

To sum up, I tried to explain how the notion of

equivalence was dealt by some influential translation scholars

of during 1960’s- 1970’s who mainly worked on the linguistic

11

theories of translation. In general terms, their main concern

was to define equivalence as a relation between two words,

sentences and texts. It was this relation that allowed the

translation scholars to consider a text translation in the

first place. According to their views, there was a stable

source text whose different segments required equivalent

reproductions on target side. Equivalence was tried to be

obtained between ST-TT pairs, which would be challenged in the

following parts of the paper.

3. Notion of Equivalence in Functional Theories of Translation

During 1980’s, we observe a move from linguistic

approaches to translation to functional and communicative

approaches in translation studies. With the increased effect of

these approaches, we go beyond source-bound theories of

equivalence and begin to study it as a kind of relation between

source text function and target text function under the notion

of “functional equivalence”. In this section, I would like to

discuss how linguistic concepts of equivalence are challenged

by functional theories, discussing some of the scholars’

contributions to the field.

3.1 Text Type Approach

Katharina Reiss is one of the scholars who deal with the

issue of equivalence. Actually, her discussion of equivalence

resembles that of Koller’s in that both build their notion of

equivalence on text level rather than on word or sentence

12

level. According to Reiss, translation is a communicative act

and equivalence must be sought at the level of where

communication is achieved (1989: 113-114). In her text type

approach, the type of equivalence that should be recreated in

target text depends on the language functions target text is

supposed to have in target culture. For instance, translation

of a content-focused text should preserve semantic equivalence

in target text. On the other hand, translation of an appeal-

focused text

will require creating equivalent effect among target text

readers. For hybrid texts in which more than one function

exist, hierarchy of functions are established and equivalence

is attained in accordance with the dominant language function

ST has.

As is clear from the statements made above, Reiss work

provides a redefinition for the notion of equivalence. Here, we

talk about a “functional equivalence” rather than broader

definitions of equivalence in previous theories. In fact,

within functional theories of translation, the notion of

equivalence is reduced to a more restricted case where the

function of ST is to be recreated in TT in the first place so

that we could talk about equivalence.

3.2 Equivalence as a Special Scenario in Skopos Theory

Another scholar working within functional paradigm is Hans

Vermeer, who caused a paradigm shift in Translation Studies.

Through his Skopos theory, Vermeer challenges the equivalence

paradigm, prioritizing the purpose of translation that should

13

be fulfilled in translation process. Even though he does not

explicitly refer to the notion of equivalence, the theoretical

framework of his theory provides some implications that can put

forth in order to challenge its previous definitions. In his

view, any translation does not always have to be equivalent to

a source text. As Vermeer mentions, source and target texts may

diverge from each other quite considerably, not only in their

formulation and distribution of the content, but also in terms

of the goals which are set for, and in terms of which the

arrangement of the content is in fact determined (2004: 234).

As a result, in some translations we cannot talk about any kind

of equivalence on any level that reproduces relevant levels of

ST in TT. Creating a translated text which is totally

equivalent to a ST is just one of the possibilities that exist

in translation activities. As the aim of the translator working

in this paradigm is to achieve the purpose of the translation,

he/she resorts to many other options rather than sticking to

create an equivalent version of a source text. It is possible

that for each different translation activity, different

purposes can be articulated and thus the translator may produce

equivalence to various aspects of the source text or even

create a translated text in a way that does not bear any

similarities with that of a source text. In this way, different

translations can be obtained from the same source text.

As Pym mentions, “The novelty of this approach thus lies

in what it does not say” (2010: 44). To be more precise, Skopos

theory enables that translator’s choices need not be determined

by a fixed source text or by the criterion of equivalence. In

14

Skopos theory, nature of TT is determined by the skopos of the

translational action. In Vermeer and Reiss (1984: 139),

equivalence is reduced to “functional constancy” between ST and

TT. This means that we can talk about equivalence when the

function of ST is identical to that of TT. However, in Skopos

theory, this kind of relation is presented as a special case

and an exception.

In Reiss and Vermeer’s works, we have seen how the notion

of equivalence gains a new definition, which is discussed with

the term of “functional equivalence”. Before this kind of

conceptualizing, equivalence was defined in accordance with its

relation to source language and source text. However, with the

inclusion of the target side in translation discussions, source

text became not of much help to explain translation phenomena.

Even though target side functionalism relieved the notion of

equivalence from strict linguistic definitions, I believe that

it is also possible to argue that the concept was narrowed so

much that it may not reflect real social practices of the

contemporary world. Actually, equivalence constitutes a very

central position in real social translation activities of today

and more importance is given to create an equivalent text

almost at all levels. Therefore, we can say that this kind of

functional understanding of equivalence may not always provide

translators with practical solutions. For instance, think of a

situation where the translator has no other choice, but start

his translation without negotiating the purpose or the function

the TT is supposed to have in target culture. In such a

situation, translators almost always resort to producing an

15

equivalent text that represents ST as closely as possible. What

is more, “functional equivalence” is also a problematic concept

in that it is not totally clear how functions are transferred

from source to target side or whether it is always possible to

transfer them. In other words, functions may not be always

transferrable within two different languages.

3.3 Equivalence as an Empirical and Theoretical Concept

After discussing how functional theories deal with the

notion of equivalence, I would like to continue with Gideon

Toury’s arguments, in which equivalence becomes a non-issue. As

he mentions, equivalence is a feature of all translations,

simply because they are thought to be translations, no matter

their linguistic and aesthetic quality (1995: 63-70). In other

words, any translated text involves a kind of equivalence just

because it is a translation. In his book titled Descriptive

Translation Studies and Beyond, Toury defines translation as a “norm-

governed activity” (p.56). According to Theo Hermans, he

provides such kind of definition as he wants to redefine the

notion of equivalence (1999: 96). Unlike previous theories that

I discussed above, Toury argues that there is a contradiction

between traditional notions of equivalence in the limited model

into which a translated text can be molded. In order to resolve

this contradiction, he asserts that “it is norms that determine

the (type and extent of) equivalence manifested by actual

translations” (p.61). As a result, it is highly important to

study norms in order to understand how equivalence is attained

in translations. Even though Toury makes the notion of

16

equivalence as a non-issue, he does not diminish its

importance, which can easily be inferred from his statement

saying “This approach entails a clear wish to retain the notion

of equivalence” (p. 61). Therefore, we can say that study of

equivalence must proceed from the assumption that there will be

some kind of equivalence in a translated text in any case.

However, when we consider his perspective, we can say that

Toury changes the notion of equivalence from ahistorical,

prescriptive definitions to a historical, descriptive and

relative one, including the notion of norms in his discussion.

As the study of norms depends on the positions held by

translations in different time periods or circumstances in

target culture, realization of the type and degree of

equivalence changes accordingly. In Toury’s work, we do not

encounter any pre-defined criteria for the evaluation or

realization of equivalence. As he deals with the notion of

equivalence as an empirical concept, we do not need to worry

about recreating some kinds of invariant or a single

relationship in TT at any time. As Pym says, Toury’s

“equivalence has upset no more than the occasional belief in

untranslatability, his extension of it at least had the

potential to upset prescriptive linguists and pedagogs” (1995:

159). However, it should be kept in mind that this approach

does not deny that translators can produce one kind of

equivalence or another in TT.

5. Critical Views on the Notion of Equivalence

5.1 Equivalence as an Illusion of Symmetry

17

Snell- Hornby is one of the important scholars who discard

equivalence as being unsuitable as a basic concept in

translation studies. In her book titled Translation Studies, an

Integrated Approach, she asserts that previous approaches to the

notion of equivalence have not “provided any substantial help

in furthering translation studies” (1988: 26). The innovatory

perspective brought by Snell- Hornby is that unlike Toury or

Vermeer, she tries to demonstrate where the notion of

equivalence went wrong. She believes that the notion of

equivalence is “imprecise and ill-defined (even after a heated

debate of over twenty years) presents an illusion of symmetry

between languages which hardly exist beyond the level of vague

approximations and which distort the basic problems of

translation (p.22). First of all, she argues that the English

term used for equivalence became increasingly approximative

term during 1970’s and its German counterpart was increasingly

static and one-dimensional (p.21). As a result, this difference

maps onto the strategies of Toury and Vermeer, implying that we

do not actually observe radical rupture between those who

talked about equivalence and those who preferred not to (1995:

12).

Secondly, she mentions that the translation process cannot

simply be reduced to a linguistic exercise, since there are

also other factors including textual, cultural and situational

aspects which should be taken into consideration while

translating. In my opinion this kind of judgement can be

directed towards static linguistic approaches because

translating involves different cultures and different

18

situations at the same time and they do not always match from

one language to another. Thirdly, though she accepts to

integrate some kind of equivalence into her model in terms of

technical terminology, she suggests that we should totally

abondon the notion of equivalence. Even though I do not agree

with this last statement, her debate on the illusion of symetry

may prove true in some contexts. For instance, when we think

about the notion of “dynamic equivelence”, it is possible to

conclude that Nida assumes that all languages have the same

expressive capacity because in his definition he talks about

creating the same effect in TL. For example, think of a

scenario in which we translate the phrase “Lamb of God” as

“Seal of God” for Eskimos. In this example, we do not refer to

the particularities of source culture any longer and alienate

target culture from source side. The word “lamb” symbolizes

innocence for Christians, but it does not have such a

connotation in the culture of Eskimos. If we use the word

“seal” which denotes innocence in Eskimo culture, then we

conceal the source culture in our translation. As a result, the

translator who chooses to translate in the latter way can

create an ideological illusion of symmetry between cultures.

5.2 Equivalence as a Belief Structure

With Anthony Pym, we move a step behind and are made to

reconsider the importance of the notion of equivalence. Even

though he accepts that substantial equivalence is an illusion,

he asserts that it is also important to understand why one

should be prepared to believe in it (1995: 164). He differs

from Snell- Hornby in that while she offers to dispense with 19

the notion, Pym tries to understand and explain whether it

creates an illusion. Pym argues that “equivalence defines

translation” and talks about non-relativist and non-linguistic

“equivalence beliefs” as part of the way translations are

received as translations. But why do we observe a return to

discussions of equivalence at a period in which it was harshly

criticized? In order to answer this question, it is important

to know that Pym aims to the show problems previous usages of

the notion created. According to him, “the translator is an

equivalence producer, a professional communicator working for

people who pay to believe that, on whatever level is pertinent,

A is equivalent to B.” (1995: 167). As Pym mentions, this

results from the fact that readers are used to distinguish

translations from non-translations through equivalence and

belief in equivalence is a historical, shared and cost-

effective (2010: 37). Pym points out that complete rejection of

equivalence would lead to a conceptual expansion, where

everything can be considered a type of translation because like

Snell-Hornby, many critics wanting to dismiss equivalence

totally do not provide any definitions for non-translations

(p.167).

As I mentioned above, Pym tries to show the gaps existing

in previous definitions of equivalence. According to him,

previous scholars focus mainly on two competing

conceptualizations which he terms “natural” and “directional”

equivalence respectively. He defines “natural equivalence” as a

relation of equal value between a source text and target text.

This value can be achieved on one level or another. He also

20

adds that scholars dealing with equivalence in such a way

assume that equal values exist between different languages and

cultures. Therefore, it should be the same whether translated

from language A into language B or the other way around

(2010:7-9). Nida’s formal and dynamic equivalence can be given

as a representative example of Pym’s “natural equivalence”

because Nida talks about creating identical message or effect

in TL, without considering probable circumstances in which

differences in languages make it impossible. On the other hand,

he discusses directional equivalence as an asymmetrical

relation where the creation of an equivalent text does not

imply that the same equivalence will also be created when

translating the other way (p.26). Scholars such as Levy, Toury

and Newmark can be evaluated under this kind of equivalence

because all of them provide polarities of equivalence for

translators, which enable them to choose between two types of

equivalence. However, like Pym, I find this kind of

conceptualizations problematic as it mainly depends upon binary

oppositions. On the contrary, there can be other possible

levels between these two polarities that are required to be

reproduced in TT.

5.3 “Declared” Equivalence

In his book called Translation of the Tongues, Theo Hermans

brings a very different perspective to the issue of

equivalence. He mentions that “equivalence between a

translation and its original is established through an

external, perlocutionary speech act” (2007: 24). In this

21

statement, he wants to imply that equivalence is not something

that exists in texts or that defines relations between texts.

On the contrary, external factors use it as a tool to

authenticate a specific type of writing and hence gain the

control over it. As is clear, equivalence becomes something

“declared” in Hermans’ point of view. Not the relation between

a source and a target text, which is the case in linguistic and

functional theories of translation, but the status of texts

determines the equivalence. Hermans suggests that as

equivalence is seen as a tool of authentication, a text that is

equivalent to another text ends to be called translation and it

gains an original status. He gives some examples from religious

and legal texts and argues that translations become perfect

equivalents of the originals. However, Hermans evaluates this

kind of equivalence in a negative sense, which is clear in the

following statements: “Authentication creates the “fiction of

total equivalence and correspondence”. The imposition of

equivalence has as a consequence the presumption that the

various authentic versions convey the same meaning. (2007:9)

As is clear, equivalence creates symmetry between

different languages and cultures. In order justify this point;

let’s think of an example of a treaty that has different

language versions. At the beginning, one original text exists

and then it is translated into many other languages. These

versions that were once translations are transformed into

parallel authentic ones that speak for itself, no longer

representing its source. As Hermans states, “Authentication and

positioning of equivalence bring about translations amnesia”

22

(p.24). We no longer treat it as a translation and begin to

forget its original. Therefore, I believe that positioning

translated text in the place of original may also erase the

differences between ST and TT. In my opinion, Hermans’ approach

to the issue of equivalence is quite interesting because he

says that “a translation, for as long as it remains a

translation, cannot be equivalent to its source”, which can

shake the traditional definitions of translation (p.25).

5.4 Uncertainty Paradigm

As I discussed above, equivalence paradigm was undermined

by Skopos theory and the descriptive paradigm. However,

increasing dissatisfaction has begun to emerge in recent years.

Now, I would like to focus on some recent developments that

have an effect on diminishing the importance of equivalence.

One of the evidence may come from the current nature of

technocratic age where it is not possible to talk about a

stable source text. Actually, this point is more obvious when

we consider the period before the development of printing

press, when literature was carried out orally and source texts

were often manuscripts. They used to be constantly changed and

rewritten. Therefore, if we are to translate a manuscript of

pre-print age, then it is not possible to talk about a fixed

source text which we will use as a point of departure while

translating. As a result, following question can come to mind:

“to which version of the source text should the translated text

be equivalent?”

23

Another counter-argument can be made, referring to Werner

Heisenberg’s principle of indeterminacy (1927). According to

this principle, each observation is affected by the position of

the observer. As each observer’s accounts of the event will be

different from each other, it is not possible to talk about one

certain observation at all times. When we import this principle

into translation activity, we can conclude that a source text

can be translated by different translators in a different way.

They may have one source text in common, but this source text

does not determine one target text and equivalence cannot

provide answer for these variations in TTs (Pym: 2010: 94).

American philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine tried to show

to what extent the indeterminacy principle can affect language

and translation. For this purpose, he carried out a thought

experiment in which a linguist goes to a village to describe

their language. While he is in the village, a rabbit runs past

and at that time a native looks at the rabbit and says

“Gavagai!” Then the linguist writes down “gavagai= rabbit”. As

a result, an equivalent translation is produced. For this

example, Quine asks how one can be sure that gavagai means

rabbit. According to him, it can denote many other thinks like

a whole sentence. Therefore, he concludes that as far as

translation is concerned, indeterminacy will never completely

go away. Quine points out that one source (gavagai) can give

rise to many different renditions, all of which may be

legitimate and yet “stand to each other in no plausible sort of

equivalence relation however loose” (1960: 27). From this

statement, we can infer that Quine associates equivalence with

24

the idealized type of certainty, which loses its importance in

a world where there are various translations of the same source

text. For Quine, incorporating indeterminacy principle into a

theory of translation can help to account for those differences

while the concept of equivalence cannot. 5.5 Deconstructive Approach in Translation

Finally I would like to discuss another indeterminist

approach that gained popularity in translation studies with the

notion of “deconstruction” based on the work of French

philosopher Jacques Derrida. The reason why we consider

“deconstruction” an indeterminist approach results from its

main assumption that indeterminacy is a feature of all language

use. This approach sets out to “undo illusions of stable

meaning of any kind” (Pym: 2010: 108). Derrida (1985) points

out that when you look at a source text, you see that it is

also a translation of previous texts. That’s why, a source text

is made to continue its existence like a translation.

With this kind of reasoning, we come to reconsider the concepts

of “original author” and “original writing”. Translation is not

something that reproduces meaning, depending upon a fixed

source text. On the contrary, translation is considered to

create a new meaning in target language. In other words,

deconstructive approach in translation sees it as a form of

transformation rather than any kind of meaning or culture

transfer. Translation is changed into a transformation and the

concept of equivalence becomes invalid. That can also be a

logical consequence of the indeterminacy theories. What is

25

more, Derrida rejects the theories of meaning and translation

that are based on the unity between languages. In Derida’s

view, a text cannot have a fixed meaning and every reading

results in translation. The translator himself takes on the

role of an author and hence the attempts to reproduce the

intentions of the of source text author are deconstructed.

In Derida’s approach, we see the impact of post-modern

thought on language and meaning production. As is clear,

traditional assumptions of complete reproduction of ST elements

in TT become unattainable because translation is considered to

always involve transformations. According to post-modern

thought, meaning does not reside within texts or extracted from

them, but we attribute meanings to them through the act of

interpretation. In my opinion, with the notion of

deconstruction, Derida attempts to attack Western tradition of

translation which focused its attention on a fixed source text

and its corresponding one in TL.

6. Conclusion

In this paper, I have tried to give a brief history of

debates carried out over the notion of equivalence. In my

analysis, I have generally not taken up a particular position

myself, attempting to evaluate the opinions about the concept

in relation to the developments of the Translation Studies. As

we have seen, some scholars evaluate the idea of equivalence as

a tool to legitimate Translation Studies as a scientific

discipline. On the other hand, we have other scholars who have

seemed upset by this notion. In legitimization of Translation

26

Studies as a scientific discipline, some problems emerged and

notion of equivalence was introduced into translation studies

as an argument against the idea of untranslatability.

Therefore, this notion was considered highly important because

it paved the way for a text to be called a translation.

However, the nature and importance of this notion changed a lot

in parallel with the turning points of Translation Studies.

When we go back to 1960’s, we see that translation was under

the effect of linguistics and comparative literature. At that

time, the notion of equivalence was institutionalized and it

provided foundations for research projects and become useful

for machine translation and translator training programs. For

instance, Roman Jakobson discussed translation and equivalence,

as was usual for linguists of the time, as a matter of words

and sentences. Then we move to pragmatic turn of the 1970’s

when Translation Studies began to be considered an independent

discipline. During that time, the scholars like Toury tried to

create a scientific approach in study of translated texts and

hence concrete institutionalization of the equivalence concept

lost its importance. Even though such scholars did not deny the

concept of equivalence, they based it on empirical grounds. In

their theorizing, previously suppressed nature of equivalence

was discovered. Foregrounding social and historical feature of

equivalence, they made us recognize that what we considered

objective before was in fact subjective. This kind of approach

was strengthened with the cultural turn of 1980’s when various

cultural factors affecting the translation process were begun

to be studied. However, controversial opinions also existed

27

during the same period exemplified with the arguments provided

under the title of uncertainty paradigm.

In 1989, the political turn changed European history and

affected the works of European translators and interpreters.

After the Cold War, an age of dialogue and cooperation emerged

among different cultures. As a result of this new integration

phase, TS gained an interdisciplinary status, opening its study

realm into different disciplines. However, during the same

period some scholars like Venuti and Spivak revealed how

translation was used as a political and ideological tool. The

notion of “power differentials” was introduced into the study

of translations through post-colonial and feminist theorists.

When we evaluate Snell-Hornby’s arguments in light of these new

developments, we can conclude that she must have wanted to

demonstrate how translations presented as an equivalent version

of a source text created the illusion of symmetry between

languages and culture in the past. As we know, in his book

titled The Scandals of Translation, Venuti discusses how translations

created homogenous discourse in the past, smoothing the

culture-specific differences.

However, in recent years the notion of equivalence has

begun to regain its popularity in Translation Studies. There

can be many different motivations behind this tendency. One

possible reason might be the return to linguistics in

translation discussions. As Snell-Hornby mentions, “much feted

emancipation of Translation Studies from the discipline of

linguistics is embarking on a phase of retrogression” (2006:

152). In my opinion, she is right because when we consider the

28

translation activity in our contemporary age, we can easily say

that it is usually dealt in language and literature departments

and hence evaluated in relation to one of these branches. What

is more, we can say that because of the globalization and

increasing dominance of English as the language of publication

over the notion of equivalence underwent some changes. For

instance, Pym gives a huge place to the discussion of the

usefulness of equivalence in his book called Exploring Translation

Studies (2010). As is clear, in today’s world of hybridity and

globalization, equivalence is seen as a kind of tool which will

delimit the study of translation studies and help to

differentiate translations from non-translations.

29

REFERENCES

Anthony, P. 2010. Exploring Translation Studies. Oxford and New York:

Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Anthony, P. 1995. "European Translation Studies, Une science qui dérange, and Why Equivalence Needn’t Be a Dirty Word". Available: <http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/037200ar>

Baker, Mona .1992. In Other Words: a Coursebook on Translation, London:

Routledge

Jakobson, Roman. 1959. “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation“.

in R. A. Brower (ed.) On Translation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press, pp. 232-39.

Koller, W. 1989. “Equivalence in Translation Theory”.

translated from the German by A. Chesterman. in A. Chesterman

(ed), pp. 99-104.

Munday, J. 2001. Introducing Translation Studies. Routledge

Nida, Eugene A. 1964. Towards a Science of Translating, Leiden: E. J.

Brill.

Newmark, P. 1988. A Textbook for Translation. New York and London:

Prentice Hall.

Newmark, P. 1981. Approaches to Translation. Oxford and New York:

Pergamon.

30

Quine, W.V.O. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Reiss, Katharina. 2004. “Type, Kind and Individuality of Text:

Decision Making in Translation” translated by Susan Kitron. in

The Translation Studies Reader. L. Venuti (ed). Oxford and New York:

Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Shell- Hornby, M. 1988. Translation Studies, an Integrated Approach.

Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Shell- Hornby, M. 2006. The Turns of Translation Studies. Amsterdam:

John Benjamins Publishing Company

Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond.

Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

Vermeer, H.J. 2004. “Skopos and Commission in Translational

Action”. in The Translation Studies Reader. L. Venuti (ed). Oxford and New

York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

31

32