Theories of natural equivalence in translation

Summary

This video explores the concept of equivalence in translation theory, particularly within the European tradition. It contrasts two approaches: natural equivalence, where translators seek pre-existing equivalents in the target language, and directional equivalence, where translators create new equivalents based on context. The video traces the evolution of equivalence theory from early structuralist linguistics, highlighting key theorists like Eugene Nida and his notions of dynamic and formal equivalence. It emphasizes the significance of these ideas in the historical context of translation studies, showing how they challenged prevailing beliefs about language and translation.

Takeaways

• 😀 Equivalence in translation theory posits that there can be a relationship of equal value between a source text and a target text, but not necessarily in every aspect like form or usage.
• 😀 The challenge in translation is determining where that equal value lies — whether it's in the form, length, effect, or aesthetics of the text.
• 😀 There are two main ways of thinking about equivalence: natural equivalence (looking for existing equivalents in the target language and culture) and directional equivalence (creating a new equivalent in the target language and culture).
• 😀 Natural equivalence assumes the equivalent exists before translating, while directional equivalence involves creating something new while maintaining the equivalent relationship.
• 😀 Theoretical debates often revolve around whether a translation should be reversible — i.e., if you can go from the target text back to the source text with the same equivalence.
• 😀 A real-world example of equivalence is comparing cricket in British culture and baseball in American culture — both sports with a similar function despite cultural differences.
• 😀 The concept of equivalence was extended significantly by Eugene Nida, who distinguished between dynamic equivalence (emphasizing the effect of the translation) and formal equivalence (preserving aspects of the source culture).
• 😀 Nida's work is crucial to understanding the shift from purely formal equivalence to a more dynamic, context-sensitive approach in translation theory.
• 😀 Natural and directional equivalence are not mutually exclusive and can appear within the same translation or within the same theorist’s work.
• 😀 The concept of equivalence became revolutionary in the context of structuralist linguistics in the mid-20th century, challenging the idea that translation was impossible due to the radically different ways languages divide and view the world.

Q & A

What is the concept of equivalence in translation theory?

Equivalence in translation theory refers to the idea that there can be an equal value or relationship between a source text and its translation in the target language. This does not mean that every aspect of the source text directly translates to the target text, but rather that an equivalent meaning or function can be found.

What are the two main types of equivalence discussed in the script?

The two main types of equivalence discussed are natural equivalence and directional equivalence. Natural equivalence suggests that a pre-existing equivalent can be found in the target language and culture. Directional equivalence, on the other hand, involves the translator actively creating new equivalents in the target language and culture.

What distinguishes natural equivalence from directional equivalence?

Natural equivalence involves finding a pre-existing equivalent in the target language and culture before the act of translating. Directional equivalence, however, involves creating a new equivalent during the translation process, with the translator adapting the target language to maintain equivalence with the source.

How does equivalence relate to translation in the context of form, function, and usage?

Equivalence does not imply that every detail of the source text must be replicated in the target text. The challenge is to determine where the equivalence lies—whether it's in the form (structure), function (meaning), or usage (how the text is used or affects the audience).

What is the significance of Eugene Nida's contribution to translation theory?

Eugene Nida contributed significantly to translation theory by introducing the concepts of dynamic and formal equivalence. Dynamic equivalence focuses on conveying the meaning and effect of the source text, while formal equivalence emphasizes preserving the structure and form of the original text.

Can the theories of natural and directional equivalence coexist in a single translation?

Yes, the theories of natural and directional equivalence can coexist in a single translation. Different parts of a text might require different strategies, and both natural and directional equivalents might be used depending on the context of the translation.

What role did structuralist linguistics play in the development of translation theory?

Structuralist linguistics, which emphasized the differences between languages and their worldviews, initially led to the belief that translation was impossible. However, early translation theorists challenged this view by proposing the existence of equivalence, thus advocating for the possibility of translation despite linguistic differences.

What is the historical context behind the development of equivalence in translation theory?

The development of equivalence in translation theory occurred during the 1950s and 1960s, a time when structuralist linguistics dominated and translation was often seen as impossible due to the belief that languages divide the world in fundamentally different ways. Early theorists, like Nida, advocated for the existence of equivalence, which was a revolutionary concept at the time.

How does the script describe the challenge of finding equivalence in translation?

The script emphasizes the challenge of identifying where equivalence lies in the translation. Translators must navigate between various levels such as form, function, aesthetic qualities, and the effect on the target audience. This is particularly difficult when there are no direct equivalents between the source and target languages.

What is meant by the term 'directional equivalence' and how does it differ from natural equivalence?

Directional equivalence refers to the translator's active role in creating new equivalents in the target language and culture, as opposed to finding pre-existing equivalents. It focuses on adapting the translation to maintain the same effect, meaning, or function, even when no direct equivalent exists in the target language.