CHAPTER 4. Translation Equivalence

TYPES OF EQUIVALENCE

Translation equivalence does not mean that source and target texts are identical. It is a degree of similarity between source and target texts, measured on a certain level.

Viewed from the semiotic angle, the source and target texts can be identical pragmatically, semantically and structurally.

Every text should be equivalent to the source text pragmatically, which means that the both texts should have one and the same communicative function. The target text should have the same impact upon the receptor as the source text has.

Semantic identity implies describing the same situation, using similar lexical meaning of the units, and similar grammatical meaning of the elements.

Structural similarity presupposes the closest possible formal correspondence between the source text and the target text.

EQUIVALENCE

PRAGMATIC SEMANTIC STRUCTURAL

(function) (content) (form)

situational lexical grammatical

According to V. Komissarov, one can distinguish five levels of equivalence: pragmatic, situational, lexical (semantic), grammatical, structural levels.42

PRAGMATIC LEVEL

First and foremost, the translation must retain the same communicative function as the source text.43 The description and enumeration of speech functions can be found in the work by R. Jakobson, who pointed out the following:

· informative function, i.e. conveying information: Лавры моего конкурента не дают мне спать. – I am green with envy because of the success of my competitor.

· emotive function, i.e. expressing the speaker’s emotions: На кой леший мне такой друг? – What on earth do I need such a friend for?

· conative function, i.e. expressing one’s will: Could you do me a favor, please? – Пожалуйста, окажите мне услугу.

· phatic function, i.e. making communicative contact: How do you do! – Здравствуйте!

· metalingual function, i.e. describing language features: Don’t trouble trouble until trouble troubles you. – На дворе трава – на траве дрова.

· poetic function, i.e. aesthetic impact:

Tiger Tiger, burning bright,

In the forests of the night;

What immortal hand or eye,

Could frame thy fearful symmetry? (W.Blake)

Тигр, Тигр, в лесу ночном

Мрачный взгляд горит огнем.

Чья бессмертная рука

Жизнь влила в твои бока? (Пер. К.Филатовой)

These sentences have only one thing in common: general intent of communication, communication aim, or function. At first glance, the source and target texts have no obvious logical connection; they usually designate different situations, have no common semes (i.e. smallest components of meaning), and have different grammar structures.

SITUATIONAL LEVEL

The source and the target texts can describe the same situation from different angles with different words and structures: I meant no harm. – Простите, я нечаянно.(the situation in the bus); Who shall I say is calling? – Кто его спрашивает? (the situation on the phone); Wet paint. – Осторожно: окрашено! (the situation in the park).

There are no parallel lexical or structural units in these counterparts. Therefore, their content is different, the word semes are different, grammar relations between the sentence components are different. Nevertheless, the utterances correspond to each other in their communicative functions and in the similarity of the described situation. Because of this identity, V. Komissarov calls this type of equivalence «identification of the situation»44.

Frequently one and the same situation is referred to in different languages. This is particularly true of set phrases: Fragile. – Осторожно: стекло! Beware of the dog! – Осторожно, злая собака! Push/Pull – От себя/К себе.

Some situations cannot be translated: for example, Приятного аппетита! has no corresponding phrase in English. In place of this lacuna, English people use the French idiom Bon appetit!. There is also no equivalent for the Russian С легким паром.