*Equivalence and Translation
translation is not of a high quality in fact, she represent that ‘a translation text should not only match its source text in function, but it should employ equivalent situational – dimensional instrument to achieve that function’. House’s theory of equivalence in translation seems to be much more flexible than Catford’s. In fact she gives example, uses complete texts and more importantly, she relates linguistic features to the context of both source and target text (Leonardi 2000).
Roman Jakobson (1959 p.54) in his study of equivalence gave new perspective to the theoretical analysis of translation since he introduced the notion of ‘equivalence in difference’. On the basis of his semiotic approach to language he suggests three kinds of translation.
1- Intralingual (within one language, i.e. rewording of paraphrase)
2. Interlingual (between two languages)
3- Intersemiotic (between sign systems)
Jakobson claims that, in the case of interlingual translation, the translator makes use of synonyms in order to transfer the ST message. This means that in interlingual translations there is no full equivalence between code units.
According to his theory, ‘translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes’. Jakobson also says that from a grammatical point of view languages may differ from each other to a greater or lesser degrees, but this does not mean that translation can not be possible, in other words, the translator may face the problem of not finding a translation equivalent. He also says that ‘whenever there is deficiency, terminology may be qualified and amplified by loanwords or loan translations, neologisms or semantic shifts and finally by circumlocutions’.
Catford, jhon c.(1965). A linguistic theory of translation: an essay
on applied linguistic, p.7-59, London: Oxford University press.
Crystal, D. (1995). Translation equivalence, p.68-120, www.davidcrystal.com/DC_articles/Religion8.pdf
Collins English Dictionary. (1994), p.526, Glosgow : Hyper Collins .
Crookall ,D. & R.L.(1990) . Oxford. Linking language learning and simulation/ gaming. Simulation, gaming and language learning. New York: Newsbury House Publishers.
Chung-ling, Sh. (2005). Using trados’s winalign tool to teach the translation Equivalence Concept, www.accurapid.com/journal/36 edu .htm
Fawcett, P. (1997). Translation and language: linguistic theories
explained, Manchester: St Jerome publishing.
Gerzimisch-Arbogast, H. (2001):”Equivalence prameters and
evaluation”. Meta, V46, N2, P.227-242.
MA in TRANSLATION, great translation theoretician,mazandaran province ghaemsharcity,IRAN