What is equivalence?
Similarity in thought and style between the source language text and the target language text is called equivalence. Sapir says that equivalence is not possible in translation because no two languages represent the same social reality. Jakobson recommends inter-lingual and intra-lingual transposition to achieve equivalence to the maximum extent.
Popovic on Equivalence:
Popovic identifies four types of equivalence. They are discussed below.
a) Linguistic Equivalence: Linguistic equivalence is a synonym for word-for-word translation. Linguistic equivalence is possible only when there are lexical substitutes in the target language for the words in the source language. For example, in the sentence 'one should support one's parents', the words 'one and 'one's cannot be directly translated into English.
b) Paradigmatic Equivalence: Paradigmatic equivalence lies in similarities between the grammar of the source language and that of the target language. There are, for example, many differences between the grammatical systems of English and Tamil. For example, the words ‘it’ and 'there’ are used as dummy subjects in English, as seen in the following sentences:
It rained heavily yesterday. There are many flower-plants in our garden.
There are no such dummy subjects in Tamil
c) Stylistic equivalence: This is functional equivalence of elements in both the source language and the target language. Stylistic equivalence between English and Tamil is not always possible. For example, the words 'rain’ and ‘water’ can be used not only as nouns but also as verbs in English.
The rain was heavy. (noun)
It rained heavily. (verb)
This water is sweet to taste. (noun)
She is watering the plants. (verb)
But in Tamil these words are used only as nouns and never as verbs.
The' is used as a Definite Article in English.
The mango which she bought yesterday is rotten.
But there is no Definite Article in Tamil.
D. Textual (Syntagmatic) Equivalence: This is equivalence in form and shape. When there is no similarity in form and shape, there is no textual equivalence. Plutarch's Lives is in prose. Shakespeare used these prose tales to write his Roman plays. As there is no similarity in form, there is no textual equivalence between the two.
3) Eugene Nida on Equivalence:
Nida has divided equivalence into two kinds - Formal Equivalence and Dynamic Equivalence.
In Formal Equivalence, the translator is concerned with translating the form of the SL text into the same form in the TL text, poetry into poetry, drama into drama, prose into prose, concept into concept, etc.
In Dynamic Translation, the translator seeks to convey to the reader of the target language the same effect that the reading of the source language text had on him. lf the SL text saddened or enlightened the translator, he tries to communicate the same saddening or enlightening effect to the reader of the TL text.
Problems in Formal Equivalence: Formal Equivalence has to have equivalence in form, lexis and context - formal consistency verbal Consistency, and contextual consistency. They are discussed in some detail below.
Formal consistency: Formal consistency requires consistency in reproducing the form of genre of the SL text in the TL text. Generally speaking, this is possible. But it is difficult to use the same rhyming scheme in the translation of a poem.
Verbal consistency: Verbal consistency requires the Use of the verbs of the SL text in the TL text. If passive voice is used in the original text, the same voice must be used in the translation also. This kind of consistency cannot be maintained always.
Contextual Consistency: Formal equivalence requires using the idioms and proverbs in the SL text without altering them in any way in the TL text. But dynamic equivalence allows necessary changes to suit local conditions. For exmple, the axion "Mountain laboured and gave birth to a mouse is translated into Tamil as மலையை கிள்ளி எலியை பிடித்தது போல. ‘Similarly, the Tamil saying’ பிள்ளையார் பிடிக்க குரங்காய் போனது’ is translated into the rather flat English saying ‘Man proposes, God disposes'. Thus, we have to modily the SL Text in accordance with the context.
4)Catford on Equivalence:
In his book A Linguistic Theory of Translation, Catford talks of two types of equivalence - textual equivalence and formal equivalence.
By textual equivalent, he means changing a part of a sentence in the TL text in accordance with the need to change a part of a sentence in the SL text. He gives an example from English and French languages. In English in the two sentences -
My son is six.
Your daughter is six.
only the words ‘My son' and ‘your daughter’ are changed. The other parts of the two sentences remain unchanged. In French also, only a few changes are required.
Monfils (my son) a six ans.
Voltre (your daughter) fille a six ans.
Catford's point is that textual equivalence is not hard to achieve. Catford's observations are superficial.
Catford on Formal Equivalence:
Catford says that there are broad equivalents in some matters between some languages. He points out that the prepositions in English and French are broadly alike. But there are major differences in parts of speech between English and Arabic. He points out that there are eight parts of speech in English whereas there are only two in Arabic. So there can be no formal equivalence between English and Arabic.
5) Roman Jakobson on Equivalence:
Jakobson holds that poetry, with its cannotative, symbolic touches,is untranslatable. According to him, even an expert translator cannot work out an exact equivalence of the poet's message in the SL text when translating it into the TL
6) Faichfulness/ Fidelity in Translation:
One school demands that the translator should be cent percent faithful to the original. No deviation from and no modification of, the original text should be allowed. The translator should not distort the original according to his personal likes and dislikes or to suit the culture of the target language
7) Adaptation:
A translator resorts to adaptation when the target language or the culture of the target language impedes the translator. The translator compromises with the source language when the culture of the target language is opposed to that of the source language.
Transcreation is also a kind of adaptation. For, the transcreator widely differs from the original in order to accommodate the culture of the target language. Kavimani Desika Vinayakam Pillai is a transcreator. He adapts Fitzgerald's translation of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam in such a way as not to militate against Tamil culture.
No comments:
Post a Comment