Equivalence is a central concept in translation theory, but it is also a controversial one. Approaches to the question of equivalence can dier radically: some theorists dene translation in terms of equivalence relations (Catford 1965; Nida and Taber 1969; Toury 1980a; Pym 1992a, 1995a, 2004; Koller 1995) while others reject the theoretical notion of equivalence, claiming it is either irrelevant (Snell-Hornby 1988) or damaging (Gentzler 1993/2001) to translation studies. Yet other theorists steer a middle course: Baker uses the notion of equivalence ‘for the sake of convenience – because most translators are used to it rather than because it has any theoretical status’ (1992: 5-6). us equivalence is variously regarded as a necessary condition for translation, an obstacle to progress in translation studies, or a useful category for describing translations. Given that the concept has been particularly associated with linguistic theories of translation – which were heavily critiqued in the 1980s and 1990s (see Pym 1995a; Kenny 2001) – and, sometimes unfairly, with the idea that translations could somehow convey the ‘same’, necessarily stable and language-independent meaning as their source texts (as argued, for example, by Rabin 1958), it is not surprising that equivalence has been in and out of fashion in translation studies (Pym 1992a). Yet linguistic approaches to translation have proved tenacious (Malmkjaer 2005), and it is di cult to nd any contemporary theorists who subscribe to the ‘same meaning’ approach to translation (Baker 2004). Under the in uence of post-structuralism and the analytical philosophy of Quine (1960) and Davidson (1973/1984) in particular, meaning is now more likely to be construed as eeting and inherently unstable, highly subjective andcontext-bound, and thus not amenable to replication, whether in the same or another language (Malmkjaer 2005:15). us, when contemporary theorists posit relationships of equivalence between texts, they do so without appeal to language-neutral, objective meanings, and they acknowledge the role of translating subjects, translators, in creating and maintaining these relationships (Pym 1992a, 2004; Teubert 2002; Eco 2003). As already indicated, proponents of equivalence-based theories of translation now dene equivalence as a relationship between two texts: a source text (ST) and a target text (TT). Equivalence relationships are also said to hold between parts of STs and TTs. In many cases, it is this relationship that allows the TT to be considered a translation of the ST in the rst place. is denition of equivalence is not unproblematic, however. Pym (1992a: 37), for one, has pointed to its circularity: equivalence is supposed to dene translation, and translation, in turn, denes equivalence. Unfortunately, few attempts have been made to dene equivalence in translation in a way that avoids this circularity. Earlier theorists interested in equivalence concentrated, for the most part, on developing typologies of equivalence, focusing on the rank (word, sentence or text level) at which equivalence is said to obtain (see, for example, Baker 1992) or on the type of meaning (denotative, connotative, pragmatic, etc.) that is prioritized in particular instances of translation. Investigations of the essential nature of equivalence remain the exception.
Read more