This section introduces the notion of equivalence and it briefly maps the main distinguishable approaches to equivalence within the field of translation studies. Some of the main theorists and their approaches to translation will be outlined in chronological order. Further, equivalence at various levels in relation to the translation process, as introduced by Mona Baker, is discussed.

The notion of equivalence is one of the most controversial areas in the field of translation theory. Many translation theorists have studied equivalence in the last few decades having different approaches to this issue. The theorists can be divided into three main groups according to their approach to equivalence. In the first there are the advocates of a linguistic approach to translation. They see translation purely as a matter of linguistics without realizing that the culture of the source language (SL) and the target language (TL) differ and that the translator has to bear this difference in mind during the translation process. This approach is also called formal equivalence translation or formal correspondence (both terms introduced by Nida) and in fact, refers to the same as word-for-word translation, which is a term used by laymen. This approach has been used in some of the translations of the Bible, for instance. Using this approach helps understand how meaning was expressed in the original text and thus, it can be a useful device for comparative linguists. However, such a translation is very likely to be incomprehensible and unnatural. In the second group there are advocates of a pragmatic/semantic or functionally oriented approach to translation who see translation as a transfer of the message from the source culture (SC) to the target culture (TC). In addition, there is a third group of theorists who stand in the middle. For instance Mona Baker in her work mentioned above interconnects the linguistic oriented approach and the functionally oriented approach. She discusses equivalence on various levels beginning from word level and proceeding further to above word, grammatical, textual and pragmatic levels.

In her article Equivalence in Translation: Between Myth and Reality, Vanessa Leonardi analyzes the theory of equivalence as introduced by Vinay and Darbelnet, Jakobson, Nida and Taber, Catford, House and Baker. In order to demonstrate how the concept of equivalence evolved, she analyzes them in chronological order. First, she mentions Vinay and Darbelnet´s theory of translation procedures. Vinay and Darbelnet introduced translation procedures such as loans, calque, literal translation, transposition, modulation and adaptation. She says that “they argue that even if the semantic equivalent of an expression in the SL text is quoted in a dictionary or a glossary, it is not enough, and it does not guarantee a successful translation.“ (Leonardi, Equivalence in Translation) She further discusses Jakobson´s semiotic classification where Jakobson introduces three types of translation: intralingual (within one language, i.e. rewording or paraphrase), interlingual (between two languages) and intersemiotic (between sign systems). She sees some similarity between Vinay and Darbelnet´s theory of translation procedures and Jakobson´s theory of translation in three aspects. “Both theories stress the fact that, whenever a linguistic approach is no longer suitable to carry out a translation, the translator can rely on other procedures such as loan-translations, neologisms and the like. Both theories recognize the limitations of a linguistic theory and argue that a translation can never be impossible since there are several methods that the translator can choose. The role of the translator as the person who decides how to carry out the translation is emphasized in both theories.” (Leonardi, Equivalence in Translation) Further, Nida and Taber´s binary classification into formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence is discussed. Formal correspodnence can be explained as a replacement of SL word or phrase with its closest equivalent in TL or, in other words, it “focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content.” (qted. in Equivalence in Translation) “Dynamic equivalence can be defined as a translation principle according to which a translator seeks to translate the meaning of the original in such a way that the TL wording will trigger the same impact on the target culture (TC) audience as the original wording did upon the source text (ST) audience.” (Leonardi, Equivalence in Translation) Unlike formal correspondence, it is based upon “the principle of equivalent effect” (qted. in Equivalence in Translation) Nida is, together with Vinay and Darbelnet and Jakobson, a representative of a linguistic approach to translation and similarly to them, he is aware of the drawbacks of a linguistic approach. It is dynamic equivalence that he sees as a more effective translation procedure as he holds that the message of the source text should be preserved in the target text. Another theory analyzed is Catford´s introduction of translation shifts. He introduced two main types of translation shifts. In the first type, so called level shifts, the SL item at one linguistic level has a TL equivalent at a different level. The second type, the so called category shifts, was divided into four types. In fact, this division was based on grammar, however, this issue will not be discussed in detail. Catford´s approach to translation can be characterized as even more linguistic-based than Nida´s approach. His linguistic theory of translation was criticized many times. He was very much criticized by Snell-Hornby who “does not believe that linguistics is the only discipline which enables people to carry out a translation, since translating involves different cultures and different situations at the same time and they do not always match from one language to another.” (Leonardi, Equivalence in Translation) Further, House and her concept of equivalence in translation is presented. She favours semantic and pragmatic equivalence and argues that the source text (ST) and the target text (TT) should match one another in function. “In fact, according to her theory, every text is in itself placed within a particular situation which has to be correctly identified and taken into account by the translator.” (Leonardi, Equivalence in Translation) The ST and the TT should be functionally equivalent, which means that “a translation text should not only match its source text in function, but employ equivalent situational-dimensional means to achieve that function.” (qted. in Equivalence in Translation) In addition, House elaborated the concept of overt and covert translations. An overt translation can be defined as a translation where the TT audience is not directly addressed whereas a covert translation refers to the production of a text which is functionally equivalent to the ST. In other words, in case of overt translation functional equivalence cannot be maintained as the ST and the TT audience involve two different cultures. Unlike the overt translation, a covert translation is not culture-specific and the TC audience does not need to be informed about the fact that the given text is a translation as neither the ST nor the TT exhibit any culture-specific features. Lastly, Baker´s concept of equivalence is discussed. She merged the linguistic and functionally oriented approach to translation. She analyzes equivalence at different levels taking into account the problems that translators may be faced with during the translation process. Baker introduced such notions as equivalence at word level, equivalence above word level, grammatical equivalence, textual equivalence and pragmatic equivalence.

In this section, the notion of equivalence was presented. The main distinguishable approaches to the concept of equivalence were introduced and also the evolution of this concept as introduced by some of the most important theorists was outlined. It is necessary to add that this outline is not exhaustive. It is obvious from this section that there have been various perspectives from which equivalence has been approached and defined. It can be concluded that there is no universal definition of equivalence. The following subsection deals with the types of equivalence as introduced by Baker.

4.1.1 Types of Equivalence

This subsection lists the various levels upon which equivalence can appear. Equivalence at word level and above word level will be discussed and further, grammatical, textual and pragmatic equivalence respectively.

Equivalence at word level

In order to define equivalence at word and above word level, it is necessary to define what a word is. A word is commonly defined as the basic meaningful element in a language. It may contain more than one element of meaning. However, even a smaller unit than a word may convey the meaning. A word can be further divided into morphemes. In contrast with a word, a morpheme cannot contain more than one element of meaning and cannot be further divided into smaller units. In fact, dividing a word into morphemes enables to isolate the single elements of meaning in words.

Equivalence above word level

In any language, words almost always combine with other words. They seldom occur on their own. Thus translators are more likely to deal with equivalence above word level rather than with equivalence at word level. The combinations of words are not random. Each language imposes certain restrictions on the combinations of words as to how they can be combined to convey meaning. Some restrictions are written down in the form of rules. These apply to classes of words and admit no exceptions. In other words, these rules state which combination of words is or is not admissible in a particular language. Some restrictions are more likely to be identified as recurrent patterns in the language rather than rules as they apply to individual words rather than to classes of words. They refer to naturalness or typicality of combinations of words in a given language rather than to their admissibility.

Grammatical equivalence

Grammatical equivalence refers to the diversity of grammatical categories across languages. Certain grammatical categories may or may not be expressed in different languages, which influences the translation process. The lack of certain grammatical devices in the TL may cause changes in conveying the message. The common strategy for a translator to deal with this issue is to either add or to omit information.

Textual equivalence

Textual equivalence refers to the equivalence between a SL text and a TL text in terms of coherence and cohesion. The ability to detect these features in the SL text helps the translator to convey them adequately in the TL text. The translator´s decision as to whether or not to maintain these features in the TL text is conditioned by factors such as the target audience, the purpose of the translation and the text type.

Pragmatic equivalence

Pragmatic equivalence refers to what the author implies rather than explicitely says. “The role of the translator is to recreate the author´s intention in another culture in such a way that enables the TC reader to understand it clearly ” (Leonardi, Equivalence in Translation)

This subsection introduced the types of equivalence at various levels. The following section deals with the problem of non-equivalence.

4.2 Non-equivalence