Scribd
Upload
125 views2 pages

Koller

1. The document outlines a model of equivalence in translation that is constrained by linguistic, textual, and extra-textual factors on both the source and target sides. 2. It differentiates between equivalence relations based on a "double linkage" to both the source text and communicative conditions of the target receiver. 3. Several "frameworks of equivalence" emerge in this model, forming a hierarchy from formal equivalence at the word level up to pragmatic or dynamic equivalence matching the intended effect and reader expectations of both texts.

Uploaded by

atbin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
125 views2 pages

Koller

1. The document outlines a model of equivalence in translation that is constrained by linguistic, textual, and extra-textual factors on both the source and target sides. 2. It differentiates between equivalence relations based on a "double linkage" to both the source text and communicative conditions of the target receiver. 3. Several "frameworks of equivalence" emerge in this model, forming a hierarchy from formal equivalence at the word level up to pragmatic or dynamic equivalence matching the intended effect and reader expectations of both texts.

Uploaded by

atbin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

SECTION Introduction

A
EQUIVALENCE: DOUBLE LINKAGE

Within the equivalence model to be outlined in this section, the scope of what
constitutes an equivalence relation is limited in a number of important ways. Koller
(1995) views equivalence as a process constrained on the one hand by the influence
of a variety of potentially conflicting SL/TL linguistic textual and extra-textual
factors and circumstances and on the other by the role of the historical–cultural
conditions under which texts and their translations are produced and received.

Equivalence relations are differentiated in the light of this ‘double-linkage’, first


to the ST and, second, to the communicative conditions on the receiver’s side. A
number of what Koller specifically calls ‘frameworks of equivalence’ (1989: 100–4)
emerge. Linguistic-textual units are regarded as TL equivalents if they correspond
to SL elements according to some or all of the following relational frameworks
of equivalence. These ‘frames of reference’ are ‘hierarchical’ in that each type of
equivalence (and the level of language at which translation equivalence is achieved)
tends to subsume (i.e. retain and add to) features of the preceding level.

Let us work through these relations with the help of the following example. The text
is one of the ‘quotable quotes’ with which we worked in Unit 6 (Example A6.2). This
quote is by photographer Helmut Newton on his eye for the former British prime
minister:

Example A7.1

‘I had wanted for years to get Mrs Thatcher in front of my camera. As she got more
powerful she got sort of sexier.’
(Newsweek 21 May 2001 [bold in original])

1. Equivalence is said to be fully achieved if SL and TL words happen to have


similar orthographic or phonological features. This is the ultimate formal
equivalence, where a SL form is strictly replaced by an identical TL form.
Focusing on sexier, we need a language which deals with this item in the
same way as many languages do with English words like strategy, bureaucracy
(e.g. Arabic stratiijiyya, biirokratiyya). Obviously, this does not seem to be
possible in the case of sexy, which means that we have to move up one level in
the equivalence hierarchy.

2. When formal equivalence proves either unattainable or insufficient we tend to


aim for the next level of referential or denotative equivalence. Here, a SL form
is replaced by a TL form that basically refers to the same ‘thing’. At face value,
this is possible to achieve with the majority of words in any language. The
Newsweek translator can conceivably opt for this level of equivalence in any
language, with the relationship of ‘sex–sexy’ highlighted.

50
Textual pragmatics and equivalence SECTION

A
3. For a variety of linguistic, rhetorical and cultural reasons, the referential option
may not do justice to sexy in the case of the Thatcher text. A denotative ren-
dering may (as it certainly does in the case of Arabic) convey something like
‘pornographic’ if used on its own or trigger different associations in the minds
of speakers of the two languages. In such cases, we should seek equivalence at
the next higher level of ‘similarity of association’. This is connotative equiva-
lence, which in the case of sexy might yield a TT element which links sexy, say,
with ‘attractiveness’.

4. The connotative option goes some way towards a solution of the problem sexy
in Arabic, but still falls short of an optimally satisfactory rendering. In this
language, the semantic element ‘attractiveness’ can convey associations with the
physical term ‘gravity’ that are too ‘direct’ and ‘scientific’ for this context. Here,
we should seek equivalence at the higher level of textual context and aim for
so-called text-normative equivalence. Textual norms are conventions which go
beyond connotations and which enable us to work with the kind of language
that is typical of a certain kind of text, a mood of writing, a certain attitude,
etc. To account for this level of equivalence in the case of sexy or ‘sexual attrac-
tiveness’, for example, we need to bear in mind the communicative purpose of
the ST and the use for which the TT is intended. This is the ‘point’ of the quote
which, in this context, is perhaps to do with the incongruity emanating
from the association of ‘iron lady’ with ‘sexy’. To achieve this level of equivalence
in the case of sexy, we might need to (a) jettison ‘sexual’ and modify ‘sexual
attractiveness’ in favour of something like ‘attractive femininity’, and (b) gloss
the translation with something like ‘so to speak’ which in a way also captures
the ST sort of intended by the speaker as an apology for being too explicit with
use of language, akin to saying ‘for want of a better word’.

5. Contexts of use match in this case, and so does the effect on the TT reader which
will here be sufficiently close to that experienced by the ST reader. To achieve
similarity of effect and cater for reader expectations is to attain full pragmatic
or dynamic equivalence.

Task A7.3
★
➤ As you read through the various frames of reference outlined above, apply the
different procedures to your own language (or foreign language) situation and
work out appropriate translation solutions.

Task A7.4
★
➤ Reflect on how far you need to go in terms of the equivalence hierarchy outlined
above in the translation of: (1) the instructions on a medicine bottle, (2) a
television commercial you have recently seen.

51

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy