On Translation Equivalence(2)

ⅣA Few Reflections on Translation Equivalence

As mentioned previously in this short essay, “equivalence” and “equivalent” are, in my mind, two interrelated abstract concepts in translation. Besides, “translation” under discussion here is also an abstract concept, in contrast to the concrete act of “translating”. On further reflection, this writer found it seems possible to understand and analyse the concept of equivalence in some new way, which this writer ventures hereby to make a tentative account here.

To start with, translating, corresponding with translation, involves four major parameters (among many others), viz. the source text, the translator, the reader and the target text to be produced (which we had better distinguish from the target text that is already produced when we talk about translation instead of translating), each usually resolving into many, even inexhaustible, factors or variables that may exercise different effects on the act of translating. To be specific, the source text, for example, demands adequate consideration of its style, language (i.e. the SL), time of being written, the SL culture and so on, while the target text to be produced draws the translator’s attention to its language (i.e. the TL), the TL culture and the like; the translator has his or her particular purpose and psychology, a unique and habitual style of writing and other characteristics that vary from person to person, while the reader may be classified into several types according to different scales such as the reader’s education level, sex and age.

Secondly, the discussion here mainly focuses on the source language and culture vs. the target language and culture. As regards the relationship between language and culture, it may be concisely summarized in three statements, viz. “…language expresses cultural reality.”, “…language embodies cultural reality.”, and “…language symbolizes cultural reality.” (Kramsch 2000: 3) It follows that, translating, the rendering from one language into another, is confronted with the problem, or rather, the aim or goal, of restoring the source cultural reality embodied in the source language in the target language that usually, if not always, symbolizes the cultural reality specific to the target language. In other words, the target language is entrusted to express the cultural reality specific to the source language, which speaks of why the process of translating is so notorious for its complexity and tortuousness in the first place. Here one question recommends itself —— Whether, or to what degree, the target language is reliable or qualified to be entrusted this task of symbolizing the cultural reality that is foreign to itself in different degrees (i.e. doing something that it usually does not do, or playing a brand-new role), which is another way of articulating the disputable issue of translatability or the equally arguable concept of equivalence, the subject-matter of our concern here.

Thirdly, concerning the question mentioned above, another topic subject to fierce controversy arises, viz. the theory of linguistic relativity, which immediately reminds us of the famous Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. As we know, the strong version of this hypothesis that language determines thought ( and which could easily give rise to prejudice and racism ) cannot be taken seriously while the weak version has been generally accepted. In other words, we may say language and thought are interdependent. Another note-worthy point here is the assumption that any language possesses the necessary resources for the speaker to express anything that he or she wants to say in that language. Then, on the understanding that human thoughts can be exchanged, we may draw a conclusion that any thought in the source language could be finally expressed in the target language. It follows naturally that, when the thought voiced in the source language gets across to the reader (who, of course, makes it by means of the target language), we may say equivalence in its abstract sense is achieved. Hence the next part of my way of understanding equivalence.

Fourthly, equivalence, in my mind, is an abstract concept here and might fall into three categories that are in accordance with the dynamic development of cultural exchanges. A tentative and descriptive exposition goes as follows:

ⅰ Equivalence before Translating

The first category is equivalence before translating, which means the kind of equivalence possible to be attained when the target text is not produced yet. It may be considered as the aim or goal of the translator who leaves no stone unturned in his pursuit of a successful transmission of the truth of the source text from the SL to the TL. If the whole process of translating could be compared to a telephone call with the translator being the operator, this kind of equivalence might be said to be still at one end of a telephone line where the truth of the ST lies.

ⅱ Equivalence in Translating

The second category occurs when the target text is just produced. At this stage, the truth of the ST has reached the translator who has put it in the target language. However, the truth, whether it has been fully encoded in the target language or not, may still be not fully understood by, or even unavailable to, the reader. In terms of the analogy of a telephone call, the message has not reached the other end of the line though the operator has performed the role of putting it through. In this case, we might say equivalence stays with the translator, but not necessarily with the reader.

ⅲ Equivalence after Translating

The third category of equivalence entails time since translation is, in essence, an activity of cultural exchange that cannot be effectuated immediately in many cases due to the cultural differences and other factors. Anyhow, as more and more cultural exchanges take place and develop further, the message that was once held up finally finds its way to the reader when equivalence, we may say, is achieved at last. In other words, equivalence of this category might be more attributable to the cultural exchange activities outside the scope of translation than to the very act of translating.

Take a simple example of the translating of such a culture-specific Chinese word “旗袍” into the English language. Suppose this translating took place decades ago and the English-speaking reader had no idea about what “旗袍” was. The translator would put it into “qipao” as an English equivalent by means of Zero Translation (transliteration in this case) owing to the difference of the material culture between the Chinese and English-speaking people. Here the equivalence between “旗袍” and “qipao” comes under the second category mentioned above since the reader might still have a very vague idea of what “旗袍” was even after reading a possible footnote. However, nowadays, we may rest assured that the English-speaking people know well about what “qipao” is as they have been very familiar with this kind of Chinese dress thanks to the frequent and in-depth cultural exchanges or other factors such as the advancement of human science and technology. So it sometimes takes time and other activities outside the scope of translation, in addition to the act of translating, to drive home to the reader the truth of the ST such as “旗袍”. (By the way, the translation works proper help to promote cultural exchanges.) Until at this stage could we say equivalence, i.e. the third category under discussion, is fully achieved.

ⅤConclusion

Reflection on equivalence in translation helps to deepen our understanding of the nature of translation. Equivalence, constructed at the abstract level, is thus a rather necessary and important term in the field of translation studies. Theoretically, equivalence is attainable; and equivalence usually takes the form of different sub-categories that are realized at different layers or aspects of translation, which is why this term usually goes together with a modifier. Certainly, nothing but the abundant practice of translating and the study of the concrete problems occurring in translation would suffice for a theory relating to equivalence. All in all, equivalence is at least a functional and effective term for us to describe and analyze translation or to tolerate the fierce controversy in this field and find a way out of the awkward dilemmas in the practical translating that would otherwise keep unresolved. To put it another way, the theory on equivalence actually did, do or will do offer us a theoretical basis to verify the variety of translation methods adopted.

Bibliography

[1]Baker Mona. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. [M] Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Routledge, 2000.

[2]Kramsch Claire. Language and Culture. [M] Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.

[3]Newmark Peter. A Textbook of Translation. [M] Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.

[4]Nida Eugene A.. Language and Culture: Contexts in Translating. [M] Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.

[5]刘重德 编著.《文学翻译十讲》[M]. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司, 1991.

[6]邱懋如 编.《翻译学论文选》[M].上海：上海外国语大学英语学院, 2000.