Levels of equivalence

Equivalence may occur at different linguistic levels: phonetic, word building, morphological, at word level, at phrase level, at sentence level and finally at text level.

Phonetic level of Equivalence

The sound form of corresponding English and Russian words seldom coincide, consequently this level of equivalence is not common and is of primary importance only in poetic translation.

Word-building Level of Equivalence

e.g.: irresponsible – безответственный; unpredictable – непредсказуемый; counterbalance – противовес, еtс.

Morphological Level of Equivalence

e.g.: The report’s proposals were handed to a political committee.

Предложения доклада были переданы политическому комитету.

Equivalence at Word Level

e.g.: She clasped her hands round her handbag. (Agatha Christie).

Она крепко сжала в руках свою сумочку.

Equivalence of Phrase Level

Equivalence at phrase level is of two kinds: a SL word corresponds to a TL phrase (to negotiate – вести переговоры), a SL phrase corresponds to a TL word (Hippies are in revolt against an acquisitive society. – Хиппи восстают против потребительского общества).

Equivalence at Sentence Level

It occurs: a) in phraseology – two is company, three is none – третий лишний; b) in orders and regulations – keep off the grass – по газону не ходить.

Equivalence at Text Level

It is usual in the translation of poetry as seen in the translation of William Blake’s stanza by S. Marshak.

1. To see a World in a Grain of Sand,

2. And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,

3. Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand,

4. And Eternity in an hour. (W. Blake, Auguries of Innocence)

4. В одно мгновенье видеть вечность,

1. Огромный мир – в зерне песка,

3. В единой горсти – бесконечность

2. И небо – в чашечке цветка.

The translation by S.Marshak may be regarded as excellent. The text as a unity is reproduced most fully and this conception of unity justifies the change in the order of the lines within the stanza.

A strict observance of equivalence at all levels ensures a similar reaction on the part of the S and T language receptors and can be achieved by means of functional substitutions.

IV. Translation Theory as a Theory of Transformations

The process of translation is an inter language transformation, it is the transformation of a text written in one language into the text written in another.

Linguistic theory of translation aims at constructing a definite translation process model, some scientific scheme, which more or less exactly reflects the existing issues of the given process.

Translation theory (TT) is not called upon considering every single correlation between the texts of SL and TL, but only the routine, typical correlations, repeated on a regular basis. But apart from these phenomena in comparative analysis of both texts, usually a great many correlations or relations emerge — single and irregular, peculiar for a specific case.

These “irregular” correlations represent the most embarrassing complications in the translation practice. In the ability to find individual variants, single and “not foreseen” by the theory, there is a creative character of interpretation activity. On the other hand, in the development of the TT many phenomena of the kind, that at first are considered as individual and irregular, gradually “blend” into a general picture, obtain explanation and are included into the objective consideration of the TT. In other words, the same way as in any other science, the translation process consists, specifically, of the fact, that behind the multitudes of the imaginary, fictitious exceptions and irregularities some regularity, pattern, rule, some general conformity to natural laws, which controls them and determines their character are gradually revealed. Therefore the translation process may be regarded as an art and just mechanical arts, mere occupation and handicraft.

In TT we have to define the basic thing: on what grounds do we think that a target text is an equivalent to the original text? For example, what gives us a grounds to say, that the sentence „Мій брат живе в Полтаві.“ is a translation of the English sentence “My brother lives in Poltava”, but at the same time, the sentence “I study at the University” is not a translation of the English sentence mentioned above, — in other words, it is not equivalent to it? Still, by analogy, we dare say that the sentence „Між молотом та ковадлом“ is the same as “Between the rock and hard place” or „Великому кораблю велике плавання“ is the same as “A big dog is a big dog”. Probably, not every replacement of the text in one language by the text in another one will be a translation. The same idea can be expressed in another way: a translation process or inter language transformation takes place not at will, it is not arbitrary, but according to certain rules, within strictly definite frames, and if we exceed them, we have no right to say about translation. Apart from the word “adequate” other synonyms as “correct, exact, right, equivalent”, etc., are used in scientific literature. Translation is the process of transformation of any spoken or written text in one language into the text in another preserving invariable, unchanged meaning of the text. Still, we may talk about the invariable or unchanged meaning or content, its safety and maintenance only in a relative, not absolute sense. During language transformation (as well as during any other transformation) inevitable losses take place, i.e. the full translation of meanings, expressed in original text is impossible. Hence, sometimes a translated text can not be totally and absolutely equivalent to the original one. The task of a translator is to try and do the best to make this equivalence more precise and allow minimum losses.

We should keep in mind that in the translation the most essential thing is the equivalence of the meanings, and not of isolated words or even isolated sentences, the equivalence of the entire text translated.

To support the idea let us take two examples. In the story of the well-known English writer Somerset M. “A Casual Affair” there is such a sentence:

He’d always been so spruce and smart; he was shabby and unwashed and wild-eyed.

In Russian translation this passage sounds like that:

Раніше він був таким чепуруном, таким ошатним. А тепер блукав по вулицях Сінгапура брудний, жалюгідний, з диким поглядом. (пер. М. Литвинової)

At the first sight the Ukrainian text seems not quite equivalent to the English one: here we encounter such words as „раніш, тепер, блукав по вулицях Сінгапуру“, which have no direct equivalents in the original text.

But in fact the semantic equivalence is precisely preserved and well-kept here, though the vocabulary equivalence, the word equivalence is absent.

The issue is that the Ukrainian words „раніш“ and „а тепер“ convey here the meanings, which in the English text are expressed not by mere words, but through grammatical forms: opposition of verb forms to be — had been and was expressing antecedence of the first event or action to the second one, which in Ukrainian are expressed by lexical means, with the help of the adverbs of time. So, some grammatical forms in one language are expressed through lexical means in another.

In the story of the American writer Harper Lee “To Kill a Mockingbird” there is such a sentence:

“Mr. Raymond sat up against the tree-trunk”.

In Ukrainian it sounds as follows:

„Містер Реймонд сів і притулився до дуба“.

In the translation there is a word „притулився“, which is absent in the original text, the English adverb “up“ in the phrasal verb sat up indicates the fact, that the subject of the verb, assumed a sitting position after lying (compare: sat down) when in the Ukrainian sentence this information is absent. The English word “tree-trunk“ does not mean “an oak“ but „стовбур дерева“. From the previous sentence it is clear, that he had been in a lying position under the oak.

Semantic equivalence may not exist between separate elements of these texts, but between the texts as a whole. Besides, in the text itself multiple regroupings, transpositions and redistribution of separate meaningful elements not only admissible, but are frequently inevitable.