Problems of Equivalence and Untranslatability in Translation

Expanded Definition of Equivalence

Core Concept: Equivalence is the idea that a translation should convey the same meaning and impact on the target audience as the original text had on the source audience.

Complex Process: Achieving true equivalence is not a simple word-swap; it requires the translator to navigate complex linguistic, cultural, and contextual factors to ensure the source text is faithfully represented.

Deepening Nida’s Equivalence Theory

Dynamic Equivalence (Equivalent Effect): Eugene Nida, a noted Bible translator, argued that the relationship between the receptor and the message should be substantially the same as that between the original receptors and the message. This approach prioritizes meaning first and style second, often adapting sentence structures and wording to ensure the translation feels natural to the new audience.

Formal Equivalence (Gloss Translation): This focuses strictly on the message's form and content, aiming for a "gloss translation" that stays as close as possible to the source structure (e.g., concept-to-concept or sentence-to-sentence) so the reader can understand the original context.

Popovič’s Technical Definitions of Equivalence

Linguistic Equivalence: Homogeneity on the linguistic level, typically resulting in word-for-word translation.

Paradigmatic Equivalence: Equivalence of grammatical elements, which Popovič considers a higher category than mere lexical (word) matching.

Stylistic (Translational) Equivalence: A functional equivalence aimed at creating an "expressive identity" between texts while maintaining a core of identical meaning.

Textual (Syntagmatic) Equivalence: Equivalence found in the structuring, form, and shape of the text.

Neubert’s Semiotic Hierarchy

Equivalence as a Semiotic Category: Albrecht Neubert suggests that equivalence is a sign system consisting of three hierarchical components:

Semantic Equivalence: This takes top priority as it deals with the core meaning.

Syntactic Equivalence: Deals with sentence structure.

Pragmatic Equivalence: This conditions and modifies the other two elements, as it focuses on how signs are used by people in a specific culture (e.g., matching the "shock value" of a curse word rather than its literal meaning).

Jakobson’s "Inevitability of Loss"

No Full Equivalence: Roman Jakobson argues that "ordinarily there is no full equivalence through translation" because messages are interpretations, not exact copies.

Connotation Gaps: Even apparent synonyms (like "perfect" and "ideal") are not truly equivalent because every word carries unique, non-transferable associations and connotations.

Creative Transposition: Because complete equivalence is impossible in poetry, Jakobson claims that only "creative transposition"—essentially a creative recreation of the text—is possible.

Extra-Linguistic Criteria (Bassnett and the "Butter" Example)

Associative Fields: Susan Bassnett emphasizes that translation belongs to semiotics and must account for "extra-linguistic criteria".

Cultural Perception: A word like "butter" and the Italian "burro" may refer to the same dairy product, but they lack true equivalence because their cultural "weight" differs: in Britain, butter is a high-status food for spreading, whereas in Italy, it is primarily a functional ingredient for cooking.

The Invariant Core and the Rejection of "Sameness"

The Invariant Core: Popovič notes that while twelve different translators will produce twelve different versions of a poem, they will all share an "invariant core" of stable, basic semantic elements.

Equivalence ≠ Sameness: Scholars argue that equivalence should not be approached as a search for "sameness," as true sameness cannot even exist between two different translations of the same text in the same language.