EQUIVALENCE THEORIES IN TRANSLATION PRACTICE - Scientific conference
Main page
UA RU EN

Congratulation from Internet Conference!

Hello

Рік заснування видання - 2014

EQUIVALENCE THEORIES IN TRANSLATION PRACTICE

26.10.2023 15:35

[8. Philological sciences]

Author: Dariia Oleksandrivna Vernyhora, student, State University of Trade and Economics


Translation is a complex and intricate process. Different texts, languages, cultures, and translation objectives require different approaches to achieve meaningful and effective communication. Equivalence theories, developed by different translators and language experts over centuries, now provide a very valuable guidance for translators researchers in the field of translation. Essentially, these theories provide principles to delineate the various approaches that translators employ when confronted with the task of translating one language into another, enabling them to make more informed decisions.

In the modern world, one of the most widely recognised theories of equivalence distinguishes between literal (word-for-word) translation and free (sense-for-sense) translation.This theory is believed to have originated with the ancient Roman orator, politician, philosopher and writer Cicero, who discerned the distinction between translating as an interpreter and as a public speaker. [2]

Cicero strived for equivalence in terms of ideas and forms, emphasizing that he did not engage in word-for-word translation. Instead, his aim was to capture the essence and eloquence of the original speeches in the target language.

Cicero's approach to translation can indeed be described as "sense-for-sense" because he primarily dealt with translating public speeches of famous and eloquent orators. As he mentioned in one of his works, Cicero aimed to preserve the sense, ideas, and eloquence of the original speeches during translation.

Conversely, there were translators who worked with a broader range of languages and texts, which were not necessarily elite or eloquent speeches. In these cases, a more "word-for-word" approach might have been necessary to accurately convey the content, even if it sacrificed some of the eloquence of the original.

According to Juliane House, a German linguist and translation expert, the opposition between the two types can be found not only in European practice, but in Chinese and Arabic translation traditions as well. 

Although the concept is widely accepted, sometimes there isn’t always a clear distinction between the two types, as the perceptions of what is “free” and what is “literal” may differ. 

The concept of foreignization and domestication was first introduced by the German theologian and translator Friedrich Schleiermacher. In his works he presented the idea of the opposition of these processes: foreignizing (verfremdend) and domesticating (verdeutschend). [2]

In the modern approach these types are usually described as follows:

● Foreignization refers to the adjusting the text while preserving some of the foreign elements from the original

● Domestication involves making the foreign text more familiar to readers of the target language [3, p 77]

Another theory that gained popularity in the mid-20th century, particularly during the 1950s and 1960s, is Eugene Nida’s and Charles Taber’s view of translation. It discerns two types of equivalence: formal and dynamic.

In the case of formal equivalence, the translation aims to maintain the structural and linguistic elements of the original text as closely as possible. In contrast, dynamic equivalence means that the focus of the translation is on conveying the meaning of the original text. This approach may involve more flexibility in terms of form and structure to ensure that the translation effectively communicates the intended message to the target audience. [1, p 2]

It could be argued that this classification closely resembles the opposition between literal and free translation. 

In summary, there are various approaches to characterizing the intricate process of translation. Each of these approaches provides valuable insights into the science of translation, empowering translators to make informed decisions. These theories have significantly contributed to the development of the field and are recognized to be extremely important in the area of translation.

References:

1. Despoina Panou. “Equivalence in Translation Theories: A Critical Evaluation”. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2013. 3(1), 1-6. doi:10.4304/tpls.3.1.1-6.

2. Pym, Anthony. "Exploration of Translation Theories". Taylor & Francis, 2023. Retrieved 25 October 2023 form: https://books.google.com.ua/books?hl=uk&lr=&id=T3y6EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT6&dq=key+translation+theories&ots=hr7KhfwMFx&sig=DZYGUpYUWi8FSFz4Ne-WdeZghGA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=key%20translation%20theories&f=false

3. Wenfen Yang. Brief Study on Domestication and Foreignization in Translation. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2010. 1(1), 77-80. doi:10.4304/jltr.1.1.77-80.



Creative Commons Attribution Ця робота ліцензується відповідно до Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
допомога Знайшли помилку? Виділіть помилковий текст мишкою і натисніть Ctrl + Enter

Another articles in this section

Сonferences

Conference 2024

Conference 2023

Conference 2022

Conference 2021

Conference 2020

Conference 2019

Conference 2018

Conference 2017

Conference 2016

Conference 2015

Conference 2014

:: LEX-LINE :: Юридична лінія

Міжнародна інтернет-конференція з економіки, інформаційних систем і технологій, психології та педагогіки

Наукові конференції

Економіко-правові дискусії. Спільнота