| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Posts: 2
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 6:47 am
Post subject: The concept of equivalence |
 |
|
Hey,
I’m not quite sure whether this is the right section for my questions, but I hope it’s okay.
At the moment, I’m dealing with the concept of equivalence. I’m trying to classify the supporters of this notion into two categories: those who adopt a more cultural and those who adopt a more linguistic approach towards this concept. However, I’m struggling. The people in question are: Vinay & Darbelnet, Jakobson, Nida, Newmark, Baker, House and Catford (if you know more, you are encouraged to tell me  ). Anyway, Vinay & Darbelnet + Jakobson have clearly linguistic approaches, whereas House and Baker have cultural ones (Newmark also cultural?). But what about the others, as far as I have read, some classify Nida’s as linguistic, others as cultural. And then, some people argue that Catford adopts a more linguistic approach (which would mean he is more for a linguistic strategy -> isn’t he?), but others say that it’s a mixture between the two. Could anyone help me with this classification?
Another problem is why scholars think/thought that equivalence was an important concept for translation. So far, I’ve found that this notion developed because of the development in machine translation and the role it played in language teaching methodology (where grammar translation and equivalents for vocabulary items were taught). Do you know a few other reasons (maybe more plausible or obvious?)? I really find it difficult finding exact statements because most scholars simply define their concept of equivalence (e.g. dynamic, formal, ...), but do not state why it's important (they just state it's the traditional goal of translation -> but why???). What is the advantage of the concept (in light of the fact that almost all of the scholars admit that equivalence is only possible to a certain extent and that there has been lots of criticism of virtually every approach to equivalence (e.g. dynamic -> how can we be sure that the translation has the same effect on all readers? does not every translation has a different effect on each person simply because we're all individuals?)).
And my last question has to do with the notion of equivalence today. I’ve read lots of essays which maintain that this concept is still of importance today, whereas in several books (newer ones) it is stated that the concept is somewhat outdated (because it is illusionary and it cannot really be achieved in practical translation) and is slowly being replaced by other approaches, like Toury’s norms or Even-Zohar’s polysystem. What is true (I do think the notion is kind of outdated, but how can I prove this?)? But on the other hand, I think it is still of importance for machine translation, simply because a computer, unlike a human being, cannot (or only to a certain extent) distinguish between different contexts and therefore has to rely on 1:1 equivalents between two languages (it is certainly a bit more complex than this, but it’s just a simplification).
Can anyone shed light on my questions and help me? I’d really appreciate this. Thanks a lot.
If you have further questions about what I mean with certain things, please do not hesitate to ask me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 1105
Location: Cadiz (Spain) |
Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 6:05 am
Post subject: |
|
|
I am no expert in translation, and so I can't be too relevant in this posting. However, call it translation or equivalence, the fact is that we are able to read (and classify, thereafter) authors which we are unable to read in their original texts, Russian, Afghanistan, Chinese or whatever.
The trouble is that translations or equivalences, become dated after a certain (short) period of time, while originals last longer unchanged by new editions.
Furthermore, from a pragmatician's perspective, we have to take account of the following interpreting steps:
(1) The speaker has a certain quantity of private thoughts couched in different types of mental representations which are, in a sense, a personal interpretation of her environment.
(2) To make them public, the speaker has to interpret her thoughts putting them, as it were, in constructions of a given natural language, hoping that they may become manifest to others.
(3) The interlocutors have to interpret the expressions that result from (2) in order to make sense of them. Now, if we suppose further that one of these interlocutors is a translator,
(3) She has to interpret the result of (3) to put it into another natural language.
(4) Which the new interlocutor has to interpret in order to make some sense out of it.
Counting the number of interpretations in that sketchy process, we see that there are at least five such interpretations.
The interesting thing is not whether a translation or equivalence is perfect (1:1 as you say). We all know that after so many interpretations, the interpreted picture MUST change. What is really interesting is why, after so many interpretations we are able to read, say, Dostoiewski, and know how he differs from Tolstoi, without knowing a blasted word of Russian.
Now, you say:
Quote:
... a computer, unlike a human being, cannot (or only to a certain extent) distinguish between different contexts and therefore has to rely on 1:1 equivalents between two languages (it is certainly a bit more complex than this, but it’s just a simplification).
According to my own interpretation, I don't think humans are full of given contexts they may retrieve when needed. I believe, instead, that what we have is/are a lot of interconnected perceptors which interact with lots of internalized information that was received, either ready-made in birth, or has been acquired thereafter by experience. When we interpret an expression, we use our coded knowledge of the language used to extract its meaning and then we use it, along many other information available as indexes that have to be processed by inferencing rules in order to get its sense.
I don't know whether present day computers are able to do such a complicated number of operations, but I would not affirm that computers are, by their own nature, unable to be programmed to achieve them (in the future, perhaps). The only thing we have to get clear is what the crucial processes involved really are, and certainly the translation one, although, important, is by far not the only or even the crucial one. So we don't need to strive to get an impossible 1:1 equivalence. This, instead, is what is really IMPOSSIBLE to achieve now or ever using natural languages which, by nature, always under-determine the sense we normally extract from our communicative acts.
_________________
JLG
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=w_oc_AqqqEk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joined: 30 Aug 2009
Posts: 767
Location: U.S. |
Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 9:42 am
Post subject: |
|
|
Guijarro wrote:
I am no expert in translation, and so I can't be too relevant in this posting. However, call it translation or equivalence, the fact is that we are able to read (and classify, thereafter) authors which we are unable to read in their original texts, Russian, Afghanistan, Chinese or whatever.
The trouble is that translations or equivalences, become dated after a certain (short) period of time, while originals last longer unchanged by new editions.
Furthermore, from a pragmatician's perspective, we have to take account of the following interpreting steps:
(1) The speaker has a certain quantity of private thoughts couched in different types of mental representations which are, in a sense, a personal interpretation of her environment.
(2) To make them public, the speaker has to interpret her thoughts putting them, as it were, in constructions of a given natural language, hoping that they may become manifest to others.
(3) The interlocutors have to interpret the expressions that result from (2) in order to make sense of them. Now, if we suppose further that one of these interlocutors is a translator,
(3) She has to interpret the result of (3) to put it into another natural language.
(4) Which the new interlocutor has to interpret in order to make some sense out of it.
Counting the number of interpretations in that sketchy process, we see that there are at least five such interpretations.
The interesting thing is not whether a translation or equivalence is perfect (1:1 as you say). We all know that after so many interpretations, the interpreted picture MUST change. What is really interesting is why, after so many interpretations we are able to read, say, Dostoiewski, and know how he differs from Tolstoi, without knowing a blasted word of Russian.
Well done. All translations of serious works are highly flawed. They can be works of art in their own right, depending on the quality of the new writer, but they cannot represent the original faithfully, because it is not possible. I have read many works in translation, and I am surprised that many people mistakenly believe that translations can be a perfect rerendering of the original. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 1105
Location: Cadiz (Spain) |
Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:50 am
Post subject: |
|
|
Nothing in the World is perfect. Alack, alack!
However, if by some reason or other you badly want to read Ibsen, Pramuk, Tagore, Murakami or Kapushinsky, you will have to read them in translation --or learn their original languages which takes a little bit longer. In my youth I was enthusiastic about Russian writers and so, I first read them (in French, German or English translations, because in Spanish it would sound too weird to me), and then decided I wanted to learn their language and re-read them in it. I spent two or three years trying that feat, but I never managed to advance in my linguistic knowledge.
Tchort znaiet chto eto otcheni trudno!!
On the other hand, a highly praised Spanish philosopher and writer of the beginning of the 20th century, Miguel de Unamuno, once wrote that he was going to read Don Quichotte in English so that he would not be taken away by the beauty of the Spanish expression of Cervantes.
So, maybe, if we allow him some reason, when we read some works in their original language we may get lost by the marvellous mastery of the author's writing.
To sum up. Have I read Tolstoi, Gogol, Dostoiewski, etc. or have I?
"That is the question" (Hamlet).
_________________
JLG
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=w_oc_AqqqEk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joined: 30 Aug 2009
Posts: 767
Location: U.S. |
Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:30 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
Guijarro wrote:
when we read some works in their original language we may get lost by the marvellous mastery of the author's writing.
That is the goal, is it not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 1105
Location: Cadiz (Spain) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Posts: 2
|
Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 3:40 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
Hey,
wow, first of all, thanks a lot for your responses .
I've come up with a few answers to my questions. About the classification, I found that Nida's and Catford's approaches are generally regarded as linguistic ones.
Okay, sure, the traditional goal of translators was to achieve equivalence between ST and TT. But this is almost always impossible since the two languages differ not only in terms of their linguistic, but also their cultural aspects. And as you've already pointed out, a translator is only a human being and therefore interprets the ST in his own way, just as the translation will have a different effect on its readers simply because they are also individuals with their own understanding and knowledge, ... Am I right so far?
The reason why early translation theorists emphasized equivalence was then probably just because they wanted to create a TT that was as "faithful" and "similar/equivalent" to the ST as possible (that belief probably comes from Bible translation where the translators had to defend themselves for not translating word-for-word (which simply wouldn't make sense in many cases), doesn't it?). And this relationship between ST and TT was called "equivalence" then to emphasize that ST and TT have the same "meaning" and that the translator is doing his work "properly". But during their "research" (can't think of any other word), the theorists discovered that equivalence (not matter which kind, be it dynamic -> how can one make sure that individuals interpret the TT differently if even the ST has a different impact on the ST readers, ...) is unachievable or at least only to a certain extent.
So the term "equivalence" "changed" to "approximation" to state that "total equivalence" is nearly impossible and due to the different languages, it can only be called "approximation".
Is there anything else I forgot about why scholars thought that equivalence was a useful term and therefore many used it in their theories?
And as for my last question: From what I've noticed, there is no longer so much "fuss" about the notion. So can I assume that people have come to the conclusion that the whole debate about equivalence is circular and does not help translators in practice and is therefore not so important anymore and other "newer" theories are more attractive, like Toury's norms and Even-Zohar's polysystem?
And generally: What did the whole debate about "equivalence" bring about -> apart from the fact that languages are clearly not identical? Was it useless or useful? And to what extent?
I hope some of you can answer a few/or if possible all of my questions (I know, I'm sorry, it's a little bit longer/more than I expected).
Thanks a lot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
