Article published in:The Metalanguage of Translation
Edited by Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer
[Target 19:2] 2007
► pp. 271–294
Natural and directional equivalence in theories of translation
Equivalence was a key word in the linguistics-based translation theories of the 1960s and 1970s, although its basic mode of thought may be traced back to Cicero and later to the Renaissance theories that began to presuppose languages of equal status. Close inspection reveals that some theories assume pre-existing equivalents and are thus concerned with a search for “natural” equivalence. Other theories allow that translators actively create equivalents, and are thus concerned with “directional” equivalence. The first kind of equivalence is concerned with what languages ideally do prior to translation; the other deals with what they can do. These two approaches are often intertwined, giving rise to many misunderstandings and unfair criticisms of the underlying concept. The historical undoing of the equivalence paradigm came when the directional use of the term allowed that equivalence need be no more a belief or expectation at the moment of reception, which need not be substantiated on the level of linguistic forms. At the same time, source texts became less stable and languages have been returning to more visibly hierarchical relations, further undermining the concept. Contemporary localization projects may nevertheless fruitfully be interrogated from the perspective of natural and directional equivalence, since the presumptions are being used by contemporary technology precisely at the moment when the terms themselves have been dropped from critical and exploratory metalanguage.
Keywords: directional equivalence, lexical semantics, localization, natural equivalence, relevance theory, translation strategies, types of equivalence
Published online: 18 January 2008
Catford, John C.
Fedorov, Andrei V.
Grice, H. Paul
Malone, Joseph L.
Nida, Eugene A.
Nida, Eugene A. and Charles R. Taber
Oettinger, Anthony G.
Retsker, Yakob I.
Saussure, Ferdinand de
1813 “Ueber die verschiedenen Methoden des Uebersezens”. Reprinted in Hans Joachim Störig, ed. Das Problem des Übersetzens. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1963 38–70. Tr. Douglas Robinson as “On the different methods of translating”. Douglas Robinson, ed. Western translation theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche. Manchester: St Jerome 1997 225–238.
Shveitser, Aleksandr D.
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson
Vinay, Jean-Paul and Jean Darbelnet
Cited by 22 other publications
No author info given
Budzanowska-Drzewiecka, Małgorzata & Marta Tutko
Cheng, Le, Mingyu Gong & Jian Li
Chidlow, Agnieszka, Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki & Catherine Welch
Henthorne, Tony L., Alvin J. Williams & Babu P. George
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A. & Nitish Singh
Luza, Armando & Mario Samaniego
Pardo, Betlem Soler & Duncan Wheeler
Sin, King Kui
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 april 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.