Natural and directional equivalence in theories of translation
Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain
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.
At one stage in the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson, a photo was shown of backyard at night, with the killer’s footsteps visible in the moonlit dew. A Charlie-Chan detective then scrutinized the photograph. Over there, more dimly in the dew, he saw another set of footsteps. Two paths, not one. So which footsteps were the killer’s? And for that matter, who took the photo, and how did they get there?[ p. 272 ]
1978 “Self-reference and translation”. F. Guenther and M. Guenther-Reutter, eds. Meaning and translation: Philosophical and linguistic approaches. London: Duckworth 1978 137–153.
1978 “Falsche und richtige Fragenstellungen in der Übersetzungstheorie”. Lillebill Grähs, Gustav Korlén and Bertil Malmberg, eds Theory and practice of translation. Bern, Frankfurt a.M. and Las Vegas: Peter Lang 1978 17–32.
1997Translation and language: Linguistic theories explained. Manchester: St Jerome.
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.
1987Übersetzung und Linguistik. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Original title: Perevod i Lingvistika 1973.
1988Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.
1994 “Peirce’s semiotics for translation”. Yves Gambier and Mary Snell-Hornby, eds. Problemi e tendenze nella didattica dell’ interpretazione e della traduzione / Problems and trends in the teaching of interpreting and translation. Koiné 4 (Misano Adriatico) 1994 161–180.
1980In search of a theory of translation. Tel Aviv: Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.
1995Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
1977Introducción a la traductología. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.