Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Vladimir Ivir
Poetics Today, Vol. 2, No. 4, Translation Theory and Intercultural Relations. (Summer - Autumn,
1981), pp. 51-59.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0333-5372%28198122%2F23%292%3A4%3C51%3AFCVTER%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/duke.html.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
http://www.jstor.org
Mon Feb 4 17:42:17 2008
FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE VS.
TRANSLATION EQUIVALENCE REVISITED
V L A D I M I R IVIR
English. Zagreb
The two concepts which feature in the title of the present paper belong to two
dillerent. though (as will he shown) hy n o means unrelated. activities. Formal
correspondence is a term used in contrastive analvsis. while translation
c.quivalence helongs to the metalanguage of translation. In principle, perhaps,
the two terrns could be discussed separately in their two disciplines, and i t is
indeed possible to irnagine a theorv of translation which would operate with the
concept of equivalence defined without reference to farrnal correspondence, just
as i t is possible to irnagine contrastive analysis which would rely on the concept of
correspondence established without the use of translation. I n practice, however,
hoth terms have heen found necessary by students of translation and hy
contrastive analysts.
Issues that are raised i n connection with forrnal correspondence and
translation equivalence are certainly more than just terminological: a discussion
of formal correspondence in translation concerns the role of linguistic units i n
translation and the place of linguistics in translation theorv. while a discussion of
translation equivalence in contrastive analysis concerns the role of translation in
contrastive work. The relationship between them has heen discussed by Catford
(1965) frorn the point of view of translation theory and hy Marton (IO6X), Tvir
(1969. 1070). Krzeszowski (1971. 1072). Raahe (1972) from the point of view of
contrastive analysis.
The present paper will look at each of the two conceptsfroni both ends and try
to show whv hoth are needed in translation and in contrastive analysis.
I
Our understanding of the concept of translation equivalence will depend on the
view we take of translation itself. 1,ooking at translation as a result or product,
faced with two texts one of which is a translation of the other, we rnight he
tempted to conclude that translation is "the rcplacernent of textual material in
one language (SI,) by equivalent textual material in another language (TI,)"
Poer~cs Today, Vol. 2 4 (1981). 51-59
52 VLADIMIR IVIR
(Catford. Ic)65:20) or Inore generally that it is " t h e rendition o f a text frorn one
language t o another" (Rolinger, 1966: 130). Equivalence would then exist
between texts - i.e.. it would hold together chunks o f textual rnaterial or
linguistic units (texts being simply linguistic units o f a higher order than the
smaller units which compose thern). This is a static view both o f translation and
o f equivalence: pushed t o its extreme. i t forces the conclusion that for anv
linguistic unit (text or portion o f a t e x t ) in the source language there is an
equivalent unit in the target languageand that it is the translator's job t o find that
unit. Hence the search for different textual types and their characteristics in
different languages.
Another picture o f translation and translation equivalence is obtained when a
dynamic view is taken and translation is regarded as a process rather than as a
result. O n e then speaks about substituting messages in one language for
rnessages in sorne other language (Jakohson. 1959: 235). ahout "reproducing in
the receptor language the-closest natural equivalent o f the rnessageof the source
language" (Nida. 1960: 40.5). or about " t h e nature o f dynamic equivalence in
translating" (Nida, 1077).
This latter view o f translation is the communicative view. and it sees
translation equivalence not as a static relationship between pairs o f texts in
different languages hut rather as a product o f the dvnarnic process o f
communication between the sender o f the original message and the ultirnate
receivers o f the translated message via the translator. who is the receiver o f the
original rnessage and the sender o f the translated message. Messages are
configurations o f extralinguistic features cornrnunicated in a given situation. T h e
original sender starts f r o m these features and - relying on the resources o f his
language, on his corn~nando f that language, and on his assessment o f the nature
o f the sociolinguistic relationship between hirn and his (actual or potential)
receivers - codes t h e m t o produce the source text. T h e coded rnessage (source
t e x t ) reaches the translator through the (spatio-temporal) channel o f
cornrnunication. H e decodes i t and receives the original sender's message. which
he then proceeds t o code again in the target language. relying on the resourcesof
that language. on his command o f that language. and on his assessment o f his
relation to the ultirnate receivers.
Under this view, what is held constant (i.e., equivalent) are not texts but rather
messages. and it is messages that the participants return to at every step in the
process o f communication. T h e translator, in particular, does not proceed
directlv from the source text to the target text: rather. he goes from the source
text hack t o that configuration o f extralinguistic features which the original
sender has tried t o communicate as his message and having arrived there he
codes that message again, in a new and different communicative situation,
producing a text in the target language for the henefi t o f the ultimate receivers.
Several points must be made in connection with the view o f translation and
equivalence presented here. First. the nature o f the translator's job in receiving
the original sender's rnessage does not essentially d i f f e r f r o m the job o f other
source-language receivers o f that message, and his job in coding the received
FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE VS. EQUIVALENCE 53
lnessage again in the target language is not unlike the task performed by the
original sender (onlv the co~nrnunicativesituation is different, that is, the
translator is a different "linguistic person" than the original sender, he uses a
(iifferentlanguage and codes the message for differentreceivers than the original
sender).
Second. messages are not communicated absolutely. T h e original rnessage
undergoes modifications in the process o f coding (depending on the potential o f
the language, the sender's command o f that language, and the intended
audience), in the process o f transmission (owing to the "noise in the channel"),
and in the process o f decoding (depending on the receiver's command o f the
language and his ability - coming from the shared experiential background -
to grasp the sender's message). Clearly, such modifications also take place when
the translator receives the message, when he codes it again in the target
language. when he transmits the coded rnessage through the channel o f
communication linking him with his receivers, and when the ultimate receivers
decode the translated message. This relativitv o f communication - anv
cnrnrnunication, and not just that involving translation -places the concept o f
equivalence in translation in a new perspective: equivalence holds between
messages (communicated by the original sender, received and translated by the
translator, and received by the i ~ l t i ~ n a treceivers)
e which change as little as
possible and as much as necessarv t o ensure communication. Thus, true
translation is by n o means limited to cornmunicative situations involving two
languages. A n act o f translation takes place each time that a text is produced as a
coded expression o f a particular configuration o f extralinguistic features and is
decoded to enable the receiver to receive the rnessage ( c f .Steiner, 1975: 37).
T h e third point that can be made about translation equivalence follows from
what has just been said: equivalence is a matter o f relational dvna~nicsin a
cc~mniunicativeact - it is realized in that act and has no separate existence
outside i t . ( I t can thus be compared toabstract unitsof the linguisticsystem. such
as phonemes. which do not exist physically outside the speech act in which they
are realized and whose very realization in speech is somewhat differentand is vet
produced and received as the "same" phoneme. O r i t could be compared t o a
person's signature; there is no "ideal" signature o f a given person, and in each
act o f signing it comes out a little differentvisuallv; yet, it is recognized as "same"
as long as the characteristic features are preserved t o ensure its "equivalence"
with any other o f its realizations - allowing for the fact that different
realizations take place in differentcornmunicative situations.)
2
Since translation equivalence is the translator's airn and since it is established at
the level o f messages, in the cornmunicative act, and not at the level o f linguistic
units, it lnay appear that there is no need for the concept o f formal
correspondence in the model o f translation presented here. I will argue further
below that this is not so and that there isa sense in which formal correspondence
holds together the source and target texts. But in order t o demonstrate this, a
54 VLADIMIR IVIR
f o u n d to he Let's take the lift. then the search for the English correspondent of
the Serbo-Croatian i n s t r ~ ~ m e n t acase
l is in vain: the message is structured
clifferently. using a verb which does not accept a means-of-tiansportation
construction. In the case of the sentence Doci ce popodnevrlim vlakom ("He'll
come by the afternoon train") translated as He'll come on the afterrloor1 train, the
preposition on focuses on an aspect of meaning not in the focus of the
Serbo-Croatian instrumental.
In view of what has just heen said, a procedure is needed that will enable the
contrastive analyst to isolate formal correspondents in translationally equivalent
texts. T h e recommended procedure is that of back-translation (Spalatin, IC)67),
which is intended to serve as a check o n the semantic content. Because of its
function. hack-translation, ~ ~ n l i ktranslation
e proper, does not deal with
messages but with formal ling~~istic elements isolated from the target text, which
are then translated hack into the source l a n g ~ ~ a gtoe give the corresponding
linguistic element of that language. Back-translation can thus he defined as
one-to-one structural replacement. This rneans that an element of forrn isolated
from the target language as a likely candidate for a formal correspondent of an
elernent in the source text is translated literally (and only once) hack into the
source language to see i f i t will yield exactly that element whose correspondent it
is thought to be. Thus the translated expression come by train back-translates as
doti ulakot?l and we know that the by-construction is a formal correspondent of
the means-of-transportation instrumental in Serbo-Croatian. But when the
translated sentence He'll cotne or1 the afternoorl train is hack-translated into
Serbo-Croatian, we get Doc'i c'e na popodrlevnom vlaku. which is ~ ~ n d e r s t o obyd
native speakers. correctly. as having an element of meaning that Doc'i cc
popotinrvr~im ulmkot~does not have. hut which they can hardly accept as a
grammatical sentence of Serbo-Croatian. l h e lack of grammaticalness does not
rnatter since we are dealing with s t r u c t ~ ~ rreplacement,
al not translation in the
ordinary sense. What does matter is that the meaning is not q ~ ~ i the t e same,
because in expressing this particular message English reveals an aspect of the
real world which Serbo-Croatian does not.
Is the contrastive analyst to conclude from this that the on-construction is not
to he accepted as the formal correspondent of the means-of-transportation
instrumental (that is. that the establishment of translation equivalence has
necessitated structural changes between the source and target texts involving the
disappearance o f any formal trace of the source-text instrumental)'? The answer
to this question would have been positive if the translator had been free to use
the by-construction but had for some reason failed to use it. But when, as in this
case, the translator could not very well have used it and at the same time ensure
the translational equivalence of messages (because the by-construction would
have been less natural than the instrumental case was in the original and
equivalence would have suffered), the formal element which he did use is
accepted as a correspondent. 'The shift in meaning which it brings ahout and the
exact conditions of its use are precisely what contrastive analysis should
elucidate. A sufficiently large corpus of translationally equivalent texts will
58 VLADIMIR lVlR
3
The preceding section has shown how translation eqilivalence enables the
analyst to isolate formal correspondents which are then contrastively ;inalyzed.
An indication of the actual contrastive procedure has also been given, hut its full
description is outside the scope of the present paper. What remains to be shown
now is how contrastive correspondents (and the results of contrastive analysis)
are used in translation.
It was said above. i n the first section, that the process of translation is
characterized by repeated recursions to the extralinguistic content of messages.
However, the process of translation is also a linguistic process and a strict
separation of message and expression is not possible. For that reason. a graphic
representation of the process of translation would look as follows:
e l t r a l i n g u ~ s t ~message
c
w u r c e text
- - - - - - - -
+ - - - - - -
formal correspondence
- -
- target text
The contrastive pair of formal correspondence links forms the base of the
triangle of communication hy translation and serves as a hasis for the
establishment of translation equivalence. The translator begins his search for
translation equivalence from formal correspondence, and i t is only when the
identical-meaning formal correspondent is either not available or not able to
ensure equivalence that he resorts to formal correspondents with not-quite-
identical meanings or to structural and semantic shifts which destroy formal
correspondence altogether. But even in the latter case he makes use of formal
correspondence as a check on meaning -to know what he is doing. so tospeak.
FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE VS. EQUIVALENCE 50
LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 1 of 1 -
This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from an
off-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Please
visit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.
References
Science of Translation
Eugene A. Nida
Language, Vol. 45, No. 3. (Sep., 1969), pp. 483-498.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0097-8507%28196909%2945%3A3%3C483%3ASOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H