On The Notion Of Equivalence In Western Translation Theory

As a central concept in the linguistic school of translation theory in the West, equivalence has been influential for over 2000 years, and its impact on translation studies culminated in the second half of the 20th century along with the booming development of this school of learning. Early theorists on equivalence give priority to the absolute loyalty to the original author, proposing a type of source-oriented equivalence in terms of form, content and style. Drawing on Systemic-Functional Linguistics, Catford in the 1960s makes detailed classifications of equivalent relations in translation and describes them in a systematic way. Guided by the Marxist point of view of language, scholars of the former USSR like Fedovov, Barkhudarov, ?vejcer and Komissarov concerned themselves largely with the hierarchies of equivalence and translation units, and engaged themselves in a hot argument with translation theorists of the artistic school. Taking communication theory and reception aesthetics as his theoretical basis, Nida puts forth dynamic equivalence or functional equivalence which marks a breakthrough from the source-orientation of earlier concepts of equivalence. His emphasis on the equivalence of pragmatic effect pushes equivalence a big step forward. Three types of equivalent relations can be distinguished when language is seen from a tri-dimensional perspective-semantic equivalence, formal equivalence and pragmatic equivalence. Studies on equivalence at text level include not only comparison of cohesive devices of a language pair, but also exploration into the pragmatic effects produced by means of various pragmatic factors (coherence, relevance, intentionality, etc.). Nevertheless, classification and description of various equivalent relations as we may do, the concept of equivalence is bound to incur a great deal of censure. For one thing, the theory of translation equivalence is not watertight in that equivalence (no matter on what level) between entities of two languages is relative due to the heterogeneity of different languages. Secondly, the necessity and possibility of equivalence to be achieved in translation have a direct bearing on purpose of thetranslation activity concerned. And lastly, the appeal for a scientific, source-centered value places equivalence in a position against artistic creation in literary translation, resulting in its failure of commission to serve as a guideline for such type of translation.