Evolution Of "Equivalence" Through Paradigmatic Changes: A Historical Study

The translation process is an activity of communication that aims to convert the textmessage from one language into another, while “equivalence”, along with its variations, hasbeen a core concept in translation studies for almost two thousand years. The implication of“equivalence” has sparked heated debates both at home and abroad. Just as Britishtranslation theorist Mona Baker puts it,“equivalence” defines translation and translationdefines “equivalence”. A systematic research on “equivalence” and its variations willdefinitely shed light on the study of translation theories in both depth and width. Lv Jun(吕俊), a pioneering translation scholar of our country, insightfully points out the developmentof translation studies can be classified into four phases: the Philological paradigm, theStructuralist paradigm, the Deconstructionist paradigm and the Constructivist paradigm.That is to say, the author will study “equivalence”, a core concept in translation studies,along the thread of the paradigmatic changes, intending to investigate the developments oftranslation theories so as to provide the academia with a panoramic picture in this regard.Firstly, under the long-term philological paradigm,“faithfulness” or “fidelity”, theembryonic form of “equivalence” began to germinate and bud. From either the Buddhisttranslation in ancient China or literary translation(featuring the translation of Greek plays)in ancient Rome all the way till the1980s, the development of translation theories anddebates over them had been focusing on key issues as "faithfulness" and "fidelity","literaltranslation" or "free translation","refined"(Wen) and "unhewn"(Zhi). Beyond doubt, thecore concept during this period is "faithfulness" or otherwise known as "fidelity”. For such along time, both translation practitioners and researches had been following the philologicalparadigm, which is known as empirical, subjective, intuitive and fragmentary. Under thisparadigm, the translation practices and literary creation were carried out without theguidance of systematic theories and the quality of translation largely depended on the gift ofthe translator himself.Secondly, under the paradigm of Structuralism,"equivalence" was conceptualized andevolving gradually ever since. In the1950s and1960s, Science Translation Schoolspearheaded by Eugene. A. Nida, started to introduce Structuralist linguistics into translation studies. They fervently advocated structural analyses of a language, which eliminated thelong-lasting subjectivism and mysticism dominating the philological paradigm and steeredtranslation studies in a comparatively more rational direction. It was also at this time thatNida expounded the core concept of "Equivalence"(initially proposed by Jacobson)systematically and argued that a practical and effective criterion to judge the validity oftranslation is “equivalent effect”. The theorists during this time, such as Peter Newmark andFedorov, also inherited Nida’s theory of “Equivalence” and modified it on the basis of theirown understandings. The theory of "Equivalence" under the paradigm of Structuralismundoubtedly had put some scientific touches to translation studies, for which it dominatedthe translation circles for so long as a core concept.Thirdly, under the paradigm of Deconstructionism, the concept of "equivalence" wassubverted. Under the Structuralist paradigm, translation studies laid an emphasis on thetext’s closure property and the decisive role of linguistic principles while neglecting theinfluence of social and cultural factors. However, in the late1990’s, translation studiesmanaged to shake off the instrumental rationality of the Structuralist paradigm and usheredin a brand-new paradigm which encouraged the existence and complement of multi schools.First, Deconstructionists represented by Derrida broke the logo-centralism of the languagefrom a perspective of philosophy, making people realize that text is not a closed system withits meaning set by linguistic principles. Second, the Hermeneutic philosophy represented byGadamer also broke the instrumental rationality of the Structuralist paradigm. Theymaintained that the meaning is not fixed in a closed text, but is produced in the dialogsbetween the translator and the original work (in the capacity of a reader) and between thetranslator and the TLT readership (in the capacity of a writer). In the process of dialogs, thesubjectivity of the translator is thus highlighted. Third, the “Cultural Turn”, which stressedthe research of translation from some extra-textual angles, such as post-colonialism,feminism, etc., focused on the role of social and cultural contexts and salvaged the academiafrom a naive hypothesis long harbored by the Structuralist paradigm: translation is a purelinguistic activity that goes on only in a vacuum tube, totally free from the influence ofsociety and culture. The core concept "equivalence" was hence subverted under theDeconstructionist paradigm.. Lastly, under Constructivist paradigm, the subverted concept of "equivalence" wasinstilled with new implications. In the Deconstructionist paradigm, translation studies werestruggling in such a chaotic situation as “everything is all right”. This made the academicworld realize that the destructiveness and the irrationality of the Deconstructionist paradigmwould not benefit the building of translation theories and it is urgent that a new paradigm befound to prop up translation studies theoretically. Then the theory of Communication Actadvanced by the German Sociologist Habermas emerged to serve that purpose. That theory,guided by Universal Pragmatics (also advanced by Habermas), broke the traditionalresearch pattern of "syntax-semantics" and carried out researches to explore the inherentlaws as to how to obtain the mutual understanding during the interaction of various subjects.Under the Constructivist paradigm, the concept of "equivalence", a static concept which wasonce subverted, was rejuvenated with its new implications.