Controversialastheterm“equivalence”is,itis,aswemaysee,ofmuchimportancewithintheframeworkoftheoreticalreflectionontranslationandhasbeenmakingitsappearancesinsuchtermsas“textualequivalence”,“formalequivalence”,“dynamicequivalence”,“functionalequivalence”,“grammaticalequivalence”and“pragmaticequivalence”putforwardbythewell-knowntheorists,suchasJ.C.Catford,EugeneA.Nida,andMonaBaker,tonamejustafew,intheirworksontranslationstudies.

Itisnotbyaccidentthattheterm“equivalence”hasbeenusedsooftenbythosewhoareconcernedwiththeoreticalstudiesoftranslation.Itisthesouloftranslation,ifwemaysayso.Althoughitseemstobesointangiblethatwemayevencastdoubtsonthenecessityofitsexistenceinthefieldoftranslationstudies,ithassofaridentifieditselfasaconceptgivingmuchimpetustothetheoreticalanalysisoftranslation.Likethetranslationprinciples,eitherthethree-characterprincipleof“信达雅”(faithfulness,expressivenessandelegance)formulatedbytheChinesescholar严复(YanFu)orthewell-knownthreeprinciplesadvancedbytheEnglishtheoreticianAlexanderTytler,whicharetheguidelinesontheconcreteprocessoftranslatingaswellasthecriteriaforjudgingthevalidityoradequacyoftranslationworks,theterm“translationequivalence”makestheanalysesoftranslationmorespecificandmoreaccessible.Onthispoint,IfindmyunderstandinghasbeenconfirmedbyProfessorQiu,who,inhisMAdissertationin1988,indicatedthat“……allthe…conceptsaboutequivalenceonlyfurtherexplainedinmodernlinguistictermsthethreefamousprinciplesoftranslationlaiddownbyAlexanderTytlerin1790,i.e.,‘Ⅰ.Thatthetranslationshouldgiveacompletetranscriptoftheideaoftheoriginalwork.Ⅱ.Thatthestyleandmannerofwritingshouldbeofthesamecharacterwiththatoftheoriginal.Ⅲ.Thatthetranslationshouldhavealltheeaseoforiginalcomposition.’”.(邱2000:330-331)

Asaconceptthatmeritssoberreflection,“equivalence”hasarousedmyinterestandenhancedmyunderstandingofwhatistranslationaswell.Thefollowingistosubmitsomeofmythoughtsonthissubject.

ⅡWhatIsTranslation?

Beforedealingwithtranslationequivalence,wehavetoaddresstheissueofwhatistranslationandwhattranslationinvolves,whichisstillamatterofsomecontroversysincetranslationcanhardlybedefinedinafewwords.Atthisconjuncture,whatflashesintomymindistheinterestinganalogybetweentranslationandlove,drawnbyPeterNewmarkwhoclaims“…translationislikelove;IdonotknowwhatitisbutIthinkIknowwhatitisnot…”.Thisanalogysoundssensibleandsolidinthatitprovokesourthoughtsaboutwhatistranslationandwhatislove,orinessence,whatisthesoulornatureoftranslationandwhatistruelove.

Inmyview,translation,justlikelove,canbeconsideredasanabstractconcept,whichhasitsconcretecounterpart——translating.Giventhisbasicdistinctionbetweentranslationandtranslating,wemaydiscoverthephilosophicalidentityoftranslationafterfurtherreflection.Fromdifferentphilosophicalperspectives,translationcanbeconsideredinvariousways,whichleadstothedisputeovertheissueofwhatistranslation.Consequently,itisjustamatterofchoicetodefinetranslationas“arenderingfromonelanguageintoanother”or“ascience”,“anart”,“acraft”,“askill”,“anoperation”,“alanguageactivity”,“communicating”,orwhatever.AccordingtoGeorgeSteiner,even“understanding”canbetranslation.

Onepointcommandingattentionhere,tomymind,isthedrivingforcethatunderliestranslation,orinanotherword,thenecessityandpossibilityoftranslation.Usually,wemaysaythefactorresponsiblefortheinceptionofsomethingisthenecessityforthisparticularthingandthefactordecisivetotheexistenceofsomethingisthepossibilityofmaterializingthisthing.Nowthattranslationhasalreadybeenanimportantorsometimeseveninfluentialpartofhumancivilization,itwillbeapromisingjobforustogetattherootoftranslation.Ifthiswriterisallowedtomakeastatement,thesubsequentoneispreferred.Thatis,theneedforcommunicationandexchangesbetweengeographicallyor/andchronologicallydifferenthumancommunitieshasledtotheactivitiesoftranslation,thefactofwhichis,initself,adeclarationthattranslationispossible.

Anotherpointthatcrossedmymindisthataccountsoftranslationhadbetterbemadeinadescriptivewayratherthanaprescriptiveonesinceitisalmostanimpossibletasktoexhaustallthewaystranslationcanbeconducted.Besides,anyparticularcaseoftranslationcanbetooinvolvedtofollowtheprescribeddirections.Astohowcomplextranslationis,theconcurrentdilemmasthatkeephauntingthetranslatorduringtheprocessoftranslatingaregoodexamplesinpoint.Arecommendableillustrationoftheconflictingfactorscontributingtothesedilemmasis“thedynamicsoftranslation”demonstratedbyPeterNewmark,whichisanexpositionoftenmajorparameterscreatingthetensionsintranslation,viz.“1SL1writer,2SLnorms,3SLculture,4SLsettingandtradition,5TL2relationship,6TLnorms,7TLculture,8TLsettingandtradition,9Thetruth(thefactsofthematter)and10Translator”.(Newmark2001:4-5)

Thirdly,asforwhattranslationinvolves,myunderstandingisthatitconcernsprimarilythesourcetext(orST)andsecondlythetranslator,thereaderandthetargettext(orTT),tosimplifythetenparametersexposedbyPeterNewmark.Andtheoriginalforcethatcomplicatestranslationisthepursuitofthetruthofthesoucetextwhichislikely,oreveninevitably,tobeeitherdistortedorpartiallymissingduringtheprocessoftranslatingasaresultoftheincompatibilityofthetwoopposingparameters,viz.thesourcelanguageandculturevs.thetargetlanguageandculture.Whenitcomestowhetheranidealtargettextispossible,wearegoingtonegotiatetheconceptofequivalencetobediscussedinthefollowingpartofthisessay.

ⅢWhatIsEquivalence?

Firstly,regardingequivalence,alotofadjectiveshavebeenassignedtothisconcepttoapproachthenatureoftranslation.Deprivedofanyadjective,“equivalence”maybeinadictionarydefinedas“thestateorpropertyofbeingequivalent”or“alogicoperatorhavingthepropertythatifPisastatement,Qisastatement,Risastatement,thentheequivalenceofP,Q,R,…,istrueifandonlyifallstatementsaretrueorallstatementsarefalse.”However,equivalence,whenappliedtotheissueoftranslation,isanabstractconceptandactuallyreferstotheequivalencerelationshipbetweenthesourcetextandthetargettext,whichbringsaboutabasicphilosophicalquestion,viz.whethertherearetwoabsolutelyequivalentthings.Theanswertothisquestionmaybeunanimouslynegative.ThustheequivalencerelationshipbetweentheSTandtheTTseemstobeanillusion;anyhow,equivalencecanberegardedastheidealgoalwhentheconscientiousandresponsibletranslatorisinpersistentpursuitofthetruthofthesourcetext.Inthissense,equivalenceisjustbeyondthecapabilityofthetranslatorifitisnotputinamorespecificlayeroftranslationorconfinedtoacertainaspectoftranslation;toputthisinanotherway,equivalencehastooweitssignificancetotheadjectivethatprecedesit.Similarly,observance,onthepartofthetranslator,ofallthethreeprinciplesoftranslationadvancedbyTytlerorthethree-characterprincipleoriginatedbyYanFu,isoutofthequestion;butobservanceofoneortwooftheabove-mentionedthreeprinciplesorcharactersis,inmostcases,attainable.Tobebrief,theterm“equivalence”inthedisciplineoftranslationcanhardlygainitsidentityuntilitiseitherprecededbyamodifiersuchasanadjectiveorfollowedbyapost-modifier,or,inotherwords,furtherdividedintodifferentcategories.

Secondly,differentkindsofequivalencesarerealizedbytheircounterpartsintheprocessoftranslating,namely,equivalents.Asmentionedabove,“equivalence”alwaysgoeswithamodifier;accordingly,sodoesan“equivalent”.Itispreciselythedifferentkindsofequivalentsthatyielddifferentversionsoftranslation.Inanotherword,anabsoluteequivalentisasunobtainableasabsoluteequivalenceandthereforeanabstractconceptoranidealgoalinthepracticalprocessoftranslating.Thissuggeststhatanidealtargettextasanequivalentofthesourcetextispastrealizationthoughdifferentequivalentsatdifferentlayersoraspectsoftranslationaretobematerializedtoconstitutethefinalversionofthetargettext.Inoneword,justlike“equivalence”,an“equivalent”,failinganymodifierprecedingorfollowingit,willbetakenasanunpracticalconceptandthendismissedintheprocessoftranslating.

Thirdly,acomprehensiveandinformativeformulaoftranslationequivalencehasbeenoriginatedbyProfessorQiuMaoru,whichissodetailedandexhaustiveinexpositionthatitcoversnearlyallthekindsofequivalencesintranslation.(Thefullcontentsareavailablefrom邱2000：339-378)

Toconclude,both“equivalence”and“equivalent”,whenbearingnopre-modifiersorpost-modifiers,areabstractconcepts.Andsubsequentlyfollowafewofmyreflectionsontranslationequivalence.

ⅣAFewReflectionsonTranslationEquivalence

Asmentionedpreviouslyinthisshortessay,“equivalence”and“equivalent”are,inmymind,twointerrelatedabstractconceptsintranslation.Besides,“translation”underdiscussionhereisalsoanabstractconcept,incontrasttotheconcreteactof“translating”.Onfurtherreflection,thiswriterfounditseemspossibletounderstandandanalysetheconceptofequivalenceinsomenewway,whichthiswriterventuresherebytomakeatentativeaccounthere.

Tostartwith,translating,correspondingwithtranslation,involvesfourmajorparameters(amongmanyothers),viz.thesourcetext,thetranslator,thereaderandthetargettexttobeproduced(whichwehadbetterdistinguishfromthetargettextthatisalreadyproducedwhenwetalkabouttranslationinsteadoftranslating),eachusuallyresolvingintomany,eveninexhaustible,factorsorvariablesthatmayexercisedifferenteffectsontheactoftranslating.Tobespecific,thesourcetext,forexample,demandsadequateconsiderationofitsstyle,language(i.e.theSL),timeofbeingwritten,theSLcultureandsoon,whilethetargettexttobeproduceddrawsthetranslator’sattentiontoitslanguage(i.e.theTL),theTLcultureandthelike;thetranslatorhashisorherparticularpurposeandpsychology,auniqueandhabitualstyleofwritingandothercharacteristicsthatvaryfrompersontoperson,whilethereadermaybeclassifiedintoseveraltypesaccordingtodifferentscalessuchasthereader’seducationlevel,sexandage.

Secondly,thediscussionheremainlyfocusesonthesourcelanguageandculturevs.thetargetlanguageandculture.Asregardstherelationshipbetweenlanguageandculture,itmaybeconciselysummarizedinthreestatements,viz.“…languageexpressesculturalreality.”,“…languageembodiesculturalreality.”,and“…languagesymbolizesculturalreality.”(Kramsch2000:3)Itfollowsthat,translating,therenderingfromonelanguageintoanother,isconfrontedwiththeproblem,orrather,theaimorgoal,ofrestoringthesourceculturalrealityembodiedinthesourcelanguageinthetargetlanguagethatusually,ifnotalways,symbolizestheculturalrealityspecifictothetargetlanguage.Inotherwords,thetargetlanguageisentrustedtoexpresstheculturalrealityspecifictothesourcelanguage,whichspeaksofwhytheprocessoftranslatingissonotoriousforitscomplexityandtortuousnessinthefirstplace.Hereonequestionrecommendsitself——Whether,ortowhatdegree,thetargetlanguageisreliableorqualifiedtobeentrustedthistaskofsymbolizingtheculturalrealitythatisforeigntoitselfindifferentdegrees(i.e.doingsomethingthatitusuallydoesnotdo,orplayingabrand-newrole),whichisanotherwayofarticulatingthedisputableissueoftranslatabilityortheequallyarguableconceptofequivalence,thesubject-matterofourconcernhere.

Thirdly,concerningthequestionmentionedabove,anothertopicsubjecttofiercecontroversyarises,viz.thetheoryoflinguisticrelativity,whichimmediatelyremindsusofthefamousSapir-Whorfhypothesis.Asweknow,thestrongversionofthishypothesisthatlanguagedeterminesthought(andwhichcouldeasilygiverisetoprejudiceandracism)cannotbetakenseriouslywhiletheweakversionhasbeengenerallyaccepted.Inotherwords,wemaysaylanguageandthoughtareinterdependent.Anothernote-worthypointhereistheassumptionthatanylanguagepossessesthenecessaryresourcesforthespeakertoexpressanythingthatheorshewantstosayinthatlanguage.Then,ontheunderstandingthathumanthoughtscanbeexchanged,wemaydrawaconclusionthatanythoughtinthesourcelanguagecouldbefinallyexpressedinthetargetlanguage.Itfollowsnaturallythat,whenthethoughtvoicedinthesourcelanguagegetsacrosstothereader(who,ofcourse,makesitbymeansofthetargetlanguage),wemaysayequivalenceinitsabstractsenseisachieved.Hencethenextpartofmywayofunderstandingequivalence.

Fourthly,equivalence,inmymind,isanabstractconcepthereandmightfallintothreecategoriesthatareinaccordancewiththedynamicdevelopmentofculturalexchanges.Atentativeanddescriptiveexpositiongoesasfollows:

ⅰEquivalencebeforeTranslating

Thefirstcategoryisequivalencebeforetranslating,whichmeansthekindofequivalencepossibletobeattainedwhenthetargettextisnotproducedyet.ItmaybeconsideredastheaimorgoalofthetranslatorwholeavesnostoneunturnedinhispursuitofasuccessfultransmissionofthetruthofthesourcetextfromtheSLtotheTL.Ifthewholeprocessoftranslatingcouldbecomparedtoatelephonecallwiththetranslatorbeingtheoperator,thiskindofequivalencemightbesaidtobestillatoneendofatelephonelinewherethetruthoftheSTlies.

ⅱEquivalenceinTranslating

Thesecondcategoryoccurswhenthetargettextisjustproduced.Atthisstage,thetruthoftheSThasreachedthetranslatorwhohasputitinthetargetlanguage.However,thetruth,whetherithasbeenfullyencodedinthetargetlanguageornot,maystillbenotfullyunderstoodby,orevenunavailableto,thereader.Intermsoftheanalogyofatelephonecall,themessagehasnotreachedtheotherendofthelinethoughtheoperatorhasperformedtheroleofputtingitthrough.Inthiscase,wemightsayequivalencestayswiththetranslator,butnotnecessarilywiththereader.

ⅲEquivalenceafterTranslating

Thethirdcategoryofequivalenceentailstimesincetranslationis,inessence,anactivityofculturalexchangethatcannotbeeffectuatedimmediatelyinmanycasesduetotheculturaldifferencesandotherfactors.Anyhow,asmoreandmoreculturalexchangestakeplaceanddevelopfurther,themessagethatwasonceheldupfinallyfindsitswaytothereaderwhenequivalence,wemaysay,isachievedatlast.Inotherwords,equivalenceofthiscategorymightbemoreattributabletotheculturalexchangeactivitiesoutsidethescopeoftranslationthantotheveryactoftranslating.

Takeasimpleexampleofthetranslatingofsuchaculture-specificChineseword“旗袍”intotheEnglishlanguage.SupposethistranslatingtookplacedecadesagoandtheEnglish-speakingreaderhadnoideaaboutwhat“旗袍”was.Thetranslatorwouldputitinto“qipao”asanEnglishequivalentbymeansofZeroTranslation(transliterationinthiscase)owingtothedifferenceofthematerialculturebetweentheChineseandEnglish-speakingpeople.Heretheequivalencebetween“旗袍”and“qipao”comesunderthesecondcategorymentionedabovesincethereadermightstillhaveaveryvagueideaofwhat“旗袍”wasevenafterreadingapossiblefootnote.However,nowadays,wemayrestassuredthattheEnglish-speakingpeopleknowwellaboutwhat“qipao”isastheyhavebeenveryfamiliarwiththiskindofChinesedressthankstothefrequentandin-depthculturalexchangesorotherfactorssuchastheadvancementofhumanscienceandtechnology.Soitsometimestakestimeandotheractivitiesoutsidethescopeoftranslation,inadditiontotheactoftranslating,todrivehometothereaderthetruthoftheSTsuchas“旗袍”.(Bytheway,thetranslationworksproperhelptopromoteculturalexchanges.)Untilatthisstagecouldwesayequivalence,i.e.thethirdcategoryunderdiscussion,isfullyachieved.

ⅤConclusion

Reflectiononequivalenceintranslationhelpstodeepenourunderstandingofthenatureoftranslation.Equivalence,constructedattheabstractlevel,isthusarathernecessaryandimportantterminthefieldoftranslationstudies.Theoretically,equivalenceisattainable;andequivalenceusuallytakestheformofdifferentsub-categoriesthatarerealizedatdifferentlayersoraspectsoftranslation,whichiswhythistermusuallygoestogetherwithamodifier.Certainly,nothingbuttheabundantpracticeoftranslatingandthestudyoftheconcreteproblemsoccurringintranslationwouldsufficeforatheoryrelatingtoequivalence.Allinall,equivalenceisatleastafunctionalandeffectivetermforustodescribeandanalyzetranslationortotoleratethefiercecontroversyinthisfieldandfindawayoutoftheawkwarddilemmasinthepracticaltranslatingthatwouldotherwisekeepunresolved.Toputitanotherway,thetheoryonequivalenceactuallydid,doorwilldoofferusatheoreticalbasistoverifythevarietyoftranslationmethodsadopted.