Theories of directional equivalence in translation

TL;DR

Directional equivalence in translation recognizes that the translator's choices are not solely determined by the source text, resulting in multiple kinds of equivalents. Despite critiques, the paradigm of equivalence should not be abandoned entirely.

Transcript

Directional equivalence is this idea where  there is no guarantee of return. You can go   from a source-text item to a target-text item  and then look for an equivalent back in the   source-language culture and not get back to the  same place. Equivalence is therefore directional.   It is created by the translator through making  choices between av... Read More

Key Insights

• 🥺 Directional equivalence recognizes that the translator's choices are not solely dictated by the source text and can lead to different equivalents.
• 👔 Theories of translation, such as formal vs. dynamic equivalence, foreignizing vs. domesticating translation, and overt vs. covert translation, highlight different aspects of directional equivalence.
• 🈸 Ernst August Gutt's application of relevance theory considers the interpreter's assumption of complete interpretive resemblance, defining translation as equivalence.
• 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Equivalence in translation has a long tradition, dating back to Cicero's distinction between translating as an interpreter and translating as an orator.

Questions & Answers

Q: What is directional equivalence in translation?

Directional equivalence recognizes that the translator's choices between alternative equivalents are not solely determined by the source text. This means there is no guarantee of returning to the same place in the source-language culture.

Q: How does the concept of equivalence manifest in different translation theories?

Different translation theories propose various dichotomies of equivalence, such as formal vs. dynamic, foreignizing vs. domesticating, semantic vs. communicative, and overt vs. covert translations. These theories highlight different approaches to achieving equivalence.

Q: How does Ernst August Gutt apply relevance theory to translation?

Gutt suggests that once a translation is received, the user assumes a complete interpretive resemblance between their interpretation and the intended interpretation of the absent source text. This assumption defines translation as a form of equivalence.

Q: Is it possible to abandon the paradigm of equivalence in translation?

The speaker suggests that although equivalence has faced critiques, it may not be possible to completely abandon the paradigm. Sociological factors and the way translations operate in society create a belief in shared value, requiring some degree of equivalence.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• Directional equivalence in translation acknowledges that there is no guarantee of return and that choices made by the translator can lead to different equivalents.

• Various theories, such as formal vs. dynamic equivalence, foreignizing vs. domesticating translation, and overt vs. covert translation, highlight different aspects of directional equivalence.

• Ernst August Gutt's application of relevance theory to translation argues that interpretation resembles the absent source text, defining translation as equivalence.