9. Adequacy and equivalence in the theory of translation

The notion of “adequacy” is closely connected with that of “equivalence”. Some scholars identify these terms and use them as completely interchangeable notions. For example, Catford’s notion of “translation equivalence” is treated as “adequacy of translation” by R.Levitsky in his article “On the principle of functional adequacy of translation”.

Most scholars, such as Komisarov, Reiss, Vermeer, regard “equivalence and adequacy” as different and at the same time closely connected notions. Komisarov, for instance, thinks that “adequate translation” has a broad meaning and is used as a synonym for a “good translation” that guarantees sufficient interlinguistic communication. “Equivalence” is regarded as semantic similarity of the SL and TL and speech units. In Reiss and Vermeer’s opinion, “equivalence” is based on the reproduction of the communicative effect and “adequacy” stresses adaptation to factors arising from the secondary situation. While “equivalence” regards translation as a result, “adequacy” tends to view it as a process.

Adequate translation is the translation performed on the level sufficient and necessary to convey the information and preserve the norms of the TL, while equivalent translation is one that has a constant correspondence that exist independently upon the context. Thus, we may state that adequate translation may be non-equivalent and equivalent translation can be inadequate.

There are several types of equivalence in the theory of translation:

-Literal equivalence - the case when everything is translated literally, omitting the parts which are impossible to translate, used in draft poetry or technical translation.

-Contextual equivalence - the author renders every single unit of the contents and preserves the norms of the target language).

-Adequate equivalence - the author renders all the meaningful units and preserves the original language means (units of translation)

-Functional/dynamic equivalence - trying to achieve the same reaction of the public. It may be denotative, syntactic, connotative, and pragmatic.

-Absolute equivalents (names, terminology, clichés) - pairs of language unites which correspond in most cases, not depending on the context. E.g. London, chemistry, how do you do, but: air resistance, strength of the metal (сопротивление воздуха, сопротивление металла)

- Relative equivalents - pairs of language unites which correspond in most cases in dependence on the contextual situation.

-Full equivalents - pairs of language unites with similar usage

-Partial equivalents - pairs of language unites with different combinatory possibilities.

- Zero equivalents - language units that lack an analogue in the target language: idiomatic units, slang words, realia and terminology.

11. Aspects of translation

Modern semiotics dealing with the problem of sign determines three types of relations peculiar to every natural sign. They are as follows:

1. semantic relations that reflect the relations between a sign and its object

2. syntactic relations that connect a sign with other signs of a system

3. pragmatic relations that determine the relations between a sign and persons who use it in the process of communication.

Linguists has borrowed the theory of three types of relationship between the natural sign and its surroundings with regard to the problem of the language sign. As a result scholars differentiate between:

1. semantic meaning (denotative, referential)

2. syntactic meaning (interlinguistic)

3. pragmatic meaning.

Thus, scholars distinguish tree aspects of translation which deal with three types of meanings: semantic, syntactic and pragmatic.