The Concept of Equivalence in Translation Studies.pdf

Translation Theory (Spring 2006)Lecture 4The Concept of Equivalence in Translation Studies:Much Ado about SomethingBy: Sandra HalversonAbstract: Within translation studies, there remains a certain amount of unnecessary discordconcerning the use of the equivalence concept and its relevance for translation theory. In theinterest of better understanding the various points of view, it seems helpful to consider differentperspectives on this concept in light of the varying philosophical assumptions on which they arebased. Analogies between the equivalence concept and a concept of scientific knowledge as it isand has been studied with in the philosophy of science are highly informative in painting out thephilosophical issues involved in equivalence, translation, and knowledge. Rather than dismissingthe concept as ill-defined or imprecise, it is in the interest of the field of translation studies toconsider the origins and manifestations of this ‘imprecision’ in order that we may be betterinformed and less inclined towards theoretical antagonism.1. IntroductionAcademic discourse is often surprising and sometimes frustrating. Considerable column inchesand lecture minutes are devoted to criticism of a perceived lack of common objectives,methodological agreement, or conceptual consensus, or what is even worse, indulgence indisputes of such a nature which do not even recognize or admit their own origins. While it wouldbe difficult to condemn all such reflection as wasted energy, it seems appropriate to recall thatthe tempest often originates in more deeply rooted, contending views of what we do or should bedoing. The lacks and deficiencies which seem to cause such consternation are alternatively seenas a detriment to “progress” or a fact of life, depending on one’s broader perception of whatscience and/or academic pursuits are or should be. Such is the situation in the field of translationstudies. The loudest laments are those expressing despair at the field’s lack of a clearly delimitedobject of study, an agreed methodology, a set of clearly defined concepts, and a clearly specified1

Iranian Translators Cyber Association Articlesset of objectives (see e.g. Wilss 1982, Snell-Hornby 1988, Gile 1991, Koller 1995, Toury 1995).Perhaps the most divisive issue is that surrounding the concept of equivalence, whose role in thefield has been the subject of considerable debate over the pas t 20 odd years. 2This particular concept has actually served as one of the main lines of demarcationbetween what are most commonly considered two main areas of current work in the field, i.e. the“linguistically oriented school”, and its counterpart, the historical-descriptive group. 3 Andindeed, the question does not seem to be anywhere near a resolution, as the debate at a recentinternational conference in translation studies showed (The Second EST Congress, Prague,September 1995).The objective of this paper is to discuss this conceptual debate in light of the conflictingviews of knowledge and science it represents. Furthermore, I will discuss how the problematicnature of this concept is related to certain philosophical issues which it raises. The main focuswill be on the current state of the debate, though the necessary background will also bepresented.2. The Concept of EquivalenceAs “equivalence” is a term which is also broadly used outside of the field of enquiry at hand, itmay be useful to start with a more general definition of the concept before mentioning morespecific ones. The necessity of considering more general perceptions has been arguedconvincingly by Snell-Hornby (1988, 1990), who maintains that the discrepancy between thefuzziness of a more general understanding of the concept (its English usage) and the stringencyof a more specific definition (as it is most of ten used in German) is the origin of much of theconfusion surrounding its use today.2.1. Non-Specific Definitions of the ConceptEquivalence is defined in the Collins Dictionary of the English Language (1991: 526) as the stateof being “equal or interchangeable in value, quantity, significance, etc.” or “having the same or asimilar effect or meaning”. Similarly, Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1991: 421)defines the concept as the state of being “equal in force, amount or value” or “like in2

signification or import”. It becomes immediately clear, when considering these two definitions,that there are three main components to both: a pair (at least) between which the relationshipexists, a concept of likeness/sameness/ similarity/equality, and a set of qualities. Thus,equivalence is defined as a relationship existing between two (or more) entities, and therelationship is described as one of likeness/sameness/similarity/equality in terms of any of anumber of potential qualities. Furthermore, each of the three components outlined here can bethe focus of a discussion of the equivalence relationship.The first, the specification of the entities between which the relationship pertains, is by nomeans unproblematic. Establishment of such a relationship requires that the two entities involvedbe, in same way, comparable. And as we shall see, the issue of comparability is by no meansstraightforward. However, the primary question has been the relevance of the various contendersfor the units chosen to be compared. Contending theories have chosen to focus on units atdifferent levels, ranging from units below word level to entire texts.The second component of the concept, the idea of likeness/sameness/ similarity/equality,is also potentially problematic, though here the problem is of a slightly different nature. In fact,there are actually two specific aspects to the problem of sameness for the purposes of translation:its nature and its degree. 4 It should be immediately obvious that a question such as “the nature ofsameness” is open to various interpretations, and indeed this question underlies the philosophicaldebate on meaning invariance (see e.g. Quine 1960, Putnam 1981, Shapere 1981). The secondaspect, or problem, related to sameness is the question of degree: sameness is a scalar concept. Inshort, the concept implies comparison of two or more entities using a given quality as thestandard. And if two (or more) entities can be compared, and if sameness is defined as thepresence of a specific quality, then for many qualities it may be show n that different entitiespossess those qualities in varying degrees. To take a perhaps less problematic example, if we areto compare three elephants who weigh 700, 710 and 790 kilos respectively, and if the units to becompared are the weight measurements in kilos, and if equivalence is defined as a spread of +/-ten kilos, then the first two are more equivalent than either of them relative to the third. Thisworks quite well where the units of comparison are agreed upon. In areas where the units ofcomparison or the definition of sameness is less well-defined, e.g. in language, the comparisonsbecome more problematic. Even for clearly delimited linguistic units like words, sameness ofmeaning is a notoriously difficult concept (see e.g. Quine 1960). It is important to note, however,3

Iranian Translators Cyber Association Articlesthat t e question of degree is most of ten pertinent in situations involving a third alternative(which is often the case in translation, either in the process itself, i.e. the consideration ofparadigmatic alternatives, or in criticism). The point to be made here is that sameness isgradable.The third component of the concept of equivalence which can be, and has been, the focusof conceptual debate is the quality in terms of which the sameness is defined. As we have seen,entities which are being compared must necessarily be compared in terms of same specific trait.The derivation of types of qualities relevant for translation purposes has, perhaps, been one ofthe most successful projects (see e.g. Koller 1995).In short, the general survey here has indicated that any utilization/operationalization of aconcept of equivalence touches on several fundamental philosophical problems, most notably thepossibility/necessity of comparison and the nature of sameness. These problems underlie muchof the debate on the overall relevance or utility of the equivalence concept for translation studies.The discussion above has also indicated where the problems might lie in the application of thisconcept to the study of translation and translating, i.e. in establishing relevant units ofcomparison, specifying a definition of sameness, and enumerating relevant qualities. Thecontentious nature of the concept thus lies in both the philosophical questions it implies, i.e.comparison and sameness, and in the complexity of its definition and application. Philosophicalquestions aside, the most problematic questions remain: what entities are/can be equivalent, howalike/similar/equal are they and how do we define "alike/similar/equal", and in which feature arethey equivalent?2.2. Equivalence as a Mathematical or Logical RelationIn order to appreciate the breadth of the debate on the concept within the field of translationstudies, however, it is important to consider a much narrower definition of the concept whosecurrency within the field of machine translation, for example, must be taken into consideration.Equivalence as a mathematical relation is defined as “a relation which is reflexive,symmetrical and transitive” (Collins English Dictionary 1991: 526). For the purposes ofinterlingual translation, 5 which is the type of translation under consideration here, the first ofthese is obviously irrelevant. Multiple examples from the practice of back translation have4

proven that translation pairs are not symmetrical, 6 and translation through several languagesmakes the lack of transitivity similarly apparent (see e.g. Levý 1989).In addition to the mathematical definition, there is also a more restricted definition ofequivalence which is current in the field of logic. The Encyclopedia Britannica (1975: 935)defines that concept as follows:equivalence, also called equivalence of propositions, in logic and mathematics, refers tothe formation of a proposition from two others which are linked by the phrase “if, andonly if”. The equivalence formed from two propositions p and q also may be defined bythe statement “p is a necessary and sufficient condition for q”.It should be immediately clear that both mathematical and logical definitions limit theapplicability of the concept for the description of linguistic entities, primarily because most ofthe relations that may be established between sets of translation pairs fail to fulfill the conditionsset. Nevertheless, it has been argued that such a narrowly defined concept was the origin of theusage adopted within German translation studies, primarily as a result of these studies’ quest forobjectivity and a “scientific” approach (Snell-Hornby 1988: 17).7 At present, however, there issame agreement that a more rigorous definition has value within specifiable discourse domains(see Sager 1994, Trosborg 1994). Snell-Hornby suggests that the applicability of an equivalenceconcept in translation studies exists at the 1evel of terminology and nomenclature, “though evenhere reservations are called for” (1988: 106). At this point, however, it is important to note thedistinction between the broader definitions, with all of their inherent difficulties, as outlined inSection 2.1, and more restricted definitions adopted from mathematics and logic. Conceptualdisagreements may derive from confusion concerning the type or focus of a definition.3. The Concept in Translation Studies:The Status of the Equivalence Concept and Its ExplicationThe presentation in Section 2 concluded that, first of all, the equivalence concept may bealternatively defined in a broad or a narrow sense, and secondly, that within the broader sense ofthe concept there are at least three areas, or conceptual components, which should be (though5

Iranian Translators Cyber Association Articlesthey are not always) specified in any application of the concept. Thus, use of the equivalenceconcept may vary in either scope or focus. This is made quite clear in Hartmann and Stork:Texts in different languages may be equivalent in different degrees (fully or partiallyequivalent), in respect of different levels of presentation (equivalent in respect of context,of semantics, of grammar, of lexis, etc.) and at different ranks (word-for-word, phrasefor-phrase,sentence-for-sentence). (1972: 713, my emphasis.)It is useful to keep in mind that various attempts at explication of the concept may choose tofocus on one or the other of these aspects. The two main schools of thought/research traditionswhich are under investigation here will be presented in Sections 3.1 and 3.2.3.1. The “Science of Translation”: The Dual Status of “Equivalence”As indicated in Section 1, the equivalence concept serves as one of the lines of demarcationbetween the two main school s of thought in translation studies. The work of the linguisticallyoriented scholars represents an approach to the study of translation in which equivalence isabsolutely crucial. Indeed, Catford (who, along with Nida and members of the “Leipzig school”,is often considered representative of the “scientific” approach) states that:The central problem of translation practice is that of finding TL translationequivalents. A central task of translation theory is that of defining the nature andconditions of translation equivalence. (1965: 21)The view that the explication of translation equivalence is the main objective of translationstudies was shared by the German scholars. However, the role of the concept is more complexthan that. Indeed, the significance of the equivalence relation for the linguistic approaches lies inits dual status as the object of study and as a standard for the delineation of translation fromsimilar and related activities which also produce derivative texts, e.g. paraphrase, adaptation,summary, etc. In other words, the contention is that if the equivalence relationship is sufficiently6

accounted for, then the limits of translation as an independent phenomenon will becomediscernible. For these scholars, such delimitation was utterly essential, as it was required by true“science” (see Section 4.1). As a consequence, the equivalence relationship itself requires astatus above and beyond that of object of study. 8The questions asked by the various researchers within the linguistic tradition addressedvarious aspects of the complex equivalence relationship. Same theoretical accounts attempted todefine the units between which the relationship could obtain. Catford, for example, whosederivation of equivalence types was based on empirical analysis of text pairs, maintained that "atextual equivalent is any TL text or portion of text which is observed on a particular occasion,. . .to be the equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text" (1965: 27). He stated that“macrotextual TE (beyond the clause/sentence border) is the aggregate of microtextualequivalents which can empirically be ascertained …” (Wilss 1982: 147). Kade (1968), on theother hand, whose work included special language translation and word-level problems, focusedon the distribution of semantic material. His equivalence framework described lexicalequivalence in terms of the correspondence or lack of correspondence between the twolanguages’ lexical units. The result was four types of equivalence; namely total equivalence(one-to-one correspondence), facultative equivalence (one-to-many), approximative equivalence(one-to-part-of-one) and null equivalence (one-to-none). Several others also debated what theunit of equivalence should be. Kade’s word-level relationships represented one end of thespectrum, while others, e.g. Filipec (1971) andReiss (1976, 1989), emphasized text-level relationships.Perhaps most influential were those scholars whose focus was on the qualities orcharacteristics which define the nature of the equivalence. Nida’s formal correspondence versusdynamic equivalence represents one account. More comprehensive, in this respect, is Koller’ sapproach (1989), which was an attempt to describe a number of different qualities which ST andTT elements might share. According to Koller, these might be extralinguistic content,connotations, text and language norms, receiver features, or formal-aesthetic features (1989: 100-101), each of which corresponds to a specific equivalence type. Koller also made explicit thedual nature of the concept as a normative, theoretical one, and as a descriptive, empirical one. Inhis theoretical explication of the concept, equivalence implied a set of conditions to be met. InWilss’ approach (1982), on the other hand, translation equivalence was “an empirical7

Iranian Translators Cyber Association Articlesphenomenon which carries with it problems which presently can be solved, if at all, only for eachindividual translation text” (1982: 145).To reiterate: theoretical explication of the equivalence concept encompassed variations infocus and scope. Some scholars chose to focus on the unit of translation, i.e. the basis for thecomparison of potentially equivalent entities. Others chose to focus on the qualities in terms ofwhich equivalence could be defined. Some moved freely among all of these, and chose toemphasize the complexity of the relation and the implications of that complexity for bothterminological distinctions and theoretical foci. The various approaches represented differentaspects of the equivalence relationship, which, naturally, led to a plethora of “equivalence types”(see e.g. Wilss 1982:135). As we have seen, however, these were not so much different types ofequivalence as varying perspectives on a complex relationship.Criticism of the linguistically oriented approach to translation and its focus onequivalence of ten builds on the assumption that the large number of “equivalence types” is initself a problem, or on the assumption that a lack of precision in definition is in itself grounds toreject the concept. Snell-Hornby (1988: 22) rejects the concept as “imprecise and ill-defined”, aswell as a “distort[ion] of the basic problems of translation”. The former argument addresses thenature of the concept and its status in research, while the latter, that the concept fails to accountfor the “basic problems of translation”, is dearly the motivation behind the rejection of theconcept by the scholars of the contending approach to translation studies, who maintain that themost important translational phenomena are those which cannot be accounted for within astrictly linguistic approach. They have chosen, instead, to focus on features of the target cultureand the effects these features have on the translation process and/or product.3.2. The Historical-Descriptive Approach:Displacement of the Equivalence ConceptThe field of translation studies has been greatly influenced by an approach to the subject whichemphasizes the significance of the situation, and more broadly, the culture in which translationsare to be positioned. In general terms, scholars working within this tradition are less interested inthe relationship between a target text and a source text and more concerned with various featuresof the target culture, often described as interacting systems, and the relevance of these features8

for translation.In Section 3.1, the dual role of the equivalence concept for the linguistically orientedscholars was discussed. The emphasis was on how the relationship between target and sourcetexts was considered to be the object of study, while at the same time the task of theory was seento be the development of an adequate means of determining what translation is and what it is not.For scholars working within a historical-descriptive approach, on the other hand, the explicationof equivalence is seen as an unfruitful enterprise (see Snell-Homby 1988, 1990). Furthermore,many of these scholars are, in their own view, more interested textual “manipulation” indifference than in sameness, and in the motivations underlying textual “manipulation”.In order to fully appreciate the fall from grace of the equivalence concept, anunderstanding of the role played by two basic assumptions of the historical-descriptive scholarsis essential. These two are target-orientation and translation norms (or ‘norms and constraints’,as in Hermans 1985). It is widely recognized that both of these assumptions imply a considerablereduction in the status of the source text, and consequently in the relationship that exists betweenthe translation and its source text. But it is also fundamental to our understanding of theequivalence debate that we fully appreciate how these two assumptions are based on much moredeep-seated philosophical beliefs, which shall be the focus of the discussion in Section 4.The transition to “target-orientation” is justified by Toury as follows:It will be recalled that the mainspring of the present endeavor was the conviction that theposition and function of translations (as entities) and of translating (as a kind of activity)in a prospective target culture, the form a translation would have (and hence therelationships which would tie it to its original), and the strategies resorted to during itsgeneration do not constitute a series of unconnected facts. Having accepted this as a pointof departure, we found interdependencies emerging as an obvious focus of interest, themain intention being to uncover the regularities which mark the relationshipsassumed to obtain between function, product and process. (Toury 1995: 24)What becomes immediately dear is that it is the ultimate “position and function” of thetranslation which are considered most important in determining its form. Given such anassumption, it is quite dear that it is features of the target culture, and their potential power assteering factors in translating and translation, which become interesting objects of study. The9

Iranian Translators Cyber Association Articlesrelationships which "tie it to its original" are of secondary interest at best.The concept of translation norms, also associated with Toury’s work, is what comes of afocus on “regularities”. A norm concept, i.e. an assumption that translating is a type of action orbehavior which is norm-governed, implies a careful description of the situation or culture inwhich such norms obtain. In other words, a norm-based theory of translation entails translationdescriptions which are relative. Translating is situated in time and space, and the behaviorregistered is described in terms of the regularities demonstrated. The aim is to account for theseregularities in the target context/situation/culture.The consequence of adopting a norm-based theory of translation is that the object ofstudy for historical-descriptive approaches becomes regularities of translation behavior (norms)and the situational cultural features which may account for these regularities. Consequently, allempirical work (which is clearly an intrinsic part of such an approach, much more clearly so herethan in earlier approaches) is necessarily grounded in particular descriptions of translations inspecific time/space constellations. Such an approach, needless to say, precludes a definite,clearly delineated definition of translation or translating.The focus on empirical work is quite evident. Toury himself presents a selection ofstudies in his most recent publication, Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond (1995).Examples include “Mediated Translations as an Object for Study”, and “A Translation Comesinto Being: Hamlet’s Monologue in Hebrew”. The publication of student papers from the CERA(now CETRA) Research Seminars in Translation Studies, the summer school which gathersyoung translation scholars in Leuven each summer, also shows a focus on. empirical studies,most of which may be characterized as historical-descriptive studies. Examples from the 1989-91seminars include “Translation in Nineteenth Century Belgium” (Capelle 1994: 7-17), “TheTranslation of Pippi Longstocking into Dutch: A Test Case” (van Camp 1994: 19-47),“Translation into English in the USSR: Macrostructure Alterations” (Steele 1994: 95-106).The objective of studies such as these is to account for existing translations throughdescription of the relevant factors affecting their creation. Factors to be considered are proposedby the theoretical framework of polysystem theory and its derivatives (see Even-Zohar 1990,Toury 1980, 1995, van Gorp and Lambert 1985), and include features of the (literary) system ofthe original and the (literary) system for which the translation is destined. Such systemic featuresinclude characteristics of the author, text and reader in both systems and relations between the10

two within each system, and the interaction of, for example, a literary system with the social,religious, or other systems with which it coexists. Further details of the approach are beyond thescope of this discussion; what is important to note is the framework and the means it provides forthe description of existing translations and the situational/cultural/historical factors whichinfluenced or determined their form.A similar focus on features of the target system, more specifically the goal/aim/intentionof the translation, its scopos, underlies another dominant theoretical contribution to translationstudies, i.e. scopos theory. This theory (see Vermeer 1978, 1983, Reiss and Vermeer 1984,Vermeer 1986) will not be dealt with in detail here. What is important to note is that this theorytoo entails a displacement of the equivalence concept to a subordinate position as a constrainingelement in certain kinds of translation only. Thus the epistemological assumptions on which thistheory builds, and its consequent focus on features of the target system/culture coincide withthose dealt with earlier in this section. In other words, both historical/descriptive andfunctionalist approaches to translation, though originating in predominantly literary andlinguistic theory respectively, represent approaches to the study of translational phenomenawhich imply a departure from earlier directions as regards basic philosophical foundations (to beoutlined in more detail in Section 4). Consequently, in what follows, what is said abouthistorical/descriptive approaches also pertains to functionalist theories.3.3. Status quoThe current state of affairs on the issue of equivalence reflects a certain amount of mutualrecognition on the part of at least some of the linguistically oriented and historical descriptivescholars. Perhaps this development is a natural consequence of the evolution of the field oflinguistics over the past thirty years. That is, as linguistics, in the broadest sense, has expanded toinclude innumerable aspects of language use, and as literary studies makes use of systems theory,the two converge through the necessity of accounting for the contextual/cultural contingencieswhich impinge upon the act of creating a text. The consequence of this convergence for theconcept of equivalence in translation studies is that there finally seems to be a general consensusthat the concept, to the extent that it is useful (which is less agreed upon), is by necessity relative.Thus, Koller states that:11

Iranian Translators Cyber Association ArticlesEquivalence is a relative concept in several respects: it is determined on the one hand bythe historical-cultural conditions under which texts (original as much as secondary ones)are produced and received in the target culture, and on the other by a range of sometimescontradictory and scarcely reconcilable linguistic-textual and extra linguistic conditions:… (1995: 196)And at the same time, Toury presents the historical-descriptive concept as:… not one target-source relationship at all, establishable on the basis of a particular typeof invariant. Rather it is a functional-relational concept; namely, that set of relationshipswhich will have been found lo distinguish appropriate from inappropriate modes oftranslation performance for the culture in question. (1995: 86)On the basis of this evidence, one major conceptual difference which previously divided the twomain approaches to translation studies seems to have been eliminated. That is, Koller’ s (1995)“linguistically-textually oriented descriptive translation studies”, and Toury’s descriptivetranslation studies seem to be much in agreement. 9 However, as we shall see, neither one solvesthe philosophical problem presented by the relativization of the equivalence concept. But beforeaddressing that problem in particular, it is necessary to consider the philosophical underpinningsof the two main approaches in their prior, more divided forms.4. Conceptual Status and Presuppositions:Equivalence and Scientific KnowledgeSection 3 presented the role of equivalence in two major approaches to translation studies of thepast twenty years. This background served to remind us of how the concept was given a centralposition on the one hand, while it was dethroned on the other. In Section 4, the focus is on howthe contending views presented above reveal the underlying epistemological positions of each ofthe two groups....12

5. Conclusions - What’s All the Ado About?The main argument presented in the preceding sections was that the controversy surrounding theequivalence concept in translation studies is based on contending ideas of the nature ofknowledge. I argued that the reaction to the “science of translation” and its essentialist agendaentailed a rejection of the equivalence concept and a focus on the historical description oftranslations, which involves a relativization of concepts and terms. I also joined forces withothers who argue that the problem of relativity, i.e. the question of the comparability ofdescriptions for the purposes of generalization and theory building, has not been sufficientlyaddressed as yet in the field of translation studies.In conclusion, however, let us return to our initial question concerning the origins of allthe fuss over the equivalence concept. We have seen that the contending views of knowledgecoincide with contending views of the equivalence concept. We have seen how the discussion ofknowledge and scientific activity carried out by philosophers of science is indicative of struggleswith many of the same fundamental issues which inhere in any discussion of an equivalenceconcept or translation itself. Thus, in closing, it may be beneficial to recall what those questionsare, in order to appreciate the difficulty which resolution of these controversies represents.In reconsidering the basic philosophical problems inherent in a discussion of translation,we draw upon several of the analogies which emerged in the discussion above. The starting pointof the discussion was the field of inquiry known as translation studies, a field which takestranslation as its object of study. In attempting to survey the developments of theory in that field,and the underlying epistemological assumptions on which they are built, we found thatunderstanding theoretical developments entails a type of understanding which strongly resemblesthe kind of understanding which we aretrying to find. This perspective is expressed by Davidson, who says that “studying the criteria oftranslation is therefore a way of focusing on criteria of identity for conceptual schemes” (1984:191), i.e. studying translation is analogous to studying means of comparing theories. Thus, heretoo “translation” is mapped onto “identity of conceptual schemes”. And at this juncture we seethe return of the problematic components of an equivalence concept outlined in Section 2:criteria (or qualities), identity, and pairs to be compared. In studying translation and equivalence,we are studying the means by which all things can be compared.13

Iranian Translators Cyber Association ArticlesFrom another perspective, to take these analogies one step further, one might say that ifdoing a translation is like constructing a theory (Feyerabend), or if comparing a translation andits source text is like comparing theories (Kuhn and Davidson), then translations are liketheories, which is to say that they are explanations of things. Thus has the discussion come fullcircle. In asking what equivalence is, we are asking what translation is, and in constructingtheories and explanations of translation, i.e. engaging in the pursuit of answers to our questions,we are required to engage in the very activity that we set out to understand. We are told toexplain explanations.We have, in fact, moved at, or perhaps returned to, the crux of the wholetranslation/knowledge problem, the essence of the translatability/commensurability impasse. Andthis is why translation so often figures as a metaphor for that process which may, in terms ofanother metaphor, be described as a bridge between mutually unintelligible messages, a bridgewhich is absolutely necessary for either comparison or communication itself. As philosophersdebate the nature of meaning, or the nature of knowledge, so do translation scholars ponder thenature of their specific bridge, and it is that problematic complex that all the ado is about. 16Notes…2. For a thorough and insightful review of the role of the equivalence concept in translationstudies, see Pym (1995).3. There are, of course, several other significant approaches to the study of translation, forexample the functionalist German tradition (see e.g. Reiss and Vermeer 1984, Vermeer1989, Nord 1991), the process-oriented approach (see e.g. Fraser 1996; Jääskeläinen1987, 1989, 1993; Jääskeläinen and Tirkkonen-Condit 1991; Kussmaul and Tirkkonen-Condit 1995; Krings 1987; Lörscher 1991, 1992a, 1992b; Tirkkonen-Condit 1990,1995)and deconstructionist approaches (see e.g. van den Broek 1990), to mention a few. Thereduction to two main approaches is a result of a desire to focus on two lines of thoughtwhich exemplify the underlying philosophical differences. Other approaches will bementioned, where relevant, as they pertain to the overall argument. The choice of thesetwo particular approaches is also motivated by the fact that scholars working within thegeneral frameworks of these two approaches have been among the most vocal in thedebate on the equivalence concept.4. On the concept of similarity and translation, see Chesterman 1996.5. “InterlinguaI transiation” as a term is used here to refer to translation between twolanguages. Jakobson’s (1959) distinction between this and two other tyres, ie."intralingual" (within one language, Le. rewording or paraphrase) and "intersemiotic"(between sign systems) is relevant, as translation in a more metaphorical sense,14

esembling either interlingual or intersemiotic transiation, will be the subject of laterdiscussion (see Section 5).6. The Serbo-Croatian-English contrastive project used a particular form of back translationto ‘isolate formal correspondents in translationally equivalent texts’ (Ivir 1981: 57). Forthem, back translation was defined as ‘one-to-one structural replacement’ (ibid). This isnot, however, a general claim pertaining to the equivalence relationship. It is a limiteddefinition applied as a method in achieving a specific purpose.7. For an overview of the origins of the concept in Germany, see Wilss 1982: 137-138, whostates that “The precise moment for the emergence of the term TE [translationequivalence] in the science of translation cannot be determined. Presumably translationscholars have taken it over from mathematics in the course of their attempts to build upan autonomous terminology … Jäger is of a different opinion, He views equivalence as aterminological loan from the science of logic …”.8. See also Pym (1995) on the institutional/political interests served by the concept.9. A similar focus on a relational concept of similarity is represented by Chesterman 1996.Chesterman argues that a new binary concept of similarity will provide a fruitful meansof discussing translation relationships, Similarly, Pym (1995) argues for a place for anequivalence concept in translation studies, His argument too is based on a concern fordelineation of the object of study.10. Thanks to the anonymous reviewer who pointed this out.…16. As so rightly pointed out by one of the reviewers, I have left the problem of relativity andgeneralization in a rather unresolved state. Some might argue that generalizations proceedquite nicely in the empirical world, and that commensurability, etc. are philosophicalproblems (see Feyerabend 1993). Others might argue that for our purposes the answer tofailed essentialism and problematic relativity lies in the notion of fuzzy sets, etc (see e.g.Zadeh 1965). I would propose that the answer lies in the introduction of a prototypeconcept of translation. For details on this propos al see Halverson (1996a, 1996b).ReferencesBroeck, Raymond van den. 1990. "Translation Theory after Deconstruction".Translation: Theory in Scandinavia: Proceedings from the ScandinavianSymposium on Translation Theory (SSOTT III), Oslo 11-13 August 1988. Oslo,1990: 24-57.Brown, James Robert. 1994. Smoke and Mirrors: How Science Rejects Reality.London: Routledge.Camp, Karin van. 1994. “The Translation of Pippi Longstocking into Dutch: A TestCase”. Robyns 1994: 19-47.Capelle, Annick. 1994. “Translation in Nineteenth Century Belgium”. Robyns 1994: 7-16.Catford, J.C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics.15

Iranian Translators Cyber Association ArticlesLondon: Oxford University Press.Chesterman, Andrew. 1993. “Theory in Translation Theory”. The New Courant 1: 69-79.Chesterman, Andrew, ed. 1989. Readings in Translation Theory. Finland: Oy FinnLectura Ab.Chesterman, Andrew. 1994. “Karl Popper in the Translation Class”. Cay Dollerup andAnnette Lindegaard, eds. Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2: Insights, Aims,Visions. Papers From the Second Language International Conference. Elsinore, Denmark4-6 June 1993. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjarnins, 1994: 89-95.Chesterman, Andrew. 1996. "On Similarity". Target 8:1: 159-164.Collins English Dictionary. 1991. Glasgow: HarperCollins.Davidson, Donald. 1984. 1nquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.Encyclopedia Britannica. 1975. Chicago etc.: Helen Hemingway Benton.Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990. Polysystem Studies. Tel-Aviv: The Porter Institute forPoetics and Semiotics. [= Poetics Today 11:1.]Even-Zohar, Itamar and Toury, Gideon, eds. Theory of Translation and InterculturalRelations. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, 1981: 51-59. [= !Poetics Today 2:4.]Feyerabend, Paul. 1987. Farewell to Reason. London: Versa.Feyerabend, Paul. 1993. Against Method. London: Versa.Filipec, J. 1971. “Der Äquivalenzbegriff und das Problem der Dbersetzbarkeit”. BeiheftV/VI der Zeitschrift Fremdsprachen. 81-85.Fraser, Janet. 1996. "The Translator Investigated: Learning from Translation ProcessAnalysis". The Translator 2:1: 65-79.Frawley, William. 1984. “Prolegomenon to a Theory of Translation”. William Frawley,ed. Translation: Literary, Linguistic and Philosophical Perspectives. Newark:University of Delaware Press, 1984: 159-175.Gile, Daniel. 1991. “Methodological Aspects of Interpretation (and Translation)Research”. Target 3:2: 153-174.Halverson, Sandra. 1996a. “Data Selection in Descriptive Translation Studies: TheStatus of Professional Translations”. Paper presented at "Unity in Diversity":International Translation Studies Conference. Dublin, Ireland. 9-11 May 1996.Halverson, Sandra. 1996b. “Conceptual Categories and the Object of Study inTranslation Studies: Moving from Classical to Prototype”, Paper presented atTransferre necesse est..., the Second International Conference on Current Trendsin Studies of Translation and Interpreting, Budapest, 5-7 September 1996.Hartmann, R.K.K. and F.C. Stork. 1972. Dictionary of Language and Linguistics.Amsterdam: Applied Science.Hermans, Theo. 1985. “Introduction: Translation Studies and a New Paradigm”.Hermans 1985a: 7-15.Hermans, Theo, ed. 1985a. The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in LiteraryTranslation. London and Sydney: Croom Helm.Ivir, Vladimir. 1981. “Formal Correspondence vs. Translation Equivalence Revisited”.Jakobson, Roman. 1959. “On Linguistic Aspects of Transiation”. Reuben A. Brower,ed. On Translation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959.232-239.16

Janicki, Karol. 1989. “A Rebuttal of Essentiaiist Sociolinguistics”. InternationalJournal of the Sociology of Language 78: 93-105.Jääskeläinen, Riita. 1987. What Happens in a Translation Process: Think-AloudProtocols of Translation. Savonlinna School of Translation Studies, Universityof Joensuu. [Unpublished Progradu Thesis.]Jääskeläinen, Riita. 1989. “Translation Assignment in Professionai vs. Non-ProfessionalTranslation: A Think-Aloud Protocol Study”. Seguinot 1989: 87-98.Jääskeläinen, Riita. 1993. “Investigating Translation Strategies”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and John Laffling, eds. Recent Trends in Empirical TranslationResearch. Joensuu: Faculty of Arts, 1993: 99-120.Jääskeläinen, Riita and Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit. 1991. “Automatised Processes inProfessional vs. Non-Professional Transiation: A Think-Aloud Protocol Study”. SonjaTiekkonen-Condit, ed. Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies.Tiibingen: Gunter Narr, 1991: 89-109.Kade, Otto. 1968. Zufall und Gesetzmässigkeit in der Ubersetzung. Leipzig:Enzyklopädie.Koller, Werner. 1989. “Equivalence in Translation Theory”. Chesterman 1989: 99-104. Koller,Werner. 1995. “The Concept of Equivalence and the Object of TranslationStudies”. Target 7:2: 191-222.Krings, Hans P. 1987. “The Use of Introspective Data in Translation”. Claus Frerch andGabriele Kasper, eds. Introspection in Second-Language Research. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters, 1987: 159-176.Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.Kuhn, Thomas S. 1991. “The Natural and the Human Sciences”. D.R. HiIIey, J.F.Bohman and R. Schusterman, eds. The Interpretative Turn. Ithaca-London:Cornell University Press, 1991: 17-24.Kussmaul, Paul and Sonja Tiekkonen-Condit. 1995. "Think-Aloud Protocol Analysis inTranslation Studies". TTR VIII:2: 179-199.Lambert, Jose and Hendrik van Gorp. 1985. "On Describing Translations". Hermans1985a: 43-53.Levý, Jiří. 1989. “Translation as a Decision Process”. Chesterman 1989: 99-104. Lörscher,Wolfgang. 1991. Translation Performance. Translation Process andTranslation Strategies: A Psycholinguistic Investigation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Lörscher, Wolfgang. 1992a. “Investigating the Translation Process”. Meta 37:3: 426-439.Lörscher, Wolfgang. 1992b. “Process-Oriented Research into Translation andImplications for Translation Teaching”. ITR 5:1: 145-161.Nida, Eugene A. 1969. “Science of Translation”. Language 45: 483-498.Nida, Eugene A. and Charles R. Taber. 1969. The Theory and Practice of Translation.Leiden: E.J. Brill.Nord, Christiane. 1991. Text Analysis in Translation. Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi.Popper, Karl. 1945. The Open Society and Its Enemies 2. London: Routledge.Popper, Karl. 1972. Objective Knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon. .Putnam, Hilary 1975. Mind, Language, and Reality: Philosophical Papers-2.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.17

Iranian Translators Cyber Association ArticlesPutnam, Hilary. 1981. Reason, Truth, and History. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Pym, Anthony. 1995. “European Translation Studies, Une science qui derange, andWhy Equivalence Needn’t Be a Dirty Word". ITR VIII: 1: 153-176.Quine, Willard van Orman. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Reiss, Katharina. 1989. “Text Types, Translation Types and Translation Assessment”.Chesterman 1989: 105-115.Reis, Katharina and Hans J. Vermeer. 1984. Grundlegung einer allgemeinenTranslations theorie. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Robyns, Clem, ed. 1994. Translation and the (Re)production of Culture: SelectedPapers of the CERA Research Seminars in Translation Studies 1989-1991.Leuven: The CERA Chair for Translation, Communication and Cultures.Rorty, Richard. 1980. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Oxford: Blackwell.Sager, Juan. 1994. Language Engineering and Translation: Consequences ofAutomation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Seguinot, Candace, ed. 1989. The Translation Process. Toronto: H.G. Publications.Shapere, Dudley. 1981. “Meaning and Scientific Change”. Ian Hacking, ed. ScientificRevolutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1981: 28-59.Snell-Homby, Mary. 1988. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam,Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Snell-Hornby, Mary. 1990. “Linguistic Transcoding or Cultural Transfer? A Critique ofTranslation Theory in Germany”. Susan Bassnett and Andre Lefevere, eds.Translation, History and Culture. London: Pinter, 1990: 79-86.Steele, Mary. 1994. “Translation into English in the USSR: MacrostructureAlterations”. Robyns 1994: 95-106.Taylor, Charles. 1980. “Understanding in Human Science”. Review of Metaphysics 34:3-23.Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 1989. “Professional vs. Non-Professional Translation: AThink-Aloud Protocol Study”. Seguinot 1989: 73-85.Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 1990. “Professional vs. Non-Professional TransIation: AThink-Aloud Protocol Study”. M.A.K. Halliday, J. Gibbons and H. Nichols, eds.Learning, Keeping and Using Language: Selected Papers from the Eighth WorldCongress of Applied Linguistics, Sydney, Australia, 16-21 August 1987. Amsterdam:John Benjamins, 1990: 381-394.Toury, Gideon. 1980. In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: The PorterInstitute for Poetics and Semiotics. I Toury. Gideon. 1985. "A Rationale forDescriptive Translation Studies". Hermans 1985a: 16-41.Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Trosborg., Anna. 1994. “Translation Studies: Same Recent Developments”. Hennes 12:9-28.Vermeer, Hans J. 1978. “Ein Rahmen fUr eine allgemeine Translationstheorie”.Lebende II Sprachen 23: 99-102.Vermeer, Hans J. 1983. Aufsätze zur Translationstheorie. Heidelberg.Vermeer, Hans J. 1986. Voraussetzungen jUr eine Translationstheorie: Einige Kapitel.Kultur- und Sprachtheorie. Heidelberg: Selbstverlag.18

Vermeer, Hans J. 1989. “Scopos and Commission in Translationai Action”. Chesterman1989: 99-104.Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. 1991. Springfield MA: Merriam-WebsterInc.Wilss, Wolfram. 1982. The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods. Tübingen:Gunter Narr.Zadeh, Lotfi. 1965. “Fuzzy Sets”. Information and Control 8: 338-353.Zierer, E. 1979. Algunos conceptos basicos de la ciencia de la traduccion. Trujillo:Universidad Nacional de Trujillo.19