Translation Equivalences and Its Relation with Translation Techniques

Understand the Translation Deeper

One of the crucial elements in translation is determining the exact equivalence in target language (TL) text which has the same value as source language (SL) text. The different cultures and language structures between two languages are certainly one of the biggest challenges for a translator when transferring messages from source text (ST) to target text (TT). Thus, there can be no fully exact translation or absolute equivalence since no two languages are identical either in their meanings or in their styles. However, the translation may be close to the original, but there can be no identity in detail. Furthermore, Venuti in his book “The Translation Studies Reader” explains:

“Messages differ primarily in the degree to which content or form is the dominant consideration. Of course, the content of a message can never be completely abstracted from the form, and form is nothing apart from content; but in some messages the content is of primary consideration, and in others the form must be given a higher priority.”

(Venuti, 2000, p.126-127)

The explanation above obviously clarifies that it is hard to find the precise equivalence in form and content simultaneously since the translator itself must choose and emphasize whether it is the meaning or the form that will be given priority. The decision certainly depends on the kind of text that will be translated as well as its purpose. Nevertheless, generally speaking, the form is commonly sacrificed for the sake of the content.  Hence, Venuti (ibid.) further says that only rarely can one reproduce both content and form in a translation.

 The notion of equivalence in translation has been written extensively by some experts, however, this article solely discusses equivalence theory according to Eugene A. Nida (ibid.) which divides equivalence into two types: formal equivalence (F-E)  and dynamic equivalence (D-E).

Formal equivalence (F-E) focuses attention on the message of the text, both in form and content. F-E translation is basically source-oriented, hence it should match as closely as possible with the source text (ST)’s languages and cultures. F-E translation’s characteristics are to preserve a. grammatical units, b. consistency in word usage, and c. meanings in terms of the source contexts. Especially for point (a.), preserving grammatical units of source language including transferring the same word class, not changing sentence boundaries, paragraphs, punctuations, etc. This obviously implies that formal equivalence is mechanically reproducing the form of ST into TT which brings to the fulfillment of accuracy and correctness. Consequently, the translation tends to be absurd, rigid, and not readily intelligible to the average readers of receptor language (Nida, ibid., p.134-135).

Dynamic equivalence (D-E) works the opposite of F-E. D-E translation is more flexible since according to Nida (ibid.),  it is mentioned as the closest-natural equivalent to the source-language message. The definition clarifies briefly 3 essential characteristics of D-E, namely: a. equivalent, which points toward the source language message, b. natural, which directs to receptor language, c. closest, which binds the two languages together on the basis of the highest degree of approximation. The D-E aims to complete the naturalness of expression. It produces a natural translation that is acceptable for target readers i.e. the TT should comprise of a. language and culture of receptor language as a whole, b. the context of the particular message. This D-E translation is directed primarily toward the equivalence of meanings rather than forms. It makes the receptor reader or audience feels like not reading a translated text. The effect is essentially identical to the original receptors reading the ST (Nida, ibid., p.136).

Considering the explanation of both equivalence types by Nida (ibid.), it takes to the conclusion that F-E preserves the form of the original without concerning the content looks like in the receptor language due to its persistence regarding accuracy and correctness. It is transferring sentence to sentence and concept to concept. Conversely, D-E is oriented to the naturalness and acceptability of the receptor language. It strongly precedes the contents rather than the forms.

The notion of equivalence types by Nida is basically the same as translation ideology which was first introduced by Venuti (1995, p.20) namely, domestication and foreignization. Venuti (ibid.) defines domestication as “an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to target-language cultural values, bringing the author back home,” while foreignization is, “an ethnodeviant pressure on those values to register the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text, sending the reader abroad.” Thus, the former one is receptor-oriented by replacing the source culture with the target culture which has the same concept as D-E by Nida (1964), meanwhile, the latter one is source-oriented by preserving the differences of the source culture in the target culture which has the same notion as F-E by Nida (1964). Therefore, narrowly speaking, the writer concludes that it is merely a different term proposed by both experts. D-E = domestication, F-E=foreignization.

The notion of equivalence type which is described above will be explained further by relating it with translation technique to know which technique is included in F-E and which is included into D-E (However, before you read further, it is advisable that you have understood each of translation techniques proposed by Molina & Albir). According to Nababan (2013, p.34), translation techniques that belong to foreignization or F-E are pure borrowing, natural borrowing, calque, and literal translation, meanwhile, the rest belongs to domestication or D-E. Borrowing and calque are clearly F-E since it contains foreign words which adapted to the receptor language. The literal translation which preserves the form and meaning of ST definitely includes F-E as well. The rest of the 15 techniques are definitely D-E since the translation which uses those techniques are adapting to receptor text both in form and meaning.

In the light of above, here is the table to clarify the latter explanation.

Equivalence Type
F-E / Foreignization	D-E / Domestication
Pure Borrowing	Adaptation
Natural Borrowing	Amplification
Calque	Compensation
Literal Translation	Description
	Established Equivalent
	Generalization
	Linguistic Amplification
	Linguistic Compression
	Literal Translation
	Modulation
	Particularization
	Reduction
	Substitution
	Transposition
	Variation

-CQD
Image Source: Pinterest