A) Full Translation Equivalents

From the previous discussion (bearing in mind differences in mental images standing for the equivalent words in different languages and context dependence of equivalents) it may be righteously presumed that one can hardly find truly full and universal equivalents for a word. However, as you all know practical translation dates back to ancient times and since then translations are commonly regarded and used as full-pledged substitutes of the relevant source texts. That is why despite contradicting theoretical evidence full equivalence is commonly accepted as a convenient makeshift.

For practical purpose full equivalence is presumed when there is complete coincidence of pragmatic meanings of the SL and TL units. By pragmatic meaning of a translation equivalent we understand the reaction of the translation user to the verbal message in target language. Translation equivalents of all words and word combinations one finds in a good dictionary are full because the translation practice reflected in dictionaries shows them as complete substitutes universally accepted by the speaker’s community of the TL (i.e. as pragmatically equivalent). Of them the stylistically neutral words with referential meanings (terms, geographical and proper names, words denoting physical objects and processes) are more likely to have full translation equivalents because semantic and pragmatic parts of their meaning are less ambiguous.

b) Partial Translation Equivalents

Partial equivalence is the absence of one or more of equivalence aspects, i.e. of syntactic, semantic or pragmatic aspect.

The Ukrainian word “протестувати” is a partial equivalent of the English word “protesting” (say in the sentence Protesting is a risk – Протестувати ризиковано) because of different grammatical meanings (a gerund and a verb), the semantic and pragmatic aspects being similar.

Consider the English saying Carry coal to Newcastle. If one translates it as Возити вугілля до Ньюкасла it would lack the pragmatic aspect of equivalence (The intent of this message Bring something that is readily available locally would be lost, because the Ukrainian audience could be unaware of the fact that Newcastle is the centre of a coal-mining area.) If, however, one translates it Їхати до Тули з власним самоваром it would lose the semantic similarity, but preserve the pragmatic intent of the message, which is the first priority of translation. Anyway, both suggested translation equivalents of this saying are considered partial.

Syntactic equivalence of translation units longer than several words is a rare case, indeed, if one deals with two languages having different systems and structures. Moreover, it is hardly a translator’s target to preserve the structure of the ST and in many instances this means violation of syntactic and stylistic rules of the TL.

Semantic similarity between the ST and TT is desirable, but it is not an ultimate goal of the translator. More often than not slight differences in meaning help to adapt the idea of the original message to the target audience.

What is really important for translation adequacy is the pragmatic equivalence. When the original message is lost for the target audience it is a failure of the translation and translator and no semantic or syntactic similarity will redress the damage.

Let us take several examples of semantic and\or pragmatic equivalents to illustrate the idea: зелений - green; (недосвідчений) - verdant; зелений горошок - green peas; зелений театр - open-air stage; зелений хлопчисько - greenhorn; давати зелену вулицю - to give open passage, to give the go-ahead; туга зелена - utter boredom; зелене будівництво - laying out of parks; зелений борщ - sorrel soup; потопати в зелені - to be buried in verdure.

Thus, we may suggest that translation equivalence partiality is more a translation tool than a flaw in translator’s ability to render the content of the source message in its full.

The equivalence between ST and TT may be based on the reproduction of different parts of the ST contents. Accordingly, Komissarov distinguishes several types or levels of translation equivalence.

Let us first of all single out translations in which the degree of semantic similarity seems to be the lowest:

Maybe there is some chemistry between us that doesn’t mix.

Бывает, что люди не сходятся характерами.

A rolling stone gathers no moss.

Кому дома не сидится, тот добра не наживёт.

That’s a pretty thing to say.

Постыдился бы!

Here we cannot discover any common semes or invariant structures in the original and its translation. An absolute dissimilarity of language units is accompanied by the absence of obvious logical link between the two messages which could lead to the conclusion that they are “about the same thing”, i.e. that they describe one and the same situation. Yet, it is evident that the two sentences have something in common as to their meaning. This common part of their contents is obviously of great importance, since it is enough to ensure an adequate communication. Moreover, it comprises the information which must be preserved by all means even though the greater part of the contents of the original is lost in the translation.

From the examples we can see that common to the original and its translation in each case is only the general intent of the message, the implied or figurative sense, in other words, the conclusions the Receptor can draw from the total contents or the associations they can evoke in him, or the special emphasis on some aspect of communication. In plain English, the translation does not convey either “what the original text is about”, or “what is said in it” or “how it is said”, but only “what it is said for”, i.e. what the Source meant, what the aim of the message is.

This part of the contents which contains information about the general intent of the message, its orientation towards a certain communicative effect can be called “the purport of communication”. In the first type of equivalence it is only the purport of communication that is retained in translation.

The second group of translation can be illustrated by the following examples:

He answered the telephone.

Он снял трубку.

You see one bear, you have seen them all.

Все медведи похожи друг на друга.

It was late in the day.

Близился вечер.

The equivalence of translation here does not include any parallelism of lexical or structural units. Most of the words or syntactical structures of the original have no direct correspondences in the translation. But there is a greater proximity of contents than in the preceding group. In this group of translation the equivalence implies retention of two types of information contained in the original – the purport of communication and the indication of the situation. The information which characterizes the second type of equivalence can be designated as “identification of the situation”.

In the next group of translations the part of the contents which is to be retained is still larger.

London saw a cold winter last year.

В прошлом году зима в Лондоне была холодной.

You are not serious?

Вы шутите?

In this case the translation retains the two preceding informative complexes as well as the method of describing the situation. In other words, it contains the same general notions as the original. This means that the translation is a semantic paraphrase of the original, preserving its basic semes and allowing their free reshuffle in the sentence. In this type of equivalence the translation indicates “what is said in the original”, i.e. what aspect of the described situation is mentioned in the communication. So we can say that the third type of equivalence implies retention in the translation of the three parts of the original contents which we have designated as the purport of communication, the identification of the situation and the method of its description.

The fourth group of translations can be illustrated by the following examples:

He was never tired of old songs.

Старые песни ему никогда не надоедали.

I don’t see that I need to convince you.

Не вижу надобности доказывать это вам.

In this group the semantic similarity of the previous types of equivalence is reinforced by the invariant meaning of the syntactic structures in the original and the translation. In such translations the syntactic structures can be regarded as derived from those in the original through direct or backward transformations. This includes cases when the translation makes use of similar or parallel structures. Here the translation conveys not only the “what for”, the “what about” and the “what” of the original but also something of the “how-it-is-said in the original”. Thus, the fourth type of equivalence presupposes retention in the translation of the four meaningful components of the original: the purport of communication, the identification of the situation, the method of its description, and the invariant meaning of the syntactic structures.

In the fifth group of translations we find the maximum possible semantic similarity between texts in different languages. These translations try to retain the meaning of all the words used in the original text. The examples cited below illustrate this considerable semantic proximity of the correlated words in the two sentences:

I saw him at the theatre.

Я видел его в театре.

The house was sold for 10 thousand dollars.

Дом был продан за 10 тысяч долларов.

Here we can observe the equivalence of semes which make up the meaning of correlated words in the original text and the translation, parallelism of syntactic structures, the similarity of the notional categories which determine the method of describing the situation, the identity of the situations, the identical functional aim of the utterance or the purport of communication.

Thus, there are 5 different types of semantic relationships between equivalent phrases (texts) in two languages. All translations can be classified into 5 types of equivalence which differ as to the volume and character of the information retained in each. Each subsequent type of equivalence retains the part of the original contents which includes the information preserved in the previous types. Since each subsequent type implies a higher degree of semantic similarity we can say that every translation is made at a certain level of equivalence:

1) the level of the purport of communication;

2) the level of (the identification of) the situation;

3) the level of the method of description (of the situation);

4) the level of syntactic meanings;

5) the level of word semantics.

Thus, a translation event is accomplished at a definite level of equivalence. It should be emphasized that the level hierarchy does not imply the idea of approbation or disapprobation. A translation can be good at any level of equivalence.