The Problem with Equivalence

The semantic view of equivalence draws on the representational theory of meaning, which has been rejected in linguistics (Baker 2004: 65). Consequently, the treatment of equivalence as a semantic category is now seen as untenable in translation studies and other approaches to the understanding of translation/equivalence have been suggested (Baker 2004: 65). I return to these alternative models shortly.

Perhaps the most scathing critic of equivalence is Snell-Hornby (1988), who observes that the “discussion of the term equivalence was unleashed by an enigmatic statement in Roman Jakobson’s essay” (Snell-Hornby 1988: 19, emphasis in original). The said statement is Jakobson’s (1959: 233-234) declaration that: “Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics. Like any receiver of verbal messages, the linguist acts as their interpreter”. Snell-Hornby’s use of the verb “unleash”

indicates that Jakobson’s “equivalence” has gained some widespread usage among

42

translation scholars. According to her, this concept has been uncritically transcoded into German as Äquivalenz¹⁸ in der Differenz, “whereby however, the linguists have not acted as the interpreters of the verbal message concerned” (Snell-Hornby 1988: 19, emphasis in original). She further examines different conceptualizations and applications of equivalence in translation and concludes that

equivalence is unsuitable as a basic concept in translation theory: the term equivalence, apart from being imprecise and ill-defined (even after a heated debate of over twenty years) presents an illusion of symmetry between languages which hardly exists beyond the level of vague approximations and which distorts the basic problems of translation. (Snell-Hornby 1988: 22) With the foregoing, the notion of equivalence gradually became unpopular among translation scholars. Table 2.1 summarizes the evolution of this gradual erosion of equivalence in translation research:

Table 2. 1. The gradual erosion of the notion of equivalence in Translation Studies (after Baker 2004)

source text/target text (same meaning)

source text/target text (same effect on respective readers) source text/target text (same function)

target text (independent function, specified by commission)

target text (independent function acquired in the situation in which it is received)

Table 2.1 presents the evolution of equivalence from the idea of a target text giving the same meaning as source text; to the suggestion that the target text produce an effect on the receptor audience similar to the effect the source text had on the original source culture audience (Nida and Taber 1974: 1); to the position that the target text should have the

18 Snell-Hornby (1988: 17 – 18) submits that “equivalence” in English has nuanced connotations which are not shared with Äquivalenz in German, one of which is that the English term indicates a quantitative approximation while the German term denotes a qualitative evaluation.

43

same function in the target culture as the source text had in the source culture (Roberts 1985); to the belief that the function of a text in the target culture – as determined by the commission – determines the method of translation (Vermeer [1989] 2004); to the position that the function of a text is determined in the situation in which it is received (Nord 1991).

One also notices the gradual shift of emphasis from the source text to the target text thereby making the source text appear almost irrelevant.

These redefinitions of the relationship between the source text and the target text and the place of the source text in translations have resulted in the call for a broader definition of translation, as illustrated in Ammann (1989: 107–108):

On the basis of modern translation theory we can talk of “translation” when a source text (of oral or written nature) has, for a particular purpose, been used as model for the production of a text in the target culture. As translator I am also in a position to judge when a source text is unsuitable as model for a target culture text, and to propose to the client the production of a new text for that target culture. (Quoted in Koller 1995: 194)

Koller (1995) observes that this expansion of the meaning of translation would suggest that some original texts could as well be counted as translations, which raises the questions: “what does the term translatory imply, if it also refers to original text production? Or put in another way: if this is a case of translator activity, then what in the field of text production could ever constitute non-translatory activity?” (Koller 1995: 194, emphasis in original). He, therefore, insists that the concept of equivalence remains very useful in order to delimit the field of Translation Studies. Pym (1997: 78) supports Koller’s (1995) position, for, in his words, he does not

like the current social and political ideals of translation, because I want to name and defend the varieties and virtues of nontranslation, and because the concept of equivalence is needed to prise those two fields apart, be it only for a moment of illumination, so that we know what we’re talking about.

44

In other words, equivalence cannot be completely dropped until a different and more convincing criterion for delimiting an act of translation and the object of Translation Studies is found.

As this research is interested in exploring how Bible translation has engendered the creation of and semantic changes in specific lexical items in Igbo and the introduction of Christian concepts into the cosmology of an erstwhile non-Christian people, there is then the need to identify these lexical units, and the concept of equivalence helps in this regard.