Channels, Fall 2020

Channels • 20 20 • Volume 5 • Number 1 Page 19 linguistic communities. Vinay and Darbelnet (1958) focus on the replication of the textual “situation” in the ST with different wording in the TT, all while maintaining the ST stylistic impact, which points to translation at the level of sense, rather than precise image (as cited in Panou, 2013). Similarly, Yaqub (2014) mentions the transfer of meaning from one language to another by replacing the ST’s textual material (grammar, graphology, lexis) with that of equal value in the TT, while holding meaning constant and preserving semantic and stylistic features as the precise form of the textual changes. Suchanova (2013), quoting Nida and Taber (1969), Oetinger (1960), and Wilss (1982) respectively, defines equivalence as “reproducing in the [target language] (TL) the closest natural equivalent of the [source language] (SL) message,” an exchange of elements in the SL for elements of equal value in the TL and a transfer from ST to TT which assumes an equal understanding of content and style (Suchanova, 2013, p. 156). Suchanova (2013) herself regards equivalence as a central idea in translation theory for its role in helping to define the connection between ST and TT “in terms of the degree of correspondence between the text units” (p. 156). Pym (2010) argues that perfect equivalence does not exist and that a more accurate term is assumed equivalence, which he defines as a relation of equal value between ST and TT segments established on form and function (Panou, 2013). A few common threads can be drawn from these various definitions and discussions. One is the idea of a one-to-one relation, or as close as one can achieve, between the ST and TT across multiple variables (effect upon the reader, semantic value, style, meaning, function), which is established via the linguistic signs employed. Another aspect worthy of note is the concept of communicating on the level of sense, not image, as differences in cultural background may sometimes make the latter impossible. Examples of this would be the Egyptian Arabic بكرا في مشمش , “there will be apricots tomorrow” or Russian когда рак на горе свистит, “when a crab on a mountain whistles,” which both convey the sense of a high degree of unlikelihood. Panou (2013) makes a similar claim in describing equivalence as the ST and TT sharing a sort of sameness. For the present purpose of this research, equivalence can be generally defined as a preservation and maintenance of information and features from the ST in the TT in light of its context, another point which will be addressed later. One final note worth mentioning before leaving this definition is the intentionally general definition of the term “equivalence.” This paper is aimed at an analysis and practical implementation of various elements of equivalence theory to ensure quality translation, not at creating a comprehensive definition of the term and arguing for the merits thereof. That discussion is worth a research project all its own, complete with subsequent debate and review in the linguistic community. With that disclaimer, this paper will now turn to some of the factors to consider in achieving equivalence in translation, moving from those of a more theoretical nature to strategic decisions made at regular intervals in the translation process proper. Degree of Freedom This question of freedom of translation bears great significance as to how the end product will read or sound. Hervey, Loughridge and Higgins (2006) pose the question as an establishing factor before one even begins translating a text. So what degree is permissible