Channels, Fall 2020

Page 20 Beale • Equivalence in Translation or even desirable? To better frame the question, we can look at two points of definition for a good translation as defined by Dmitri Buzaji (2019): in regard to sense and meaning, any errors which occur should not affect the principle understanding of the text, and in regard to style and formulation, the TT must adhere to that of the original. Keeping these considerations in mind, we can evaluate various claims about degrees of freedom. Eugene Nida (1969) speaks of two main kinds of equivalence: formal equivalence, whereby the ST and TT match in form and context, and dynamic equivalence, in which the ST is conveyed as naturally as possible (Panou, 2013). Newmark (1988) further developed this idea with his semantic (formal) and communicative (dynamic) translations, where the former focuses more on closely replicated the precise meaning and the latter on producing an idiomatic effect in the TT. He also noted that translators are not locked into either one of these categories but can alternate between styles as they work through a text (Panou, 2013). Relatedly, House (1997) posited a match between the ST and TT in textual profile and function of the original, achieved through equivalent “pragmatic” means, as a basic requirement for equivalence in translation (Mansoor, 2018). Another factor to consider under degrees of freedom is open choice. This principle, proposed by John Sinclair (2004), states that the translator must be aware when certain words can be paired together while retaining their isolated meanings. The important factor to keep in mind is what words can be together and which must be together, a topic which will be expounded upon in the discussion on collocation. This form stands in contrast to “idiom principle,” when words fall i nto a preset form, typically an idiom (hence the title), which must be translated as a fixed group and cannot be broken down further (Kesić, 2015, p. 68). Two translation strategies which fall principally under degree of freedom include transpositions and modulations. Transposition involves changing grammatical categories while preserving the meaning of the text in order to attain an idiomatic feel in the ST (Jones, 2014). Modulation goes a step further than transposition, changing the manner of thought of a translation unit, shifting from concrete to abstract, cause to effect, or means to result. Equivalence is often seen as a form of modulation which sometimes leads to wholesale replacement of translation units (TU) for an equivalent in the TT (Jones, 2014). To close this category before moving on to the next, I will offer some cautionary remarks on the question of degrees of freedom. Jones (2014) rates equivalence (as a form of modulation) as 6/7 on a scale of remoteness from the original text, with direct borrowing ranked as closest. Beekman and Callow (1979), in their work on Bible translation, warn against unduly free translations for deviation from the original and highly literal translation for being difficult to comprehend in the TL, preferring a modified literal or idiomatic translation as required by the translation task. Their closing words on the topic serve as a good guiding principle in decisions of degree of freedom in almost all translation practice: “be literal as possible, idiomatic as necessary” (Beekman & Callow, 1979, p. 44). Level of Translation Moving on from the degree of freedom in translation, I turn to the consideration of the level of translation, which determines the size of the linguistic unit at which the text ought to be tran slated. Although some variation exists across translators’ and linguists’ opinions, most