Technical Translation: Usability Strategies for Translating Technical Documentation

Levels of Equivalence
We see that equivalence between the source and target texts is not absolute 
and total but it can operate on a number of different levels. There are a 
number of systems which have been put forward to examine the levels of 
equivalence. One of the most enduring is the scheme proposed by Koller 
(1979:188-189). According to Koller, equivalence can occur on the follow-
ing levels:
1. 
Denotational Meaning
, namely the object or concept being referred to. 
In texts such as user guides, equivalence on this level is relatively easy to 
achieve because we need to keep referring back to the product the 
reader is learning to use. 
2. 
Connotational Meaning
, which is, according to Koller divided into lan-
guage level, sociolect, dialect, medium, style, frequency, domain, value 
and emotional tone. Equivalence on this level can sometimes prove 
problematic where, for example, the enthusiastic and informal tone 
adopted by the source text may be culturally unacceptable in the target 
language. 
goes on forever”. He goes on to say that translation equivalence cannot

---

Theory in Technical Translation 27 
3. 
Textual Norms
, which are typical language features of texts like patents, 
legal documents, business letters etc. Textual norms may include the use 
of the second person to address the readers of user guides or the use of 
passive constructions to describe experiments in scholarly journals. 
4. 
Pragmatic Meaning
, which includes reader expectations 
Komissarov (1977) also proposes a series of levels on which translation 
equivalence can occur. In the context of what Fawcett (1997:60) refers to 
as “sharp and fuzzy equivalence” Komissarov’s levels all build upon each 
other with the lowest level of equivalence being retained and built on by 
the next higher level of equivalence and so on. These levels are as follows: 
1. Equivalence on the level of the general meaning or message. Aside from 
the general communicative intention, there is no tangible equivalence on 
the basis of situational, grammatical
or lexical factors. 
2. In addition to the preceding level, this type of equivalence identifies a