10. Equivalence and adequacy
10.0 Preliminary remarks
There are few recent publications on the theory and practice of translation that
do not use the terms equivalence/equivalent and adequacy/adequate; however,
almost no other concept in translation studies is defined with as little precision
and used in as many different ways as these two concept pairs. There seems
to be no major disagreement today among translation scholars that ‘equiva
lence’ refers to a relationship between a source text (element) and a target text
(element), but the nature of this relationship still remains somewhat vague.
Sometimes, equivalence is equated with adequacy (e.g. by Stackelberg 1978:
8) or is even suggested as a synonym for ‘translation’ (Toury 1980a: 115).
More recently, some scholars have rejected the concept as being an ‘idealiza
tion’ or too prescriptive and have suggested replacing it with the concept of
‘approximation’, such as Ladmiral:
Thus, we have seen the appearance of translatological models based
on ‘idealization’ proposing a paradoxically prescriptive concept of
equivalence between the source and the target texts which has little
to do with reality. Such a concept seems rather problematic in that
it just names the difficulty instead of contributing to its solution. In
practice, this concept could be replaced by the idea of approximation
which is more appropriate when taking the translator’s subjectivity
into account […].
51
We believe that the term ‘equivalence’ should not be abandoned completely.
However, we should continue in our attempts to specify what we mean by
it and limit its use to appropriate contexts. The terms ‘equivalence’ and ‘ad
equacy’ will both be dealt with as an example of our struggle to attain more
precision in TS terminology in order to make it more productive for theoret
ical research.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |