Thus, compression and development are the basic interpretation tools and they should determine the methods of interpretation training.

38. Equivalents in Translation: the Notion of Equivalence

By “equivalence” we understand a measure of semantic similarity between the ST and the TT. Translation equivalence is the key idea of translation. According to Hornby equivalent means equal in value, amount, volume, etc. What does it mean if applied to translation. The principle of equivalence is based on the mathematical law of transitivity that reads: if A is equal to C and B is equal to C, then B equals A. As applied to translation, equivalence means that if a word or word combination of one language (A) corresponds to certain concept (C) and a word or word combination of another language (B) corresponds to the same concept (C) these words or word combinations are considered equivalent (connected by the equivalence relation). In other words, in translation equivalent means indirectly equal, that is equal by the similarity of meanings.

It is very easy to observe an apparent lack of scientific ecology in the current equivalence terminology. There we have 'equivalence in difference' (Jacobson 1959), 'functional equivalence' (Jäger 1973, House 1977), 'maintenance (retention) of translation invariance on the content level' (Kade 1968), 'closet natural equivalent' (Nida 1964), 'formal equivalence (correspondence)' vs. 'dynamic equivalence' (Nida 1964), 'communicative equivalence' (Jäger 1975; Reiß 1976), 'pragmatic equivalence' (Wilss 1980; Baker 1992; Koller 1992), 'adequacy' (Reiß 1984; Puurtinen 1992); 'acceptability' (Toury 1980; Nord 1991; Puurtinen 1992); 'faithfulness', 'fidelity', 'loyalty' (Nord 1991; Puurtinen 1994), etc. We employ the term “equivalence” while comparing ST and TT in order to assess the quality of the latter.

With regard to implications of all these terms on translation quality assessment (TQA), however, two significant developments in these notions would be Nida's (1964, 1969) distinction between formal vs. dynamic equivalence, and the functionalist's orientation from referential equivalence towards pragmatic or functional equivalence.

TRANSLATION EQUIVALENT. An expression from a LANGUAGE which has the same meaning as, or can be used in a similar context to, one from another language, and can therefore be used to translate it: for example, English I don't understand, French Je ne comprends pas, Italian Non capisco, Modern Greek Dhen katalaveno, Japanese Wakarimasen. Achieving such correspondences involves special bilingual skills to cope with the tendency among languages to ‘lack of fit’ (technically, non-isomorphism or anisomorphism). Thus, the source-language expression may be a single word, a phrase, or a sentence within a text, but its target-language equivalent may have to be rendered at a different level: for example, the English idiom It's pouring (with rain) cannot be translated word-for-word into German, but the meaning can be redistributed as Es regnet in Strömen (It rains in streams). Most bilingual speakers can supply examples of such equivalents, and bilingual dictionaries codify them in bulk, but it is the job especially of the translator and interpreter to decide whether a particular expression is a fitting match for a particular passage. A number of complex strategies are needed to find translation equivalents, ranging from literal procedures such as direct transfer, substitution, and loan translation to devices of free translation such as transposition, adaptation, and circumlocution (which aim to find the closest functional equivalent). The literal approach can work well when language pairs have a similar structure: for example English and German with mother/Mutter, Mother's Day/Muttertag: but see FAUX AMI. The free style, however, is demanded even in similar languages whenever anything close to idiom occurs: mother-country/Heimat (homeland), necessity is the mother of invention/Not macht erfinderisch (need makes inventive).

40)Formal vs. Dynamic Equivalence

One of the fundamental debates on the translation equivalence, the 'literal' verses 'free' controversy, has been more or less a constant in translation studies. Nida shifts attention away from the debate of literal versus free towards the effects of different translation strategies by distinguishing 'formal equivalence', meaning the closest possible match of form and content between the ST and the TT, and 'dynamic equivalence', which is the principle of equivalence of effect on TT reader, as basic orientations, asserting that if we look at translations in terms of the receptors, rather than in terms of their respective forms, then we introduce another point of view; the intelligibility of the translation. Such intelligibility is not, however, to be measured merely in terms of whether the words are understandable and the sentences grammatically constructed, but in terms of the total impact the message has on the one who receives it.

Formal equivalence is, of course, appropriate in certain circumstances. It is a means of providing some degree of insight into the lexical, grammatical or structural form of a source text. Orientation towards dynamic equivalence, on the other hand, is assumed to be the normal strategy. Although most translations may fall somewhere on the scale in between the two types, Nida (1964: 160) claims that 'the present direction is toward increasing emphasis on dynamic equivalence'. In a later work dynamic equivalence is defined as follows: “Dynamic equivalence is therefore to be defined in terms of the degree to which the receptors of the message in the receptor language respond to it in substantially the same manner as the receptors in the source language. This response can never be identical, for the cultural and historical settings are too different, but there should be a high degree of equivalence of response, or the translation will have failed to accomplish its purpose”.

In spite of the criticism that actual effects on receivers of texts are difficult to gauge, one important aspect of 'audience response' lies in correct understanding of the meaning by the readership, which goes beyond the mere comprehension of the original message. It would be wrong to think, however, that the response of the receptors in the second language is merely in terms of comprehension of the information, for communication is not merely informative. It must be expressive and imperative if it is to serve the principle purposes of communications such as those found in the Bible. That is to say, a translation of the Bible must not only provide information which people can understand but must present the message in such a way that people can feel its relevance (the expressive element in communication) and can then respond to it in action (the imperative function). Thus, according to Nida and Taber (1969), a normal translation should aim at the comprehension of the message of the original which is defined as 'the total meaning or content of a discourse; the concept and feelings which the author intends the reader to understand and perceive'.