LANGUE- ORIENTED VS PAROLE-ORIENTED EQUIVALENCE

In trying to work out a notion of equivalence that steers clear of either extreme –

the narrowly quantitative approach vs the open-ended text-and-beyond view

– Koller (1979) maintains a distinction between formal similarity at the level of

virtual language systems (langue), and equivalence relations obtaining between texts

in real time at the actual level of parole, a distinction we examined in relation to

Catford in Unit 4.

Koller advocates that it is the latter, parole -oriented notion of equivalence (which the Germans call Äquivalenz) that constitutes the real object of enquiry in Translation Studies. Textual equivalence proper may thus be seen as obtaining not between the languages themselves at the level of the linguistic system but between real texts at the level of text in context (see again the discussion in Unit 4).

One way of reconciling the two extremes of langue - vs parole -oriented approaches to translation is to define equivalence in relative (not categorical) terms and in hierarchical (not static) terms. That is, equivalence is not an ‘either/or’ choice, nor is it an ‘if X, then Y’ formula. Translation approaches informed by pragmatics as the study of intended meaning are ideally suited for this dynamic view of equiva-lence, and the model of equivalence proposed by Koller is an excellent example of an approach that is variable and flexible in accounting for relationships between comparable elements in the SL and TL.