MUNDAY, J.

Chapter 3. EQUIVALENCE AND EQUIVALENT

EFFECT

Sections 3.0 – 3.1

 Ch 3. EQUIVALENCE AND EQUIVALENT EFFECT
STUDY QUESTIONS

1. Explain how you understand ‘a circular debate’.

2. Attempts to define the nature of equivalence.

Jakobson’s discussion of equivalence in
meaning.

TEXT: ‘On linguistic aspects of translation’ at

https://web.stanford.edu/~eckert/PDF/jakobson.p
df
 3.1 Roman Osipovich Jakobson (1896 –1982)

• A Russian thinker who became one of the

most influential linguists of the 20th c. by
pioneering the development of structural
analysis of language, poetry and art.
• Jakobson was born to a well-to-do family in
Russia of Jewish descent, where he
developed a fascination with language at a
very young age.
• As a student he was a leading figure of the
Moscow Linguistic Circle.
 3.1 Roman Jakobson: the nature of linguistic
meaning and equivalence
• 1920 was a year of political upheaval
in Russia, and Jakobson relocated to
Prague as a member of the Soviet
diplomatic mission to continue his
doctoral studies.

• In 1926, together with Vilém

Mathesius and others he became
one of the founders of the “Prague
School” of linguistic theory.
 3.1 Roman Jakobson: the nature of
linguistic meaning and equivalence
• In 1949 Jakobson moved to Harvard
University, where he remained for the rest
of his life.

• In the early 1960s Jakobson shifted his

emphasis to a more comprehensive view
of language and began writing about
communication sciences as whole.
 3.1 Linguistic meaning and equivalence -1
• He examines linguistic meaning and
equivalence as related to interlingual
translation.

• Saussure’s relation between the signifier

(the spoken and written signal)
• and the signified (the concept signified);

• They form the linguistic sign, but it is

arbitrary or unmotivated (cf. also Algirdas
Greimas)
3.1 Linguistic meaning and equivalence - 2
• E.g. the English word cheese is the
acoustic signifier
• which denotes the concept ‘food made of
pressed curds’ (=the signified),
• although there is no inherent reason for
that to be so.

• Ambrosia – nectar; even with these

words it is possible to understand what is
signified.
3.1 Linguistic meaning and equivalence - 3
• He then moves on to consider the problem of
equivalence in meaning between words in
different languages.

• (1959/2000: 114) ‘there is ordinarily no full

equivalence between code-units’

• syr (does not include the concept of cottage

cheese; tvarok) vs. cheese
 3.1 Linguistic meaning and equivalence - 4
• For him, interlingual translation involves
‘substituting messages in one language
not for separate code-units but for entire
messages in some other language’.
• For the message to be equivalent in ST
and TT,
• the code-units will be different
• since they belong to two different sign
systems (languages) which partition
reality differently.
3.1 Linguistic meaning and equivalence - 5
• Jakobson (1959/2000): “Equivalence in difference is
the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal
concern of linguistics”.

• The problem of meaning and equivalence thus

focuses on differences in the structure and
terminology of languages
• rather than on any other inability of one language to
render a message that has been written in another
verbal language.

• Russian can still express the full semantic meaning

of cheese even if it breaks it down into two separate
concepts.
3.1 Linguistic meaning and equivalence - 6
• For Jakobson, cross-linguistic differences centre
around obligatory grammatical and lexical forms, for
example:

– Gender in different l-ngs: house (f in Romance, n

in German; honey (m in French, Germ and Ital; f in
Spanish )
– moon – sun
– Aspect (verb morphology varies): perfective /
imperfective (has done – padarė)
– Semantic fields: Geschwister (German) = brothers
and sisters
– Children (En) – gender-specific in other languages
– 24 hours = (Lt) para
 Translatability in brief:

• Whenever a linguistic approach is no

longer suitable to carry out a translation,
the translator can rely on other procedures
such as loan-translations, neologisms and
the like;

• a translation can never be impossible

since there are several methods that the
translator can choose.
 Translatability in brief:

• The role of the translator: a person

who decides how to carry out the
translation.

• Any translation is a task which can

always be carried out, regardless of
the cultural or grammatical differences
between ST and TT.
 R. Jakobson:

• Jakobson's theory - essentially based on

his semiotic approach to translation:
–the translator has to recode the ST
message first and then s/he has to
transmit it into an equivalent
message for the TC
R.Jakobson (1959) on translation of poetry
• R.Jakobson is one of those who, from a
linguistic perspective, adopt a pessimistic view.
• In poetry, ‘phonemic similarity is sensed as
semantic relationship’;

• Formal aspects of the linguistic code became

part of the meaning so that translation proper is
impossible;
• Jakobson: ‘Only creative transposition is
possible’.
 Cassiano Ricardo’s Serenata sintética:
• García Yebra (1983:145) cites a Portuguese
poem by Cassiano Ricardo entitled Serenata
sintética (taken from Hatim and Mason 1990):
rua
torta
lua
morta
tua
porta
• Rua torta ‘winding streets’
• Lua morta ‘fading moon’
• Tua porta ‘your door’
 Cassiano Ricardo’s Serenata sintética:
Stoviu gatvėje vėjuotą naktį
Dylantis mėnulis danguje
Ar ras jis kelią pas tave (Sandra B.)

Gatvių vingiai
Aš
Mėnulis
Dyla laikas…
Tavo durys (Vaida)
 Cassiano Ricardo’s Serenata sintética:
Einu gatve
Danguj delčia
Ir aš jau čia (Dovilė)

Laukiant prie tavo durų

Sukosi gatvės ir dilo mėnulis

Vėjuotą naktį gatvėj

Pažvelgus į mėnulį
Paklausiu
Gal jis parodys kelią link tavo durų