Maria Lutsiv, Ina-35

Theory of Equivalence by V. Komissarov: Five-level Scheme

One of the main purposes of the translator is to create the translation which is
almost identical with the original text and has the same meaning. However, it is not
easy to accomplish it.
Translation equivalence is the commonality of the content (semantic closeness)
of the original and the translation.
The main aim of the work of V. Komissarov, which is devoted to equivalence, is
to develop the statement about the difficulty of following this similarity of meaning
both in the original text and translation.
The scholar affirms that the difference between potential equivalence and
translation equivalence should be necessarily distinguished. To move further we
should consider the prior terms and their definitions. V. Komissarov mentions that
the potential equivalence is the maximum commonality of the content of the two
multilingual texts, which is allowed by the dissimilarity of different languages. On
the contrary, the translation equivalence is the real semantic closeness of the texts
of the original and the translation which the translator achieves while translating.
It is also should be noted that the translation equivalence relies on the
preservation (but at the same time the loss) of the various elements of meaning
contained in the original.
In the second part of his research V. Komissarov says that each text has its own
purpose of communication. It represents a "derivative" ("implied" or "figurative")
meaning, present in it as if in a hidden form, deduced from the whole utterance as a
semantic whole.
V. Komissarov distinguishes five levels (types, types) of equivalence, depending
on which part of the content is transmitted into translation for equivalence.
The first type - translation preserves the purpose of communication;
The second type - translation retains the purpose of communication and
description of the language situation;
The third type - all three parts are kept: the purpose of communication, the
description of the linguistic situation and the way it is described.
The forth type – equality of translation in transmission of semantics of
language units.
The fifth type - the maximum degree of approximation of the translation to the
content of the original is achieved.
At any level of equivalence, translation can and should provide interlingual
communication.
V. Komissarov provides a lot of examples of each type in order to make his
argumentations credible.
It is logical to start dwelling on this topic, beginning with the first type of
equivalence.
The first type of translation equivalence is to preserve only those parts of the
originals that contain purposes communication:
“Maybe there is some chemistry between us that doesn't mix. (Так буває, що
люди не сходяться характерами).”
 Discussing this quote, we will understand that the lexical and stylistic units,
especially metaphor, are not preserved, but the main meaning is legible here.
The purpose of communication is the most general part of the content of the
utterance, appropriate for the utterance as a whole and determining its role in the
communicative act.
There are such characteristics between the original texts and translations such
as:
1. Incomparability of lexical composition and syntactic organization;
2. The inability to connect the vocabulary and structure of the original and
translation with the relations of semantic rephrasing or syntactic
transformation;
3. The absence of real or direct logical connections between the messages in
the translation and the original text, which allows us to assert that in both
cases “the same thing is reported”;
4. The least commonality of the contents of the original and translation in
comparison with all other translations recognized as equivalent.

In the second type of equivalence, the general part of the contents of the
original and translation not only conveys the same purpose of communication, but
also reflects the same extra-linguistic situation. A situation is a set of objects and the
connections between objects described in a statement. Any text contains information
about something, correlated with some kind of real or imaginary situation.
It means that each text must include the situation, i.e. general knowledge of the
author and the reader, some historical events and many other factors.
The second type of equivalence is characterized by the identification of the same
situation in the original and translation, changing the way it is described. The basis
for the semantic identification of the multilingual texts is the universal nature of the
relationship between the language and extra-linguistic reality.
The second type of equivalence is presented by the translations with semantic
equivalence that is not based on the commonality of meaning of the used language
means.
V. Komissarov provides such examples as:
You are not fit to be in a boat.
Тебе не можна пускати в човен.
You see one bear, you have seen them all.
Всі ведмеді схожі один на одного.
There some characteristics of the second type of translation:
1. Incomparability of the lexical composition and syntactic organization;
2. The inability to connect the vocabulary and structure of the original and the
translation by the relations of semantic paraphrasing or syntactic
transformation;
3. Preservation of the purpose of communication in translation, since, as we
have already established, preservation of the dominant function of
expression is a prerequisite for equivalence;
4. 4) Preservation in the translation of indications of the same situation, which
is proved by the existence of a direct real or logical connection between
 multilingual messages, which allows us to assert that in both cases “the
same thing is reported”.
The second type of equivalence is widely used because there are different ways
of expression the same thing in different languages. Therefore, it may be even
impossible to retain the same sentence structure or the sample of words. That is why
a lot of translators describe only the situation and do not keep the same set of
lexemes. However, it is should be noted that it is extremely important to define the
correct situation.
Speaking about the third type of equivalence, V. Komissarov provides us with
such examples:
Scrubbing makes me bad-tempered.
У мене псується настрій від миття підлоги
London saw a cold winter last year.
Минулого року в Лондоні зима була холодною.
That will not be good for you.
Для вас це може погано закінчитися.
Taking into consideration these original sentences and translations, we can point
out such peculiarities:
1. Lack of parallelism of lexical structure and syntactic structure;
2. The inability to bind the structure of the original and translation relations
syntactic transformation;
3. Preservation of the purpose of communication in the translation and
identification of the same situation the same as in the original;
4. Preservation of general concepts of translation which helps to describe the
situation as in the original, i.e. preservation of that part of the original text,
which is called “the method of the description of the situation."
In the third-type translations we can observe the complete coincidence of the
structure, which is associated with the initial relations of semantic rephrasing, as was
the case in the example we examined.

In the fourth type of equivalence, the majority of syntactic structures of the

original are reproduced in translation, while the purpose, description, and method of
describing the situation are retained.
The syntactic structure of utterance determines the possibility of using words of
a certain type in a certain sequence and with certain connections with each other, and
also defines that part of the content that comes to the foreground in the act of
communication.
Therefore, according to V. Komissarov, the fourth type of equivalence is
characterized by:
- Considerable (albeit incomplete) parallelism of the lexical composition: for most
original words one can choose the corresponding words in the translation with
approximate meaning;
- Use of syntactic structures in translation that are analogous to the structures of the
original or related syntactic variations: this ensures the maximum possible transfer in
the translation of the syntactic structures of the original;
- Preservation in translation of all three parts of the original content (as for the third
type of equivalence) - the purpose of communication, the indication of the situation,
the way of describing the situation.
The fourth type of equivalence is characterized by three main types of such
syntactic variation:
1) the use of synonymous structures related to the relations of forward or reverse
transformation;
2) use of similar structures with changing the word order;
3) the use of similar structures with a change in the type of communication between
them.
Change in the number and type of sentences in translation
There are three types of changes:
• towards increasing the number of independent sentences;
• towards decreasing the number of independent sentences;
• complex variation.

In the fifth type of equivalence, the maximum degree of approximation of the

translation to the content of the original is achieved.
The semantics of the words included in the utterance are the most important part
of the meaning of the utterance.

Possible differences in subject-logical meaning of equivalent words in original texts

and translations
Some loss of information, which does not prevent the equivalence of the fifth
type, is observed in each of the three main aspects of the semantics of the word:
• subject-logical or denotative;
• connotative;
• intra-linguistic.
The intra-linguistic meaning (ILM) of the word is extremely important in the
relationship between the units of the original and translation in the fifth type of
equivalence.
The word “intra-linguistic meaning” depends on the position of the word in the
language system. Any word is in complex semantic relations with other words of the
given language, and these connections are reflected in its semantics (= meaning).
As a conclusion, we should say that there are five types of equivalence of
translation. They were analysed by different researchers. Different translations may
be created, due to the different factors, and each of them plays a considerable role.
That is why the problem of equivalence is still on the table.

References:
1. Комиссаров В.Н. Теория перевода (Лингвистические аспекты): Учеб. для
ин-тов и факульт. иностр. яз. – М.: Высшая шк., 1990. – 253 с. (Гл. 2-3).
2. Конспект лекції – Еквівалентність перекладу при передачі
функціонально-ситуативного змісту оригіналу.