Theory of equivalence levels

Analyzing various theoretical models of translation, V. Komisarov (1999 –

“Modern Translation Studies”) notes that each of them reflects only some separate
aspects of translation activity and only altogether they give a fairly complete
picture of those content components, the transfer of which ensures the equivalence
of translation. He believes that the theory of equivalence levels can play the role of
such a unifying model that comprehensively describes translation activity.
Translation equivalence is the real semantic closeness of the source and
target texts, which is achieved by the translator in the process of translation.
The idea of this theory is that “the differences in the systems of the source
and target languages and the peculiarities of creating texts in each of these
languages may limit the possibility of full preservation of the original content in
translation to a certain extent. Therefore, translation equivalence may be based on
the preservation (and, accordingly, loss) of various elements of the content
contained in the original. Depending on what part of the content is conveyed in the
translation to ensure its equivalence, different levels (types) of equivalence are
distinguished. At any level of equivalence, translation can provide interlingual
communication”.
V. Komisarov distinguishes the following levels of equivalence:
1) equivalence at the level of communication purpose; 2) equivalence at the level
of situation identification; 3) equivalence at the level of the message; 4)
equivalence at the level of syntactic expression structure; 5) equivalence at the
level of linguistic signs (words).
The lowest degree of semantic similarity is characterized by the relationship
between the original and the translation at the level of the purpose of
communication.
That`s a pretty thing to say!
Посоромився б!
The purpose of communication here is to express the emotions of the
speaker who is indignant at the previous statement of the interlocutor. The
translation uses one of the stereotypical phrases for expressing indignation. In this
case, the language means do not correspond to the units of the original and even
the situation itself is described differently: the original gives an assessment of what
the person said, and the translation gives recommendations on the behavior of the
person who said it.
The second type of equivalence differs from the first one in that it
preserves an additional part of the original content, the text reflects the same
subject situation, although the way it is described changes.
 He answered the telephone.
Він зняв слухавку.
In this case, the general part of the content of the original and the translation
not only conveys the same purpose of communication, but also reflects the same
extra-linguistic situation. Here, the incomparable linguistic means of the original
and the translation actually describe the same act, indicate the same reality –
picking up the phone is “answering” the call.
The third type of equivalence is characterized by the preservation in the
translation of the general concepts with the help of which the situation is described.
Scrubbing makes me bad-tempered.
Від миття підлоги у мене псується настрій.
In this case, the purpose of communication is preserved, the same situation
is described and the general concepts with the help of which this situation is
indicated in the original are preserved, although neither the syntactic structure nor
the words used in the translation in any way reproduce the syntactic structure and
meanings of the words of the original.
The fourth type of equivalence adds to the above features of similarity one
more – invariance of syntactic structures of the original and the translation.
I told him what I thought of her.
Я сказав йому свою думку про неї.
This type of equivalence implies, along with the three components of
meaning preserved in the third type, the reproduction in the translation of a
significant part of the meanings of the original syntactic structures, but there is no
equivalence at the word level (what I thought of her – свою думку про неї).
Finally, the fifth type of equivalence includes those cases when the
translation preserves all the main parts of the content of the original.
The house was sold for 10 thousand dollars.
Будинок був проданий за 10 тисяч доларів.
This type of equivalence preserves the purpose of communication, the
description of the situation, the content of the message, the meaning of syntactic
structures and the meaning of words, which means that the maximum degree of
closeness between the content of the original and the translation that can exist
between texts in different languages is achieved.
Thus, each subsequent level of equivalence transmits the same type of
information as the previous one, plus some additional information.