The Concept of Equivalence in the Age of Translation Technology

Abstract

The activity of terminology management and the concept of equivalence offer different insights into the nature of meaning and how words in different languages correspond to each other. This study analyses the challenges posed by high-end technology, particular the management of terminological data, in relation to the notion of equivalence. The author argues that recent translation technology is in dialectic with current developments in translation theory, approaches which displace the notion of meaning in translation away from the idea of equivalence. In addition, the paper suggests that if the concept of equivalence is to have any relevance in translation theory and practice today, a more encompassing approach needs to be embraced, one which considers a diversity of factors, both internal and external to language. www.awej-tls.org 220 The Concept of Equivalence in the Age of Translation Technology Equivalence in translation has been seen in the last four decades as theoretically untenable. Nevertheless, a major part of the activity of terminology management inevitably involves a theory of equivalence in meaning. If recent theoretical developments in Translation Studies have gradually moved away from the concept of equivalence, or at least of narrow equivalence, the ideas of alignment, parity and sameness which underlie all contemporary translation technology seem to go against the grain of these theoretical evolutions. Even though translation theory has paid relatively little attention to terminology management, the activity plays a vital role in professional translation practice today globally, relying heavily, as it does, in the very notion of equivalence which translation theory has a contention for (Gentzler, 2001). In this way, the two are intrinsically linked. This study analyses the complexities involving high-end technology, in particular the management of terminological data, in relation to the concept of equivalence. The paper will consider some of the methods by which linguistic features in different languages can correspond to each other, stand for one another, or recreate each other's meaning using, amongst other theories, Roman Jakobson's linguistic theory to illustrate my argument. Jakobson (1959) is adamant that there is no regularly complete equivalence between words in different languages, since cross-linguistic distinctions, which underscore the idea of equivalence, hinge around compulsory grammatical and lexical form. The author shall argue that linguistic equivalence is indeed impossible. For meaning or content to be 'equivalent' in Source Text and Target Text, the words, terms or 'code-units would have necessarily to be dissimilar, being as they are, part of two distinct sign systems. In addition, the author suggests that any attempt to define either the study or the process of translation in terms of linguistic equivalence, i.e. words or linguistic signs which have 'equal value' in ST and TT is bound to be restricted. Such dogmatism has limited place in Translation Studies if it is to be taken in isolation, excluding other important theoretical and pragmatic approaches to language, context, meaning and translation. Crucially, theorists and practitioners have now begun to discuss other ways of conceiving what distinguishes one kind of approach to equivalence from another, ideas which are not necessarily linguistic but strategic, cultural and pragmatic (Cronin 2013). A case in point is the work of the scholar Anthony Pym (2014), for whom equivalences, regardless of their nature does not take place between locales, they are created by 'internationalization' or translation of one kind or another. The scholar goes on to say that equivalences " are necessary fictions without necessary correlative beyond the communication situation " (Pym 2014, p.62). Equivalences might be fictions in their very essence but nevertheless true and realistic in the context of globalised neoliberal communication practices. Pym (2014) defends the equivalence paradigm by analysing two competing conceptualisations: 'directional' as opposed to 'natural' equivalence. If the latter is presumed to occur between languages or cultures prior to the translating act, which in Pym's view is a misconception based on the historical circumstances of national vernacular languages and print culture, the former stresses the " strange way that a relation of equivalence can depend on directionality " , and it is valuable because it allows the translator to choose between several translation strategies (Pym, 2014, p.40). Both models analysed by Pym should be considered in all their complexity.