equivalence

Content
Introduction………………………………………………………………………3

Chapter I Notion of equivalence and ways of its achievement 5
1.1 Equivalence as the main characteristic of translation …………………5
1.2 Levels of equivalence ……………………………………8
1.3 The theory of equivalence interpreted by different linguists…………………………………………………………………….13

Chapter II Analysis of the levels of equivalence in the English prose….…………………………………………………………………………...16
2.1 Specification of usage of the first levels of equivalence on the bases of Mark Twain’s work ……………………………16
2.2 Specification of usage of the second levels of equivalence on the bases of Mark Twain’s work 18
2.3 Specification of usage of the third levels of equivalence on the bases of Mark Twain’s work 18
2.4. Specification of usage of the forth levels of equivalence on the ...

1.1 Equivalence as the main characteristic of translation
Equivalence will always be an important part of human translation as long as the latter exists. To be more specific, equivalence is one of the most important considerations of professional translation agents and freelance translation service experts alike when it comes to localizing a website or straightforwardly translating textual material.
The factors that affect human translation the most are mostly the ones that are cultural or linguistic in nature. If these so-called parameters are as effective and accurate as expected, they will help streamline the translation process in a convincing and correct manner.
Therefore, translators must begin striking a balance between language and culture in order to truly achieve translation equivalence. Doing so is, of course, easier said than done. Many scholars view translation through different contexts; there are those who base their studies on source-oriented theory, while there are others who emphasize target oriented ideals above all else. In fact, the latter concept is currently being applied to the international online market in the form of adaptation and localization.
When getting ready to translate a text, the translator should set his/her hierarchy of equivalence requirements. The translator should consider a number of variables when setting up equivalence goals. For example, it is more important to evoke similar emotions when translating a sonnet, but when translating a manual accuracy and consistency will be the top priorities. This can be done by performing a text analysis. This includes: doing research on the topic (preferably in both languages), noticing main text characteristics (like type of text, its structure, etc.), setting up translation priorities, considering who the audience might be (how much background information they have, why they will be reading the translation), and of course, developing full understanding of the text.
Next, basing his/her decision on the text analysis, the translator chooses a translation approach. For example, since the text I translated is a history lecture and the main goal of the author is to convey his ideas about a certain period in history, the best approach to translating it would be communicative approach. The target audience wants to know what the author thinks and why he thinks that way, they do not want to hear something that sounds like a translation and is, therefore, confusing in meaning (if we chose faithful approach, that’s what the result would be). Translators who use communicative approach produce texts in the target language that do not read like translations [2, 23].

Introduction
Equivalence, as a respectable principle of translation, has been around in the translation sector for a long time. It is the method whereby the translator's purpose is not to give a literal, word-for-word translation but to transfer the meaning of the text as would be best expressed in the words of the native language. In this course paper, it will be focused on the criteria necessary to qualify equivalence in translation with special reference, as well as distinctive viewpoints from famous translation theorists. Also, it will be talked about the formal equivalence and structural equivalence.
This paper is about equivalence in translation, exactly about equivalence as the main characteristic of translation, levels of equivalence, equivalence interpreted by different lingu ists based on Mark Twain’s works “Tom Sawyer”, “The Prince and the pauper”, “Eve's diary” and “The Stolen white elephant”.
The aim of this course paper is to review the theory of equivalence and to reveal the prevailing level of equivalence in translation of the English prose.
Object: Theory of equivalence in translation.
Subject: Levels of equivalence and their functioning in translation of Mark Twain’s works “Tom Sawyer”, “The Prince and the pauper”, “Eve's diary” and “The Stolen white elephant”.
The main tasks of the given paper are:
• to give the notion of equivalence;
• to investigate the theory of equivalence interpreted by different linguists;
• to review peculiarities of levels of equivalence;
• to analyze the translation of Mark Twain’s works and find out the prevailing level of equivalence.
Translation is a work of re-structural in the target language of the linguistic production of the source language, and this re-organize takes into account both form and meaning.
This paper consists of content, introduction, chapter 1, chapter 2, conclusion and bibliography. In addition, it contains theoretical and practical parts. In practical part, we analyze texts according to levels of equivalents and preserve many examples, which help to illustrate differences between levels.
The paper includes the works of such theorists and linguists as Nida, Eugene A. , Catford, John C., Mona Baker, Komissarov V. N., Latyshev L.K., and etc.

The most important rules are follows: Transcribing English sounds with Russian letters:Interdental [ D] correspond to the Russian Т: Thatcher – Тэтчер Thackeray – Теккерей. Sometimes these sounds correspond to the Russian C, which is a bit outdated: Galsworthy – Голсуорси In Greek words, the interdental sound is rendered by the Russian Ф: Athens – АфиныThemistocles – Фемистокл.The English [w] is transmitted by the letter У if followed by a vowel: William – Уильям Wilder – Уайлдер But when followed by the vowel [u], the consonant [w] is rendered by the letter В: Woolf – ВулфWodehouse – Вудхаус However, there are some traditional cases of the sound [w] represented by the letter В: Washington – ВашингтонWalter Scott – ВальтерСкотт The same is true in reference to the borrowed (mostly German) names: Wagner – Вагнер Wilhelm – ВильгельмThe English [h] can be represented in two ways: either by Х: Hailey – Хейлиor by Г: Hamilton – Гамильтон [N] is transliterated by НГ: Jennings – ДженнингсThe vowel [з:] after the consonant corresponds to the Russian Ё: Burns – Бёрнс In the beginning of the word, this sound is represented by the letter Э: Earl’s Court – Эрлз-Корт[æ] is represented in Russian by Э/Е/А: Batman – БэтменJack – ДжекGlasgow – ГлазгоRussian sounds in English transcription are usually represented as follows: [j], represented in writing by the letter Й, corresponds to the English Y/I in the end of the word: Толстой – TolstoyТроцкий – Trotsky/ Trotski to I in the beginning of the word: Йошкар-Ола – Ioshkar-OlaIf [j] makes part and parcel of a vowel letter (Е, Ё, Ю, Я) it is represented by Y or I: Енисей – YeniseiПорфирьевич – PorfirievichЮгославия – YugoslaviaЯлта – YaltaThe Russian [ж] is rendered by ZH: Житомир – Zhitomir.[х] corresponds to KH or, rarely, H: Находка – Nakhodka[ц] is represented by TS: Целиноград – TselinogradCare should be taken, however, with foreign words: they usually have their native form: Цюрих – Zurich Цейлон – CeylonЦзянси – Jiangxi[ч] may correspond either to CH or to TCH: Чехов – Chekhov Чайковский – Tchaikovsky[щ] is represented by the cluster SHCH or SCH: Щелково – Shchelkovo[ы] usually corresponds to Y: Куйбышев – Kuibyshev [9, 33]. Transliteration and transcription often compete, so that sometimes it is difficult to state how to render a word (especially a personal or place name) in the other language. But transliteration is preferred to transcription in bibliographical citations found in publications. Calque translation is the translation of a word or a phrase by parts: kitchen-ette – кухонькаbrainwashing – промывка мозговAIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) – СПИД (синдром приобретенного иммунодефицита) Залив Золотой Рог - Golden Horn BayThere can occur half-calques in cases where half of the word is borrowed through transcription or transliteration and the other half is translated: South Korea – Южная Корея Old Jolyon – Старый Джолион [6, 73].Calque translation can be very tricky as it may result in “translator’s false friends”, i.e. misleading translations: high school – средняя школа (not высшая школа) restroom – туалет (not комната отдыха)дом отдыха – resort (not rest home) Grammar transformations are morphological or syntactical changes in translated units. Lexical transformations change the semantic core of a translated word. They can be classified into the following groups:Lexical substitution, or putting one word in place of another. It often results from the different semantic structures of the source language and target language words. Thus the word молодой is not always translated as young; rather, it depends on its word combinability: молодой картофель is equal to new potatoes. 1.3 The theory of equivalence interpreted by different linguists The aim of this part of the paper is to review the theory of equivalence as interpreted by some of the most innovative theorists in this field—Vinay and Darbelnet, Jakobson, Nida and Taber, Catford, House, and finally Baker. These theorists have studied equivalence in relation to the translation process, using different approaches, and have provided fruitful ideas for further study on this topic. Their theories will be analyzed in chronological order so that it will be easier to follow the evolution of this concept. These theories can be substantially divided into three main groups. In the first there are those translation scholars who are in favour of a linguistic approach to translation and who seem to forget that translation in itself is not merely a matter of linguistics. In fact, when a message is transferred from the source language to target language, the translator is also dealing with two different cultures at the same time. This particular aspect seems to have been taken into consideration by group of theorists who regard translation equivalence as being essentially a transfer of the message from the source text to the target text and a pragmatic/semantic or functionally oriented approach to translation. Finally, there are other translation scholars who seem to stand in the middle, such as Baker for instance, who claims that equivalence is used 'for the sake of convenience—because most translators are used to it rather than because it has any theoretical status [5, 18]. Jakobson’s Equivalence Theory  R. Jakobson (1959) believes that equivalence comes in three types—intersemiotic (equivalence between sign systems), interlingual (equivalence between languages) and intralingual (equivalence within one language; paraphrasing or rewriting the same content). The second type, interlingual, is the one where translation equivalence is classified in [6, 22]. Nida’s Equivalence Theory E.A. Nida (1964) has written that there are two kinds of equivalence—formal equivalence (also known as formal correspondence) and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence is more concerned with word-for-word translation and content faithfulness, while dynamic equivalence is focused upon context and sense-for-sense adaptation.The bottom line here is that all translation theories are somehow connected with the notion of equivalence in one way or another. As such, equivalence is an important philosophy when it comes to translation theory and its many different practical applications. Actually, both target and source languages include equivalent ranges from the least significant level (morphemes) to the most meaningful levels (sentences) [7, 262]. These levels of language are the ones that help strike the proper balance between too much faithfulness to the original text and too much pandering to the target audience. Accordingly, translation is all about creating a balance or equivalence between the original language document and the target language translation of the work. Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal equivalence—which in the second edition by Nida and Taber (1982) is referred to as formal correspondence—and dynamic equivalence. Formal correspondence 'focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content', unlike dynamic equivalence which is based upon 'the principle of equivalent effect.  House’s Equivalence Theory House (1977) is in favour of semantic and pragmatic equivalence and argues that ST and TT should match one another in function. House suggests that it is possible to characterize the function of a text by determining the situational dimensions of the ST. In fact, according to her theory, every text is in itself is placed within a particular situation which has to be correctly identified and taken into account by the translator. After the ST analysis, House is in a position to evaluate a translation; if the ST and the TT differ substantially on situational features, then they are not functionally equivalent, and the translation is not of a high quality. In fact, she acknowledges that 'a translation text should not only match its source text in function, but employ equivalent situational-dimensional means to achieve that function[4,278]. Baker’s Equivalence Theory New adjectives have been assigned to the notion of equivalence (grammatical, textual, pragmatic equivalence, and several others) and made their appearance in the plethora of recent works in this field. An extremely interesting discussion of the notion of equivalence can be found in Baker (1992) who seems to offer a more detailed list of conditions upon which the concept of equivalence can be defined. She explores the notion of equivalence at different levels, in relation to the translation process, including all different aspects of translation and hence putting together the linguistic and the communicative approach [1, 187].CHAPTER II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEVELS OF EQUIVALENCE IN THE ENGLISH PROSE2.1 Specification of usage of the first level of equivalence on the bases of Mark Twain’s works (the level of the purport of communication) For the analysis of the level of equivalence in translation, we use two works of Mark Twain “The adventures of Tom Sawyer” and “The Prince and the Pauper”. The Russian variant of “The adventures of Tom Sawyer” is presented by I. Daruzes, “The Prince and the Pauper” by K. I. Chukovsky and N. K. Chukovsky. At first we review the level of the purport of communication according to the translation of “The adventures of Tom Sawyer”. We use such kind of translations when more detailed translation of content is impossible that may lead to the misunderstanding of the purport of communication. In the text “The adventures of Tom Sawyer” Old Lady says to Tom such phrase:I recon you are a kind of singed cat [17, 19] .that can be translated into Russian as:Ты словно подпаленная кошка. Nevertheless, by this words Old Lady does not mean that Tom was like cat, which suffered from the fire. That is why the translator considered that it would be better to translate this sentence the following Russian variant:Не так ты плох как кажешься. Also we can see another examples:Oh, you think you are mighty smart, do not you? [17, 22]Подумаешь какой выискался!Another pause and more eying and sidling around each other [17, 23].Опять молчание, опять оба начинают наступать боком косясь друг на друга. We can see that examples concerns to the level of the purport of communication according to communicative function: informs any facts, expresses emotions, establishes contact between interlocutors, demands from the listener of any reaction or actions, etc. The existence in the process of communication such purpose defines the general character of transferred messages and their language design. At first glance, the source and target texts have no obvious logical connection; they usually designate different situations, have no common semes (i.e. smallest components of meaning), and have different grammar structures [12, 78]. 2.2 Specification of usage of the second levels of equivalence on the bases of Mark Twain’s works (the level of identification of situation) Both two texts source and target can describe identical situation from different angles with the help of different words and structures. Such examples we can find in the translation of text “The Prince and the Pauper”:More than once, in truth [18, 185].По правде говоря. The general part of the contents from source to target text transfers the identical purpose of communication and also reflects the same extra language situation.Take a walk! [17, 22]Убирайся! There are no parallel lexical or structural units in these counterparts. Therefore, their content is different, the word semes are different, and grammar relations between the sentence components are different. Nevertheless, the utterances correspond to each other in their communicative functions and in the similarity of the described situation. Because of this identity [11; 173]. Any text contains information on something, is correlated to any real or imagined situation. For this level of equivalence, identification in the original and target text of the same situation is characteristic at change of a way of its description. Thus, we can see the following characteristics:Incomparability of lexical structure and syntactic organization.Impossibility to connect lexicon and structure of source and target text with the help of rephrasing or syntactic transformation.Preservation the purpose of communication in translation.Preservation the instruction on the same situation in translation.2.3 Specification of usage of the third levels of equivalence on the bases of Mark Twein`s works (the level of methods of situation description) Dealing with the transformation of meaning implies a semantic variation, or semantic paraphrase of the source language utterance. For example, the sentence in the original can be translated as if the situation were viewed from a different angle: Ain`t he played me tricks enough like that for me to be looking out for him by this time? [17, 22]Неужели я так ничему и не научусь, мало ли он со мной выкидывает фокусов. We can see that some words of the source language sentence are paraphrased in translation. Also the target sentence can verbalize the idea in more detail than the source language sentence. On this level of equivalence, the source and the target sentences have the same function (aim), they describe the same situation, and their meanings are approximately identical, whereas their grammar structures are different. As is known, the meaning of each word consists of semes, the smallest sense component. The set of semes in the source and target sentences is the same, but they are grouped differently and, therefore, are verbalized in different ways and do not have the same syntactic structure [8, 90].Tom`s younger brother Sid was already through with his part of the work [17, 21].Младший брат Тома Сид уже сделал все, что ему полагалось. Textual equivalence, when referring to the equivalence between a SL text and a TL text in terms of information and cohesion. Texture is a very important feature in translation since it provides useful guidelines for the comprehension and analysis of the ST which can help the translator in his or her attempt to produce a cohesive and coherent text for the TC audience in a specific context. It is up to the translator to decide whether or not to maintain the cohesive ties as well as the coherence of the SL text. His or her decision will be guided by three main factors, that is, the target audience, the purpose of the translation and the text type [1, 199].2.4 Specification of usage of the forth levels of equivalence on the bases of Mark Twain’s works (Structural level)In the fourth type of equivalence, the considerable part of values of syntactic structures of the source text is reproduced.