Equivalence is the important thing that must be achieved in translation process, a translation product can be said successfully if the readers or listeners of that translation product do not know that they are reading or listening of translation product that means responds of the readers or listeners when they read and listen the source text is same when they read or listen the translation product. Equivalence can be said to be the central issue in translation. The thing that is found out of translator is the equivalence meaning from source language (SL) to target language (TL).
The concept of equivalence nevertheless broadened out when the American Bible theorist and translator Eugene Nida (1964) recognized the polarities ‘dynamic equivalence’ (same function) and ‘formal equivalence’ (same form, probably with a different function). There were thus different kinds of equivalence that could be established, independently of whatever was considered ‘natural’ before the translator entered the scene.
Catford defines the translation is the replacement of textual material in one language (Source Language) by equivalent textual material in another language (Target Language). The term ‘equivalent’ is clearly a key term; the central problem of translation practice is that of finding Target Language translation equivalents. A central task of translation theory is that of defining the nature and conditions of translation equivalence.
Theories of Equivalence
There are some theories from many books of translation that discusses about equivalence in Translation. Here are some of the theories:
Types of Equivalence
Catford’s model of equivalence (1965, p. 27-28) said:
1. Formal correspondence is any TL category (unit, class, element of structure, etc) which can be said to occupy as nearly as possible the “same” place in the “economy of the TL as the given SL category occupies in the SL. For example: translating an adjective by an adjective.
2. Textual Equivalence is any TL text or portion of text which is observed on a particular occasion to be the equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text. For example: translating adjective by an adverbial phrase.
Popovic (as cited in Susan Basnett, 1998, p. 32) distinguishes four types:
1). Linguistic equivalence, where there is homogeneity on the linguistic level of both SL and TL texts, i.e. word for word translation.
2). Paradigmatic equivalence, where there is equivalence of ‘the elements of a paradigmatic expressive axis’, i.e. elements of grammar, which Popovic sees as being a higher category than lexical equivalence.
3). Stylistic (translational) equivalence, where there is ‘functional equivalence of elements in both original and translation aiming at an expressive identity with an invariant of identical meaning’.
4). Textual (syntagmatic) equivalence, where there is equivalence of the syntagmatic structuring of a text, i.e. equivalence of form and shape.
Types of equivalence according to Nida which are stated in (Munday, 2001, p. 41) which are: (1) formal equivalence and (2) Dynamic equivalence.
Nida defined these as follows:
1. Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content… one is concerned that the message in the receptor language should match as closely as possible the different elements in the source language.
2. Dynamic equivalence is based on what Nida calls ‘the principle of equivalent effect’, where ‘the relation between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message’.