ADEQUATE AND EQUIVALENT TRANSLATION
UNIT OF TRANSLATION
Singling out and defining a unit of translation is a problem widely discussed in Translation Studies.
According to R. Bell, a unit of translation is the smallest segment of a source language text which can be translated, as a whole, in isolation from other segments (as small as possible and as large as is necessary).15 Should we consider a word as a translation unit? Though there exists the notion of a word-for-word translation, the word can hardly be taken for a translation unit. First of all, this is because word borders are not always clear, especially in English. Sometimes a compound word is written in one element, sometimes it is hyphenated, or the two stems are written separately as a phrase: e.g., moonlight, fire-light, candle light. On the other hand, in oral speech it is difficult to single out separate words because they tend to fuse with each other into inseparable complexes: [‘wud3э 'ko:lim?] – according to the stress, there should be two words, while in written speech we can see four words: Would you call him?
Furthermore, it is impossible to consider a phrase (word combination) as a translation unit, because its bounderies are also vague.
Thus, it is not a language unit that should be considered in translation, but a discourse (speech) unit. A translation unit is a group of words united in speech by their meaning, rhythm and melody, i.e. it is a syntagm, or rhythmic and notional segment of speech.
This definition of the unit of translation is process-oriented. If considered from a product-oriented point of view, it can be defined as the target-text unit that can be mapped onto a source-text unit.
ADEQUATE AND EQUIVALENT TRANSLATION
Translation theorists have long disputed the interrelation of the two terms.26
V. Komissarov considers them to denote non-identical but closely related notions. He claims that adequate translation is broader in meaning than equivalent translation. Adequate translation is good translation, as it provides communication in full. Equivalent translation is the translation providing the semantic identity of the target and source texts.27 Two texts may be equivalent in meaning but not adequate, for example:
Никита грозил: «Покажу тебе кузькину мать.» – Nikita threatened , “I’ll put the fear of God into you!” The Russian sentence is low colloquial, whereas the English one, though it describes a similar situation, has another stylistic overtone, a rather pious one.
A. Shveitser refers the two terms to two aspects of translation: translation as result and translation as process. We can speak of equivalent translation when we characterize the end-point (result) of translation, as we compare whether the translated text corresponds to the source text. Adequacy characterizes the process of translation. The translator aims at choosing the dominant text function, decides what s/he can sacrifice.28 Thus, adequate translation is the translation corresponding to the communicative situation. For example, Здравствуйте, я ваша тетя! can be inadequate to Hello, I’m your aunt!, when the Russian sentence is used not in its phatic (i.e. contact supporting) function but in the expressive function (as an interjection) to express the speaker’s amazement.
Close to this understanding of translation adequacy is E. Nida’s concept of dynamic equivalence, “aimed at complete naturalness of expression” and trying “to relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant within the context of his own culture.”29 Nida’s principle of dynamic equivalence is widely referred to as the principle of similar or equivalent response or effect.30
Y. Retsker states that the notion of adequate translation comprises that of equivalent31. According to him, an adequate target text describes the same reality as does the source text and at the same time it produces the same effect upon the receptor. Translation adequacy is achieved by three types of regular correlations:
equivalents, that is regular translation forms not depending upon the context (they include geographical names, proper names, terms): the Pacific Ocean – Тихий океан, Chiang Kai-shek – Чан Кайши, hydrogen – водород.
analogs, or variable, contextual correspondence, when the target language possesses several words to express the same meaning of the source language word: soldier – солдат, рядовой, военнослужащий, военный.
transformations, or adequate substitutions: She cooks a hot meal in the evening. – На ужин она всегда готовит горячее.
MACHINE TRANSLATION
The first idea of machine translation is known to have been expressed in 1933 by the Soviet engineer Petr Smirnov-Troyansky but it is not he but Warren Weaver who is credited as the founding father of Machine Translation (MT) research.17 The first demonstration of an MT system took place in 1954 in Georgetown University, U.S.A., where the experiment of making a computer translate words from Russian into English was conducted.
Machine translation is based on analysis and synthesis operations and has required many years of hard work and frustrations. Sometimes the end-product of the machine translation was so ridiculous (like Out of sight, out of mind. – Слепой идиот), that in the 1960s there happened a machine translation ‘recession’. However, with third-generation computer systems emerging in the 1970s, interest in machine translation was revived. Word-processors appeared and today’s translators cannot imagine their lives without them.
Today, machine translation is often called computer-aided translation (CAT). CAT systems are divided into two groups: machine-aided human translation (MAHT) and human-aided machine translation (HAMT). The difference between the two lies in the roles of computer and human translator.
In MAHT, a translator makes the translation, then uses the computer as a tool for typing, checking spelling, grammar, style; for printing the target text, for looking up words in electronic dictionaries and data bases, for getting references on CD-ROMs and other sources, for consulting about contexts, for discussing problems in the web, for seaching a job, etc.
In HAMT, the translation is automated, done by a computer but requiring the assistance of a human editor. There are two phases of human help: pre-editing and post-editing. In pre-editing, an operator (or a customer) prepares the text for input. A special computer translation program transfers the text from one language to another. Then a translator does the post-editing, mostly by correcting the word usage.
Machine translation has a number of advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is, first and foremost, its fast speed, which saves time, so important these days. The computer is tireless; it can work day and night. Now that there are lap-tops, a computer is a very flexible and convenient tool: it can accompany a translatoranywhere. Computers are also of great help to disabled people, especially computers working with a human voice.
On the other hand, computers are restricted to the materials. They can translate only clichéd texts. They cannot translate unpredictable texts, like fiction, for example. Usually they provide ‘raw translation’. Another disadvantage is that they are still rather expensive. They require constant upgrading, which is usually not cheap. Computer viruses are a serious danger to work. And computers are not absolutely safe for human health, either.