Equivalence in Translation Studies: From Foundation to Frontier

Introduction: Why Study Equivalence?

• Equivalence is one of the most debated and misunderstood concepts in Translation Studies.

• From the 1950s to today, it has been at the center of:

• Theoretical battles
• Philosophical turns
• Practical translation debates
• Once the central goal of translation, equivalence has since been reframed, deconstructed, and even abandoned.

Framing Question:
When you hear the word equivalence, what comes to mind?

• Faithfulness?
• Sameness?
• Similarity?
• Negotiation?
• Impossibility?

Write down three words. We’ll return to them at the end.

Part I: Early Models of Equivalence – Linguistic Foundations (1950s–70s)

Key Figures and Models

Roman Jakobson (1959)

• Defined interlingual translation as meaning transfer.
• Famous claim: “There is no full equivalence between code-units.”
• Example: English “cheese” vs. Russian “сыр” → similar but culturally different.

Eugene Nida (1964)

• Formal equivalence = closeness in form/content.
• Dynamic equivalence = effect on the target reader.

• Example: Bible translation “Lamb of God.”

• Formal → keep “lamb.”
• Dynamic → in a culture without sheep, might use “seal” or “child” to convey innocence.

J.C. Catford (1965)

• Framed equivalence as linguistic correspondence at levels of word, phrase, or sentence.

Takeaway: Equivalence in this period = measurable, scientific, stable.

If a machine perfectly reproduces grammar but misses cultural nuance, do we still have equivalence?

Part II: Cracks in the Foundation – Functionalism and Skopos (1980s)

Skopos Theory – A Paradigm Shift

• Hans Vermeer & Katharina Reiß (1980s):
• Translation strategies are dictated by purpose (skopos).
• Fidelity to the source is secondary.
• Implication:
• Translator is responsible for function, not sameness.
• Equivalence becomes optional.

Example

Advertising slogan:

• “Finger-lickin’ good” (KFC).
• Literal Chinese translation once came out as: “Eat your fingers off.”
• Skopos-driven approach adapts it culturally instead, e.g. “So tasty that you want more.”

Discussion: Can a translation be fully adequate for its skopos but fail every test of equivalence? Consider:

• Technical manuals (clarity > fidelity)
• Advertising slogans (impact > words)

Part III: The Cultural Turn – Ideology, Power, and Rewriting (1980s–90s)

Key Thinkers

• Susan Bassnett & André Lefevere: Translation as rewriting.
• André Lefevere – Manipulation School: Every translation manipulates texts to fit ideology/poetics.
• Gayatri Spivak & Tejaswini Niranjana: Translation as a tool of colonial power.

Example

• Translating Shakespeare in the Soviet Union:
• Censors often softened political critiques to align with ideology.
• Result: “Equivalent” Shakespeare? Or ideological Shakespeare?

Discussion Question:

Can equivalence ever be neutral, or is it always embedded in power?

Part IV: Contemporary Frontiers – Beyond Equivalence

1. Corpus-Based Translation Studies

• Mona Baker: Found universal tendencies, e.g., explicitation = making the implicit explicit.
• Example:
• ST: “She left.”
• TT: “She left the house angrily.” → Translator adds info not explicit in source.

Does explicitation enhance clarity (helping readers) or betray the source (losing ambiguity)?

2. Cognitive Translation Studies

• Focuses on decision-making processes in translators’ minds.
• Equivalence becomes a cognitive ideal, not always realized.
• Findings: Translators often prioritize speed and risk reduction over exact equivalence.

Example:
Eye-tracking studies show hesitations when dealing with idioms like “kick the bucket.” Translators often choose safer, less risky phrases (e.g., “die”) rather than equivalence in idiomatic force.

3. Technology, Localization, and Transcreation

• Localization: Adapting content to local norms, prioritizing usability.
• Example: Microsoft manuals tailored differently for Japan vs. Brazil.
• Transcreation: Especially in marketing, focus is on equivalent impact, not words.
• Example: Nike slogan “Just Do It” may be rewritten to capture motivational resonance in target culture.

If a transcreator completely rewrites a campaign for cultural impact, are they still a translator—or a cultural strategist?

Part V: Synthesis – Three Stages of Translation Studies

1. Prescriptive: Seeking the “right” equivalence (Nida, Catford).
2. Descriptive: Observing what translators actually do (Toury).
3. Critical: Analyzing why they do it, and whose interests it serves (Lefevere, Spivak).

Meta-Reflection

• Scholars critique equivalence.
• But courts, policymakers, and AI researchers still chase it.
• Perhaps the pursuit of equivalence matters more than its achievement.

Question:
If Toury showed absolute equivalence is unattainable, why do we still pursue it?

• Because it’s impossible?
• Or because it’s indispensable?

Key Takeaways:

• Equivalence is not a final destination but a horizon.
• It structures debates, tests theories, and reveals tensions between language, culture, and power.
• Its history = the intellectual growth of Translation Studies itself.

Rudimentary Ruminations:

At the very beginning, I asked you to write down three words that came to mind when you heard the term equivalence. Perhaps you wrote faithfulness, sameness, similarity. Perhaps some of you thought of negotiation or even impossibility.

Now, after our journey through seventy years of Translation Studies, we can see that all of these words are right, and yet none of them is sufficient.

• In the early days, equivalence was imagined as sameness, a measurable match between source and target.
• With functionalism, it became a matter of negotiation, where purpose and audience often outweighed fidelity.
• The cultural turn exposed the impossibility of neutrality, reminding us that power, ideology, and history always shape what counts as “equivalent.”
• And today, in the age of localization, AI, and transcreation, equivalence no longer means sameness at all, it means crafting the right impact for the right audience, sometimes through radical transformation.

So what is equivalence? Not a fixed goal, not an absolute truth, but a moving horizon. It is the word we use to think through the tensions between language and culture, fidelity and creativity, power and ethics.

If you compare your three words from the beginning with what you now know, you may notice a shift. That shift is exactly the story of Translation Studies itself, an evolution from certainty to complexity, from prescription to critical awareness.

And perhaps that is the real answer: equivalence is not about sameness, but about how we handle difference.

Class Activities 

Activity 1: Micro-Translation Practice

Text:

Task:

Translate literally.

Translate for effect, as a humorous blog post.
Compare: Where did equivalence hold? Where did it break?

Goal: Experience how form vs. function shapes translation strategies.

Saraiki Script:

صادق زَیر تھی، زَبَر نہ تھی، ماتَن پَیش پئے ونجی
خواجہ غلام فرید

English Translation (Refined):

Be humble, not arrogant; otherwise, you may walk into trouble.
— Khwaja Ghulam Farid

بلوں میں بل ہے، اپنے بل

!باقی بل بلیاں

(Nothing and no one but yourself can you rely on.)Adopt self-reliance as a powerful force to realize your full potential.

“Ne te quaesiveris extra.” (Do not seek for things outside of yourself)”-Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance

Here is one more sample for you(r perusal=reading):

میں حاسب یا محمول کا استعمال کر کے اپنی کِتابِ رُخ کی بام پر مُراسلہ کو چَڑھاتا ہوں اور کبھی کبھی پَیَمچہ کرتا ہوں۔ عیب شناسی کے بعد میں کچھ دیگر نِظامِیہ / اِنطَباق کا بھی استعمال کرتا ہوں۔ البتہ، کچھ مواقع ہوتے ہیں جب میں رابجال کے عَنقا / مفقود ہونیکی وجہ سے انقطاعِ رابطہ کا شکار رہتا ہوں

(I update my Facebook wall posts using a computer or a mobile device, and I occasionally SMS to my friends. After proofreading, I utilize a few other applications. However, there are occasions when I am offline due to internet problems.)

Activity 2: Case Study – Poem Translation (Open Interpretation)

Text: Payam Mashriq Zindagi by Allama Iqbal (short excerpt)

Task:

Compare two translations of the same poem.

Identify linguistic strategies (literal, dynamic, adaptive, creative).

Discuss ideological/cultural influences (censorship, gender norms, nationalism, historical context).

Reflect on how each translator interprets the same theme differently, showing that equivalence can vary by vision, style, and perspective.

Goal: Demonstrate that translation is interpretive and contextual, with multiple legitimate renderings of the same theme.

Suggested Readings

• Baker, M. (2018). Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account. Routledge.
• Bassnett, S. (2013). Translation Studies. Routledge.
• Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford.
• Lefevere, A. (2002). Translation/History/Culture: A Sourcebook. Routledge.
• Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating. Brill.
• Toury, G. (2012). Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond.
• Spivak, G. C. (2021). The Politics of Translation. In The Translation Studies Reader. Routledge.