Translation Equivalence (TE) and Different Theories

Supervisor:				of thenotion of translatability from interlingual
Dr.Amir Marzban, PHD in TEFL, Faculty Member of				phenomenon to an intertextual one.
Ghaemshar Azad University, Iran				While relationships established at the level of
Abstract				langue are now largely seen as theconcern of
Therefore, many studies have been focused on				comparative linguistics, formal correspondence
the nature, interlingual andintertextual, empirical				continues to havepride of place in machine
and theoretical notion of equivalence in recent				translation, where linguistic – knowledge –
years				basedsystems using direct or transfer
(Catford 1965, 1994, Pym 1992, Koller 1979,				architecture often rely on mapping between
Toury 1980, Hutchins and Somers				theformal structures of two language.
1992, Arnold 1994). The domain of equivalents				Indeed Catford’s translation shifts bear real
covers linguistic units such asmorphemes, words,				similarities to notions of complextransfer in
phrases, clauses, idioms and proverbs (Baker				machine translation (Hutchins and Somers 1992;
1992).				Arnold et al. 1994).
Through using finding equivalence strategies, the				Thus Koller (1979) and Pym (1995, p.157-8)
translators also attempt toimprove the chance of				believed that the general viewin translation studies
persuading their readers by making better their				soon came to be that equivalence was a relation
qualitiesof translation (Neubert 1985).				betweentexts in two different languages, rather
Introduction				than between the languages themselves.
When a translator attempts to translate a text				They also mention that this step liberated
from one language (source) toanother language				translation studies from debates oninterlingual
(target), s/he should first of all understand and				translatability based on entire language systems
comprehend thesource text and then translates it				with their entire alltheir unactualized meaning
to the target language. Therefore, the				potential. Such debates had centered on
fullawareness of the source and target text for				incompatibilities between the worlds inhabited by
finding accurate and appropriateequivalence in				speakers of different languagesand on the
rendering of the contents of the text for reader.				structural dissimilarities between languages
Leonardi (2000) believes that equivalence is the				(Dorothy, 1998).
central issue in translationalthough its definition,				Dorothy also believes that once attention was
relevance, and applicability within the field of				focused on texts and utterances,many of the
translationtheory have caused heated				potential multiple meanings and functions of words
controversy, and many different theories of				and structuresin a language system could be
theconcept of equivalence have been elaborated				eliminated by reference to their context and
within this field in the past fiftyyears.				cotext, making translation not only more
The study of equivalence in translation shows				tractable, but also more realistic. In thenext
how translators accuratelyrender text in				section we investigate equivalence from empirical
translation from source language (SL) into target				and theoretical conceptthat plays important role in
language or viceversa. According to Halverson				this article.
(1997), analogies between the equivalenceconcept				Equivalence as an Empirical and a Theoretical
and a concept of scientific knowledge as it is and				Concept
has been studied within the philosophy of science				The narrowing down of the scope of the term
are highly informative in painting out				equivalence to an intertextualrelation still left plenty
thephilosophical issues involved in equivalence,				of room for competing notions of the concept.
translation, and knowledge. Healso believes that				Toury
rather than dismissing the concept as ill –				(1980 p. 39) identified two main used of the term:
defined orimprecise, it is in the interest of the field				first, equivalence could be ‘adescriptive term,
of translation studies to consider theorigins and				denoting concrete objects – actual
manifestations of this ‘imprecision’ in				relationships between actualutterances in two
order that we may be betterinformed and less				languages (and literatures), recognized as TT and
inclined towards theoretical antagonism.				ST – whichare subject to direct
Therefore the translators, by finding equivalence				observation’. This definition regards
in translation can show thetentative nature of				equivalence as anempirical category which could
their assertions, invite the readers, as intelligent				be established only after the event of translation.
individuals,to join and decide which translation is				Toury contrasted this approach with equivalence
accurately render the ideas, concepts andwords				as ‘a theoretical term, denotingan abstract,
of original text.				ideal relationship, or category of relationships
Historical Background				between TT and ST,translations and their
According to Halverson (1997, p.207-210)				sources’. This dichotomy can be problematic,
equivalence is defined as arelationship existing				however.
between two entities, and the relationship is				For one, it may not be psychologically plausible.
described asone of likeness/ sameness/ similarity/				From the translator’s point ofview, it is not
equality in terms of any of a number ofpotential				clear whether a real distinction can be made
qualities. Proponents of equivalence based theories				between what oneintends to write, and what one
of translationusually define equivalence as the				actually writes.
relationship between a source text (ST) and				Furthermore, equivalence as a theoretical term, a
atarget text (TT) that allows the TL to be				prospective and oftendescriptive notion, is
considered as a translation of the ST inthe first				responsible for acquiring a bad name for
place. Equivalence relationships are also said to hold				equivalence insome quarters in translation studies
between parts of				(Dorothy 1998). Gentzler (1993 p.4), forexample,
ST and parts of TL the above definition of				contends that standards of translation analysis
equivalence is not unproblematic.				that rely on equivalenceor non - equivalence and
Pym (1992, p.37), for one, has pointed to its				other associated judgmental criteria ‘imply
circularity: equivalence is supposedto define				notions ofsubstantialism that limit other possibilities
translation, and translation, in turn, defines				of translation practice, marginalizeunorthodox
equivalence. Unfortunately,a few attempts have				translation, and impinge upon real intercultural
been made to define equivalence in translation in a				exchange’. Newman
way thatavoids this circularity (Dorothy, 1998).				(1994, p. 4694), on the other hand, describes
Theorists who maintain that translation is				translation equivalence as ‘acommonsense
predicated upon some kind ofequivalence have,				term for describing the ideal relationship that a
for the most part, concentrated on developing				reader wouldexpect to exist between an original
typologies ofequivalence, focusing on the rank				and its translation’. Newman’s equivalence
(word, sentence or text level) at whichequivalence				isclearly prospective and ideal, although empirical
is said to obtain or on the type of meaning				approaches also feature in theanalysis. Pym also
(denotative, connotative,pragmatic, etc.) that is				speaks about equivalence as a fact of reception
said to be held constant in translation.				and about thesocially determined
Snell – Hornby suggests that the applicability				‘expectation’ that TT should stand in
of an equivalence concept intranslation studies				some kind ofequivalence relation to their ST.
exist at the level of terminology and				Hutchins and Somers (1992, p.317-22) believe that
nomenclature, “thougheven here reservations				while Catford view oftextual equivalence may say
are called for”, In Wilss approach (1982) on				very little about the nature of equivalence,
the otherhand, translation equivalence was “an				theapproach has found application in areas such as
empirical phenomenon which carries withit				example and statistics basedmachine translation
problems which presently can be solved, if at all,				and, more recently, in translation memory
only for each individualtranslation text”.				system, wherepreviously translated ST and their
Numerous scholars, including Eugene Nida (1964),				TT are stored with a view to recycling
Roman Jakobson				oldtranslations, should the system recognize new
(1959), John C. Catford (1965), Juliane House				input for which it already has anequivalent target
(1977), peter Newmark (1988),				rendering.
Vinay and Darblenet (1995) (addressed the				Equivalence as an empirical phenomenon has seen
subject of translation equivalence				perhaps its most powerfulmanifestation to date
(TE) using either the linguistic approach or the				Toury’s (1980, 1995) work. Where as other
functional approach theircommon approach was to				theorists mightask whether two text are
set the rules of TE and then to use samples				equivalence according to some predefined,
drawnfrom texts to support the rules. In other				prescriptivecriterion of equivalence, Toury treats
words, the focus of their TE studies gavepriority				the existence of equivalence between TTand ST
over practice and to fixed norms over dynamic				a given. This equivalence postulate them allows
principles.				him to state that ‘thequestion to be asked in
Newmark (1988) examined the translation				the actual study of translations (especially in
equivalence concept fromperspective that swung				thecomparative analysis of TT and ST) is not
“between literal and free, faithful and beautiful,				whether the two texts are equivalence
exactand natural translation, depending on				(from a certain aspect), but what type and
whether the bias was to be in favor of theauthor				degree of translation equivalence theyreveal’.
or the reader, the source or target language of				Toury’s approach and subsequently
the text”. He clarified that				koller’s (1995, p.196), makesappeal to
"communicative translation attempts to produce in				historical, relative notion of equivalence.
its readers an effect as closeas possible to that				Non - Equivalence at Word Level
produced in the readers of the original" and that				Non - equivalence at word level means that the
“ semantictranslation attempts to render as				target language has no directequivalence for a
closely as the semantic and syntactic structureof				word that occurs in the source text. There are
the second language allow, the exact contextual				many factors tocause the problems of non –
meaning of the original”.				equivalence. Baker (1992) categories some of
G. Jager (1989, p.33), from the Leipzig school of				theproblems of non equivalence at word level
translation, presents hisview about the importance				which is presented in the following:
of dealing scientifically with the concept				1. Culture – specific concepts
oftranslation equivalence, more specifically in				2. The source language concept is not lexicalized in
relation to the possibility or theneed of using this				the target language
concept for practical goals of the so called				3. The source language word is semantically
automatictranslation: against the background of				complex
modern conceptions of translation theorywhich				4. The source and target language make different
attempt to understand globally the linguistic				distinctions in meaning
exchange, there arisesinevitably the question				5. The target language lacks a superordinate term
about the general meaningfulness of research on				6. The target language lacks a specific term
thediscovery and description of equivalence				(hyponym)
relations. Undoubtly we would give anaffirmative				7. Differences in physical or interpersonal
answer to this question and here we bear in mind				perspective
specially ademanding test case for the science of				8. Differences in expressive meaning
translation: automatic translation”.				9. Differences in from
J.House (1997) expresses his point of view about				10. Differences in frequency and purpose of using
translation equivalence asfollows: “The notion				specific forms
of equivalence is the conceptual basis of				11. The use of loan words in the source text
translation and, toquote Catford, ‘the central				12. Differences in propositional meaning
problem of translation practice is that of finding				Due to importance of this section, researcher will
TL				explain some of the problemswhich are presented
(target language) equivalents. A central task of				in table by Baker. According to her cultural –
translation theory is thereforethat of defining the				specificconcepts are those SL words may
nature and conditions of translation				express a concept that is totally unknown inthe
equivalence’ (1965 p.				target culture. They may have something to do
21)” (p.25). After with the awareness of the				with a religious belief, socialcustom, or even a
concept of translation equivalence,in the next				type of food. For example, in Persian we have
section we study different taxonomies and				Ashura, Jihadas a religious word which is unknown
typologies of equivalencewhich are presented by				in most of the other languages. Thesecond
renowned and famous theoreticians.				category is SL concept is not lexicalized in the
Typologies of Equivalence				target language whichmeans that the SL word
Nida (1969) argued that there are two different				may express a concept that is known in the
types of equivalence, namelyformal equivalence				targetculture but simply not lexicalized. Landslide
which in the second edition by Nida and Taber				has no exact equivalence in manylanguages,
(1982) isreferred to as formal correspondence				although it only means over whelming majority.
and dynamic equivalence.				Another Baker’scategory is that the SL word
Formal correspondence ‘focuses attention on				is semantically complicated which means that
the message itself, in both formand content’.				asingle word can some times express a complex
Nida and Taber make it clear that there is not				meaning than a whole sentence.
always formalequivalence between language pairs.				The other is that the TL lacks a super ordinate or
They therefore suggest that this				a hyponym which meansthat the TL may have
formalequivalence should use wherever possible if				specific word (hyponym) but no general words
the translation aims at achievingformal rather than				(superordinate), and vice versa. For example
dynamic equivalence.				under “house”, English has a variety
The uses of formal equivalence sometimes have				ofhyponyms which have no equivalence in many
serious implications in TTsince the translation will				languages such as Persian, forexample in English
not be easily understood by the target audience.				we have: “bungalow”, cottage, croft,
(Fawcett, 1997). Nida and Taber themselves				chalet, hut, manor,lodge and so on.
assert that ‘Typically, formalcorrespondence				Differences in expressive meaning is another
distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns of				problem of non - equivalenceat word level
the receptorlanguage, and hence distorts the				mentioned by Baker which mean that there may
message, so as to cause the receptor				exist a TL wordwhich has the same propositional
tomisunderstand or to labor unduly hard’.				meaning as the SL word, but may have
				adifferent expressive meaning. Words like
				homosexuality provide good examples
				Homosexuality is not inherently pejorative word in
				English, although it is oftenused in this way. On the
				other hand, the equivalence expression in some
				otherlanguages is inherently more pejorative and
Dynamic equivalence is defined as a translation				would be quite difficult to use inneutral context
principle according to whicha translator seeks to				without suggesting strong disapproval.
translate the meaning of the original in such a way				Equivalence in English and Persian
that the				Karimi (2006) believes that translator should not
TL wording will trigger the same impact on the TL				always find one – to – onecategorically or
audience as the originalwording did upon the ST				structurally or structurally equivalent units in two
audience. They argue that ‘Frequently, the				languages,that is, sometimes two different
form of theoriginal text is changed; but as long as				languages carry the same function. For
the change follows the rules of				example,the verb happened in English sentence he
backtransformation in the source language, of				happens to be happy equals the adverbetefaghan
contextual consistency in the transfer,and of				(by chance) in the Persian sentence: u etefaghan
transformation in the receptor language, the				khoshhal ast.
message is preserved and thetranslation is				Safarzadeh (1995) stated that the translator for
faithful’ (Nida and Taber, 1982, P.200). Only in				finding equivalence shouldfinding out the meaning
Nida and Taber’sedition is it clearly stated that				of an SL linguistic form, should ask himself /
‘dynamic equivalence in translation is far				herselfwhat the linguistic form is in another
morethan mere correct communication of				language TL for the same meaning to beencoded.
information’.				Ziahosseini (1994) believes that to render a
Carford (1965) defines translation equivalence				satisfactory translation, thetranslator needs to be
clearly different from thatadopted by Nida since				acquainted with phonological, pragmatic, religious
Catford had a preference for a more linguistic				andcultural systems of both SL and TL to find
basedapproach to translation and this approach is				standard equivalence to the TLaudience.
based on the linguistic work of Firthand Halliday.				Some examples of equivalents in Persian and
His main contribution in the field of translation				English
theory is theintroduction of the concept of types				1. Coal in English may equal zire in Persian and
and shifts of translation.				Newcastle in English mayequal Kerman (a city in
Catford proposed very broad types of translation				Iran), hence taking coal to Newcastle = zire be
in terms of three criteria:				Kermanbordan (Karimi 2006)
1. The extent of translation (full translation us				2. Sometimes a multiple meaning term in English
partial translation).				may have several equal termsin Persian and vice
2. The grammatical rank at which translation				versa. (Karimi 2006).
equivalence is established				For example depression in English equals kesadi (in
(rank bound translation vs. unbound translation).				Engish may have severalequal terms in Persian
3. The level of language involved in translation				and vice versa.
(total translation vs.restricted translation).				For example depression in English equals kesadi (in
We will refer to only the second type of				economy), afsordegi (inpsychology) and
translation, since this is the one thatconcerns the				frooraftegi (in dissection). Or the term Tabaghah
concept of equivalence. In rank bound translation				in Persianequals: 1 class 2. Layer 3-floor 4-
an equivalent issought in the TL for each word, or				category in English.
for each morpheme encountered in the ST.				3. The word khordan (to eat) in Persian collocates
Inunbound translation equivalences are not tied to				with many other words, in theexamples: sarma
a particular rank, and we mayadditionally find				(cold) khordan, chaie (tea) khordan, zamin
equivalences at sentence, clause and other levels.				(ground) khordan,ghaze (food) khordan. Its
House (1977)is in favor of semantic and pragmatic				equivalents in English are: To eat (for food), 2)
equivalence and argues that ST and TTshould				Todrink (for tea) 3) To fall (for ground) 4) To
match one another in function. House suggests				catch (for cold) respectively
that it is possible tocharacterize the function of a				(Ziahosseini 1994).
text by determining the situational dimensions				4. The Persian word Raies collocates with:
ofthe ST.				1- edarah (office) 2- deneshgah (university) 3-
In fact according to her theory, every text itself				dadgah (court) while in Englishparenthetical words
is placed within a particularsituation which has to				are collocated by 1) boss 2) chancellor 3)
be correctly identified and taken in to account by				magistrate(Karimi
thetranslator. After the ST analysis, House				2006).
believes that if the ST and the TT				5. A three part compound word in English may be
differsubstantially on situational features, then				translated into a single wordin Persian: daughter in
they are not functionally equivalent,and the				law = aroos (zia hoseini 1994)
translation is not of a high quality in fact, she				6. A simple Persian word maybe translated into a
acknowledges that ‘atranslation text should				compound form in English andvice versa: hound
not only match its source text in function, but				(sag shekari), asa (walking stick), divan (complete
employequivalent situational – dimensional				works) andso on (Hozhabr Nejad, 1994, p.305).
means to achieve that function’.				7. The perfect future tense in English may be
House’stheory of equivalence in translation				translated into present perfect orsimple future
seems to be much more flexible than				tense in Persian (Modiri, 1942). I shall have written
Catford’s. In fact she gives authentic				=
example, uses complete texts and				Neveshteham/ Khaham nevesht.
moreimportantly, she relates linguistic features to				Conclusion
the context of both source andtarget text				In other words, a translator should achieve a
(Leonardi 2000).				similar effect on the target textreceiver as the
Roman Jakobson (1959) in his study of				source text has on the source text receiver.
equivalence gave new impetus to thetheoretical				However, betweenlanguages with greater cultural
analysis of translation since he introduced the				differences, it may not be easy to achieve this.
notion of ‘equivalencein difference’. On				Investigating equivalence in ST and TT is a good
the basis of his semiotic approach to language and				way to appraise themeaning of original and
hisaphorism ‘there is no signatum without				translated version. Then by comparing them one
signum’ he suggest three kinds oftranslation.				cannotice how much of the meaning is
1- Intralingual (within one language, i.e. rewording of				transferred in the process of translation andhow
paraphrase)				much is lost; and the quality of translation in the
2. Interlingual (between two languages)				realm of meaning as far asof equivalence is
3- Intersemiotic (between sign systems)				concerned is being revealed.
Jakobson claims that, in the case of interlingual				According to above examples, we can conclude
translation, the translatormakes use of synonyms				that due to religious, culturaland literary factors, it
in order to get the ST message across. This				is difficult to find a standard equivalent in one
means thatin interlingual translations there is no full				languagefor another. Nevertheless, awareness of
equivalence between code units.				different theories which are presented byfamous
According to his theory, ‘translation involves				theoretician can help us to find appropriates
two equivalent messages in twodifferent				equivalence in translation ofdifferent texts such as:
codes’. Jakobson goes on to say that from a				scientific, literary and so on.
grammatical point of viewlanguages may differ				1. Adding
from one another to a greater or lesser degrees,				2. Deleting
but thisdoes not mean that translation can not be				3. Producing different lexical chains
possible, in other words, the translatormay face				4. Reordering
the problem of not finding a translation equivalent.				5. Explicitation
He acknowledgesthat ‘whenever there is				6. Rechunking (re organizing or renumbering
deficiency, terminology may be qualified and				paragraphs, sentences)repunctuatinglanguages and
amplifiedby loanwords or loan translations,				this may pose some problems in terms of finding
neologisms or semantic shifts and finally				a directcorrespondence in TL. In fact, she claims
bycircumlocutions’. An extremely interesting				that different grammatical structuresin the SL and
discussion of the notion ofequivalence can be				TL may cause remarkable changes in the way
found in Baker (1992) who seems to offer a				the information ormessage is carried across.
more detailedlist of conditions upon which the				These changes may induce the translator either
concept of equivalence can be defined.				to addor to omit information in the TT because
Sheexplores the notion of equivalence at different				of the lack of particular grammaticaldevices in the
levels, in relation to translationprocess, including all				TL itself.
different aspects of translation and hence putting				Amongst these grammatical devices which might
togetherthe linguistic and communicative approach.				cause problems in translation
She distinguishes between:				Baker focuses on number, tense and aspects,
Equivalence that can appear at word level which is				voice, person and gender.equivalence at word
used in thisstudy and above word level, when				level, Baker (1992, p.26-42) proposes thefollowing
translating from one languageinto another.				classification of strategies to solve non-equivalence
After dealing with the difficulties implied in the				at wordlevel.
lack of				1. Translation by more general word
2-Gramatical equivalence, when referring to				(superordinate)
diversity of grammaticalcategories across				2. Translation by more neutral/ less expressive
languages.				word
She notes that grammatical rules may vary				3. Translation by cultural substitution
across				4. Translation using a loan word
3- Textual equivalence, when referring to the				5. Translation by paraphrase using a related word
equivalence between a SL textand a TL text in				6. Translation by paraphrase using unrelated word
terms of information and cohesion.				7. Translation by omission
In terms of textual equivalence, she proposes				8. Translation by illustration
following classification ofstrategies to solve textual				9. Translation by loan word plus explanation
equivalence.				Baker's word level is the first element to be
4- Pragmatic equivalence, when referring to				taken into consideration by thetranslator. In fact,
implicatures and strategies ofavoidance during				when the translator starts analyzing the ST, s/he
translation process.				looks atthe words as single units in order to find a
She believes that the role of the translator is to				direct ‘equivalent’ term in the TL.
recreate the author’s intention inanother				Bake gives a definition of the term "word" since it
culture in such a way that enables the TT reader				should be rememberedthat a single word can
to understand it clearly.				sometimes be assigned different meanings in
Another famous and renowned model of				differentlanguages and be regarded as being a
equivalence presented by Koller				more complex unit or Morpheme. Thismeans that
(1989). At various levels, and loosely following				the translator should pay attention to a number
Koller (1979, p.187-91; 1989,p.100-104), equivalence				of factors whenconsidering a single word, such a
is commonly established as follows:				number, gender and tense. She alsoproposes the
1. Referential or denotative equivalence, when the				following classification of strategies to solve
source language (SL) andtarget language (TL)				non-equivalenceabove word level such as:
words supposedly referring to the same thing in				collocations, idioms and fixed expressions.
thereal world.				1. Resourcing
2. Pragmatic equivalence, when the SL and TL				2. Using an idiom of similar meaning and form
words having the sameeffect on their respective				3. Using an idiom of similar meaning but differing
readers.				form
3. Formal equivalence, when the SL and TL words				4. Paraphrase
having similarorthographic or phonological features.				5. Omission
4. Connotative equivalence, when the SL and TL				6. Compensation
words triggering the sameor similar associations in				7. Rewording
the minds of native speakers of the two				8. Translation by paraphrase using unrelated
languages				words
5. Text normative equivalence, when the SL and				9. Translation by illustration
TL words are being usedin the same or similar
contexts in their respective languages.
Other scholar, Newman (1994) stress that not all
the variables in translationare relevant in every
situation and those translators must decide
whichconsiderations should be given priority at any
one time, thus establishing a kindof functional
equivalence.
Popovic (1976) in his definition of translation
equivalence (TE) distinguishesfour types of
equivalence as presented follow:
1- Linguistic equivalence, where there is
homogeneity on the linguistic levelof both SL and
TL texts, i.e. word for word translation.
2- Paradigmatic equivalence, where there is
equivalence of ‘the elements ofparadigmatic				References The routledge encyclopedia of
expressive axis, i.e. elements of grammar, which				translation studies. London &New York:
Popovic seesas being a higher category than				Routledge.
lexical equivalence.				Baker, M. (ed.)(1997).
3- Stylistic (translational) equivalence, where there
is functionalequivalence of elements in both original				Wills, W. (1982) . The Science of Translation:
and translation aiming at anexpressive identity				Problems and Methods.
with an invariant of identical meaning.				Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
4- Textual (syntagmatic) equivalence, where				Anthony, Pym. (2007). Natural and Directional
there is equivalence ofsyntagmatic structuring of				Equivalence in Theories of
a text, i.e. equivalence of form and shape.				Translation.
Interlingual and Intertextual Equivalence				Toury, Gideon. (1995).and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
In earlier work on equivalence, theorists made a				Toury, Gideon. (1980).institute for poetics and
distinction betweenhypothetical mapping between				simiotics.
elements of abstract language systems (at level				Kenny, Dorothy.(1998).of translation studies
oflangue) on the one hand, and actual observable				Routledge,pp.77-80.
mappings between elements ofreal ST and TT				Modiri , A.H.(1964).
(at the level of parole) on the other. Catford				Kabir Publishing Institution. Descriptive Translation
(1965, p.27) usedthe term formal correspondence				Studies and Beyond. AmesterdamIn Search of
and textual equivalence respectively to refer				Theory of Translation. Tel aviv: the porter'
tothe two categories. Koller (1979, p.183-184)				Equivalence', in the routledge encyclopaedia, edited
made a similar distinction when hedifferentiated				by Mona Baker,London and new york :A complete
between korrespondez, formal similarity between				English Grammer. Tehran: Amir-
languagesystems, and Aquivalenz, equivalence
relations between real texts andutterances.
Koller then went on to present Aquivalenz as the
real object of enquiry intranslation studies.				Karimi, L. (2006) Equivalence in Translation.V10, N
Similarly, Toury (1980, p.24-6) charts the evolution				1.

Ldrs 23

Translation Equivalence (TE) and Different Theories