LEVELS AND TYPES OF EQUIVALENTS

We can speak about five different types of semantic relationships between equivalent
phrases (texts) in two languages. Thus all translations can be classified into five types of
equivalence which differ as to the volume and character of the information retained in each.
Each subsequent type of equivalence retains the part of the original contents which includes the
information preserved in the previous types. Every translation can be regarded as belonging to a
certain type of equivalence. Since each subsequent type implies a higher degree of semantic
similarity we can say that every translation is made at a certain level of equivalence. Each level
of equivalence is characterized by the part of information the retention of which distinguishes it
from the previous level. The list of levels includes:
1) the level of the purport of communication;
2) the level of (the identification of) the situation;
3) the level of the method of description (of the situation);
4) the level of syntactic meanings;
5) the level of word semantics.
Let us first of all single out translations in which the degree of semantic similarity with
ST seems to be the lowest. This type of equivalence can be illustrated by the following
examples: Maybe there is some chemistry between us that doesn’t mix. – Буває, що люди не
сходяться характерами. A rolling stone gathers no moss. – Кому дома не сидиться, той
добра не наживе. That’s a pretty thing to say. – Посоромився б! Неrе we cannot discover any
common semes or invariant structures in the original and its translation. Moreover, it comprises
the information which must be preserved by all means even though the greater part of the
contents of the original is lost in the translation. Thus we can deduce that in the first type of
equivalence it is only the purport of communication that is retained in translation.
The second group of translations can be illustrated by the following examples: He
answered the telephone. – Він зняв слухавку. You see one bear, you have seen them all. – Всі
ведмеді схожі один на одного. It was late in the day. – Наближався вечір.
This group of examples is similar to the first one, as the equivalence of translations here
does not involve any parallelism of lexical or structural units. Most of the words or syntactical
structures of the original have no direct correspondences in the translation. At the same time it is
obvious that there is a greater proximity of contents than in the preceding group. Besides the
purport of communication there is some additional information contained in the original that is
retained. The information which characterized the second type of equivalence can, therefore, be
designated as “identification of the situation”.
 In the next group of translations the part of the contents which is to be retained is still
larger. This type of equivalence can be exemplified as follows: Scrubbing makes me bad-
tempered. – Від миття підлоги у мене псується настрій. London saw a cold winter last year.
– Минулого року зима в Лондоні була холодна. You are not serious? – Ви жартуєте? In this
case the translation retains the two preceding informative complexes as well as the method of
describing the situation. In other words, it contains the same general notions as the original. This
means that the translation is a semantic paraphrase of the original, preserving its basic
semes and allowing their free reshuffle in the sentence. Thus we are faced with a situation that
can be explained in terms of the semantic theory. The common semes are easily discovered in
the comparative analysis of the translations of this group. We can now say that the third type of
equivalence exemplified by the translations of the third group, implies retention in the
translation of the three parts of the original contents which we have conventionally
designated as the purport of communication, the identification of the situation and the
method of its description.
The fourth group of translations can be illustrated by the following samples: He was
never tired of old songs. – Старі пісні йому ніколи не докучали. I don’t see that I need to
convince you. – Не бачу потреби доводити вам це. Не was standing with his arms crossed
and his bare head bent. – Він стояв, склавши руки на грудях, з похиленою непокритою
головою. In this group the semantic similarity of the previous types of equivalence is reinforced
by the invariant meaning of the syntactic structures in the original and the translation. In such
translations the syntactic structures can be regarded as derived from those in the original through
direct or backward transformations. This includes cases when the translation makes use of
similar or parallel structures. Thus, the fourth type of equivalence presupposes retention in
the translation of the four meaningful components of the original: the purport of
communication, the identification of the situation, the method of its description, and the
invariant meaning of the syntactic structures.
Last but not least, comes the fifth group of translations that can be discovered when we
analyze their relationships with the respective originals. Here we find the maximum possible
semantic similarity between texts in different languages. These translations try to retain the
meaning of all the words used in the original text. The examples cited below illustrate this
considerable semantic proximity of the correlated words in the two sentences: I saw him at the
theatre. – Я бачив його в театрі. The house was sold for 10 thousand dollars. – Будинок було
продано за десять тисяч доларів. Here we can observe the equivalence of semes which make
up the meaning of correlated words in the original text and the translation; parallelism of
syntactic structures implying the maximum invariance of their meanings; the similarity of the
notional categories which determine the method of describing the situation; the identity of the
situations; the identical functional aim of the utterance or the purport of communication. The
relative identity of the contents of the two texts depends in this case on the extent to which
various components of the word meaning can be rendered in translation without detriment to the
retention of the rest of the information contained in the original.
It is worth noting that the information characterizing different levels is inherent to any
unit of speech. Indeed, a unit of speech always has some communicative intent, denotes a certain
situation, possesses a certain notional structure, and is produced as a syntactically patterned
string of words. Thus, a translation event is accomplished at a definite level of equivalence. It
should be emphasized that the level hierarchy does not imply the idea of approbation or
disapprobation. A translation can be good at any level of equivalence. The structural similarity of
ST and TT implies that relationships of equivalence are established between correlated units in
the two texts. Many SL units have regular equivalents in TL which are used in numerous TT as
substitutes to those units. Some of the SL units have permanent equivalents in TL, that is to say,
there is a one-to-one correspondence between such units and their equivalents. Thus “London” is
always rendered into Ukrainian as “Лондон”, “a machinegun” as “кулемет” and “hydrogen” as
“водень”. As a rule this type of correspondence is found with words of specific character, such
as scientific and technical terms, proper or geographical names and similar words whose
meaning is more or less independent of the particular contextual situation. Other SL units may
have several equivalents each. Such one-to-many correspondence between SL and TL units is
characteristic of most regular equivalents. The existence of a number of non-permanent (or
variable) equivalents to a SL unit implies the necessity of selecting one of them in each
particular case, taking into account the way the unit is used in ST and the points of difference
between the semantics of its equivalents in TL. Depending on the type of the language units
involved regular equivalents can be classified as lexical, phraseological or grammatical.
Coordinated words in two languages may correspond to each other in one or several components
of their semantic structures, while not fully identical in their semantics. The choice of the
equivalent will depend on the relative importance of a particular semantic element in the act of
communication. For instance, the English word “ambitious” may denote either praiseworthy or
inordinate desires. Its translation will depend on which of these aspects comes to the fore. Thus
“the ambitious plans of the would-be world conquerors” will be translated as “честолюбні
плани претендентів на роль завойовників всього світу”, while “the ambitious goals set by
the United Nations” will give “грандіозні цілі, поставлені ООН” in the Ukrainian translation.
A variety of equivalents may also result from a more detailed description of the same object in
TL. The English word “attitude”, for instance, is translated as “відносини, позиція, політика”
depending on the variant the Ukrainian language prefers in a particular situation. Even if a SL
unit has a regular equivalent in TL, this equivalent cannot be used in TT whenever the unit is
found in ST. An equivalent dependents on the context in which the SL unit is placed in ST.
There are two types of context: linguistic and situational. The linguistic context is made up by
the other SL units in ST while the situational context includes the temporal, spacial and other
circumstances under which ST was produced as well as all facts which the receptor is expected
to know so that he could adequately interpret the message.
Thus in the following sentences the linguistic context will enable the translator to make a
correct choice among the Ukrainian equivalents to the English noun “attitude”: 1) I don’t like
your attitude to your work. 2) There is no sign of any change in the attitudes of the two sides. 3)
He stood there in a threatening attitude. It is obvious that in the first sentence it should be the
Ukrainian “відношення (до роботи)”, in the second sentence – “позиція (обох сторін)”, and in
the third sentence – “постава (погрожуюча)”. The fact that a SL unit has a number of regular
equivalents does not necessarily mean that one of them will be used in each particular
translation. True, in many cases the translator’s skill is well demonstrated in his ability to make a
good choice among such equivalents. But not infrequently the context does not allow the
translator to employ any of the regular equivalents to the given SL unit. Then the translator has
to look for a way of translation which will successfully render the meaning of the unit in this
particular case. Such an exceptional translation of a SL unit which suits a particular context can
be described as an occasional equivalent or a contextual substitute. It is clear, for instance,
that none of the abovementioned regular equivalents to the English “attitude” can be used in the
translation of the following sentence: He has a friendly attitude towards all. An occasional
equivalent may be found through a change of the part of speech: Він до всіх відноситься по-
товариськи. The particular contextual situation may force the translator to give up even a
permanent equivalent.
Geographical names have such equivalents which are formed by imitation of the foreign
name in TL. Phraseological units or idioms may also have permanent or variable equivalents.
Such English idioms as “the game is not worth the candle” or “to pull chestnuts out of the fire
for smb” are usually translated by the Ukrainian idioms “гра не варта свічок” and “діставати
каштани з полум’я для кого-небудь”, respectively. These equivalents reproduce all the aspects
of the English idioms semantics and can be used in most contexts. Other permanent equivalents,
though identical in their figurative meaning, are based on different images, that is, they have
different literal meaning. Cf. “to get up on the wrong side of the bed” – “встати з лівої ноги”,
“make hay while the sun shines” – “куй залізо, поки гаряче”. Now an English idiom may have
several Ukrainian equivalents among which the translator has to make his choice in each
particular case. For instance, the meaning of the English “Do in Rome as the Romans do” may be
rendered in some contexts as “З вовками жити - по-вовчи вити”, and in other contexts as “В
чужий монастир зі своїм статутом не ходять”. But here, again, the translator may not
infrequently prefer an occasional equivalent which can be formed by a word-for-word
reproduction of the original unit: “В Римі поводься як римлянин”. The choice of grammatical
units in TT largely depends on the semantics and combinability of its lexical elements. Therefore
there are practically no permanent grammatical equivalents. The variable equivalents in the field
of grammar may be analogous forms in TL or different forms with a similar meaning. As often
as not such equivalents are interchangeable and the translator has a free choice between them. In
the following English sentence “He was a guest of honour at a reception given by the Soviet
government” both the Ukrainian participle “улаштованим” and the attributive clause “який був
улаштований” can be substituted for the English participle “given”. And the use of occasional
equivalents is here more common than in the case of the lexical or phraseological units. We have
seen that in the first three types of equivalence no equivalents to the grammatical units are
deliberately selected in TL. No small number of SL units have no regular equivalents in TL.
Equivalent-lacking words are often found among SL names of specific national phenomena, such
as the English words “coroner, condominium, impeachment, baby-sitter” and the like. However,
there are quite a number of “ordinary” words for which TL may have no equivalent lexical units:
“fluid, bidder, qualifier, conservationist”, etc.
Some grammar forms and categories may also be equivalent-lacking. (Cf. the English
gerund, article or absolute participle construction which have no counterparts in Ukrainian). The
absence of regular equivalents does not imply that the meaning of an equivalent-lacking SL unit
cannot be rendered in translation or that its translation must be less accurate. We have seen that
words with regular equivalents are not infrequently translated with the help of contextual
substitutes. Similarly, the translator, coming across an equivalent-lacking word, resorts to
occasional equivalents which can be created in one of the following ways:
1. Using loan-words imitating in TL the form of the SL word or word combination, e.g.
tribalism – трайболізм, impeachment – імпічмент, backbencher – задньолавочник, brain-
drain – витік мізків. As often as not such occasional formations are adopted by the members of
the TL community and get the status of regular equivalents.
2. Using approximate substitutes, that is TL words with similar meaning which is
extended to convey additional information (if necessary, with the help of foot-notes), e.g.
drugstore – аптека, afternoon – вечір. The Ukrainian “аптека” is not exactly a drugstore where
they also sell such items as magazines, soft drinks, ice-cream, etc., but in some cases this
approximate equivalent can well be used.
 3. Using all kinds of lexical (semantic) modifying the meaning of the SL word, e.g. “He
died of exposure” may be rendered into Ukrainian as “Він помер від простуди” or “Він помер
від сонячного удару”.
4. Using an explanation to convey the meaning of the SL unit, e.g. landslide –перемога
на виборах приголомшливою більшістю голосів, brinkmanship – мистецтво ведення
політики на межі війни, etc. This method is sometimes used in conjunction with the first one
when the introduction of a loan-word is followed by a foot-note explaining the meaning of the
equivalent-lacking word in ST.
After that the translator may freely employ the newly-coined substitute. There are also
quite a number of equivalent-lacking idioms. Such English phraseological units as “you cannot
eat your cake and have it”, “to dine with Duke Humphrey”, “to send smb. to Coventry” and
many others have no regular equivalents in Ukrainian. They are translated either by reproducing
their form in TL through a word-for-word translation or by explaining the figurative meaning of
the idiom, e.g.: People who live in glass should not throw stones. – Люди, які мешкають в
скляних будинках, не повинні кидати каміння; to see eye-to-eye with smb. – дотримуватися
однакових поглядів.

Suggested Topics for Discussion

1. What levels of equivalence can be distinguished in translation? How do the equivalence levels
mirror the essential features of speech units?
2. What level of equivalence can the translator reach in the translating process? Is it always
necessary or possible to translate at the same level of equivalence? What factors does the choice
depend on?
3. What is the translation equivalent? Should translating equivalents be studied on a bilingual or
a multilingual basis? How can regular equivalents be defined? How are they discovered? How
can they be classified? What role do they play in the translation practice?
4. What is an occasional equivalent? What are equivalent-lacking words? What types of words
have, as a rule, no regular equivalents? What are the principal ways of rendering the meaning of
an equivalent-lacking word in translation?