I forgot this. Williams wonders as follows: if the two kinds of equivalence can both be found in the same theorist, then why distinguish between the two in the first place? Let's see. There are deciduous trees and evergreen trees. If you can find both kinds in some forests, why would anyone want to distinguish between the two in the first place?
Your thoughts on equivalence are very reasonable and consistent, Mr Pym. Thank you for your book. But, unfortunately, Western translation theory is unfamiliar with V.N. Komissarov's Levels of equivalence theory, which is one of the pinnacles of Soviet/Russian lingusitic translation studies
I am surprised that anyone would miss that you were discussing theories and not text relations. Surely the title does that job well enough. I do understand the push to see equivalence as word-for-word, as it is the easiest straw man to attack when people attack equivalence. It is easier to attack that way than to sit down and attempt to understand how and why those theories appeared and why mentioning them is nor a priori bad academic citizenship. On the contrary, I could argue that for professionals, a certain kind of equivalence is surely more useful, if not more empowering, than some of the more fashionable postmodernist theories that need a translator to turn them from English to understandable English. I do wonder whether you should invite that author to Tarragona to have a face-to-face debate.
My position is admittedly more complicated than is presented here, but the dialectics would be entirely lost on the level of Williams' book, and so I keep them in the footnotes. Here is the catch: Once you reach the stage where you can see that equivalence is insubstantial, that it is nothing but a belief in equivalence (like belief in the value of a banknote), then there is no significant difference between the theories and the thing theorized. At that stage (but not in the prior stages), the natural/directional distinction cannot logically be said to apply "only" to the theories. Okay: it's too complicated for most.
I forgot this. Williams wonders as follows: if the two kinds of equivalence can both be found in the same theorist, then why distinguish between the two in the first place?
Let's see. There are deciduous trees and evergreen trees. If you can find both kinds in some forests, why would anyone want to distinguish between the two in the first place?
Your thoughts on equivalence are very reasonable and consistent, Mr Pym. Thank you for your book. But, unfortunately, Western translation theory is unfamiliar with V.N. Komissarov's Levels of equivalence theory, which is one of the pinnacles of Soviet/Russian lingusitic translation studies
I am surprised that anyone would miss that you were discussing theories and not text relations. Surely the title does that job well enough.
I do understand the push to see equivalence as word-for-word, as it is the easiest straw man to attack when people attack equivalence. It is easier to attack that way than to sit down and attempt to understand how and why those theories appeared and why mentioning them is nor a priori bad academic citizenship. On the contrary, I could argue that for professionals, a certain kind of equivalence is surely more useful, if not more empowering, than some of the more fashionable postmodernist theories that need a translator to turn them from English to understandable English.
I do wonder whether you should invite that author to Tarragona to have a face-to-face debate.
My position is admittedly more complicated than is presented here, but the dialectics would be entirely lost on the level of Williams' book, and so I keep them in the footnotes.
Here is the catch: Once you reach the stage where you can see that equivalence is insubstantial, that it is nothing but a belief in equivalence (like belief in the value of a banknote), then there is no significant difference between the theories and the thing theorized. At that stage (but not in the prior stages), the natural/directional distinction cannot logically be said to apply "only" to the theories.
Okay: it's too complicated for most.