Transcript 11. Translation Equivalence

11. Translation Equivalence









V. Ivir (1981) 'Formal Correspondence vs. Translation
Equivalence
Revisited', Poetics Today, 51-59
Ivir (1978) Teorija i tehnika prevođenja. Centar
“Karlovačka gimnazija”
Chesterman, A. (1998) Contrastive Functional Analysis. J.
Benjamins
Fawcett, P. (1997) Translation and Language. J. Benjamins
Munday, J. (2001) Introducing Translation Studies. Routledge
Marton (1968),
Ivir (1978, 1970, 1991),
Krzeszowsky (1071, 1972),
Raabe (1972)
FC & TE:
different though not unrelated concepts
FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE
- CA
TRANSLATION EQUIVALENCE
-metalanguage of TR
- role of FC in TR
- concerns the role of linguistics in
translation
- concerns the place of linguistics in TR
theory
- TE in CA concerns the role of CA in
translating
Aim of paper:



place an role of CA & TR in FC
place and role of CA & TR theory in TE:
both FC & TE are needed in TR and CA
Main topics:



TE
FC
FC & TE in the Process of TR (Model)
TRANSLATION EQUIVALENCE - views


TE as a product
TE as a process
TE viewed as a TEXT / product
STATIC VIEW, i.e. linguistic view: TEXT as a unit of TR
TR - 'the replacement of textual material in one language (SL)
by equivalent textual material in another language
(TL)' - Catford 1965-20)





'rendition of a text from one language to another (Bolinger
1966:130)
TE holds between linguistic units (texts):
 TLR's task - to find those units in SL and TL




TR - also concerned with:
textual features
text structure (lower units)
text typology (Bühler, Reiss, Nord)
TR viewed as a process



DYNAMIC VIEW, i.e. COMMUNICATIVE
APPROACH = message as the basic unit of
comunication
TR = substituting messages in one
language for messages in another language'
(Jakobson 1959:235), i.e.:
TR = 'reproducing in the receptor language
the closest natural equivalent of the
message of the source language (Nida
1969:495)
COMMUNICATIVE VIEW of TR:
TRANSLATION viewed:
 NOT as a static relationship between texts in
different languages
 BUT: TR as a product of the dynamic process
of communication between:


the SENDER of the original message and
the ULTIMATE RECEIVER of the translated
message via the TRANSLATOR,

who is the receiver of the original message and the
sender of the translated message
MESSAGE = DEF:

'configurations of extralinguistic
features communicated in a given
situation' (Ivir 1981:52)
COMMUNICATION - as a PROCESS:
ORIGINAL SENDER






starts from the extralinguistic features in the communicative situation
(extralinguistic content)
relies on the resources of SL to express/convy these features
depends on his own command of SL (age, sex, profession, education…)
must assess the nature of sociolinguistic relationship between him and his actual
potential receivers
CODES all the above to produce SL text
TRANSLATOR:







the coded message reaches the TLR via the spatio-temporal channel
decodes the SL message / text
CODES THE MESSAGE AGAIN, relying on:
The resources of the TL (linguistic nature)
His command of the TL (linguistic person)
His assessment of the relationship between him and the TL receiver
ULTIMATE RECEIVER



receives and decodes the translated message
restrictions & limitations
Key issue:



WHAT DOES / SHOULD REMAIN
CONSTANT?
WHAT IS REVERTED TO?
message rather than text
TRANSLATOR:




does not proceed directly from the SLT to TLT
goes back to the configuration of
extralinguistic features of the SL message
re-codes the message
produces a text in the TL (BUT in a new and
different communicative situation) for the
benefit of the (ultimate), i.e. TL receiver
COMMENTS: (TR & TE):
1.
2.
3.
TRANSLATOR'S job (TLR/SLsender vs TLR/TL
receiver)
LOSSES in communicating the message
RELATIVITY OF communication (and
translation):
1. TRANSLATOR'S job (TLR/SLsender
vs TLR/TL receiver)
TLR's job: essentially not different from the job of
other SL receiver of the message (in the normal
process of comm.)
TLR's job in encoding the received message into Tl
is not unlike the task performed by the original
sender




only the communication situation is different
(TLR/orig.sender) - TLR = a different linguistic person
TLR codes the message for different receivers than the
original sender
2. LOSSES in communicating the
message
Messages are not communicated absolutely (MODIFICATIONS):

a) modification of SLM in the process of coding: DEPENDS on:



structure, potential of SL
sender's command of SL
the intended audience
b) modification of SLM in the process of transmission


('noise in the channel')
c) modification in the process of decoding:



receiver's command of TL (his SL)
his ability to grasp the sender's message
MODIFICATIONS:




when TLR receives the original message
when TLR codes the message
when the message passes through the
communicative channel/transmission
when the ULTIMATE RECEIVER decodes
the message
3. RELATIVITY OF communication
(and translation):





Ivir 1985: 'equivalence holds between messages
(Sender - TLR - Receiver) which changes as little and
as much as necessary to ensure communication'
Steiner 1975:47: 'An act of translation takes place
each time that a text is produced as a coded
expression of a particular configuration of
extralinguistic features and is decoded to enable the
receiver to receive the message'
EQ is matter of relational dynamics in a comm. act
EQ is realized only in an act of communication, not
outside it
EQ only exists in communication, not separately
Cf.:

e.g. phonemes (abstract unit of a linguistic
system):



only exist (physically) within the speech act in
which they are realized
each new realization is a product of different
speech act (comm. situation)
e.g. a person's signature: no 'ideal
signature'

- yet it is recognized as 'same' as long as the
characteristic features are presented - to ensure
equivalence with any other realizations
FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE
AND TRANSLATION
? Why FC:

if TE is achieved at the level of messages
rather than linguistic units?
There is a sense in which FC holds
together the SLT and TLT!
FC – definitions
Catford 1965:
 Identity of functions of correspondent
items in two linguistic systems

A formal correspondent is ‘any TL
category which may be said to occupy,
as nearly as possible, the same place in
the economy of the TL as the given SL
category occupies in the SL (1965:37)
Marton (1968), Krzeszowski (1971, 1972):


concept of congruence/equivalence:
presence in any two languages of the same
number of equivalent formatives arranged
in the same order (at highly abstract levels)
Krzeszowski 1972:
 Equivalence exists only between ‘sentences
possessing identical deep structures’ (i.e.
semantic representations of meaning) rather
than those which were translations of each
other
 Equivalent sentences at the level of deep
structure are also congruent, which later
disappears in the derivational stages towards
the surface structure
FC and congruence/equivalence =
attempt at bringing linguistic units:


of the SL and TL into some kind of
relationship for the purpose of contrasting
tertium comparationis provided by:


identity of FUNCTION
identity of MEANING
TR vs CA:


CA also deals with elements of two
languages which stand in a
translational relationship =
tertium comparationis based upon
a common feature (form/function
or meaning)
FC vs TC

FC: impossible without TC –

But: What can serve as TC?
TERTIUM COMPARATIONIS
1. independently described (unique) semantic system:

categories held constant

linguistic expressions (in pairs of languages)
contrasted

BUT: NO such system has yet been proposed
(lexical sematics?)
2. common metalanguage in describing both SL and TL
3. The concept of TE – necessary to arrive at FC for
contrastive purposes
2. Common metalanguage (?):



provides categories to hatch the appropriate
parts of the two systems
if descriptions are matchable –
Contrasting:


mapping one description upon the other to
establish the degree of fit
BUT: ling. descriptions of NO two
languages meet this requirement
Catford:



no such FC exists even betwwen closely
related pairs of languages
no/hardly any category in SL that
performs the same FUNCTION in TL
the probability of substitutability
decreases with typological and genetic
distance
Krezsowski:


deep structure – a notion from
metalanguage - is far from clear
e.g. ‘transformations’ and their meaning
preserving nature – not clear
3. The concept of TE
The concept of TE – necessary to arrive at FC for
contrastive purposes:

CA begins with sentences which are obviously
translation pairs
BUT:

TE rests upon and holds between messages and
not linguistic units !!!

To find the necessary TC we must go beyond
equivalence
FC – a good candidate for tertium comparationis
TWO APPROACHES TO FC:
language-based
text-based
-
-
system-based
- one-to-one relationship
between correspondents
equivalence-based
- one-to-many correspondencedependent on each particular
communicative situation
- never hatched in totality
- match: only in those of their
meanings with which they
participate in the particular SLT
and TLT
FC – TE – TC (examples)
e.g. 1 HR – instrumental case:

1. prep.:











ENGL.
with
by
on
through
acros
along
in
2. subject position o the N in question
3. plural of the N in question
4. adv. –ly
5. etc.
NB: different correspondents stand for different
meanings of the CRO instrumental case:











with /instrument/
rezati nožem (cut with the knife)
/company/
doći s nekim (come with someone)
by /means of transp./ doći vlakom (come by train)
on /time/
muzej zatvoren utorkom (on Tuesday)
plural N /time/
(Tuesdays)
in
/place/
šetati parkom (walk in the park)
through /place)
prolaziti šumom (walk through the forest)
across / place/
prelaziti poljem walk across the field)
along
/place/ ići cestom
(walk along the road)
subject N /place/
pijev ptica odzvanja šumom (the forest
resounded with the chirping of birds)
Ø case
ovim kjučem mogu se otvoriti sva vrata
(this key will open all the doors)
adv. –ly /manner/
s indignacijom (indignantly)
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
FC for (instrumental in CRO) – in all
translationally equivalent texts
FC establishes a list of formal ling. elements
each of which corresponds not to CRO
instrumental as acategory but to some
particular aspect of menaing
Pedagogical implications – (for the learner)
One-to-many relationship – not only in
contrasting BUT also in one and the same
language (/time/, /on Monday/Mondays)
CONTRASTIVE LINGUISTICS & ANALYSIS
TRANSLATION EQUIVALENCE vs FORMAL
CORRESPONDENCE


TR: replacing something in SL for something
in TL that is equivalent to SL.
What is replaced?




linguistic forms ?
texts ?
messages in communication ?
Indisputable: replacing must ensure
equivalence!
EQUIVALENCE: key-issue in TR


replaceability of linguistic forms / texts
?
replaceability depends on factors of a
particular communicative situation (e.g.
M1 vs L1; M2 vs L2, extralinguistic
information, S vs L1, R vs L2; S vs TLR
vs R, non-linguistic factors)
THEREFORE:

TE should be looked upon


NEITHER as a relationship between
linguistic units of two linguistic systems or
their parts,
NOR as a simplified transformation of SLT
into TLT under some unidirectional rules.
(Ivir 1976:89)

such relationships (ling. forms and
texts) are accounted for by formal
correspondence (FC), not translation
equivalence (TE)
FC vs TE ?


FC is established on the level of
linguistic systems
TE is established on the level of
communicative situations

FC: the relationship between a linguistic
unit in L1 and its corresponding unit in
L2, i.e. the one that in the TL system
occupies the same place as the L1 unit
does within the SL system (Catford
1965)

FC of units which are given the same
name (category) in the (meta)language
– language used to describe the two
linguistic systems; e.g.:


FC between English and Croatian tenses or
a single tense,
aspect (CRO – Rus, Engl. Poss. Adj. And
Cro Poss. Adj. …) = tertium comparationis

TC: tertium comparationis – the
category/term that holds together the units of
the two linguistic systems; a pre-requisite for
CA:


Pairing of those elements or categories of two
language systems which possess some common
formal or semantic property;
to be comparable, there must be a third means
against which the two are compared - tertium
comparationis
Tertium Comparationis may be:



any formal or semantic feature (e.g. eventual –
eventualan; kandidat – candidate/applicant);
any grammatical feature: locative in Cro vs.
corresponding categories in English (e.g. prep.
Phrase and nominative subject: U kovčegu …/ In
the suitcase / This suitcase will …); progressive
tense = aspect in Cro; possessive = dative in Cro;
definite article = Cro word order
same semantic content used as TC (possessive
adjective = possessive adjective / reflexive /
personal pronoun / ø correspondent / :
e.g.:




I took his advice – Primio sam njegov savjet
He took his books – Uzeo je svoje knjige
You’ve endangered his life – Ugrozili ste mu
život
He shrugged his shoulders – Slegnuo je
ramenima.
Contrastive analysis


A thorough CA should specify all the
conditions under which one particular
linguistic element or grammatical category is
selected – sometimes a very complex
procedure
CA – examines the extent to which L1 and L2
differ or agree according to form, syntactic
function/behaviour and meaning
APPLICATION OF CA:




CA – useful in explaining TR process between any
pair of languages and therefore useful for the theory
and practice of TR
CA – useful in producing bilingual dictionaries
CA – useful to produce bilingual lists/manuals of
contrastive grammatical structures between any two
languages, also specifying the conditions for selecting
a particular structure or item
CA studies the categories of one language against
the corresponding categories of the other language
The relationship between CA and TR
is reciprocal:


CA
TR
& TR
CA
However, CA ≠ TR and TR ≠ CA:


CA studies the elements in two languages
undergoing a reciprocal TR relationship.
These elements are the elements of
comparison (TC)
CA, though using TR and serving TR, is not
the same as TR, and TR is to the same as
CA.
Back-translation as a test on FC


RULE 1: any Formal Correspondent is
necessarily a potential Translational
Equivalent
RULE 2: Any Translational Equivalent
is not necessarily a Formal
Correspondent
Ivir 1993

“Since TE takes place on the level of
message, within the communicative
act, and FC occurs on the level of
linguistic units in the text, it can be
inferred that TR (i.e. realisation of TE)
is not a one-directional process of
transforming units of one language into
FC units of another”;
TRANSLATION PROCESS:
TR involves a complex a multi-directional
relationship between:




the message and its encoded form,
TLR’s decoding and acceptance of the
message,
its re-encoding into TL, and finally
decoding by the ultimate receiver.

THEREFORE, in a communicative
situation / act, equivalence is often
realised into linguistic units which are
NOT formal correspondents to the un its
in SL.
FC is tested by back-TR, i.e.



FCs are only those units of a translated text which
can be back-translated into the units that existed in
SL text.
Back-TR translation must be literal, not free, i.e. the
semantic content of the linguistic units must be
preserved:
They lived on the same block

Živjeli su u istoj ulici. (TE) – equivalency on the message
level (US urban feature, close & intimate neighbourhood)


Živjeli su u istom bloku (FC) – cultural element is lost:
(back-translation): They lived on the same street
TOTAL vs PARTIAL CORRESPONDENCE:


‘one-to-one correspondence’ (total:
between formal units via TC)
‘one-to-many correspondence’ (partial:
established through text, i.e. textual
correspondents correspond to each
other only in those meanings/senses
which they contribute to the particular
text)
Role of FC in TR

FC established by CA of linguistic units
in the texts of two languages represents
the linguistic component in the
communicative theory of translation
Levels of contrastive analysis







phonological
morphological
syntactic
lexical / semantic
pragmatic
cognitive
textual

II
TRANSLATION EQUIVALENCE

TR: - a procedure involved in conveying /
transfer of EXT.LING. information



between participants not sharing a common ling.
code
ASSUMPTION: one and the same EXT.LING.
content can be coded in a number of ling.
expressions
equivalence can be achieved between
different expressions (within the same lang.
and among different languages) of the same
EXT.LING. content
The concept of EQUIVALENCE



-in the focus of any communic. theory
of TR
goal and objective of any translation
Assumption: - L1 TEXT (SLT)
equivalent to L2 TEXT (TLT)


a fact admitted by all theories
also intuitively felt & known by common people
TE & THEORIES OF TR - dichotomy
(throughout history):
linguistic theories


- based on the EQ relations between linguistic
units in SL and TL
communicative theories




based on the EQ of information / messages in
SL and TL search for ling. means in TL to express the ext.
ling. content in SL
TLR - acts as the Sender and chooses in TL the
most adequate ling. expression to convey the
ext.ling. content and intent
The dichotomy - present in theory and
practice of TR: i.e. in dilemmas such as:
LINGUISTIC
COMMUNICATIVE
literal
vs.
exact (SL-oriented) vs.
semantic (opaque) vs.
faithful
vs.
free
natural (TLoriented)
communicative
(transparent)
elaborated, neat
(poetry, art)
REALISTIC APPROACH:



combination of I and II (renouncing on
extremes)
'some of the best translations: between
literal TR and paraphrase'
(Vinay - Darbelnet 1958 - Stylistique
comparée du français et de l'anglais)
EQUIVALENCE vs (UN)TRANSLATABILITY
linguistically: TR is impossible:

(no equivalence among formal linguistic units of two different
languages

because of different ling. organisation (different systems in SL and
TL)

except in the sense of formal correspondence (Catford)

FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE:
formal correspondent' any TL category which may be said to
occupy, as nearly as possible, the same place in the economy of TL
as the given SL category occupies in the SL' (Catford 1965:32-34)

BUT: Do such categories function in the same way (within each
system) both in SL and TL?
formal correspondence vs translation equivalence:




FC - established at the level of language systems
TE - established at the level of the extralinguistic content
communicatively:

EQ is possible only indirectly:

NOT through the linguistic units
(words, sentence, text/Catford)

BUT through the extralinguistic
situation
TRANSLATION, i.e. ensuring
equivalence, therefore is:

NOT a simple transformation of SL TEXT into a
translated TEXT according


to unidirectional rules of formal-semantic correspondence
BUT a process involving multidirectional relationships
between:





the INFORMATION (extralinguistic content) and its linguistic
form (in SL),
translator's decoding (receipt) of the message
translator's re-coding of the SL message in the TL, and
final decoding of the TRANSLATOR's message by the
ultimate receiver in theTL (cf. Ivir 1992)
impact of the communication channel(s)
TR: a dynamic process of constant reverting to
the ext.ling. content within the
 influence of all the factors of elastic tension of
the requirements on equivalence in the
communication process
EQ: a dynamic relationship in a communicative
act (EQ only exists in a comm. act)
 cf. phoneme vs their realization in speech
(allophones)
 cf. a person's signature
CONDITIONS OF EQUIVALENCE




Leipzig school of the theory of TR: linguistic
appr. to EQ
Nida 1964, 1969, 1977 - 'dynamic
equivalence' - established by finding the
'closest natural equivalent' in the TL for the
message contained in the SL
ensuring the 'equivalence in difference'
(Jakobson 1959)
Dynamic equivalence



established at the level of ext. ling.
content in a communicative act,
NOT - at the level of ling. units
BUT: - linguistic units of SL and TL also
enter some kind of a relationship:

i.e. the relationship of - formal
correspondence
The relationship of formal
correspondence:

a) Catford:
identity of linguistic forms/units between two
languages
Tert. Comp. : functional identity of formal
categories in two ling. systems
WHY IMPOSSIBLE ??? (an, independently described,

BUT: no such system has yet been proposed!



semantic system whose categories are constant - T.
comparat. - whereas their ling. expressions in pairs of
language would be contrastes)





b) common metalanguage: by which both SL and TL would be
described to the same degree of exhaustiveness - this metalanguage
should supply CATEGORIES in terms of which the appropriate parts of
the two systems would be contrasted - matchable descriptions =
contrasting would consist simply in mapping one description upon
thenother to establish the degree of fit.
WHY IMPOSSIBLE ??? - the description of no two languages meet this
requirement
FC- as described by Catford hardly exist
(only simple / exemplary sent. - on deep structure level) - BUT: status
of DS and meaning-preserving nature of transformations are far from
clear;
it is hard to find categories that would perform the 'same' function in
two ling. systems - such probability decreases with typological and
genetic distance



c) return to TE for the search of a suitable TERTIUM
COMPARATIONIS for contrastive purposes
Nida/Ivir: identity of function / meaning in two texts (SLT and
TLT) - we must go beyondequivalence to findthe necessary TC :
FC is a good candidate, but a FC defined NOT as referring to
linguistic systems BUT with reference to TRANSLATIONALLY
EQUIVALENT TEXTS:, I.E.: all those isolable elements of
linguistic form which occupy identical positions (i.e serve as
formal carriers of identical units of meaning) in their respective
(translationally equivalent) texts.
TE: is text-based (performance-parole)









formal correspondents stand in ONE-TO-ONE relationship of
correspondence
formal correspondents stand in ONE-TO-MANY relationships
i.e. one formal element in TL (=carrier of a specific meaning) may
have one or more different formal elements (carriers of the SAME
meaning) in TL
Only such formal correspondents are relevant for the translator in
the re-coding of the Message into the
TR process = matching formal elements (=carriers of meaning) in SL
with all the formal elements (=carriers of meaning) in TL
BUT: only those textual formal correspondents which are carriers of
adequate meanings are taken in the translation in TLT.
in the process of this matching:
parts of the meaning of SL formal element may be /are lost
connotations of the chosen element cannot be excluded alltogether







Therefore:
a set of formal correspondents does NOT yield equivalence
BUT - an inventory of semantic content of the original text
The TRANSLATOR chooses from the above set and combines
those formal elements which will produce in the TL 'the
closest natural equivalent' for the original message.
NATURAL (?) - in order to be equivalent (i.e. be a natural
expression of the
communication situation in TL - because it so functioned in the
SL comm. sit.)
CLOSEST (?) - because relativity of any comm. act excludes
absolute equivalence
When deciding on transfer into a TL the
TLR must:







accept the untranlatability of a SL phrase in TL on the linguistic
level
accept the lack of a similar cultural convention in TL for the one
in SL
consider the range of TL phrases available and make a choice:
class / status / age / sex of a speaker / speaker’s relationship to
the listeners / context of their meeting in Tl, etc.
consider the meaning of a particular content
replace / substitute in the TL the ‘invariant core’ of the SL
phrase (concerning system of text & system of culture
(functional view)
(‘invariant core’ – stable, basic, constant semantic element in
the text)
SUBSTITUTION:



NOT on the basis of linguistic elements of the
phrase
NOT on the basis of coresponding or similar
image in the phrase
BUT on the FUNCTION (semantic / cultural /
sicioling.) of the idiom

ON CONDITION - that the subsitutes serve the
SAME PURPOSE
TYPES OF EQUIVALENCE
(Popovič 1970):
1. linguistic
- correspondence on the
linguistic level (word-for-word TR)
2. paradigmatic – EQ on the paradigmatic axis
(elem. of grammar)
3. stylistic - functional EQ. of SL & TL text –
aiming at an expressive identity (with an
invariant of identical meaning)
4. textual / syntagmatic EQ. – of form and
shape in the syntagm. structuring of the text
TRANSLATION, therefore, involves

the REPLACEMENT of:



lexical elements between two languages
grammatical elements, and also BEYOND
1. & 2.:
the expressive identity between SLT and
TLT may even involve moving away from 1
& 2 (e.g.: idioms, metaphor)
FORMAL EQUIVALENCE:





focuses on the message itself in bot a)
for & b)
content, i.e. on correspondences such
as (SL-bound TE):
sentence to sentence
concept to concept
poem to poem (text to text)
DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE:


based on the principle of EQUIVALENT
EFFECT = the inter-relationship
between the Sender , the TLR, and the
Receiver of the Message
the relationship between the R and TRL
should aim to be the same as that
between the orig Receivers and the SL
message
overall equivalence:
= relationship betwee signs and what
they stand for and those who use them



e.g. swearing:
‘porca Madonna’
(blashemous – untranslatable)
‘fucking hell’ (pragmatic TR: to produce
the same SHOCKING effect)
e.g. letter writing: (woman to a friend):
‘with love’ (in 1812 vs. 1998)
Concl. 1:

‘To ask for the SAMENESS is ‘perverse’,
i.e. - asking too much’ (Snell-Hoenby
1988)
Concl 2: EQUIVALENCE IN TR




should NOT be approached as a search for the
sameness: i.e. linguistic, paradigmatic, stylistic, &
textual) – a goal impossible to articulate even within
the same language,
BUT(b) as adialiectic between the signs and the
structures within and
surronding SLT and TLT
Neubert: One should look upon TR as (i) a process
and (ii) as a product – therefore there is a need for a
theory of equivalence relations
ABSENCE OR LACK OF TR EQUIVALENCE:

in puns, word-plays, idioms, metaphor
(i.e culture-bound concepts)


e.g. beat about the bush: - is to be translated by
idioms in TL:
IT: ‘Giovanni sta menando il can per l’aia’





<avoid talking about smtg embarassing>
E: ‘John is leading his dog around the threshing floor’
- literal TR (meaningless)
E: ‘John is beating about the bush’ (dog)
communic. TR
HR ‘Ivan se ponaša kao mačak oko vruće kaše’

e.g. bathroom




e.g. HR: Dobar tek.



E: 0-TR
IT: Buon apetito.
e.g. (greeting on arrival and departure)




E: Where is the bathroom? (US restaurant)
HR: Gdje je kupaonica?
- literal TR (underTR)
HR: Gdje je WC?
HR: Dobra večer. …
…Hvala. Doviđenja
E: Good evening. … … Thanks. (Good-bye)
IT: Buona sera. …
… Grazie. Buona sera.
e.g. (greeting at 11.10)


E: Good morning
HR: Dobar dan (‘Dobro jutro!’ sarcastic, comic effect)

European Translation Studies, une
science qui dérange, and Why
Equivalence Needn’t Be a Dirty Word
© Anthony Pym 2000 First version
published in TTR 8/1 (1995), 153-176.