Schjoldager, Anne. 2020. "The Usefulness of Equivalence within Translation Studies: Memes, Paradigms and a Functional Translation Analysis." In Equivalence(s). Necessity and Challenges in Translation Today, edited by Merete Birkelund, Sébastien Doubinsky, Christina Khona 16. Department of German and Romance Languages, School of Communication and Culture, Aarhus University: ecograf. 91-109.

Full text

Schjoldager, Anne. 2020. "The Usefulness of Equivalence within Translation Studies: Memes, Paradigms and a Functional
Translation Analysis.
1
Anne Schjoldager
Department of English
School of Communication and Culture
Mail: asc@cc.au.dk
ASc, 23.10.2019 - to cite:
Schjoldager, Anne. 2020. "The Usefulness of Equivalence within Translation Studies: Memes, Paradigms and a Functional
Translation Analysis." In Equivalence(s). Necessity and Challenges in Translation Today, edited by Merete Birkelund,
Sébastien Doubinsky and Christina Khona, 91-109. Department of German and Romance Languages, School of
Communication and Culture, Aarhus University: ecograf.
The Usefulness of Equivalence within Translation Studies: Memes,
Paradigms and a Functional Translation Analysis
Summary
The aim of the paper is to contribute to a narrowing of an apparent gap between the theory and practice of
translation as far as the notion of equivalence is concerned. With a view to understanding the significance
and influences of equivalence within translation studies in both retrospective and contemporary perspectives,
the paper draws on Chesterman’s (1997, 2016) model of translation memes in the evolution of translation
studies and Pym’s (2014) contemporary translation paradigms. It is suggested that the notion of equivalence
has played and still plays an essential role in most translation theories, even if the term has fallen out of
fashion. Exploring the theoretical usefulness of the notion in a functional analysis of an authentic translation
conducted within a skopos-theoretical framework (e.g. Vermeer 1989/2000), the paper concludes that the
adamant rejection of the notion within skopos theory might not be justified.
1. Introduction
The aim of this paper is to contribute to a narrowing of an apparent gap between the theory and
practice of translation as far as the notion of equivalence is concerned. Let me start by quoting
Catford’s (1965:20) classical definition of translation in his seminal book “A Linguistic Theory of
Translation” (my emphasis):
“Translation may be defined as follows: the replacement of textual material in one
language (SL) [source language] by equivalent textual material in another language
(TL) [target language]”.
Working within applied linguistics, Catford and many others (e.g. Vinay and Darbelnet 1958/2000,
Nida and Taber 1974 and Newmark 1977) viewed translation as an activity aimed at creating
equivalence, a term borrowed from mathematics (of ‘equal value’). This view was highly influential
within translation studies until the 1970s and 1980s, when many translation scholars began to
question the usefulness of the notion of equivalence. Thus, for instance, in a book entitled
“Translation Studies: An integrated approach”, arguing for a functional (purpose-oriented) view on
translation, the notion was famously criticised by Snell-Hornby (1988:22, her emphasis):

Schjoldager, Anne. 2020. "The Usefulness of Equivalence within Translation Studies: Memes, Paradigms and a Functional
Translation Analysis.
2
“[…] equivalence is unsuitable as a basic concept in translation theory: the term
equivalence, apart from being imprecise and ill-defined (even after a heated debate of
over twenty years) presents an illusion of symmetry between languages which hardly
exists beyond the level of vague approximations and which distorts the basic problems
of translation.”
Scholars working within Vermeer’s skopos theory (Reiss and Vermeer 1984; Vermeer 1989/2000;
Nord 2005, 1997, 2018) are particularly dismissive of the usefulness of equivalence. The basic tenet
of skopos theory is that the communicative aim of the translation (the skopos) should be regarded as
the most decisive factor in any translation. Following Vermeer, for instance, Nord (2005:141) even
points out that “in large numbers of professional tasks, equivalence is not required or not even
desired”, meaning that the achievement of equivalence is rarely an aim in professional translation
(see also Nord 2018:34). Interestingly, however, the general dislike of equivalence within
translation studies seems to clash with the reality of most professional translators, who still tend to
see the achievement of (some sort of) equivalence as essential to their work, because this is what
clients expect (e.g. Rasmussen and Schjoldager 2011). The paper therefore explores the significance
and influences of equivalence within translation studies in general and discusses in particular
whether the explicit rejection within skopos theory is justified.
Using Chesterman’s (1997, 2016) eight-stage model of the evolution of translation memes as an
analytical framework, section 2 discusses some well-known contrasting conceptions of equivalence
(dichotomies) that have influenced our understanding of translation over time. Section 3 discusses
contemporary views on and reactions to the notion of equivalence within a framework of Pym’s
(2014) seven translation paradigms. Drawing on the insights of the previous sections, section 4
explores the usefulness of equivalence as a theoretical concept in a functional translation analysis of
an authentic translation carried out within a skopos-theoretical framework. The paper finishes with
some concluding remarks in section 5.
2. Translation memes
Theorising about the evolution of translation theories, norms, strategies, competences and ethics,
Chesterman (1997) coins the phrase ‘translation meme’ for a cluster or pool of ideas about
translation, borrowing the notion of meme from sociobiology. Chesterman (1997, 2016) begins by
suggesting five, interlinked supermemes. One of these is the equivalence supermeme, broadly
defined as a general belief that there must be some sort of similarity between source and target
texts. The existence of such a supermeme signifies that equivalence still prevails as a useful concept
within translation studies: “Even though it does not seem helpful to define equivalence in terms of
identity, except for special limited cases, it is still widely held to be an essential concept which can
distinguish translation from other acts of communication.” (Chesterman 2016:14)
Chesterman (2016:20ff) develops a model of eight interlinked and chronologically overlapping
stages that are each characterised by a dominant meme1. All stages are assigned a metaphor that
“seems to encapsulate the ideas associated with that stage” (Chesterman 2016:18). Drawing on Karl
1 This model was first suggested in Chesterman (1995), but without the memes; see also Schjoldager (2010a).

Schjoldager, Anne. 2020. "The Usefulness of Equivalence within Translation Studies: Memes, Paradigms and a Functional
Translation Analysis.
3
Popper’s philosophy of science, Chesterman illustrates how the dominant meme of one stage is
rejected, reshaped and incorporated into an alternative meme in the following stage.
A consensus seems to have prevailed for a very long time that there are essentially two kinds of
translation, and that these are achieved by means of different kinds of procedures: literal translation
vs. free translation. Cicero was probably the first to point this out many thousand years ago (e.g.
Bastin 1998:5), describing the contrasting procedures as ‘ut interpres’ (like a literalist interpreter)
and ‘ut orator (like a public speaker) (see also Pym 2014:30). Many translation scholars have since
operated with similar dichotomies, often tending to prefer one procedure over the other (e.g. Bellos
2011:102ff). For the purposes of this paper, I shall regard the respective poles of such dichotomies
as types of equivalence. Chesterman describes those that are comparable to Cicero’s literal
translation as source oriented and those that are comparable to his free translation as target oriented,
a distinction that I have also adopted in Table 1 (below).
Of particular interest for our discussion are the “pendulum swings”, as Chesterman (2016:22) calls
them, between preferences for source-oriented and target-oriented types of equivalence, which we
find in the first five stages. Such preferences are marked by * in Table 1. In the first four stages, one
preference in one stage provokes the opposite preference in the following stage. In stage 5, the
swing occurs within the same stage, when rivalling scholars disagree on which type of equivalence
should be preferred, while, in stages 6-8, a dominant meme dictates that, for theoretical reasons,
there should be no preferences.
Table 1:
Stages in the evolution of translation memes (adapted from Chesterman 2016)
Stages
Metaphors
Examples of scholars
Source orientation
Target orientation
(Translation
is…)
1.
Rebuilding
- Cicero (b. 106 BC)
- Literal translation
- Free translation*
2.
Copying
- St Jerome (b. 342 AD)
- Word-for-word
translation*
- Sense-for-sense
translation
3.
Imitating
- Luther (1483-1546)
- Translating words
- Translating theological
truths*
4.
Creating
- Schleiermacher (1768-
1834)
Venuti (e.g. 1995)
- Verfremdung*
- Foreignising
translation*
- Entfremdung
- Domesticating
translation
5.
Transcoding
- Vinay and Darbelnet
(1958/2000)
- Nida and Taber (1974)
- Newmark (e.g. 1977,
1988)
- Direct translation*
- Formal
correspondence
- Semantic
translation*
- Oblique translation
- Dynamic equivalence*
- Communicative
translation
6.
Sending a
message
- Vermeer (1989/2000)
- House (1981/1989)
- Nord (e.g. 1997)
- Overt translation
- Documentary
translation
- Covert translation
- Instrumental translation
7.
Manipulating
- Even-Zohar (1990)
- Toury (e.g. 1995)
- Adequate
translation
- Acceptable translation

Schjoldager, Anne. 2020. "The Usefulness of Equivalence within Translation Studies: Memes, Paradigms and a Functional
Translation Analysis.
4
8.
Thinking
- Gutt (e.g. 1991)
- Direct translation
- Indirect translation
As illustrated in Table 1, Cicero, who belongs in stage 1, preferred free translations, while St
Jerome, who belongs in stage 2, preferred a word-for-word procedure in his translation of the Bible
from Greek into Latin (e.g. Bellos 2011:104). In opposition to this, Martin Luther, who belongs in
stage 3, famously preferred to translate in a sense-for-sense procedure what he regarded as
theological truths into the German vernacular understood by his parishioners, rather than adhere
scrupulously to the Greek words of the Bible (e.g. Chesterman 2016:23). Stage 4 sees a return to
the source-oriented approach, especially among scholars working with literary translation, viewing
themselves as involved in “divine creation” (Chesterman 2016:24). Thus, for instance, in his 1813
lecture on translation procedures, Schleiermacher prefers a procedure that others have later dubbed
‘Verfremdung’ as opposed to ‘Entfremdung’ (e.g. Snell-Hornby 2006:9). This dichotomy was later
taken up by Venuti (e.g. 1995) in the form of foreignising vs. domesticating translations, in which a
foreignising approach (Verfremdung) is to be preferred.
Stage 5 witnessed much interest in translation studies as an academic field based on ‘linguistic
science’, for instance, Catford’s (1965) work with translation shifts (see also Chesterman 2016:27).
A well-known dichotomy of this stage is that of direct vs. oblique translations, proposed by Vinay
and Darbelnet (1958/2000) based on their contrastive work on English and French. Another well-
known dichotomy is Nida’s formal correspondence vs. dynamic equivalence (e.g. Nida and Taber
1974). Working with and coordinating Bible translations from (American) English into many local
languages, Nida made a strong case for the target-oriented (dynamic) approach to translation (e.g.
Bellos 2011:171). Newmark’s (e.g. 1988) dichotomy of semantic vs. communicative translations
resembles Nida’s dichotomy, but Newmark clearly prefers the source-oriented (semantic) approach,
and he is less convinced than Nida that the effect of the source text can be equalled in another
language (e.g. Chesterman 2016:8). As already mentioned, after stage 5, the alternation between
source and target orientation becomes more complex and less clear-cut.
In stage 6, translation is seen as a communicative process, and many scholars emphasise that the
target text should not be judged by its formal similarity to the source text (linguistic equivalence),
but by its “communicative efficacy” (e.g. Chesterman 2016:31). Many reject the simplicity of the
dichotomies of the previous stages, and they begin to look critically at equivalence as a defining
feature of translation, suggesting new ways of describing the aim(s) of translation. Working with
literary translation, Malmkjær (1993, cited by Chesterman 2016:32), for instance, proposes that the
success of a translation should depend on its degree of ‘convergence’ with the source-text author’s
intentions (see also Coste in this volume). This is also the stage where we find functional translation
studies and, most prominently, skopos theory, first proposed by Vermeer in Reiss and Vermeer
(1984). Nord’s (e.g. 1997, 2005, 2018) dichotomy of documentary vs. instrumental translations
seems essential to skopos-theoretical analyses. Skopos theory is generally understood to privilege
the target side over the source side, but Nord insists that a translator’s basic choice between source
or target orientation depends on the aim (skopos) of the translation as well as the situational context.
I also mention House’s (e.g. 1981/1989 and in this volume) dichotomy of overt vs. covert
translations as part of stage 6 because she too stresses functional and situational factors. Within a
framework of translation critique, House’s basic point is that receivers who know that they are
receiving a translation have different expectations than receivers who are unaware that they are

Schjoldager, Anne. 2020. "The Usefulness of Equivalence within Translation Studies: Memes, Paradigms and a Functional
Translation Analysis.
5
receiving a translation. More specifically, in overt translations, receivers expect translators to
achieve (linguistic) equivalence, whereas, in covert translations, there are probably no such
expectations, and translators are free (or, at least, freer) to choose the kind of source/target relations
that they deem appropriate in the situation.
While the functionalist theorists of stage 6 focus primarily on non-literary, specialised texts, the
functionalists of stage 7 work mainly with literary translation. Translation in this stage is seen as an
act of manipulation, and, drawing on sociology and polysystem theory within literary studies (e.g.
Even-Zohar 1990), these scholars endeavour empirically to discover target-culture norms governing
translation processes. Most scholars in this stage see themselves as working within Descriptive
Translation Studies (see also Schjoldager 1995). Toury (e.g. 1995) works with a dichotomy of
adequate vs. acceptable translations, emphasising that, as translation is a norm-governed activity, it
is not the place of researchers to recommend one type of procedure over another, and that, from an
empirical point of view, both adequate and acceptable translations are equally legitimate. In line
with this, a general assumption is that equivalence should be studied as a historical fact. Toury
(1995:61) explains the historical approach to equivalence like this: “Rather than being a single
relationship, denoting a recurring type of invariant, it comes to refer to any relation which is found
to have characterized translation under a specified set of circumstances”.
Stage 8 marks a preoccupation with cognition, that is, what goes on in translators’ heads when
translating. The dominant meme of this stage probably started many centuries ago, but the past forty
years have witnessed increased interest in cognitive translation studies, not least helped by new
technologies such as keystroke-logging tools. Drawing on Sperber and Wilson’s (1986) interpretive
use of language, Gutt (1991) limits the scope of his relevance-theoretical work to overt types of
translation, thereby excluding House’s covert types from the theory. According to Gutt, such overt
types of translation may be categorised as either direct or indirect. Direct translations are
characterised as more complete than indirect translations, which are partial transfers of source-text
features.
3. Translation paradigms
As illustrated by section 2, much theorisation in the past seems to have revolved around diverse
types of equivalence expressed by means of contrasting dichotomies. We shall now take a
contemporary perspective on the significance and role of equivalence in translation studies.
According to Pym (2014), contemporary translation scholars may be said to adhere (more or less) to
one of seven translation paradigms2. Pym emphasises that newer paradigms should not be seen as
replacements of older ones, as all underlying theories are still active. Table 2, below, provides an
overview of the paradigms, dominant views on equivalence and examples of scholars. The
2 The aim of Pym’s (2014) book is not to recommend that scholars adhere to either of these paradigms, but rather that
they should not adhere to any. If scholars identify themselves too much with a paradigm, they will probably be
disinclined to pay attention to ideas expressed by scholars working within other paradigms, which may lead to
unproductive theoretical disagreements. Pym’s (2014, p. 160) final sentence illustrates this well: “There is no need to
start in any one paradigm, and certainly no need to belong to one”.

Schjoldager, Anne. 2020. "The Usefulness of Equivalence within Translation Studies: Memes, Paradigms and a Functional
Translation Analysis.
6
paradigms are roughly presented in accordance with the order in which they first emerged from the
1960s to the present day. Scholars working within paradigms 1-2 and 6 embrace the notion of
equivalence, while those working within paradigms 4-5 are sceptical, and those within paradigms 3
and 7 are dismissive.
Table 2:
Translation paradigms (adapted from Pym 2014)
Translation paradigms
Views on equivalence
Examples of scholars
(1) Natural equivalence
A relation of equal value between
texts
Catford (1965), Vinay and
Darbelnet (1958/2000)
(2) Directional equivalence
An asymmetric relation between
texts
Nida and Taber (1974), Newmark
(1977, 1988)
(3) Purposes
A special case in translation
Reiss and Vermeer (1984),
Vermeer (1989/2000), Nord (1997,
2018)
(4) Descriptions
A postulated and assumed feature
of translation
Toury (1995)
Delabastita (1993)
(5) Uncertainty
An indefensible essentialism
Steiner (1975/1992)
(6) Localisation
An artificial relation between
texts
The localisation industry
(7) Cultural translation
An uninteresting concept
Homi K. Bhabha (1994; cited in
Pym 2014:139ff)
In paradigm 1, scholars focus on natural equivalence drawing on applied linguistics and its
response to structuralism in linguistics (Pym 2014:6). Natural equivalence is the most fundamental
conception of equivalence and builds on an idealist belief that languages and texts can convey
identical meanings, that texts ‘of equal value’ can be achieved and that equivalences between
words, phrases etc. in different languages exist prior to being translated. Working within applied
linguistics, for instance, Catford (1965) discovered that equivalence may be achieved at various
textual and linguistic levels by means of different linguistic operations, including what he refers to
as ‘shifts’ between the levels. Another example of work within this paradigm is Vinay and
Darbelnet’s (1958/2000) study of empirical examples of different types of equivalence –
‘translation solutions’ – based on comparative linguistic stylistics (stage 5, section 2).
In paradigm 2, scholars focus on directional equivalence in a search for translation solutions that
are to represent what the source text is supposed to communicate, but not necessarily what it
contains linguistically. Scholars working within this paradigm therefore tend to distinguish between
equivalence as a symmetric relation based on reciprocity (natural equivalence) and equivalence as
an asymmetric, non-reciprocal relation (directional equivalence). This means that they share a belief
that translators basically choose between two ways of translating: either the translator attempts to
achieve natural equivalence, which is source oriented, or s/he attempts to achieve directional
equivalence, which is target oriented. Among the dichotomies of this paradigm are Nida’s formal
correspondence vs. dynamic equivalence (e.g. Nida and Taber 1974) and Newmark’s (1977, 1988)
semantic vs. communicative translations (stage 5, section 2).

Schjoldager, Anne. 2020. "The Usefulness of Equivalence within Translation Studies: Memes, Paradigms and a Functional
Translation Analysis.
7
Scholars working within paradigm 3 focus on purposes. This approach comprises functional
translation studies, including skopos theory, which, as already mentioned, emphatically rejects the
notion of equivalence as a defining and necessary feature of translation (stage 6, section 2). While
the outlook of paradigm 3 is clearly prescriptive and completely dismissive of the notion of
equivalence as a defining feature of translation, the scholars working within paradigm 4 embrace
equivalence as an essential and assumed feature of translation, taking a descriptive and scientific-
empirical approach to translation. Thus, for instance, Toury (e.g. 1995) works descriptively with a
dichotomy of adequate vs. acceptable translations emphasising that both are legitimate types of
(assumed) equivalence (stage 7, section 2).
Echoing some of the same reservations against the notion of equivalence as those of paradigm 3
(purposes), scholars working within paradigm 5 find the notion highly uncertain. Driven by a
general epistemological scepticism and often rooted in hermeneutics and literary philosophy (e.g.
Steiner 1975/1992), scholars working within this paradigm tend not to expect equivalence between
the source and target texts and therefore rarely discuss it (Pym 2014: 159).
Paradigm 6 is essentially different from the other paradigms because it does not involve
theorisation in the academic sense of the word. The paradigm comprises procedures developed by
professionals in the localisation industry during the digital revolution of the 1990s (see also Pym
2004). The localisation paradigm adds a new dichotomy to our field: standardisation vs.
diversification. Though standardisation and diversification procedures aim at achieving equivalence
in ways that may resemble those of natural and directional equivalences, respectively (paradigms 1
and 2), there are also significant differences. While, by definition, natural equivalence originates in
the way languages are used in the cultures in question, equivalence achieved by standardisation is
created artificially by means of translation technology3; and while directional equivalence is defined
by the contextual meaning of a specific source-text item, diversification involves nonequivalent
textual operations, which do not originate in the source text, such as addition, deletion and
substitution (see also section 4, below).
Scholars working within paradigm 7 study translation as an abstraction of intercultural encounters,
in which there are no stable source and target. It is therefore hardly surprising that the scholars of
this paradigm are rather uninterested in and also largely dismissive of the concept of equivalence.
According to Pym (2014:129ff), the idea of cultural translation is well represented by Homi K.
Bhabha’s work on expressions of cultural hybridity.
4. A functional translation analysis
Based on the findings of section 3, all contemporary paradigms within translation studies seem to
revolve around the notion of equivalence in the sense that scholars, whether they refer to it by this
3 Due to its status as a hypercentral language (cf. de Swaan’s 2002 world language system), English tends to be the
most common source language in localisation projects and therefore also tends to set the standard for the sets of
artificial equivalences that are used. This often leads to an excess of structural and lexical loans that are then forced on
multiple target languages (Pym 2014:135), a point that is also raised by House (e.g. in this volume).

Schjoldager, Anne. 2020. "The Usefulness of Equivalence within Translation Studies: Memes, Paradigms and a Functional
Translation Analysis.
8
term or not, either embrace the notion, are sceptical of it, or dismiss it. This section will be devoted
to exploring the theoretical usefulness of equivalence in a functional (purpose-oriented) analysis of
an authentic translation. Since skopos theory is particularly dismissive of equivalence, the analysis
was conducted within a skopos-theoretical framework (stage 6, section 2; paradigm 3, section 3).
The translation to be analysed derives from FORSKERforum (2016), a monthly magazine for
members of The Danish Association of Masters and PhDs. Arguing that beer-drinking will boost
intelligence by killing the weakest brain cells, the text comprises a witty monologue about buffaloes
by Cliff Clavin, a fictitious character from the NBC TV series Cheers. While the text itself is in
Danish, the headline is “The survival of the fittest”, an English expression connected to the
evolutionary principle of natural selection, on which Cliff’s argumentation rests. The translation
was published on the back cover of the magazine together with a picture from Cheers (showing
Cliff, his friend Norm and the barmaid Carla) as well as a reference to Sams Bar, the Danish name
for the TV series, and to a Facebook page called “I fucking love science” (Appendix 1, below). In
spite of the references, I have not been able to find any English-language source text and therefore
decided, for the purposes of this paper, to search for a likely candidate4: an English-language
monologue entitled “Irrefutable Logic: Cliff Clavin on Why Beer Makes You Smarter” (ManMade
2012; Appendix 2, below).
Based on a macro-level analysis of the translation in its context and based on its circumstances, I
identified the skopos as that of keeping the humorous and communicative effect of the original,
which also led me to categorise the translation as instrumental, i.e. target-oriented. Because of the
picture accompanying the translation and other references to Cheers, which target-text readers must
have been expected to know, I also concluded that the translation was overt.
The translator’s micro-level decisions were then analysed by means of a taxonomy of 12
microstrategies5 developed by Schjoldager (2010b), inspired by Vinay and Darbelnet’s (1958/2000)
translation procedures and Delabastita’s (1993:33) transformation categories. Table 3 (below)
provides an overview of the microstrategies, with brief definitions and types of equivalence. As
microstrategies a., b. and l. in the table may not even be regarded as translations (though they are
quite legitimate microstrategies), I find it impossible to determine whether equivalence may be
intended or not, indicated by a question mark in the final column (?). While c. and d. may be
categorised as natural equivalents, e.-h. may be categorised as directional equivalents (section 3).
Microstrategies i.-k. are not intended to achieve equivalence as they add (i.), change (j.) or leave out
(k.) units of meaning, and they are therefore categorised as nonequivalence.
Table 3: A taxonomy of microstrategies (adopted from Schjoldager 2010b:92)
Microstrategies
Definitions
Types of equivalence
a. Direct transfer
Transfers something unchanged.
?
4 Interestingly, it appears that the monolgue was never included in any episode of Cheers (1982-1993) and might
actually be an urban legend that has become accredited to the fictitious Cliff (e.g. eNotes Homework help n.d.).
5 Microstrategies in this taxonomy are similar to Chesterman’s (2016:85ff) ‘local’ strategies (micro-level decisions) in
contrast to ‘global’ strategies (macro-level decisions).

Schjoldager, Anne. 2020. "The Usefulness of Equivalence within Translation Studies: Memes, Paradigms and a Functional
Translation Analysis.
9
b. Calque
Transfers the structure or makes a very close
translation (resulting in unidiomatic language).
?
c. Direct translation
Translates in a word-for-word procedure
(resulting in idiomatic language).
Natural equivalence
d. Oblique translation
Translates in a sense-for-sense procedure.
Natural equivalence
e. Explicitation
Makes implicit information explicit.
Directional equivalence
f. Paraphrase
Translates rather freely.
Directional equivalence
g. Condensation
Translates in a shorter way, which may involve
implicitation (making explicit information
implicit).
Directional equivalence
h. Adaptation
Recreates the effect, entirely or partially.
Directional equivalence
i. Addition
Adds a unit of meaning.
Nonequivalence
j. Substitution
Changes the meaning.
Nonequivalence
k. Deletion
Leaves out a unit of meaning.
Nonequivalence
l. Permutation
Translates in a different place.
?
Table 4 (below) presents a comparative analysis of the two texts. Direct translation (c.) and Oblique
translation (d.) are unmarked, while all remaining microstrategies are highlighted by red. The
translator in question did not choose Direct transfer (a.), Paraphrase (f.), Adaptation (h.), Addition
(i.) and Permutation (l.), which is why they are not included in Table 4. Condensation (g.) and
Deletion (k.) are highlighted in the source text6. Highlighted parts of the target text indicate Calque
(b.), Explicitation (e.) and Substitution (j.). The final column contains a back-translation into
English of the Danish target text. In this case, the back-translation may be described as a source-
oriented translation by means of Direct translation, when possible, or Oblique translation, when
necessary, except for the headline (in English), which is transferred directly from the target text into
the back-translation. Consequently, highlighted parts of the back-translation concern marked
microstrategies in the target text.
Table 4: A translation analysis
Source text
Target text
Back-translation
Irrefutable Logic: Cliff Clavin on
Why Beer Makes You Smarter
Survival of the fittest (j.)7
Survival of the fittest
Well (g.) ya see, Norm, it’s like this…
Ser du, Norm8, det hænger (e.) sådan
sammen:
You see, Norm, it hangs together like
this:
A herd of buffalo can only move as fast
as the slowest buffalo.
En flok bøfler kan kun flytte sig så hurtigt
som den langsomste bøffel.
A herd of buffalos can only move so fast
as the slowest buffalo.
6 This means that highlighted parts of the source text concern what has been deleted or made implicit in the target text.
7 Though readers of the magazine will probably not suspect that anything has been changed since it is contextually
relevant, the headline bears no (direct) relation to the source text and therefore must be assumed to be the translator’s
(or editor’s) own idea: a Substitution (j.).
8 Though I could have categorised it as a Direct transfer (a.), I chose to identify the translation of ‘Norm’ (a proper
name) into ‘Norm’ as a Direct translation (c.).

Schjoldager, Anne. 2020. "The Usefulness of Equivalence within Translation Studies: Memes, Paradigms and a Functional
Translation Analysis.
10
And when the herd is hunted, it is the
slowest and weakest ones at the back
that are killed first.
Og når flokken jages, så (e.) så er det den
langsomste og svageste bagerst, som først
bliver dræbt.
And when the herd is hunted, then it is
the slowest and weakest at the back that is
killed first.
This natural selection is good for the
herd as a whole, because the general
(g.) speed and health of the whole
group keeps (k.) improving by the
regular (g.) killing of the weakest
members (g.).
Den naturlige selektion er god for flokken
som helhed, fordi flokkens fart og
sundhed for hele gruppen forbedres, når
den svageste bliver dræbt.
The natural selection is good for the herd
as a whole because the speed and health
of the whole group is improved when the
weakest gets killed.
In much the same way, the human brain
can only operate as fast as the slowest
brain cells.
Det er nogenlunde på samme måde med
menneskets hjerne. Den (e.) kan kun
bevæge (e.) sig så hurtigt som de
langsomste hjerneceller.
It is more or less the same thing with the
human brain. It can only move so fast as
the slowest brain cells.
Now, as we know, excessive intake of
alcohol kills brain cells
Og – som vi ved – så dræber
umådeholden indtag af alkohol
hjerneceller.
And – as we know – excessive intake of
alcohol kills brain cells.
But naturally, it attacks the slowest and
weakest brain cells first.
Og her er det også naturens orden (e.), at
det er de langsomste og svageste
hjerneceller, som bliver angrebet først.
And here it is also the order of nature that
the slowest and weakest brain cells get
attacked first.
In this way, regular consumption of
beer eliminates the weaker brain cells,
making the brain a faster and more
efficient machine.
På den måde så eliminerer normal
øldrikning bare (e.) de svagere
hjerneceller, og det gør hjernen til en
hurtigere og mere effektiv maskine.
In this way, normal beer-drinking only
eliminates weaker brain cells, and this
makes the brain into a faster and more
efficient machine.
And that, Norm (g.), is why you always
feel smarter after a few beers.
Og derfor er det, at man altid føler sig lidt
smartere (b.)9 efter et par øl…
And therefore it is that you always feel a
little trendier after a few beers…
The analysis seems to indicate that the translator’s default choice was Direct translation (c.) or
Oblique translation (d.), while all other microstrategies were marked choices. Possibly, the
translator sometimes wished to translate a source-text item into a natural equivalent, but could not
find any, or did not think that a natural equivalent was called for, and therefore went for a
directional equivalent: Explicitation (e.) or Condensation (g.); other times, perhaps the translator did
not think that the situation called for any kind of equivalence and therefore went for
nonequivalence: Substitution (j.) or Deletion (k.). These microstrategies are quite consistent with a
skopos of keeping the humorous and communicative effect of the source text and the choice of an
instrumental (target-oriented) type of translation as suggested above in the macro-level analysis.
However, the microstrategies are less consistent with the overtness that I expected from the macro-
level analysis of the context and circumstances. In fact, I now suspect that the translator treated the
translation as a covert one, which is more consistent with the identified skopos and translation type.
To sum up, the functional translation analysis carried out in this section seems to indicate that
considerations for equivalence were decisive for the translator’s choices, which is hardly surprising
from a practical perspective. What is more surprising is perhaps that a skopos-theoretical analysis in
9 Obviously, the intention of the source text is to say that beer-drinking makes you ‘smarter’ by improving your mental
capacities, but the Danish word ‘smart’ is more like ‘trendy’ or ‘shrewd’, according to Danske Ordbog (and my own
intuition as a native speaker of Danish). The use of ‘smart’ is therefore regarded as an Anglicism and analysed as a
Calque (b.), but since more and more Anglicisms are becoming part of the Danish language (e.g. Gottlieb 2005),
perhaps ‘smart’ here in Danish should really be analysed as a Direct translation.

Schjoldager, Anne. 2020. "The Usefulness of Equivalence within Translation Studies: Memes, Paradigms and a Functional
Translation Analysis.
11
combination with an equivalence-based approach to the translator’s choices seems to take us closer
to an understanding of the nature of translation, but I venture to suggest that this is in fact the case.
5. Concluding remarks
I began my paper by quoting both Catford’s (1965:20) classical definition of translation as an
equivalence-based activity and Snell-Hornby’s (1988:22) much-cited critique of equivalence as an
unsuitable basic concept for translation studies. By way of conclusion, I would like to suggest that
both statements are too categorical: naturally, equivalence is not the only guiding principle in
translation, but this does not mean that it is unsuitable for translation studies. Exploring
Chesterman’s (1997, 2016) translation memes and Pym’s (2014) translation paradigms, I hope to
have shown that much theorisation about translation has revolved and still revolves around the
notion of equivalence and that, generally speaking, the notion certainly seems suitable for
translation studies. By carrying out a functional translation analysis within a skopos-theoretical
framework, which is particularly dismissive of equivalence as a guiding principle in translation, I
also hope to have illustrated that the notion of equivalence (if not the term) might be theoretically
useful within this framework too.
As pointed out by Chesterman (2016:14; section 2), without an assumption of (some sort of)
equivalence between source and target texts, how would we distinguish translation from other types
of communication? This is not say that we should not remain critical of equivalence, but our
objections probably relate more to the understanding of what the term means than the nature of the
concept itself. Rather than questioning the existence of equivalence in translation and its usefulness
in translation studies, we might want to ask questions such as these:
 How is equivalence achieved in functional translation?
 What kinds of equivalence are translators expected to achieve and in which contexts? How
may these kinds of equivalence be defined?
 When are translators not expected to achieve equivalence? What would be the reasons for
this?
References
Bastin, Georges L. 1998. "Adaptation." In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, edited by
Mona Baker. London and New York: Longman.
Bellos, David. 2011. Is That a Fish in Your Ear? Translation and the Meaning of Everything. New
York: Faber and Faber.
Catford, J. C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: Oxford University Press.
Chesterman, Andrew. 1995. "The Successful Translator: The Evolution of the Homo Transferens."
Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 3 (2): 253-270.
Chesterman, Andrew. 1997. Memes of Translation. The Spread of Ideas in Translation Studies.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Schjoldager, Anne. 2020. "The Usefulness of Equivalence within Translation Studies: Memes, Paradigms and a Functional
Translation Analysis.
12
Chesterman, Andrew. 2016. Memes of Translation. The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory
Revised edition. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Danske Ordbog. Moderne dansk sprog. “Smart”. Retrieved 16 February 2019
https://ordnet.dk/ddo/ordbog?query=smart.
Delabastita, Dirk. 1993. There's a Double Tongue: An Investigation into the Translation of
Shakespeare's Wordplay, with Special Reference to 'Hamlet', Approaches to Translation Studies.
Amsterdam and Atlanta: Editions Rodopi B.V.
e-Notes Homework Help. “The Buffalo Story”. Retrieved 16 February 2019
http://www.enotes.com/topic/Cliff_Clavin.
Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990. "The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem".
Poetics Today 11(1): 45-51.
FORSKERforum (2016, March). “Survival of the fittest”, 31. Dansk Magisterforening. Retrieved 30
March 2015 http://www.forskerforum.dk/downloads/ff-292.pdf.
Gottlieb, Henrik. 2005. "Anglicisms and Translation." In In and Out of English. For Better, For
Worse?, edited by Gunilla Rogers and Margaret Anderman, 161-184. Clevedon, Buffalo and
Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Gutt, Ernst-August. 1991. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Cambridge: Basil
Blackwell.
House, Juliane. 1981/1989. "Quality of Translation". In Readings in Translation Theory, edited by
Andrew Chesterman, 157-161. Finland: Oy Finn Lectura Ab.
ManMade. Creativity and the Handmade Life for the Postmodern Man (2012, 3 April). “Irrefutable
Logic: Cliff Clavin on Why Beer Makes You Smarter”. Retrieved 4 March 2016
http://www.manmadediy.com/users/chris/posts/1787-irrefutable-logic-cliff-clavin-on-why-beer-
makes-you-smarter.
Newmark, Peter. 1977. Communicative and semantic translation. Babel 23(4): 163-180.
Newmark, Peter. 1988. A Textbook of Translation. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney and
Tokyo: Prentice Hall.
Nida, Eugene and Charles R. Taber. 1974. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden:
Published for the United Bible Societies, E.J. Brill.
Nord, Christiane. 1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Nord, Christiane. 2005. "Translating as a purposeful activity: A prospective approach." TradTerm
11: 15-28.
Nord, Christiane. 2018. Translating as a Purposeful Activity 2nd Edition. London and New York:
Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Schjoldager, Anne. 2020. "The Usefulness of Equivalence within Translation Studies: Memes, Paradigms and a Functional
Translation Analysis.
13
Reiss, Katharina and Hans J. Vermeer. 1984. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie.
Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Pym, Anthony. 2004. The Moving Text. Localization, Translation, and Distribution.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Pym, Anthony. 2014. Exploring Translation Theories. Second Edition. London and New York:
Routledge.
Rasmussen, Kirsten Wølch and Anne Schjoldager. 2011. "Revising Translations: A Survey of
Revision Policies in Danish Translation Companies." JoSTrans Journal of Specialised Translation
(15): 87-120.
Schjoldager, Anne. 1995. "Interpreting Research and the 'Manipulation School' of Translation
Studies." Target: International Journal of Translation Studies 7 (1): 29-45.
Schjoldager, Anne. 2010a. “An Overview of Translation Studies”. In Understanding Translation,
edited by Anne Schjoldager, Henrik Gottlieb and Ida Klitgård, 133-150. Aarhus: Academica/Hans
Reitzels Forlag.
Schjoldager, Anne. 2010b. “Microstrategies”. In Understanding Translation, edited by Anne
Schjoldager, Henrik Gottlieb and Ida Klitgård, 89-112. Aarhus: Academica/Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 1988. Translation Studies: An integrated approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 2006. The Turns of Translation Studies. New paradigms or shifting
viewpoints? Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sperber, Dan and Deidre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition.
Cambridge/Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Steiner, George. 1975/1992. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. New York and
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swaan, Abraham de. 2002. Words of the World: The Global Language System. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translator's Invisibility: a History of Translation. London: Routledge
Vermeer, Hans J. 1989/2000. "Skopos and Commission in Translational Action." In The
Translation Studies Reader, edited by Lawrence Venuti. London and New York: Routledge.
Vinay, Jean-Paul and Darbelnet, Jean. 1958/2000. "A methodology for translation." In The
Translation Studies Reader, edited by Lawrence Venuti. London and New York: Routledge.

Schjoldager, Anne. 2020. "The Usefulness of Equivalence within Translation Studies: Memes, Paradigms and a Functional
Translation Analysis.
14
Appendices
Appendix 1: The translation (FORSKERforum 2016)

Schjoldager, Anne. 2020. "The Usefulness of Equivalence within Translation Studies: Memes, Paradigms and a Functional
Translation Analysis.
15
Appendix 2: The (assumed) source text (ManMade 2012)