Formal Correspondence vs. Translation Equivalence Revisited

Abstract

The two concepts which feature in the title of the present paper belong to two different, though (as will be shown) by no means unrelated, activities. Formal correspondence is a term used in contrastive analysis, while translation equivalence belongs to the metalanguage of translation. In principle, perhaps, the two terms could be discussed separately in their two disciplines, and it is indeed possible to imagine a theory of translation which would operate with the concept of equivalence defined without reference to formal correspondence, just as it is possible to imagine contrastive analysis which would rely on the concept of correspondence established without the use of translation. In practice, however, both terms have been found necessary by students of translation and by contrastive analysts. Issues that are raised in connection with formal correspondence and translation equivalence are certainly more than just terminological: a discussion of formal correspondence in translation concerns the role of linguistic units in translation and the place of linguistics in translation theory, while a discussion of translation equivalence in contrastive analysis concerns the role of translation in con trastive work. The relationship between them has been discussed by Catford (1965) from the point of view of translation theory and by Marton (1968), Ivir (1969, 1970), Krzeszowski (1971, 1972), Raabe (1972) from the point of view of contrastive analysis. The present paper will look at each of the two concepts from both ends and try to show why both are needed in translation and in contrastive analysis.