Komissarov’s model: levels of equivalence

If the models discussed so far are evaluated using Nida’s previously cited “ford”

metaphor, it can be stated that all the models placed the ford, the crossing-place too far or too close. They viewed translation as a process in which the translator either has to completely distance him/herself from the level of linguistic signs (denotative model) or can move from one language to the other on the level of lin­

guistic signs as well (transformational model).

Neither view reflects successfully the activity of the translator. In reality the trans­

lator always prefers the shortest possible way from the source language to the tar­

get language, which is on the level of linguistic signs, and only chooses the longer

5. Linguistic models of the process of translation

way if the direct one is impossible. In other words, translators work according to several models and the level of transfer is determined by the specific task.

This is reflected in Komissarov’s theory of the process of translation (1973) in which he distinguishes five levels of transfer:

(1) the level of linguistic signs, (2) the level of utterance, (3) the level of message, (4) the level of situation,

(5) the level of communicative goal.

These levels are called content levels by Komissarov, into which both the source language and the target language text can be broken down.

His starting point is that the speaker producing a text always follows a partic­

ular goal, for instance, he/she intends to inform the receiver about something or would like to affect him/her emotionally, or wishes to make him/her carry out a particular action. Using our own example, let us suppose a tenant would like to persuade the landlord to renovate the house. This is the level of the commu­

nicative goal.

To achieve this goal he/she informs the receiver about real objects, persons, or abstract phenomena and the relationship among them. In our case, he/she informs the landlord about the miserable living conditions in the house: the roof is leaking, the ceiling is shedding its plaster etc. This is the level of the situation.

The situation, however, cannot be grasped completely, we describe its different characteristics and approach it from various angles. So, the situation for instance, that the roof is leaking can be approached in different ways: The roof is to be repaired (neutral statement), It is a house where you need a mackintosh in the rainy season (colloquial, comic), The sky shines through (elevated). That is, every situation can be described by several different messages. This is the level of message.

When the sender words the message, he/she has to linearly order the linguistic signs at his/her disposal, that is, he/she has to create an utterance in which the ele­

ments can be structured and ordered in several ways. Even a neutral statement of the fact that the roof is leaking can be expressed by several types of utterances: The roof is in need of repair. The roof is in bad repair. The roof has to be repaired, The roof is to be repaired. This is the level of utterance.

Finally, in the similarly structured utterances one may use several different words, for example: The roof has to be repaired. The roof has to be fixed. This is the level of linguistic signs.

All in all, in Komissarov’s view, the production of every text is the result of numerous multi-level decisions. The sender chooses from among several situations to achieve the desired communicative goal. He/she chooses from several possible statements or messages to describe the selected situation. In formulating the mes­

sage, he/she has several possible utterances to choose from, and in the formulation of utterances he/she chooses from several possible linguistic signs.

In comprehending the text, the receiver moves in the opposite direction. He/

she starts from the level of linguistic signs and ends with the assumed commu­

nicative goal of the sender.

How does all this take place in translation? The translator, who embodies both

the receiver and the sender, moves along both paths. During analysis, he/she moves from the level of linguistic signs to the level of the communicative goal, and during synthesis he/she moves from the level of the communicative goal to the level of linguistic signs.

The translator, on the other hand, does not always have to make each step in both directions. More precisely, according to Komissarov, the five steps of the analysis phase always have to be taken, but in the synthesis phase the "higher"

levels, e.g., that of the communicative goal, excludes choices on the “lower”

levels.

The communicative goal determines the choice of the target language equi­

valent, independently of the situation, message, utterance, or linguistic sign it is expressed by in the source language for example, when one asks for help or cheers on his/her favourite team on the football field. It is the communicative goal that ful­

ly determines the choice of the target language forms in such cases where source language text is about someone’s linguistic behaviour, for instance about someone’s strange accent or bad language. The fact that someone pronounces the sound r like the French do, can only be illustrated through English words containing the sound r. An often cited translating mistake is the following one: Ohy I’m so glad you’ve comey said the countessy crunching the r-s like the French do.

The level of the situation can also exclude equivalence on all lower levels. If the situation requires us to call attention to a freshly painted door, we have to use wet paint in English, and ostorozhno okrasheno in Russian, independently of the source language message.

The level of the message excludes the possibility of equivalence on lower lev­

els, for instance, in the translation of idiomatic expressions like English It is raining cats and dogs and Hungarian: Úgy esiky mintha dézsából öntenék (Tt is pouring like from tubs’).

The level of the utterance excludes the possibility of equivalence on lower levels, for instance, in the case of translating official documents: English Regulation shall be repealed with effect from...y French Le règlement est abrogé avec effet au... and German Die Verordnung wird mit Wirkung vom ... aufgehoben.

Finally, the translator has no choice at all in the translation of international organisations which have their own constant equivalents e.g., English: European Parliament, French: Parlement européen, German: Europäisches Parlament. Equiva­

lence is achieved on the level of linguistic signs.

5.7.1. The advantages and disadvantages of the equivalence level model

Komissarov’s model dexterously avoids the one-sidedness of the denotative and the transformational models, and successfully reflects the complexity of the work of the translator, who does not follow only one strategy. He slightly idealises the activity of the translator by assuming that the translator always takes all the steps leading from the level of linguistic sign to the level of communicative goal, and he/she can only shorten the way when selecting the target language equivalent, if the "higher” levels, i.e. the level of the communicative goal or the situation deter­

mines the target language equivalent independently of the source language.

In reality, elements with an equivalent on the level of linguistic signs are trans­

5. Linguistic models of the process of translation

lated on the level of linguistic signs, and the step onto the "higher" levels as defined by Komissarov occurs only when no direct equivalences are found. This, of course, will happen very soon, because even the simplest possessive or passive structure in an English or Russian sentence requires the translator to step to the next level in translating it into Hungarian.