What’s in a Name: The Metalanguage of Equivalence



Despite a plethora of theories and decades of efforts to pin down the nature of equivalence, it remains a notoriously contentious topic, so much so that scholars have run the gamut from its deification to its demonization. While many definitions of translation revolve around the concept of equivalence, for some, equivalence in translation is nothing more than a mere myth. This paper will first briefly survey the literature on the different attitudes towards equivalence from the second half of the 20th century. It then goes on to argue that the very naming of ‘equivalence’ has further complicated this inherently multifaceted concept, and despite its naming that implies equal value, it is anything but. Against this backdrop, a new term is proposed instead in an attempt to address some of the concerns arising from the metalanguage of equivalence. Finally, the far-reaching implications of the current project for training translators and for the definition of translation itself are outlined.


Equivalence, Descriptive Translation Studies, Translation as a cluster concept, Quasivalence, Translation definition

Author Biographies

Hossein Mollanazar, Allameh Tabataba'i University

Associate Professor, Department of English Translation Studies, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran;

Ghodrat Hassani, Damghan University

Assistant Professor, Department of English Language, Faculty of Humanities, Damghan University, Damghan, Iran;


Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London-New York: Routledge.

Bassnett, S. & Lefevere, A. (1992). General editors’ preface. In A. Lefevere (Ed.), Translation, History, Culture: A Sourcebook (PP. xi-xii). London-New York: Routledge.

Bassnett, S. & Trivedi, H. (1999). Introduction: Of colonies, cannibal and vernaculars. In S. Bassnett & H. Trivedi (Eds.), Post-Colonial Translation: Theory and Practice (PP. 1–18). London: Routledge.

Bell, R. (1991). Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London-New York: Longman.

Blumczynsky, P. (2016). Ubiquitous Translation. London-New York: Routledge.

Blumczynsky, P. (2020). Bible, Jewish and Christian. In M. Baker & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (PP. 40–46). London-New York: Routledge.

Blumczynsky, P. & Hassani, G. (2019). Towards a Meta-theoretical Model for Translation: A Multidimensional Approach. Target 31(3), 328–351.

Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An essay on applied linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.

Chesterman, A. (1997). Memes of Translation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Even-Zohar, I. (1978/2004). The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (PP. 199–204). London-New York: Routledge.

Gerzymisch-Arbogast, H. (2001). Equivalence Parameters and Evaluation. Meta 46(2), 227–42.

Harris, B. (1977). Papers in Translatology. Ottawa: Ottawa University.

Hebenstreit, G. (2021). Functional Translation Theories and Ethics. In K. Koskinen & N. K. Pokorn (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Ethics (PP. 58–71). London-New York: Routledge.

Hermans, T. (1991). Translational Norms and Correct Translations. In K. M. Van Leuven-Zwartand & T. Naaijkens (PP. 155–169). Translation studies: The state of the art. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Hermans, T. (2020). Descriptive Translation Studies. In M. Baker & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (PP. 143–147). London-New York: Routledge.

Holmes, J. (1972/2004). The Name and Nature of Translation Studies. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (PP. 180–192). London-New York: Routledge.

Ivir, V. (1996). A Case for Linguistics in Translation Theory. Target 8(1), 149–57.

Jakobson, R. (1959/2004). On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (PP. 138–143). London-New York: Routledge.

Katan, D. (2020). Culture. In M. Baker & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (PP. 133–138). London-New York: Routledge.

Kenny, D. (1998). Equivalence. In M. Baker (Ed.), The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (PP. 77–80). London-New York: Routledge.

Kewley Draskau, J. (1991). Some Reflections On “Equivalence”/”Äquivalenz” As A Term And A Concept In The Theory Of Translation. Meta 36(1), 269–74.

Koller, W. (1995). The Concept of Equivalence and the Object of Translation Studies. Target 7(2), 191–222.

Morini, M. (2008). Outlining a New Linguistic Theory of Translation. Target 20(1), 29–51.

Munday, J. (2001). Introducing Translation Studies. London-New York: Routledge.

Neubert, A. (1994). Competence in Translation: a Complex Skill, How to Study and How to Teach it. In M. Snell-Hornby, F. Pöchhacker & Klaus Kaindl (Eds.), Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline (PP. 411–420). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Newmark, P. (1988). Approaches to Translation. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Tokyo and Singapore: Prentice Hall.

Nida, E. A. (1964a/2004). Principles of Correspondence. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (PP. 153–167). London-New York: Routledge.

Nida, E. A. (1964b). Toward a Science of Translating, with Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Nida, E. A., & Taber, C. (1969/1982). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Pym, A. (1992). Translation and Text Transfer: An Essay on the Principles of Intercultural Communication. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Pym, A. (1995). European Translation Studies, Une science qui derange, and Why Equivalence Needn’t Be a Dirty Word. TTR 8(1), 153–76.

Pym, A. (2004). The moving text: localization, translation, and distribution. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Pym, A. (2011). Translation Theory as Historical Problem-Solving. Intercultural Communication Review 9. 49–61.

Quine, W. (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Shuttleworth, M. & Cowie, M. (1997). Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St Jerome.

Snell-Hornby, M. (1988/1995). Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Tack, L. (2000). Translation and the Dialectics of Difference and Equivalence: Some Theoretical Propositions for a Redefinition of the Source-target Text Relation. Meta 45(2), 210–27.

Toury, G. (1978/2004). The Nature and Role of Norms in Translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (205–218). London-New York: Routledge.

Toury, G. (1985). A Rationale for Descriptive Translation Studies. T. Hermans (Ed.), The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation (PP. 16–41). London: Croom Helm.

Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Tymoczko, M. (2005a). Trajectories of Research in Translation Studies. Meta 50(4), 1082–97.

Tymoczko, M. (2005b). Enlarging Western Translation Theory: Integrating Non-Western Thought About Translation. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/70064478/Tymoczko-Translation-Theory (accessed October 5, 2011).

Vermeer, H. (1987). What does it mean to translate? Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics 13(2), 25–33.

Wilss, W. (1982). The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Yallop, C. (2001). The Construction of Equivalence. In E. Steinar & C. Yallop (Eds.), Exploring Translation and Multilingual Text Production: Beyond Content (PP. 229–248). Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter.




How to Cite

Mollanazar, H., & Hassani, G. (2021). What’s in a Name: The Metalanguage of Equivalence. Iranian Journal of Translation Studies, 19(74), 41–54. Retrieved from https://journal.translationstudies.ir/ts/article/view/905



Academic Research Paper