Equivalence in the translation of vietnamese cultural words in the book “wandering through vietnamese culture” by huu ngoc

College of Foreign Languages (VHUN)
Postgraduate Studies

BẠCH ÁNH HỒNG
EQUIVALENCE IN THE TRANSLATION OF
VIETNAMESE CULTURAL WORDS IN THE BOOK
“WANDERING THROUGH VIETNAMESE CULTURE”
BY HUU NGOC
(TƯƠNG ĐƯƠNG TRONG CÁCH DỊCH CÁC TỪ CÓ YẾU TỔ
VĂN HÓA TRONG CUỐN SÁCH “WANDERING THROUGH
VIETNAMESE CULTURE” CỦA HỮU NGỌC)
Field: English Linguistics
Code: 602215
Course: K13
M.A. Minor Thesis
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Lê Hùng Tiến
- Hanoi, July 2007 -
Abstract
This paper is a linguistic study on equivalences and the translation methods rendered to
achieve the equivalent effects in a book written by the writer and translator, Huu Ngoc. More
specifically, the chosen subject of investigation is the translation of Vietnamese cultural
words in the book “Wandering through Vietnamese culture”. The reasons for this choice are
both linguistic and practical.
Linguistically, the translation of culture-related words has never been seen as an easy task,
especially between such two distant cultures as Vietnam and English. The challenges may
originate from cultural differences, the cultural knowledge of the translator etc. However, the
hardest problems may be attached to non- equivalence which consists of the concepts
unknown to target language readers, the non-lexicalization of the concepts, the lack of super
ordinates of hyponyms etc. The main contribution of this paper is to draw out the main ways
of dealing with the hurdles by investigating how an experienced translator and a famous
Vietnamese cultural expert overcome the difficulty in his book.

Practically, I hope that the lessons drawn from the study of his work could effectively assist
me in my practical job at my university, where a Vietnamese Studies Department is to be
opened with an aim to train new generation of youngsters who will narrow down the culture
gaps between Vietnam and other countries.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
On the completion of this thesis, I am indebted to many people.
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere thanks to my supervisor, Assoc. Prof.
Dr. Le Hung Tien for his valuable and prompt advice and helps, without which, this thesis
could not come into being.
My thanks also go to all my lecturers and officers from Post Graduate Department, College
of Foreign Languages, Vietnam National University, who have facilitated me with the best
possible conditions during my whole course of studying.
Last but not least, let my gratitude go to my family and friends, whose encouragement and
assistance are of extreme importance during the course of my writing this thesis.
Hanoi, July 2007
Bach Anh Hong
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................................................4
PART A: INTRODUCTION.........................................................5
1. Rationale...................................................................................5
2. Scope of the study......................................................................5
3. Aims of the study.......................................................................6
4. Methodology..............................................................................6
5. Design of the study....................................................................7
Chapter 1: Theoretical background.............................................8
1.1. Translation theory...................................................................8
1.1.1. Definition of translation.......................................................8
1.1.2. Translation equivalence.......................................................8
1.1.2.1. The nature of equivalence in translation........................9
1.1.2.2. Types of equivalence in translation.................................9

1.1.3. Common problems of non-equivalence............................11
1.2. Notion of culture in translation............................................13
1.3. Cultural categories................................................................14
1.4. Translation methods.............................................................15
1.5. Conclusion.............................................................................17
Chapter 2: Vietnamese cultural words and their equivalences18
2.1. The most common types of cultural words.........................18
2.2. The most common types of equivalence..............................18
2.2.1. Nil equivalence:..................................................................20
2.2.2 Other types of equivalence.................................................28
2.2.2.1 One-to-part-of one equivalence.......................................28
2.2.2.3 One-to-one equivalence....................................................34
PART C: CONCLUSION............................................................36
REFERENCES.............................................................................41
PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
Translating from one language into another has never been an easy job even for the most
experienced translators. Translation, involving the transposition of thoughts expressed in one
language by one social group into the appropriate expression of another group, entails a
process of cultural de-coding, re-coding and en-coding. However, the process of transmitting
cultural elements is a complicated and vital task. Culture is a complex collection of
experiences which condition daily life; it includes history, social structure, religion,
traditional customs and everyday usage. This is difficult to comprehend completely. The
more disparities that exist between any two languages, the greater the meaning loss in the
translation is. As hard as it may seem, the translation of Vietnamese cultural words is now an
inevitable part in our integrating life since we have become a member of WTO. Thang Long
University is one of those where the Department of Vietnam Study is going to be opened
with an aims of training Vietnamese students into those who can introduce Vietnamese
culture to the world. This sooner or later will pose teachers of English at Thang Long
University a problem of matching cultural equivalence between English and Vietnamese.

However, not many empirical studies have been conducted so far on the issue of translation
of Vietnamese cultural words into English. Those reasons may explain how this study came
into being. The study investigates how a very famous and experienced translator, Huu Ngoc,
dealt with all the Vietnamese cultural words his whole-hearted work “Wandering through
Vietnamese culture”. It also raised the need for translators of Vietnamese-English texts,
especially in treating cultural terms, to pay close attention to the linguistic and cultural
elements of the source texts.
2. Scope of the study
This study sets its boundary in studying cultural words in the book “Wandering through
Vietnamese culture” by Huu Ngoc. It will look into the equivalence and non-equivalence of
Vietnamese cultural words and their translations from the following points:
• the most common types of equivalence
• the possible reasons for the non-equivalence
• their translations
3. Aims of the study
The main aims of the study are:
• To find out the most common type of equivalence used in his translation of
Vietnamese cultural words
• To draw out the common problems of equivalence seen in the translation of
Vietnamese cultural words into English
• To draw out the strategies and procedures that may apply to the translation of
Vietnamese cultural words
• To suggest some implications for the translation of the cultural words.
On this ground, the study seeks answer for the retailing research questions:
• What are the common types of equivalence used in the translation of cultural
words in the book “Wandering through Vietnamese culture” by Huu Ngoc?
• What are the most common problems in translating Vietnamese cultural words
into English that can be seen in the book?
• What are the common methods used in the translation of Vietnamese cultural
words?

4. Methodology
With the hope to go on the right track for the answers, the writer will conduct the study in
following steps:
• Building up a theoretical background for the paper.
• Collecting and group the Vietnamese cultural words and their English
equivalents for description, analysis, comparison and induction.
• Finding out the similarities and differences and draw out the translation used in
the translation of cultural words.
• The main method is contrastive analysis.
• Data collection: The Vietnamese cultural words and their translations appear in
the book “Wandering through Vietnamese culture” by Huu Ngoc.
5. Design of the study
This study consists of three main parts, a reference, and a number of appendixes.
Part A: Introduction
The introduction gives rationale for the study. It also outlines the aims and the methods
of the study.
Part B: Development
The development comprises two chapters.
Chapter 1, which is named “Theoretical background”, provides the theory of
translation and the translation of cultural words.
Chapter 2 entitled “Cultural words and their equivalences” discusses the most
common types of equivalence in translation of Vietnamese cultural words.
It also studies the translation of Vietnamese cultural words and translation
methods employed in their translation by Huu Ngoc in his book “Wandering
though Vietnamese culture”.
Part C, which is the “Conclusion”, summaries the strategies and procedures and comments.
Reference includes all the books, articles or website that has been referred to during the
writing of this thesis.
The appendixes list examples of different groups of equivalence in order of the alphabet.
PART B: DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 1: Theoretical background
1.1. Translation theory
1.1.1. Definition of translation
Translation has been viewed differently through times and thus defined variously. Larson
(1984: 3) stated “Translation is basically a change of form… In translation the form of the
source language is replaced by the form of the receptor (target) language”. Newmark
(1988:5) did not seem to totally agree with Larson - who considered translation a basic
“change of form”, by emphasizing the “intended in the text” as said “ Translation is
rendering a written text into another language in the way the author intended in the text.”
Hatim & Mason (1990:3), on the other hand, focused more on the communicative purpose of
translation by citing: “Translation is a communicative process which takes place within a
social context”. It is then followed by other linguists, Bell (1991: 5), who thought “semantic
and stylistic equivalences” are crucial for a translation to communicate successfully:
“Translation is the expression in another language (or TL) of what has been expressed in
another, source language, preserving semantic and stylistic equivalences”
These definitions, in spite of slight differences in the expressions, share common features
that they all emphasize the importance of finding the closest equivalence in meaning by the
choice of appropriate target language’s lexical and grammatical structures, communication
situation, and cultural and the requirement to find equivalents which have similar
characteristics to the original. It is this notion of equivalence, which will be taken into
consideration in the next part.
1.1.2. Translation equivalence
As easily seen, equivalence can be considered a central concept in translation theory.
Therefore, it is not by chance that many theorists define translation in terms of equivalence
relation. Newmark (1988) defines: “The overriding purpose of any translation should be to
achieve ‘equivalence effect’ i.e. to produce the same effect on the readership of translation as
was obtained on the readership of the original”. He also sees equivalence effect as the
desirable result rather than the aim of any translation except for two cases: (a) If the purpose
of the SL text is to affect and the TL translation is to inform or vice versa; (b) If there is a
pronounced cultural gap between the SL and the TL text.

Pym(1992) has even pointed to its circularity: equivalence is supposed to define translation,
in turn, defines equivalence.
1.1.2.1. The nature of equivalence in translation
Equivalence has been considered the unique intertextual relation that only translations are
expected to show: it is defined as the relationship between a source text and a target text that
allows the TT to be considered as a translation of the ST in the first place. Nearly all
traditional definitions of translation, whether formal or informal, appeal to some notion of
this: translation means the replacement, or substitution, of an utterance in one language by a
formally or semantically or pragmatically equivalent utterance in another language.
Therefore, it is no surprise that equivalence is always taken for granted as a prescriptive
criterion, as Koller (1995:196) says:
“Translation can be understood as the result of a text-reprocessing activity, by means of
which a source-language text is transposed into a target-language text. Between the resulting
text in L2 (the target-language text) and the source text in L1 (the source-language text) there
exists a relationship which can be designated as a translational, or equivalence relation.”
Then the question to be asked is not whether the two texts are equivalent, but what type and
degree of translation equivalence they reveal. Therefore, it is possible to say that equivalence
is “Any relation characterizing translation under a specified set of circumstances.” And
“Equivalence was a relationship between two texts in two languages, rather than between the
languages themselves” (Dr. Tien’s lectures- 2007).
1.1.2.2. Types of equivalence in translation
Translation theorists tend to classify equivalence in accordance with different criteria and
approach. Some out standings are quantitative, meaning based, form-based and function
based.
a. Quantitative approach:
Munday (2001) seems to stick to numeracy and suggests:
• One-to-one equivalence: A single expression in TL is equivalent to a single
expression in SL.
• One-to-many equivalence: More than one TL expressions are equivalent to a
single SL expression.

• Many- to-one equivalence: there is more than one expression in the source
language but there is a single expression in target language which is equivalence
to them.
• One-to-part-of-one equivalence: A TL expression covers part of a concept
designated by a single SL expression.
• Nil equivalence: no TL expression is equivalent to a single SL expression ->
loaned/borrowed equivalents should be used.
b. Meaning-based equivalence
Koller (1979) considers five types of equivalence:
• Denotative equivalence: the SL and the TL words refer to the same thing in the
real world.
• Connotative equivalence: this type of equivalence provides additional values
besides denotative value and is achieved by the translator’s choice of
synonymous words or expressions.
• Text-normative equivalence: The SL and the TL words are used in the same or
similar context in their respective languages.
• Pragmatic equivalence: With readership orientation, the SL and TL words have
the same effect on their respective readers.
• Formal equivalence: This type of equivalence produces an analogy of form in the
translation by their exploiting formal possibilities of TL, or creating new forms in
TL.
c. Form-based equivalence:
An extremely interesting discussion of the notion of equivalence can be found in Baker
(1992) who seems to offer a more detailed list of conditions upon which the concept of
equivalence can be defined. She distinguishes between:
• Equivalence that can appear at word level and above word level, when translating
from one language into another. This means that the translator should pay
attention to a number of factors when considering a single word, such as number,
gender and tense (1992:11-12).
• Textual equivalence, when referring to the equivalence between a SL text and a

TL text in terms of information and cohesion. It is up to the translator to decide
whether or not to maintain the cohesive ties as well as the coherence of the SL
text. His or her decision will be guided by three main factors, that is, the target
audience, the purpose of the translation and the text type.
d. Function-based equivalence:
Nida (1964) distinguishes formal equivalence and dynamic translation as basic orientations
rather than as a binary choice:
• Formal equivalence is achieved when the SL and TL words have the closest
possible match of form and content.
• Dynamic equivalence is achieved when the SL and TL words have the same
effect on their effective readers.
1.1.3. Common problems of non-equivalence
As we all share the view that equivalence is the vital part of translation, we may easily agree
that the problem of non-equivalence is the hardest hurdles of translation. Many theorists has
showed their concerns in the issue of “untranslatability”. The following are some common
types of non-equivalence at word level suggested by Barker (1994: 72):
a. Culture-specific concepts
The source-language word may express a concept which is totally unknown in the target
culture. The concept in question may be abstract or concrete; it may relate to a religious
belief, a social custom, or even a type of food.
b. The source-language concept is not lexicalized in the target language
The source-language word may express a concept which is known in the target culture but
simply not lexicalized, that is not ‘allocated’ a target-language word to express it.
c. The source-language word is semantically complex
The source-language word may be semantically complex. This is a fairly common problem
in translation. Words do not have to be morphologically complex to be semantically complex
(Bolinger and Sears, 1968). In other words, a single word which consists of a single
morpheme can sometimes express a more complex set of meanings than a whole sentence.
d. The source and target languages make different distinctions in meaning
The target language may make more or fewer distinctions in meaning than the source

language. What one language regards as an important distinction in meaning another
language may not perceive as relevant.
e. The target language lacks a superordinate
The target language may have specific words (hyponyms) but no general word
(superordinate) to head the semantic field. Russian has no ready equivalent for facilities,
meaning ‘any equipment, building, services, etc. that are provided for a particular activity or
purpose’
f. The target language lacks a specific term (hyponym)
More commonly, languages tend to have general words (superordinates) but lack specific
ones (hyponyms), since each language makes only those distinctions in meaning which seem
relevant to its particular environment.
g. Differences in physical or interpersonal perspective
Physical perspective may be of more importance in one language than it is in another.
Perspective may also include the relationship between participants in the discourse (tenor).
h. Differences in expressive meaning
There may be a target-language word which has the same propositional meaning as the
source-language word, but it may have a different expressive meaning.
i. Differences in form
There is often no equivalent in the target language for a particular form in the source text.
Certain suffixes and prefixes which convey propositional and other types of meaning in
English often have no direct equivalents in other languages.
j. Differences in frequency and purpose using specific forms
Even when a particular form does have a ready equivalent in the target language, there may
be a difference in the frequency with which it is used or the purpose for which it is used.
k. The use of loan words in the source text
The use of loan words in the source text poses a special problem in translation. Quite apart
form their respective propositional meaning, loan words such as au fait, chic, and alfresco in
English are often used for their prestige value, because they can add an air of sophistication
to the text or its subject matter.
1.2. Notion of culture in translation

The definition of "culture" as given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary (1999) varies from
descriptions of the "Arts" to plant and bacteria cultivation and includes a wide range of
intermediary aspects. More specifically concerned with language and translation, Newmark
(1988:94) defines culture as "the way of life and its manifestations that are peculiar to a
community that uses a particular language as its means of expression", thus acknowledging
that each language group has its own culturally specific features. He further clearly states
that operationally he does "not regard language as a component or feature of culture"
(Newmark 1988:95) in direct opposition to the view taken by Vermeer who states that
"language is part of a culture" (1989:222). According to Newmark, Vermeer's stance would
imply the impossibility to translate whereas for the latter, translating the source language
(SL) into a suitable form of TL is part of the translator's role in transcultural communication.
Despite the differences in opinion as to whether language is part of culture or not, the two
notions appear to be inseparable. Discussing the problems of correspondence in translation,
Nida (1964:130) confers equal importance to both linguistic and cultural differences between
the SL and the TL and concludes that "differences between cultures may cause more severe
complications for the translator than do differences in language structure". It is further
explained that parallels in culture often provide a common understanding despite significant
formal shifts in the translation. The cultural implications for translation are thus of
significant importance as well as lexical concerns.
Lotman (1978:211-32) states that "no language can exist unless it is steeped in the context of
culture; and no culture can exist which does not have at its centre, the structure of natural
language". Bassnett (1980:13-14) underlines the importance of this double consideration
when translating by stating that language is "the heart within the body of culture," the
survival of both aspects being interdependent. Linguistic notions of transferring meaning are
seen as being only part of the translation process; "a whole set of extra-linguistic criteria"
must also be considered. As Bassnett further points out, "the translator must tackle the SL
text in such a way that the TL version will correspond to the SL version... To attempt to
impose the value system of the SL culture onto the TL culture is dangerous ground"
(Bassnett, 1980:23). Thus, when translating, it is important to consider not only the lexical
impact on the TL reader, but also the manner in which cultural aspects may be perceived and

make translating decisions accordingly.
1.3. Cultural categories
Adapting Nida, Newmark (1988:95-102) places "foreign cultural words" in several
categories as follows:
(1) Ecology
Animals, plants, local winds, mountains, plains, ice, etc.
(2) Material culture (artifacts)
Food, clothes, housing, transport and communications
(3) Social culture – work and leisure
(4) Organizations, customs, ideas – Political, social, legal, religious, artistic
(5) Gestures and habits (often described in ‘non-verbal’ language)
1.4. Translation methods
Language and culture may thus be seen as being closely related and both aspects must be
considered for translation. When considering the translation of cultural words and notions,
Newmark proposes two opposing methods: transference and componential analysis
(Newmark, 1988:96). As Newmark mentions, transference gives "local colour," keeping
cultural names and concepts. Although placing the emphasis on culture, meaningful to
initiated readers, he claims this method may cause problems for the general readership and
limit the comprehension of certain aspects. The importance of the translation process in
communication leads Newmark to propose componential analysis which he describes as
being "the most accurate translation procedure, which excludes the culture and highlights the
message" (Newmark, 1988:96). This may be compared to the scale proposed by Hervey et
al, visualised as follows:
(Hervey et al, 1992:28)
Nida's definitions (1964:129) of formal and dynamic equivalence may also be seen to apply
when considering cultural implications for translation. According to Nida, a "gloss
translation" mostly typifies formal equivalence where form and content are reproduced as
faithfully as possible and the TL reader is able to "understand as much as he can of the
customs, manner of thought, and means of expression" of the SL context. Contrasting with
this idea, dynamic equivalence "tries to relate the receptor to modes of behaviour relevant

within the context of his own culture" without insisting that he "understand the cultural
patterns of the source-language context". All in all, it can be easily seen that the above
approaches are not very much different from what Venuti (1995:20) named “source language
oriented and target language-oriented” translation approach, which may share some
similarities with Newmark’s ( 1988: 145) methods of translation as follows:
SL emphasis TL emphasis
Word – for - word translation Adaptation
Literal translation Free translation
Faithful translation Idiomatic translation
Semantic translation Communicative translation
Word-for-word translation
This method focuses on SL word order in which words are translated by most common
meaning and out of context. Therefore, the results of this method are that the translation is
read like original text.
Literal translation
The SL text, concretely its grammatical constructions are converted to their nearest
equivalents. In this method, words are translated single and out of text.
Faithful translation
Where the translator reproduces precise contextual meaning. Here, cultural words are not
translated.
Semantic translation
More account is taken on aesthetic value of the SL text and some small concessions are
made to the readers. As a result, the translation is more flexible and less dogmatic than the
application of other methods in the group
Communicative translation
This method attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained
on the readers of the original.
However, according to Peter Newmark (1988), there are only two methods of translation that
are appropriate to any texts. They are as follows.
1) Communicative translation

In this method, translators try to produce the same effect on the TL readers as the
original does on the SL readers
2) Semantic translation
Translators attempt to reproduce the exact contextual meaning of the author with
the constraints of the TL grammatical structures.
Adaptation