Catford And Translation Shift And Equivalence

Decent Essays

in the receptor language”. (Nida 1964:68) Nida saw equivalence as direction and guideline of translation and claimed that the main difference between dynamic and functional equivalence lays in the purpose of translation. He gave preference to the dynamic equivalence. This is because he thought that translation needs to be reader- oriented process and word for word translation isn’t sufficient process. Dynamic equivalence gives translator more opportunities to provide reader with effective translation. a translation of dynamic equivalence aims at complete naturalness of expression, and tries to relate the receptor to modes of behaviour relevant within the context of his own culture; it does not insist that he understand the cultural patterns of the source-language context in order to comprehend the message. (Nida 1964:159) a translator has to consider not only the two languages but also the two cultures, since there will be some concepts in the source language, which do not have lexical equivalents in the target language. This may be due to difference of geography, customs, beliefs, worldview, and various other factors. Even if close equivalents are found, they can rarely reveal and convey exactly the same massages.
2.5.4 Catford and Translation Shift and Equivalence
John Cunnison Catford was a Scottish linguist and phonetician whose theory is …show more content…

She examines equivalence and its relation to translation process at different levels, including all different aspects of translation. Her work combines both linguistic and the communicative approaches and provides number of translation techniques used in order to make translation process more effective. In practice, translators often face problems in finding equivalence in terms of form. Baker (1992:10) classifies these problems of equivalence into five levels. They

Get Access