Types of Translation LITERATURE REVIEW
Munday 2001:37 states that for the message to be equivalent in ST and TT, the code-units will be different since they belong to two different sign
systems or languages, which partition reality differently. Every language has their own system or form on grammatical, so the equivalent message in ST and TT will
be different. For Tytler in Venutti, 1995:68, the aim of translation is the production
of an equivalent effect that transcends linguistic and cultural differences: I would therefore describe a good translation to be, that, in which the
merit of the original work is so completely transfused into another language, as to be as distinctly apprehended, and as strongly felt, by a
native of the country to which that language belongs, as it is by those who speak the language of the original work.
The “merit” or advantage of the foreign text, and the defects of
attempts to reproduce it in translation, are accessible to all, because, in so far as reason and good sense afford a criterion, the opinion of all intelligent readers will
probably be uniform.
Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal equivalence
respondence and
dynamic equivalence.
Formal correspondence consists of a TL item which represents the closest equivalent of a
SL word or phrase. Dynamic equivalence is defined as a translation principle according to which a translator seeks to translate the meaning of the original in
such a way that the TL wording will trigger the same impact on the TC audience as the original wording did upon the ST audience.
In his definition of translation equivalence, Popovi č in Bassnett,
2002:33 distinguishes four types:
1 Linguistic equivalence, where there is homogeneity on the linguistic
level of both SL and TL texts, i.e. word for word translation. 2
Paradigmatic equivalence, where there is equivalence of „the
elements of a paradigmatic expressive ax
is‟, i.e. elements of grammar, which
P opovič sees as being a higher category than lexical equivalence.
3 Stylistic translational equivalence, where there is
„functional equivalence of elements in both original and translation aiming at an
expressive identity with an invariant of identical mea ning‟.
4 Textual syntagmatic equivalence, where there is equivalence of the
syntagmatic structuring of a text, i.e. equivalence of form and shape.