Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository

it against the imaginary schema one has made of the source text. Such
a schema is non-norm-governable since it is conjured up by the
translation assessor's insight, intuition, and cultural background.
Comparison between the translated version and the original depends
mainly on one criterion, that is, equivalence on the linguistic,
communicative, and pragmatic level. Linguistic equivalence can be
achieved through grammatical, syntactic, and lexical correspondence.
Communicative equivalence relates to the cross-cultural aspects of the
message under communication. The socio-cultural context in which the
source message is embedded should be candidly carried over into the
receptor text. Pragmatic equivalence is achieved when the source's
intentions are sufficiently explicated in the translated version. In
both translation and translation quality assessment attention should be
focused on the obligatory meaning which should remain intact. Extended
and accessory meanings, however, can be altered or re-distributed to
preserve the source's stylistic appeal and emotional impact.
To sum up, the rhetorical model against which the original and the
translation texts are to be compared is based on a comprehensive
concept of meaning which encompasses the three functions of language,
namely, the pragmatic, semiotic and communicative. Though the concept
of meaning is indivisibly wholistic it is classifiable into three
interlocked layers which collectively constitute the meaning of text.
This artificial categorization is mainly intended for pedagogical and
analytical purposes with no further claim to authority or absolutism.
The division of meaning into obligatory, extended, and accessory layers
or levels is in assonance with our classification of texts into non-
152