Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository

TL texts, and finally bring the recipients of both into mutual
understanding.
Nida (1964) distinguishes two types of equivalence: formal and
dynamic. Formal equivalence focuses on the linguistic form of the
source message. Translators who opt for formal equivalence are
concerned with such correspondences as poetry to poetry, sentence to
sentence, and concept to concept. Dynamic equivalence, on the other
hand, "is based on the principle of 'equivalent effect'. ie., that the
relationship between receiver and message should aim at being the same
as that between the original receiver and the SL message". (1964,
p159).
Catford (1965, p27) distinguishes between textual equivalence and
formal correspondence. He writes:
"A textual equivalent is any TL form (text or portion of text)
which is observed to be the equivalent of a given SL form (text
or portion of text). A formal correspondent, on the other
hand, is any TL category (unit, class, structure, element of
structure, etc) which can be said to occupy, as nearly as
possible, the 'same' place in the 'economy' of the TL as the
given SL category occupies in the SL."
Catford's formal equivalence relies largely on the translator's
linguistic competence and authority. Translating is reduced to a
purely structural exercise in which grammatical and syntactic
13