Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository

(structural) equivalences provided by the receptor language. This
process, ie. the establishment of equivalence, is strictly norm-
governed. Accordingly, translations can be judged as equivalent or
non-equivalent. But is equivalence, in the sense of a scientific,
quantifiable, formulaic relationship, likely or unlikely, to exist
between source and target texts?
Mary Snell-Hornby (1988, p17) warns against "the treacherous
illusion of equivalence that typifies interlingual relationships".
"Nowhere", she continues, "is the fallacy in such thinking better
illustrated than in the term 'equivalence' itself". (p18) She starts
her argument from the primary assumption that no absolute symmetry
exists between any two languages. Moreover, the principle of
'reversibility' which is the scientific objective criterion for testing
the validity and credibility of mathematical and logical equations,
does not apply to instances of natural languages. The concept of
equivalence had to be revised in order to fit in a much broader
perspective.
Unlike the linguistically oriented translation theorists who
regard translation as a branch of Applied Linguistics, the
'manipulation' scholars consider translation as a branch of Comparative
Literature. The Manipulation school has its representative scholars
such as Andre Lefevere, Susan Bassnett-McGuire, and Gideon Toury. They
view translation, (particularly literary translation), as a
manipulation rather than establishment of equivalence. Unlike the
linguistically oriented approach, the 'manipulation' approach is
2 5