Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository

Malinowski's classification of language functions is based on
anthropological considerations. As an anthropologist, he was
interested in practical or pragmatic uses of language on the one hand,
which he further subdivided into active and narrative, and ritual or
magical uses of language associated with ceremonial and religious
activities, on the other.
Despite the various classifications of langauge functions, one
cannot arbitrarily segment a specific instance of natural language into
un-related, clear-cut meanings. The experiential, referential,
ideational and textual functions of language are inextricably intersewn
into the fabric of discourse so much so that it becomes hardly possible
to dissociate the one from the other. To understand a source message
and, subsequently, communicate it into another language, one must
conceive it as a semantic whole locatable in its extralinguistic
context.
Various approaches to translation diverge as to the shift of focus.
The linguistic approach, which is best illustrated in the work of
Catford (1965) focuses on the differences.in linguistic structure
between the source and target language. It involves a series of rules
of formal correspondence based on contrastive linguistics. As such,
they rely on surface structures and pay no heed to the underlying
semantic relationships. Unless the functions of formal correspondences
are clearly understood, translations are bound to shrink into mere
mechanical re-transcriptions. Besides, Catford's approach to
translation overlooks the communicative aspect of discourse.
32