Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository

Marilyn G Rose (1981) asserts that 'literal' versus 'free' and
'literary' versus 'non-literary' are still the most used and perhaps
the most useful, translation , types. By literalness she means
semantic, often syntactic, closeness between the source and target
texts. But 'literal translation' is often misleading and hard to
define, for its location between the two extremes (word-for-word and
free translation) is extremely unpredictable. Literalists emphasise
that the form and content of the message are linguistically
inseparable, while exponents of free translation assert that the
message can be 'carried through' through a radically different form.
Juliane House (1977, pp188-203) divides translation into 'overt'
and 'covert', considering the relation of the target text both to the
translator and the translation receiver. In 'overt' translation, the
addressee recognizes that the target text is a translation, amd that it
is bound to its relevant source culture. Under this heading, House
lists belles-lettres and creative writing along with persuasive pieces
like religious sermons and political speeches. Unlike overt
translation, covert translation is not bound to the community source
culture and its relevant specificity or uniqueness. A covert
translation, possessing the status of an original source text, is not
specifically addressed to a target culture audience. A source text
and its covert target translation are pragmatically of equal concern
for source and target language addressees. Under this category, House
lists commercial text, scientific text, a journalistic article, and a
tourist information booklet. A covert source text and its translation
86