424_2061_A.B.

TT into line with a particular model which shouldsecure social acceptance in the target culture. “The approachto literary translation,” Hermans ( in Shuttleworth, ibid)asserts, “is descriptive, target-oriented, functional andsystemic” Explicitly, the theory is in sharp contrast withlinguistic theories because from the start it approachestranslation not as science, but as an art which permitsmanipulation rather than equivalence, thus it is concernedwith literary not technical translation. Accordingly, translationprocess is deemed a rewriting process and the translator is are-writer who can alter or manipulate the ST in such a way asto be acceptable in the target language and culture.3..6.3. Aesthetic Communication theoryThe above theory, we propound, is creativity-orientedspecifically for literary translation, which is essentially anaesthetic communication between the translator and thetarget reader. It is also based on the nature of literature be itoriginal or translated. It is perhaps conspicuouslyindisputable that literary translation, just like literaryoriginal composition, is not only informative, i.e., conveyslexical meanings, but also expressive or emotive. Itperforms a semantic and aesthetic binary function. In pointof fact, information in literary texts is aesthetically framed,which distinguishes such texts from non-literary ones.Literary composition, be it original or translated, is adynamic texture of vivid stylistic variations, it has no roomfor monotony, dullness and stagnation. It caters to arousethe receptors’ suspense, please them and/or invite theirinterest. To this end, it employs a foregrounded structure,highly elevated style and literary diction. (As-Safi,2006:10).Likewise, literary translation which should ideally be awork of literature is dynamic rather than static: it should bemore like AN original rather than THE original work of art.Accordingly an aesthetically communicative, dynamictranslation must:41