Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository

elationships gain priority over semantic and cultural implications.
This type of equivalence aims at maintaining the lexical and syntactic
structures of the original text and, consequently, turns out a literal
translation, ie. a configuration of formal correspondences at
sentential and supra-sentential levels.
A simple allusion to Nida's dynamic equivalence would not seem
superfluous or redundant for while Catford's formal equivalence is
source-oriented, Nida's dynamic equivalence is oriented towards the
receptor's response. A reader-oriented translation produces a text
that meets, or rather should meet, the receptor's long-established
cultural norms by eliminating every element of 'foreignness'. What I
mean by 'foreignness' is specifically any cultural item with which the
receptor is not fully acquainted.
In 'A Dictionary for the Analysis of Literary Translation' (1976),
Anton PopoviC distinguishes four types of equivalence:
(1) Linguistic equivalence, where there is homogeneity on the
linguistic level of both SL and TL texts, ie. word for word
translation.
(2) Paradigmatic equivalence, where there is equivalence of 'the
elements of a paradigmatic expressive axis', ie. elements of
grammar, which Popovic sees as a higher category than lexical
equivalence.
14