Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository

prototypical theory by stating that "text-boundness should not
monopolize linguistic well-formedness". It is the imbalance between
appropriate texture and grammatical and lexical structure that impedes
textual equivalence. Neubert emphasizes the element of 'subjectivity'
in equivalence. He seems to entertain his own misgivings with regard
to what Nida labels 'dynamic equivalence'. He brings in the image of
the double-headed monster, which he calls 'meaning', raising its heads
one turning to the L1 community and the other to the L2 community. It
talks with different tongues but, asks Neubert, does it mean 'the
same'? The answer is simply that "pragmatics dominates semantics".
Neubert brings in semiotics to play a major role on the translation
arena. He starts from the primary assumption that language is a system
of signs, and that translation is the substitution of SL signs by
corresponding TL signs. He then concludes that equivalence is a
'semiotic category' comprising a syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic
component. These components are hierarchically arranged, where
semantic equivalence takes priority over syntactic equivalence, and
pragmatic equivalence dominates the other two components. Placed in a
semiotic perspective, textual equivalence is achievable through the
translator's mental processing of the SL sign input into TL equivalent
sign output with the text's relevant socio-cultural context
sufficiently highlighted. The active interaction of the three
components of Neubert's theory of equivalence determines the
translator's process of selection in the target text when he decodes
and attempts to encode pragmatically.
20