Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository

other replacement except what grammatical or lexical changes may
occasion. In graphological translation, on the other hand, SL
graphology is replaced by equivalent TL graphology, except, again, for
accidental changes. Then he draws our attention to the assumption that
graphological translation must not be confused with transliteration.
Rank-bound translation is determined by the rank in a grammatical
or phonological hierarchy or scale at which translation equivalence is
established. Rank-bound translation is inadvisable, for it involves
using TL equivalents which are inappropriate to their location in the
SL text, and which do not adjust to the interchangeability of SL and TL
texts in one and the same situation. Free translation is not rank-
hounded in the sense that equivalences move up and down the rank scale
at higher ranks: the group, the clause, or the sentence. Word for word
translation is generally bound to the word rank. Literal translation
lies between these extremes. It may start at the word rank and then,
through the insertion of additional words or structures, move further
up the rank scale and becomes group-group or clause-clause translation.
The only difference between literal and free translation is that while
literal translation remains lexically word-for-word, free translation
lexically adapts itself to collocational or 'idiomatic' requirements.
In his most illuminating article 'On Linguistic Aspects of
Translation', Roman Jakobson, (see Brower: 'On Translation' 1959),
distinguishes three types of translation: intralingual, interlingual,
and intersemiotic. Jakobson goes on to point out that full equivalence
65