Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository

etween SL and TL texts is ordinarily non-achievable. Quite
explicitly, Jakobson asserts that, "in interlingual translation there
is ordinarily no full equivalence between code-units, while messages
may serve as adequate interpretations of alien code-units or messages."
Jakobson draws no obvious distinctions between linguist, interpreter,
and/or translator. He assumes that the linguist, upon the receipt of a
verbal message, interprets it; ie. translates its signs into other
signs of the same system (intralingual translation), or into signs of
another system (interlingual translation). Jakobson further adds that
"widespread practice of interlingual communication, particularly
translating activities, must be kept under constant scrutiny by
linguistic science." (1959, p234) Catford's and Jakobson's
translation types are both source-oriented. They have their grounding
in linguistic science. But while Catford holds that no source data are
not untranslatable, Jakobson regards ineffability or untranslatability
as applicable only to poetry. "Poetry, by definition, is
untranslatable. Only creative transposition is possible: either
intralingual transposition from one poetic shape into another, or
interlingual transposition from one language into another, or finally
intersemiotic transposition from one system of signs into another, eg.
from verbal art into music, dance, cinema, or painting." (ibid, p238)
Linguists, translation theorists, and behavioural scientists have
attempted to investigate the translation phenomenon from various
perspectives. Divergences of approaches emerged from the primary
assumption that translation - whether intralingual, interlingual, or
66