A Linguistic Theory of Translation

An Essay in Applied Linguistics

J. C. CATFORD

Oxford University Press

Oxford University Press, Walton Street, Oxford 0x2 6dp

OXFORD LONDON GLASGOW

NEW YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE WELLINGTON

IBADAN NAIROBI DAR ES SALAAM CAPE TOWN
KUALA LUMPUR SINGAPORE JAKARTA HONG KONG TOKYO
DELHI BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS KARACHI

ISBN O 19 43701S 6

© Oxford University Press, ig6y

First published 1965

Fifth impression 1978
Translation may be defined as follows:

the replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent

textual material in another language (TL).

This definition is intentionally wide — not vague, though it may

appear so at first sight. Two lexical items in it call for comment.
These are ‘textual material’ (where ‘text’ might have been
expected) and ‘equivalent’.
The term ‘equivalent’ is clearly a key term, and as such is
discussed at length below. The central problem of translation-
practice is that of finding TL translation equivalents. A central
task of translation theory is that of defining the nature and
conditions of translation equivalence.
The SL and TL items rarely have ‘the same meaning’ in the
linguistic sense; but they can function in the same situation. In
total translation, SL and TL texts or items are translation
equivalents when they are interchangeable in a given situation. This
is why translation equivalence can nearly always be established
at sentence-rank — the sentence is the grammatical unit most
directly related to speech-function within a situation.

LANGUAGE VARIETIES IN TRANSLATION

Idiolect: language variety related to the personal identity of the performer.

Dialect: language variety related to the performer’s

provenance or affiliations in a geographical, temporal or social
dimension.

(i) Dialect ( proper ) or Geographical Dialect: variety related to the

geographical provenance of the performer: e.g. ‘American
English’, ‘British English’, ‘Scottish English’, ‘Scots Dialect’.

(ii) Temporal Dialect: variety related to the

provenance of the performer, or of the text he has produced, in
the time dimension: e.g. ‘Contemporary English’, ‘Elizabethan
English’, ‘Middle English’.

(iii) Social Dialect: variety related to the social class or status of

the performer: e.g. ‘U and non-U’ (U = Upper Class).

Types of variety related to ‘transient’ characteristics of

the performer and addressee — i.e. related to the immediate
situation of utterance.

Register: variety related to the wider social role being

played by the performer at the moment of utterance: e.g.
‘scientific’, ‘religious’, ‘civil-service’, etc.

Style: variety related to the number and nature of

addressees and the performer’s relation to them: e.g. ‘formal’,
‘colloquial’, ‘intimate’.

Mode: variety related to the medium in which the

performer is operating: ‘spoken’, ‘written’.

It would, no doubt, be possible to add to this list of

variety-types, particularly by sub-division or conflation. For
instance, a more delicate classification of medium-manifestation
might supply ‘secondary modes’ — such as ‘telegraphese’, a sub-
type of the written mode. Again, a kind of conflation might
provide us with a ‘poetic genre’ as a super-variety characterized
by potential use of features appropriate to all varieties. For the
present study, however, we confine ourselves to the varieties
listed here.

All languages may be presumed to be describable in terms

of a number of varieties, though the number and nature of these
varies from one language to another — a fact of importance in
connection with translation.
All the varieties of a language have features in common — these
constitute a common core of e.g. grammatical, lexical and phono-
logical forms. In addition to the common core, however, every
variety has features which are peculiar to it, and which serve as
formal (and sometimes substantial) criteria or markers of the
variety in question.

The markers of particular varieties may be at any level:

phonetic, phonological, graphological, grammatical, lexical. As
far as dialect is concerned, many languages have a ‘standard’ or
‘literary’ dialect, which shows little variation (in its written form
at least) from one locality to another. It is convenient, particularly
in connection with translation, to regard such a dialect as
unmarked.