Microsoft Word Revised Syllabus Ver doc

Rank-Bound Translation 
In rank-bound translation an attempt is made always to select TL equivalents at the 
same rank e.g. word. A word-rank-bound translation is useful for certain purposes, for 
instance, for illustrating in a crude way differences between the SL and the TL in the 
structure of higher rank units – as in some kinds of interlinear translation of texts in ‘exotic’ 
languages. Often, however, rank-bound translation is ‘bad’ translation, in that it involves 
using TL equivalents which are not appropriate to their location in the TL text, and which are 
not justified by the interchangeability of SL and TL texts in one and the same situation. 
The popular terms free, literal, and word-for-word translation, though loosely used, 
partly correlate with the distinctions dealt with here. A free translation is always unbound – 
equivalences shunt up and down the rank scale, but tend to be at the higher ranks – 
sometimes between larger units than the sentences. Word-for-word translation generally 
means what it says: i.e. essentially rank-bound at word-rank (but may include some 
morpheme-morpheme equivalences). Literal translation lies between these extremes; it may 
start, as it were, from a word-for-word translation, but makes changes in conformity with TL 
grammar (e.g. inserting additional words, changing structures at any rank, etc.); this may 
make it a group-group or clause-clause translation. One notable point, however, is that literal 
translation, like word-for-word, tends to remain lexically word-for word, i.e. to use the 
highest (unconditioned) probability lexical equivalent for each lexical item. Lexical 
adaptation to TL collocation or ‘idiomatic’ requirements seems to be a characteristic of free 
translation. 
Communicative and Semantic Translation 
In the pre-linguistics period of writing on translation, opinion swung between literal 
and free, faithful and beautiful, exact and natural translation, depending on whether the bias 
was to be in favour of the author or the reader, the source or the target language of the text. 
Up to the nineteenth century, literal translation represented a philological academic exercise 
from which the cultural reforms were trying to rescue literature. In the nineteenth century, a 

---

38 
more scientific approach was brought to bear on translation, suggesting that certain types of 
texts must be accurately translated, whilst others should and could not be translated at all! 
Since the rise of modern linguistics, the general emphasis, supported by communication – 
theorists as well as by non-literary translators, has been placed on the reader-on informing the 
reader effectively and appropriately, notably in Nida, Firth, Koller and the Leipzig School. In 
contrast, the brilliant essays of Benjamin, Valery and Nabokov advocating literal translation 
have appeared as isolated, paradoxical phenomenon, relevant only to translating works of 
high literary culture. The conflict of loyalties, the gap between emphasis on source and target 
language could perhaps be narrowed if the previous terms were replaced as follows: 
SOURCE LANGUAGE BIAS 
TARGET LANGUAGE BIAS 
LITERAL 
FREE 
FAITHFUL 
IDIOMATIC