Translation Theory and Practice
This domain tests whether you can name, apply and criticise translation theory, and whether you can turn a brief into defensible decisions. Items typically ask you to identify a concept from a description, match a theorist to a claim, or choose the procedure used in a given pair of sentences.
Equivalence is not one thing
Nida separates formal equivalence (form and content mirrored) from dynamic equivalence (equivalent effect on the reader). Koller distinguishes denotative, connotative, text-normative, pragmatic and formal-aesthetic equivalence, which is useful because it lets you say precisely which level is being sacrificed.
From theory to procedure
Vinay and Darbelnet list seven procedures: borrowing, calque, literal translation, transposition, modulation, equivalence and adaptation. Catford adds shifts: level shifts and category shifts (structure, class, unit, intra-system). Skopos theory (Vermeer, with Reiss's text typology) makes the brief decisive: the purpose of the target text governs the strategy. Toury's norms and Even-Zohar's polysystem explain why acceptability and adequacy trade off historically.
Worked example
“The scheme was a lifeline for small firms.” A literal rendering of “lifeline” may fail where the target has no maritime metaphor. Reasoning: identify the function (rescue from imminent failure), then choose modulation - express the same idea from a different viewpoint, such as a guarantee of survival. Record the decision and its justification in the brief notes; examiners reward reasoned choice, not the choice alone.
Traps that cost marks
- Attributing dynamic equivalence to Vermeer or skopos to Nida.
- Calling every change “adaptation” when transposition or modulation is meant.
- Claiming literal translation is always wrong; it is the default until it fails.
- Ignoring the brief and translating the source text for its own sake.