 Who is J. C. (Ian) Catford ?

 Catford was born in Edinburgh, Scotland. After his secondary and

university studies, he studied phonetics. ... There, he headed the English
Language Institute and the Laboratory of Communicative Sciences (current the
Laboratory of Phonetics). He taught most of the Linguistics subjects in the same
university.
 In regard to the field of translation, Catford made his contribution with his
often-cited book ‘A Linguistic Theory of Translation’. In this book he outlined a
theory of translation based on linguistics, namely, Firthian & Hallidayan
systemic functional grammar.
 Catford’s book is an important attempt to systematically apply advances in
linguistics to translation (Munady, 2016:97).
 Catford’s Linguistic Theory of Equivalence:
 Translation for Catford is an operation performed on languages: a process of substituting a text in
one language for a text in another. And it is clear that his definition is a process-focused one as
indicated by the ‘ing’ of ‘substituting’.
 Catford believes that any theory of translation must draw on a theory of language, a general
linguistic theory, whose linguistic categories can be used to describe & analyze the translation
process. He had based his translation theory on functional linguistics of Firth and Firth’s student
Halliday
 Catford builds his definition on the concept of equivalence, describing translation as the
replacement of textual material in one language by equivalent textual material in another language.
 Catford offered a number of types of translation according to three variables (extent, rank, and
level, see the slides below) whereby equivalence can be sought.
 He differentiated between two types of equivalence: formal correspondent & textual equivalence
(see slides below for definition and details)
 Types of Equivalence:
 Formal correspondent is “any TL category
Catford’s Types (unit, class, element of structure, etc.) which can
of Equivalence be said to occupy, as nearly as possible, the
‘same’ place in the ‘economy’ of the TL as the
given SL category occupies in the SL” (Catford
Formal 1965: 27).
Correspondent
 Textual equivalent, however, is defined by
Catford as “any TL text or portion of text which
Textual is observed on a particular occasion [...] to be the
Equivalent equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text”
(p. 27).
 Formal Correspondent:
 Catford’s formal correspondence is a useful tool to be used in comparative linguistics and
translation teaching (Al-Manna, 2013).
 Formal correspondence is a more general system-based concept between a pair of languages.
 It aims to cover the form and the content of the SL in the TT as much as possible. Hence, in
translation process, translators have to reproduce various formal items such as the meanings in
terms of the SL context, consistency in word usage, and grammatical units. The reproduction
process at the lexical and grammatical levels contains (1) preserving all phrases and sentences
intact, i.e. preserve the units’ format and structure, and (2) translating verbs by verbs, nouns by
nouns, etc. In such a translation, the grammatical segments are usually reproduced and the
wording is almost literal, thus the final corresponding units can be easily compared. Such
comparable grammatical categories or units in the translation from English to Arabic or vice versa
are rarely obtained and cases are the exceptions rather than the rule. Thus, due to the differences
between languages linguistic systems shifts are always taking place between the two languages
and the equivalence achieved is the textual one rather than the formal correspondent.
 E.g. We are reading the lecture = ‫ نحن نقرا المحاضرة‬.
 Textual Equivalent:
 The discovery of textual equivalents is based on the authority of a competent bilingual
informant or translator (Catford, 1965:27). Thus, it could be inferred that the translator can be seen
as an assessment criterion to be used in assessing the final product; but how? Catford does not
give an answer.
 Catford offered a test (a formal procedure termed ‘commutation’ for any textual equivalent, in
his words, “…we systematically introduce changes into the SL text and observe what changes if
any occur in the TL text as a consequence”.
 Textual equivalence is “that portion of a TL text which is changed when and only when a given
portion of the SL text is changed”. Let’s take this example:
The translator is working out the English text.
‫ يعمل‬. ‫المترجم على النص االنجليزي‬
If we change the English definite article ‘the’ into an indefinite article ‘a’:
A translator is working out the English text.
‫ يعمل‬.‫مترجم ما على النص االنجليزي‬
The change in meaning caused by the change in the definiteness system is the clue that the Arabic
translation is the textual equivalent of the English one.
 Types of Translation According to Catford (1965):
Translation
According to

Extent Level
Rank

Full Rank-bound Total Restricted

Translation Translation Translation Translation

Rank-
Partial Phonological
unbound
Translation Translation
Translation

Graphological
Translation

Grammatical
Translation

Lexical
Translation
 Translation  Full Translation is when the entire text is submitted
According to Extent to the translating process; every element in the SLT is
replaced by a TL material; an example of this type is:
‫وضعت الكتاب على الطاولة‬.

(I have put) (the book) (on the table).

 Partial Translation is when some elements of the SLT

are left untranslated and simply transferred to,
accommodated in, and/or transliterated into the TLT;
an example of this type is as follows:

The computer is slow. ‫الكمبيوتر بطيء‬.

‘computer’ is transferred by transliteration & the verb
‘is’ is deleted, i.e. being accommodated to the TL (Arabic)
system of grammar.
 Translation According to Rank:
 Grammatically, rank refers to scale of categories hierarchically starting
with the morpheme, upward to word, phrase, clause, sentence, and text.
 In rank-bound translation, the selection of the TL equivalence is limited
at only one rank, such as morpheme for morpheme, word for word, etc.
 This type of translation will lead to “ ‘bad translation’, i.e. translation in
Rank-Bound which the TL text is either not a normal TL form at all, or is not relatable to
Translation the same situational substance as the SL text” (Catford 1965/2004: 143).
Rank-based  Example of this type could be (if we work one the sentence level):
Translation Unbound (ST) Your course is translation theories.
Translation (AT) ‫خاصتكم (خاصتك) مقرر يكن نظريات ترجمة‬.
And, as you see the result is unreadably awkward, distorted translation.
 Whereas rank-unbound translation means that the translator is
free/untied to move through the rank scale , potentially seeking
equivalence on the ranks of morpheme, word, etc.
 Examples of this type could be:
(ST) ‫ احبكم‬. Which is one (morphologically condensed) word, can be
translated to a full sentence: I love you.
 Translation  Total Translation:
Total translation is defined as "the replacement of source
According to language grammar and lexis by equivalent target language grammar and
Level lexis with consequential replacement of source language
phonology/graphology by (non-equivalent) target language
phonology/graphology" (Catford, 1965:2). This equivalent can be
obtained if we have languages of the same origin where grammatical
systems are close to each; but in the case of English and Arabic, only rare
Translation cases and on restricted ranks could fit this definition (word or phrase, but
According to not a full sentence where shifts must occur). See the examples below:
Level
Translation ‫( ترجمة‬Lexical equivalent is obtained)
Total translation ‫) كاملة ترجمة‬We have shifted the word
Total Restricted order ).
Translation Translation

 Restricted Translation:
Restricted translation means "the replacement of source language textual
material by equivalent target language textual material at only one level"
(1965, 22); this type of translation is sub-branched into four types
according to the level: phonological, graphological, grammatical, and
lexical translation. Below are an example for each:
  Restricted  Phonological translation, Here, the SL phonology of a text is replaced
by the equivalent TL phonology; this could happen in translating sounds
Translation: in audio-visual translation (dubbing in particular; the case of ‘laughing’,
or ‘crying), or the hissing sound of the snake in a written text (the English
ssssss) is translated in Arabic into ‫ ; سسسسسسس‬more, the hhhhhhhhhhh
sound which is the equivalent to the Arabic ‫ ه‬sound in ‫ههههههههههههه‬,
both means ‘laughing’.
Phonological  Graphological Translation is when the SL graphology of a text is
translation replaced by equivalent TL graphology; graphological units are
represented through 'transliteration' only: Transliterations which are
usually accommodated to the TL phonological system: ‫ = فالفل‬falafel,
Translation
Restricted

Graphological democracy = ‫ ديمقراطية‬, Sara = ‫ سارة‬, and the like, could serve as
Translation examples of this.
 Grammatical Translation can be defined as 'restricted' translation where
Grammatical the grammar of the SLT is replaced by equivalent grammar in the TLT.
Translation Catford (1965:71) holds that the lexis (lexical elements, but not
grammatical items) will not be replaced in this type. His example: This is
Lexical the man I saw = haada ‘l-man’ ili see –t-u =‫ هذا ال مان الي سي تو‬As it is clear
a highly distorted Arabic equivalent which wouldn’t work in Arabic.
Translation
 Lexical Translation where the lexis (not the grammar) of the SLT is
replaced by equivalent lexis in the TLT. The same example cited by
Catford (ibid:72): This is the rajul I shuf-ed = ‫ذس از ذا رجل اي شوف ايد‬.
Again this translation does not work in Arabic.
 Criticisms of Catford’s Approach to Equivalence:
 Although Catford’s formal correspondence is a useful tool to be used in comparative
linguistics and translation teaching, it seems that it is not really relevant in terms of assessing
translation equivalence between ST and TT.

 Further, the translation process cannot simply be reduced to a linguistic exercise, as

claimed by Catford, since there are also other factors, such as textual, cultural and situational
aspects, etc., which need to be given full consideration when translating (Snell-Hornby 1988).

 Catford’s approach to equivalence does not go beyond the level of the sentence, i.e. the
whole text, and most of the examples he cited are decontextualized ones, not taken from
real translations. Moreover, he didn’t seem to account for the special character of and the
differences between the languages he used in his examples; the Arabic translations
(grammatical and lexical types of translation) are good examples of highly distorted final
products.
GOOD LUCK