Volume 68, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0521-9744
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9668
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The point of departure is the hypothesis of the fundamental difference in viewing translation by the translator and by the target language reader: the former focuses on the original and a search for equivalents, whereas the latter has no contact either with the original or the process of translation. It is interesting that without contact with the original, the recipient of translation nevertheless has an illusion of accessing that original. Looking at translation as a linguistically secondary text largely determines the translator’s activity – but not the reception of the final product by the reader. In conclusion, one can hypothesize that translation is doubly conditioned: by the original text and by its future communicative context. In each, a textual point of reference can be determined: the original text and parallel texts, respectively. The translation’s secondariness is thus two-dimensional. It follows that translation, viewed above all as a linguistically secondary text (being based on an original), nevertheless functions independently of this feature. The tension between these two properties of translation determines its status as a message of a peculiar type. It is mainly this assumption that reveals the inadequacy of grounding the efficiency of translations in the notion of equivalence.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Beaugrande, Robert-Alain de, und Wolfgang U. Dressler
    1981Einführung in die Textlinguistik. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783111349305
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111349305 [Google Scholar]
  2. Catford, J. C.
    1965A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Hejwowski, Krzysztof
    2004Kognitywno-komunikacyjna teoria przekładu. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2015Iluzja przekładu. Warszawa: Ślask.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Levý, Jiří
    1963Umění překladu. Praha: Československý spisovatel.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Lewicki, Roman
    2000Obcość w odbiorze przekładu. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Urbanek, Dorota
    2004Pęknięte lustro: Tendencje w teorii i praktyce przekładu na tle myśli humanistycznej. Warszawa: Wydaw Trio Instytut Rusycystyki Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Tokarz, Bożena
    2010Spotkania. Czasoprzestrzeń przekładu artystycznego. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Wojtak, Maria
    2004Gatunki prasowe. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Алексеева, И.С.
    2012Текст и перевод. Вопросы теории. Москва: Международные отношения.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Комиссаров, В.Н.
    1980Лингвистика перевода. Москва: Международные отношения.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Пшеницын, С.В.
    2000 “Проблема статуса переводного текста.” Материалы XXIX Межвузовской нaучно-методической конференции преподавателей и аспирантов. Актуальные проблемы теории и практики переводаВып. 8: 65–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): equivalence; reception; réception; traduction; translation; équivalence
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error