we are learning about natural equivalence and directional equivalence now. I had a hard time to understand these two theories differently. your video help me a lot to see the two theories differently. thanks
It's more like a set of theories that talk about equivalence. When you get down to read the actual theorists, you tend to find that the basic argument of natural equivalence (in Vinay and Darbelnet, for example), is mixed up with other ideas about how equivalents can also be created by the translator.
we are learning about natural equivalence and directional equivalence now. I had a hard time to understand these two theories differently. your video help me a lot to see the two theories differently. thanks
I have watched this video several time during several years..a real pleasure
Thank you so much. This video got into my citation list.
Is natural equivalence a separate theory?
It's more like a set of theories that talk about equivalence. When you get down to read the actual theorists, you tend to find that the basic argument of natural equivalence (in Vinay and Darbelnet, for example), is mixed up with other ideas about how equivalents can also be created by the translator.
Thank you sir for shedding some light on that :)