Differences Between Snell-Hornby And Munday
In this section, both similarities and differences of these two theories will be examined. In addition, advantages and disadvantages of these two theories will be discussed. Both of the theories consider text types. In different text of text types, different aspects could have priority. Reiss suggests a certain priority of elements to be focused on for a certain text type. Similarly, Snell-Hornby proposed that when translating different texts, the sequence of considering elements from level A to level F is used. It is good for both of these two theories to go beyond the linguistic level and realize a different value of each element (information, aesthetic effects, appealing effects, linguistic components and non-linguistic determinants) for
…show more content…
However, this project holds a different idea. The theory shows that lyric poetry belongs to the category of Literary translation and should consider the creative expressions while texts in legal language belong to the Special language translation and contents are the most important. It is likely a similar idea as lyric poetry belongs to the expressive texts while legal texts are informative ones. Therefore, it could be a superficial removal of those divisions of text types. What Reiss has not considered is the certain function of the source text in a certain case. For example, a business report could also have an appealing effect. Therefore, apart from text types, the purpose of the translation should also be considered. However, in the theory of Snell-Hornby, the function of the source text in a real situation is still not …show more content…
In this view, the theory of Snell-Hornby is better than the one of Reiss. However, there is still disadvantages of the theory of Snell-Hornby since it shows the readability under the category of Literary translation in the level F. Apart from Bible or modern literature which belong to the category of Literary translation, readability is also important for translations of science texts and other texts. Besides, Snell-Hornby (2001) proposed that alliteration and rhythm could be under the level F which is the last level. However, for advertisements or some literature, expressions such as alliteration and rhythm should have the priority. Under this situation, it is probably not good to put the phonological aspects such as alliteration and rhythm at the last level.
Second, Reiss (2012) proposed that both linguistic components and non-linguistic ones should be considered. However, there is not a strict sequence of these considerations in the translating process. Instead, Snell-Hornby made a fixed order of these considerations by using levels from A to F. By doing so, it is clearer to direct translators because non-linguistic components tend to be more important to texts such as modern literature and it would be better to consider non-linguistic components first as Snell-Hornby suggested in level C. In this view, the theory of Snell-Hornby is
However, this project holds a different idea. The theory shows that lyric poetry belongs to the category of Literary translation and should consider the creative expressions while texts in legal language belong to the Special language translation and contents are the most important. It is likely a similar idea as lyric poetry belongs to the expressive texts while legal texts are informative ones. Therefore, it could be a superficial removal of those divisions of text types. What Reiss has not considered is the certain function of the source text in a certain case. For example, a business report could also have an appealing effect. Therefore, apart from text types, the purpose of the translation should also be considered. However, in the theory of Snell-Hornby, the function of the source text in a real situation is still not …show more content…
In this view, the theory of Snell-Hornby is better than the one of Reiss. However, there is still disadvantages of the theory of Snell-Hornby since it shows the readability under the category of Literary translation in the level F. Apart from Bible or modern literature which belong to the category of Literary translation, readability is also important for translations of science texts and other texts. Besides, Snell-Hornby (2001) proposed that alliteration and rhythm could be under the level F which is the last level. However, for advertisements or some literature, expressions such as alliteration and rhythm should have the priority. Under this situation, it is probably not good to put the phonological aspects such as alliteration and rhythm at the last level.
Second, Reiss (2012) proposed that both linguistic components and non-linguistic ones should be considered. However, there is not a strict sequence of these considerations in the translating process. Instead, Snell-Hornby made a fixed order of these considerations by using levels from A to F. By doing so, it is clearer to direct translators because non-linguistic components tend to be more important to texts such as modern literature and it would be better to consider non-linguistic components first as Snell-Hornby suggested in level C. In this view, the theory of Snell-Hornby is