Para responder à questão, considere o texto I.

Texto I

One of the fundamental concepts in translation theory is that of translation equivalence. Equivalence also underpins our everyday understanding of translation: linguistically naïve persons tend to think of translation as a text which is a sort of ‘reproduction’ of a text originally produced in another language, where this reproduction is somehow of comparable value. A translation can therefore be understood as a text which is doubly contextually bound: on the one hand to its contextually embedded source text and on the other to the (potential) recipient’s communicative-contextual conditions. This double-linkage is the basis of the so-called equivalence relation and at the same time the conceptual heart of translation. To quote John Catford (1965:21), ‘‘The central problem of translation-practice is that of finding TL (target language) equivalents. A central task of translation theory is therefore that of defining the nature and conditions of translation equivalence’’.

Equivalence, like context, is obviously a relative concept; it has nothing to do with identity. Absolute equivalence would in fact be a contradictio in adiecto. Equivalence is a relative concept in several respects; it is determined by the socio-historical conditions in which the translation act is embedded, and by the range of often irreconcilable linguistic and contextual factors at play, among them at least the following: source and target languages with their specific structural constraints; the extra-linguistic world and the way this world is perceived by the two language communities; the linguistic conventions of the translator and of the target language and culture; structural, connotative and aesthetic features of the original; the translator’s comprehension and interpretation of the original and her creativity; the translator’s explicit and/or implicit theory of translation; translation traditions in the target culture; interpretation of the original by its author; audience design as well as generic norms, and possibly many more. In setting up such a variety of ‘‘equivalence frameworks’’ (Koller, 1995), the concept of equivalence can be specified or operationalized.

Given these different types of equivalence in translation, and given the nature of translation as a decision process (Levy, 1967), the translator is always forced to make choices, i.e., to set up a hierarchy of demands on equivalence which he or she wants to follow. Since appropriate use of language in communicative performance is what matters most in translation, it is functional, pragmatic equivalence which is of particular relevance for translation. And it is this type of equivalence which underpins the systemic–functional model to be described here, a model that attempts to explicate the way meaning can be re-constituted across two different contexts. Three aspects of that meaning are particularly important for translation: a semantic, a pragmatic and a textual aspect. Translation can then be defined as the replacement of a text in a source language by a semantically and pragmatically equivalent text in a target language. An adequate translation is thus a pragmatically and semantically equivalent one. As a first requirement for this equivalence, it is posited that a translation text have a function equivalent to that of its original.

Fonte: HOUSE, J. Text and context in translation. Journal of Pragmatics, v. 38, p. 338-358, 2006. (Adaptado)

A pergunta cuja resposta certa deve ser “the translated text's double-linkage to context” é