Levels of transfer in Komissarovs theory (1973)

1/ the level of linguistic signs,

2/ the level of utterance,

3/ the level of message, content levels (to which both

4/ the level of situation, the SL and the TL text can

5/ the level of the communicative goal be broken down)

1/ The level of linguistic signs:

In utterances of similar structures different words can be used: The roof should be
mended. The roof ought to be fixed.

2/ The level of utterance:

When the message is being worded, the linguistic signs available for it have to be
arranged in a linear order, in which the elements can be organized into different
structures. The message of the roof having to be mended can be conveyed by
various utterances: The roof should be repaired; It is to be mended; The roof
wants mending; Why not mend the roof?

3/ The level of message:

The situation, however, cannot be completely covered at one single time, and its
different characteristics are described in different ways: The roof needs mending.
When the autumn rains set in you have to wear a macintosh even indoors. Or, as
Petfi put it in Pat Pl r: the sky peeps in through the attic Pallsrl nz be az
g...

4/ The level of situation:

To achieve this goal, the speaker informs the recipient about real objects,
persons, abstract phenomena or the relationship between them (miserable living
conditions: the roof is leaking).
5/ The level of communicative goal:

The speaker, say, wants to inform the reader, the listener, i.e., the receiver about
something, would like to raise some emotion in them, or would like to make them
carry out an act (e.g., a tenant would like the landlord to mend the roof).

The production of a text is the result of numerous decisions. The sender can
choose one of the situations available for the desired goal of
communication. To describe the selected situation he chooses one of the
messages. To formulate the selected message one of the several utterances
is chosen and a selection of the linguistic signs available is made.

The comprehension of a text: the receiver covers the same way in the
opposite direction, i.e., starts from the linguistic signs and reaches the
senders communicative goal.

The translator, both a receiver and a sender, covers both ways. In the
analysis phase he proceeds from the linguistic signs to the goal of
communication, whereas in the synthesis phase he proceeds from the goal
of communication to the linguistic signs.

Thus, the selection of the TL equivalent is determined by the goal of

communication, irrespective of what situation, message, utterance or
linguistic signs it is expressed by in the SL, even if ones linguistic behaviour
is described, for example, if a character has a foreign accent. The fact that
someone pronounces the consonant /r/ in a French manner can be
translated only with words containing this consonant. The following
example is a frequently quoted translation error: , de boldog vagyok,
hogy eljtt mondta a grfn francisan ropogtatva az r-eket. (Im so
happy youve come, said the countess, crunching the r-s like the French do)

The level of situation: can also exclude the equivalence of all the other
lower levels. Vigyzat, mzolvaI in E: Wet paint! irrespective of how it is
structured in H.
 The level of message: excludes lower level equivalents, e.g., if you are to
comfort someone by saying Cheer up! Chin up! Dont lose heart!, it can only
be translated into H Ne lgasd az orrod!

The level of utterance determines the formulation of the TL equivalent of

an E passive in H: The doctors were puzzled by the fact... Az orvosok
rejtlyesnek talltk a tnyt..., his meals were brought to him in bed...a
kosztot gyba hordtk neki...(Heller: Catch 22, A 22-es csapdja).

The level of linguistic signs allows no choice in the translation of

international organisations which have a constant equivalent in the TL
(ENSZ-UNO).

Advantages and disadvantages of the equivalence level model

1/ Advantages: gives a more nuanced picture of the work of a translator,

who pursues various strategies at the same time.

2/ On the other hand, he idealizes the translators work saying that in the
phase of analysis the translator always covers all the steps from the level of
linguistic signs to that of the goal of communication, and some of this
trouble can be spared only if the selection of the TL equivalent is
determined by the goal of communication or the situation, which are
higher levels.

3/ In reality, translators translate elements, as a rule, at the level of

linguistic signs and step a stage higher only if setting up equivalents at this
level meets with some unexpected difficulty.