Literary translation: implantation vs transference



figures of speech, implantation, literary, transference, translation


The figurative language employed by authors, which reflects their styles of writing, is one main reason behind the challenges that most literary translators encounter when dealing with literary works. Usually employed for aesthetic and poetic purposes, figures of speech imply connotative meanings. In literary works, words are used only assigns to settle down the flying spirits of meanings and ideas so that the audience can have a thread that could lead them to intended meanings. I believe that literary translators should face the challenges of translating literary works through two main approaches. First, transferring the work of art as it is without trying to find any equivalent in the target language for any piece of text in the source language. The aim of such type of translation would be familiarizing the audience in the target language with the literature and culture of the source language. Second, translating the SL work of art creatively, i.e. using all possible strategies and procedures to find natural equivalents in the TL for any stylistic features in the SLT. This type of translation should aim at pleasing and entertaining the TL audience.


Download data is not yet available.


Hermans, T. (2019). Translation in systems: Descriptive and systemic approaches explained. Routledge.

Newmark, P. (2004). Non-literary in the Light of Literary Translation. The Journal of Specialized Translation, 1(10).

Nida, E. A., & Taber, C. R. (Eds.). (1982). The theory and practice of translation (Vol. 8). Brill Archive.

Nord, C. (1996). Text type and translation method: An objective approach to translation criticism. The Translator, 2(1), 81-88.

Venuti, L. (2017). The translator's invisibility: A history of translation. Routledge.



How to Cite

Khaled, A. (2020). Literary translation: implantation vs transference. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 6(4), 88–94.