8 symbols are arranged in phrases and sentences, ry ce wuat translation is to be seen in terms of a theory of communica ton. Equivalence / ‘Translation theory during the 1960s and 70s centered around the no- tion of equivalence. Translating was seen as a process of Communicating the foreign text by establishing/a relationship of identity with it. The theorists of the period viewed the so uurce text as a stable object which could be reduced to lear cut units and categories of languages and textuality. Theorists like Eugene Nida realized that the ere are no such things as identical equivalents; but one can: only seek to find the closest Possible equiva- lent. Nida views the situation thus: ‘ Since no two languages are identical, either in the meanings given to corresponding symbols or in the ways in which such” it stands to reason that there can be no absolute Correspondence between languages. Hence there can bé no fully exact translations. The total impact of a translation may bereasonably close to the original but there can be no identity in detail\ Constance B.Westwo (1932:344) clearly states the problem: “Whoever takes upon Fhimself to translate contracts a debt; to discharge it, he must pay not with the same money. but the same sum”, One must ‘not imagine that the process of translation can avoid a certain degree of interpretation by the translator, Infact as D.G Rossetti Stated in 1874 (Fang 1953), “A translation remains perhaps the ‘most direct form of commentary” (Reader126). Dorothy Renny comments thus on the topic of equivalence: ¥ (Equivalence is a central concept in translation theory, but it is alsoa controversial one. Approaches to the question of equiva- lence can differ radically. Some theorists define translation in terms of equivalence relations (Catford 1965; Nida and Taber 1969; Toury 1980; Pym 1992a, 1995; Koller 1995) while others reject the theoretical notion of equivalence, claiming itis either irrelevant (Snelt Homby 1988) or damaging (Gentzler 1993) to translation studies) Yet other theorists steet'a middle course: Baker uses the notion of equivalence for the sake of conve- nience ~ becausé most translators are used to it rather than because it has any theoretical status (1992:5-6). Thus equiva- lence is variously regarded as a necessary condition for trans- lation, an obstacle to progress in translation studies, ora useful category for describing translations. q (Proponents of equivalence-based theories of transla- tion usually define equivalence as the relationship between a source text (ST) and a target text (TTT) that allows the TT to be considered as a translation of the ST in the first place) Equiva- lence relationships are also said to hold between parts of the STs and parts of TTS. (Routledge77-80) ©a in the basis fished Koller refers to several types of equivalence estab! of different factors. 4 «ative equivalence (the source language (SL) and 1. Referential or denotative equiv ing tothe same thing in ‘target language (TL) words supposedly the real world). ri igi to i ._ Connotative equivalence (the SL and or similar associations isi the minds of native speakers of the two languages). . Text-normative equivalence (the SL and TL words being used in the same or similar contexts in their respective languages). |. Pragmatic or dynamic equivalence (Nida 1964) (the SL and TL words having the same effect on their respective readers) (Koller 1989). _ : * 5. Formal equivalence (the SL and TL words having similar orthographic or phonological features) Textual equivalence :- Mona Baker (1992) extends the concept of equivalence to cover similarity in ST and TT information flow and in the cohesive roles ST and TT devices play in their respective texts. ‘She combines these two factors together as textual equivalence. . Functional equivalence :- All the variables in translation are not rel- evant in every situation. It is up to the translators to decide which consideration should be given priority at any one time, thus leading to akind of functional equivalence. Nida distinguishes between “dynamic” and “formal” varieties of “cor- respondence” and later he replaced the term “dynamic” with “functional”. According to Nida, a formal equivalence (F-E) translation is basically source- oriented or in other words itis designed to reveal as much as possible of the form and content of the original Message, Such a translation attempts to reproduce several formal elements, including, 1. grammatical units, 2, consi- tency in word usage and, 3. meanings in terms ofthe source text>"Therepro-wo duction of grammatical units may consist in (a) translating nouns by nouns, verbs by verbs ete. (b) keeping all phrases and sentences intact (i.e. not splitting up and readjusting the units) and (c) preserving all formal indicators, eg: marks of punctuation, paragraph breaks, and poetic indentation. We can say that a formal equivalence translation focuses attention on the message of the source language (SL) text in both form and content. In such a translation ‘one is concemed with such correspondences as poetry to poetry, sentence to sentence, and concept to concept. The message in the receptor culture is constantly compared with the message in the source culture to determine standards of accuracy and correctness. This type of translation that most completely typifies structural equivalence might be called a “gloss transla- tion”, in which the translator attempts to reproduce as literally and meaning- fully as possible the form and content of the original. A translation of this type is designed to permit the reader to identify himself as fully as possible with a person in the source-language contextand to understand as much as he can of the customs, manner of thought and means of expression. For example, a phrase such as “holy kiss” (Romans 16:16) in a gloss translation would be rendered literally and if necessary supplemented with a footnote explaining that this was a customary method of greeting in new Testament times. Ina Dynamic equivalence (DE) translation, the focus of.attention is directed towards the receptor response. Here the concer is with the dy- namic relationship- the relationship between the receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the SL message. Eugene Nida defines a DE translation as “the closest natural equivalent to the source-language message”. This definition includes three essential terms: I.equivalent, 2. natural and 3. closest. Such a transla- tion which is directed towards equivalence of response rather than equiva- lence of form has to take in to consideration 1. the receptor language and culture asa whole, 2. the context ofthe particular message and 3. the recep- tor language audience. A DE translation is based on the “principle of equiva lent effect” and its concerned with relating the receptor to modes of behaviour relevant with in the context of his own culture; it does not insist that he under-eit] duction of grammatical units may consist in (a) translating nouns by nouns, verbs by verbs ete, (b) keeping all phrases and sentences intact (i.e. not splitting up and readjusting the units) and (c) preserving all formal indicators, eg: marks of punctuation, paragraph breaks, and poetic indentation. We can say that a formal equivalence translation focuses attention on the message of the source language (SL) text in both form and content. In such a translation ine is concemed with such corresponidences as poetry to poetry, sentence to sentence, and concept to concept. The message in the receptor culture is constantly compared with the message in the source culture to determine standards of accuracy and correctness. This type of translation that most completely typifies structural equivalence might be called a “gloss transla- tion”, in which the translator attempts to reproduce as literally and meaning- fully as possible the form and content of the original. A translation of this type is designed to permit the reader to identify himself as fully as possible with a person in the source-language contextand to understand as much as he can of the customs, manner of thought and means of expression. For example, a phrase such as “holy kiss” (Romans 16:16) in a gloss translation would be rendered literally and if necessary supplemented with a footnote explaining that this was a customary method of greeting in new Testament times. In a Dynamic equivalence (DE) translation, the focus of attention is directed towards the receptor response. Here the concern is with the dy- namic relationship- the relationship between the receptor and message should ‘be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the SL message. Eugene Nida defines a DE translation as “the closest natural equivalent to the source-language message”. This definition includes three essential terms: equivalent, 2. natural and 3. closest. Such a transla- tion which is directed towards equivalence of response rather than equiva- lence of form has to take in to consideration 1. the receptor language and culture as a whole, 2. the context ofthe particular message and 3. the recep- tor language audience. A DE translation is based on the “principle of equiva Tenteffect” and itis concerned with relating the receptor to modes of behaviour relevant with in the context of his own culture; it does not insist that he under- it@ stand the cultural pattems of the source-language se a a ces the example of LB Philp rendering ofthe Ney i rise to “equivalent effect” when he festament as a DE translation. He gives Re festa “greet one another with a holy kiss” as “give one another a heany id shake all around”, (. a Nida observes that there are many intervening grades of translation ‘erween FE and DE translation considered acceptable for literary translating ‘and that the present trend isto lean towards the dynamic dimension. context in order to under. (Un) transtatablity . Untranslatability is a topic that has been much discussed by ttanslatologists over the ages. Eugene Nida and J.C. Catford have contrib- ‘uted largely to the study of it. ‘Anthony Pym begins the discussion of the topic by trying to define the> ‘erm, According to him “Translatability is mostly understood as the capacity for some kind of meaning to be transferred from one language to another Without undergoing radical changes”. The trouble arises when one tries to ‘analyse the ‘meaning’ involved’) Roman Jakobson is infavour of translatability because he sees trans- (tion a operating within languages as well as between them and alse te, teen different semiotic systems. Jakobson clarifies his view with the ex-