1. Intralingual translation – translation within the same language, which can involve restatement, or reword.
2. Interlingual translation – translation from one language to another.
3. Intersemiotic translation – translation of the verbal sign by a non-verbal sign.
Furthermore (J.Roman, 1959) explore the concept of translation as translating refers to be remade in the receptor language the near to the natural corresponding to the source-language message. He defines translation as a practice of communicating the unfamiliar text by establishing a connection of identity or similarity.
While (Gutt, 1991) Points out that receptor language text is the straight transfer of a source language text if and only the meaning is too expository similar to the original completely in the context envisaged in the original.
Although (Newmark, 1981) defines translation as a craft consisting in the attempt to replace a written message and statement in one language of the same message and statement in another language.
While (Holmes 1988/2000) he mapped out the new field like a science, separating it into pure translation studies (descriptive studies of existing translation and general and partial translation theories) and applied studies (covering translator training, translator aids and translation criticism among others).
As translation can be viewed as the dialogue with a text, written in one language for a certain establishment or function in another language, it was only to be predictable that concentration among translation scholars was soon to focus on text linguistic the division of linguistics that studies written or spoken text. Numerous theorists have separated texts according to the topic issue (literature, institution, technology, etc.). A growing numeral of literary scholars also began to turn their concentration to cultures and in 1990 translation studies moving beyond the word and even the text.
2.2 Equivalence in translation
Equivalence is the expression used to explain the link presented between the translation and the original text, a link that has been experimented by scholars from a large range of perspective. It’s often presented as a fundamental concern for those who study translation. Equivalence is also perhaps the most difficult and worrying issue in the field of translation studies.
Equivalence can be seen as a link of resemblance or likeness, which, however, leads to the difficulty of establishing important units of contrast. In additional words once two texts are described as equivalent. It can be seen, at what point equivalence is found? How resemblance or correspondence degree it holds, in the term of an exact qualities or character, which mean the significance, perspective or purpose.
Accepting the nonequivalence at the word level in translation between languages is realizable to happen to linguistic phenomena as a result of the lack of complete equivalence among two lexical items in a given language. We still often find that there is no an exact equivalence between words of one language and the words of another.
The lack of equivalence between languages at the word level is universal and a problem which always faced the translators. It is practically impossible to offer absolute guidelines for dealing with various types of nonequivalence, which exist between languages. Languages vary from each other syntactically, semantically and pragmatically.
2.3 Different views to equivalence
The idea of equivalence is definitely one of the most difficult and problematic areas in the ground of translation theory. The term has made a lot of problems, and it seems quite possible that it will go on to creating platforms for scholars to discuss and investigate within the field of translation studies.
This term has been classified, evaluated and widely discussed from various points of view and has been approached from many different perspectives. The trouble in defining equivalence may lead to the impracticality of having a common approach to idea of equivalence between source language and target language. The definitions can be a review in the term of their approaches.
(J.Roman, 1959) (J.Roman, 1959)in his (J.Roman, 1959) Study works of equivalence has given new ideas in the theory of translation since he point out his contribution based on meaning. Furthermore he points that equivalence involves the translation of two equivalent messages in two different ways;
1. In linguistics, language’s variation is acceptable between the languages from one to another for a larger or smaller amount of grammar. Though the translation is on positive move there is still a greater amount of problems faced by the translator
2. Loan-translations, Loanwords, semantic shifts or neologism (recently created a word, for example, mouse who took a new meaning in computer) and circumlocution used to modify and magnify terms on every occasion, which still prove to be inefficient.
He also states that the problem of both meaning and equivalence is linked to the differences between structures, terminology, and lexical forms of languages. He also States that equivalence indifference is the serious problem of language and the fundamental concern of linguistic meaning. He identifies three areas of translation:
1. Intralingual translation, which means translation within the same language which can involve rewording or paraphrasing.
2. Interlingual translation, which means translation from one language to another.
3. Intersemiotic translation, which means translation of verbal signs of non verbal signs, for example, music.
He holds that in the interlingual translation; the translator used synonyms in order to get the source and the target language message. It looks similar to (Vinay and Darbelnet, 1995) theory of translation procedures. They equally believe the fact that each time a linguistic approach is no longer suitable in carrying out a translation, the translator can only rely on other measures such as loan translation and neologisms. Both theories approved the restrictions of a linguistic theory and quarrel that equivalence can never be unattainable since there are numerous alternative ways that the translator can select.
Both (Vinay and Darbelnet, 1995) similar to Jacobson they consider the translation job which can all the time be transferred out from one SL to TL, despite the cultural or grammatical differences between source languages and target languages.
Whereas (Nida, 1964) developed the idea of equivalence by points out that, there are no two languages having the same messages, in the sense of symbols or in the conduct in which they are put in phrases and sentences, so that there can be no total sameness between languages. That means, there are no such things known as total equivalent, therefore, the translator must try to find the closest probable equivalent. He introduced two different types of equivalence, which are formal and dynamic.
e defines formal equivalence as follows; Formal equivalence which refers to contains of message, in the form and content. In this cause a translation is something connected with such massage as an idea to idea, poetry to poetry, and sentence to sentence. In view from this formal point of study, one able to understand that the message in the target language is similar and closely as possible to the various fundamentals in the source language. This means, for instance, that the message in the target culture is always compared with the meaning in the source culture to find out the standards of exactness and suitability. Moreover, he stresses that this variety of equivalence is intended to allow a person who reads to adjust himself as entirely as possible with an individual in the source language environment, and to comprehend as much as he can about the traditions, behavior of idea, and means of expression.
(Nida, 1969) claims that formal equivalence is the significance of a translation in which the features of the source have been automatically reproduced in the target language. Actually, a general view to reach formal, instead of dynamic equivalence which is characterized by, a concern for exactness and the choice for remaining of the original language wherever possible. Taking into account its noticeable restrictions; however, formal equivalence is sometimes the most suitable policy to follow that in the source language.
He points out that a translation of dynamic equivalence aims at finding out complete naturalness of expression in the source language, and tries to connect it to the target language receptor to modes of activities relevant within the environment of his own culture.
Carrying out such a translation will require such dealings as replacement target language material which is more culturally suitable for confusing source language items, creating linguistically hidden source language information unambiguous and build a certain total of redundancy (the quantity of information given in TL parts above and beyond that which is essential) to help in comprehension.
The most admirable recognized instance of a dynamic equivalent is seen in the selection to translate the Biblical phrase Lamb of God into an Eskimo language as Seal of God due to the fact that lambs are unknown in Polar Regions.
In this case, the culturally considerable item Seal, which has at least a few of the significant features of the source language expression Lamb, has been replaced by it. Finally, it should be well known that these two methods are not totally a technique but quite universal orientations. Actually, what trained translators seem to do most of the time is to make the choice for a formal kind of equivalence primarily, reviewing the decision in the light of a sort of factor, and finally create an alternative to formal or dynamic equivalence.
(Peter.N, 1981) states that the equivalent effect (which mean to produce the same effect in the TL readers as that produced by SL on the SL readers) is deceptive, and it will remain as the domination problem as he pointed out situational equivalence and he claims that synonym, paraphrases and grammatical difference all of which might do the job in a particular situation, but will produce negative results.
He holds that equivalent effect which means the same effect on the target text recipients as the source text is deemed to have on source text receivers is not significantly exerting the attempt; rather, equivalence should be done intuitively. However, he accepts that he looks at communicative equivalents that are neither plain semantics nor conditional as introduced by Nida and Catford. For Newmark, the communicative equivalence contains all the opposing forces concerned in the translation process.
In his definition of translation, (Peter.N, 1981) points out, that translation is usually written and planned for a target language person who reads even if the source language text was written for reader as whole , but for the writer’s amusement.
When a translator begins to translate, readers should always be considerable in his mind, if the reader cannot understand the translation it will be meaningless.. The personality of readers is essential, as they may vary in decoding competence and in interests. In fact, a translation intended for kids cannot be the same as the one set for specialists, nor translation for children are the same for a newly literate adult.
The approaching of readers differs not only in decoding ability, but also further of benefit translation. For instance, a translation considered to stimulate reading for enjoyment will be quite dissimilar from the one proposed for a person anxious to learn how to gather a complex machine. Furthermore he defines translation is a science where there is one correct or one objectively superior rendering of a word or a phrase, and an art where there is more than one equally adequate rendering. Equivalence, which is termed by itself is a standard polysemous (when a word has a set of different meanings) English word, with the result that the precise sense in which translation equivalence is understood varies from writer to writer.
While (Hatim, 2004) looks at the fundamental meaning of equivalence and reveals that the theory of translation gives various identities of equivalence according to various principles, they believed are very important. Theorists have come up with different definition but they are still having the same meaning. The typology of equivalence seems to be a kind of protected position for theorists to look into the challenges of equivalence from various points of view. According to its fundamental meaning, equivalence is the association between the source language (SL) and the target language (TL).
(Koller, 1989) falls inside the area of contrastive linguistics which compares two language classifications and describes the variations and similarities. He offers the following kinds of equivalent relationships which may be recognized as:
1. Referential or denotative equivalence, in which the source language and target language words by all accounts refer to the similar thing in the actual world. And can be achievable by investigation of sameness and their contact with textual factors.
2. Pragmatic equivalence, in which the source language and target language words have the same effect on their own readers. Can be achieved by translating the text for an exact readership, overriding the necessities of the other equivalence.
3. Formal equivalence, in which the source language and target language words have similar orthographic or phonological features. It can be possible by the similarity of the form in the target language, using the possibilities of the target language and even creating new ones.
4. Connotative equivalence, in which the source language and target language words situate the same or similar relations in the brains of the speakers of the two languages. One of the most complicated troubles of translation and in practice is only approximate wants to recognize the connotative dimensions in different languages.
5. Style (translational) equivalence, which is referred to as functional equivalence of basics in both original and translations aims at a significant distinctiveness with an invariant (when an SL text undergoes translation) of the same meaning.
6. Textual equivalence, which is referred to the equivalence of the syntagmatic structuring of a text, i.e. equivalence of form and profile.
The minor linguistics changes that take place between source language and target language are known as a translation shift. (Catford, 1965a) being the first linguists who used the term translation shift in his demonstration for linguistics theory of translation. She describes it as to go away from formal messages in method of going from the source language to the target language. She also refers to the formal correspondents as any target language, unit, class and structure, which can be said to be occupied, as nearly as possible at the same place in the economy of the target language. As a given source language category, that involved in the source language. This means that formal correspondence takes place in the comparison and description of the language systems. She also mentions that a textual equivalent is any target language text or portion of text, which is observed to be the equivalent of a given source text or portion of text.
(Catford, 1965a) introduces the concept of the translation shift with very wide views of translation to show the changes that take place in the source text and target text both in three features: The degree of translation, (complete-translation vs. incomplete translation), the grammatical categorize at which the translation equivalence is recognized, (level-bound translation vs. boundless translation, the levels of language concerned in translation (full translation vs. limited translation).
In here study, she describes the idea of translation shift; depending on the dissimilarity between formal correspondence and textual equivalence (textual equivalence holds between text segments that are existing translation of each other). In level-bound translation, an equivalent is essential in the TT for all expression, or for each small unit encountered in the ST. In limitless translation, equivalences are not close to exacting rank, and we may moreover discover the correspondence at stretch, clause and other ranks.
One of the shortcomings with formal correspondence is that, regardless of being a valuable instrument to use in comparative linguistics; it shows that it is not actually applicable in conditions of assessing translation similarity between ST and TT. Here other element of correspondence that is textual equivalence, which takes place when any TL text or segment of text is observed on a particular occurrence to be the equivalent of a particular SL text or segment of text. She implements this by a method of replacement , whereby a capable expert in the source language and target language or translator is asked for the translation of different sentences which information ST are transferred in order to check up what sort of changes could be made.
Based on her definition of translation shift we see that she disagree with the opinion of previous studies on this same issue. She went further to explain that translation shift involved two major translations, which are level and group shifts.
Level shift is used when the SL pieces is involved at one linguistics rank and has TL correspondents which are not similar. While group shift involved four components which comprise structure, class, unit, and intra system shifts.
(Catford, 1965a) linguistic theory of translation has been rejected and was very much criticized. One of the most obvious criticisms came from (Hornby.S, 1988) who believes that Catford’s classification of textual equivalence is circular, his theory’s dependence on bilingual informants awfully not enough, and his example sentences separated and even less important basis. She considers the view of similarity in translation as being fancy. She holds that the translation procedure cannot just be a review of a linguistic exercise, as shown by Catford for example, since there are also additional factors, likes textual, cultural and situational aspects, which should be considered seriously when translating. In different ways, she is agreeing to accept that linguistic is the only field which can help people to translate, since translation need’s consideration cultures and differing situations, which let to various languages not always matching with one language to another.
(Vinay and Darbelnet, 1995) identify various translation strategies and procedures when they work on the comparative stylistic analysis of French and English. They considered mainly on the texts in the language looking at the variations among the two languages and points out different translation strategies and measures.
Their view is based mainly on French and English; its effects have been much wider. The two common translation strategy shows by (Vinay and Darbelnet, 1995) are direct translation (which means two language display full equivalence) and oblique translation (which means translation method applied when word-for-word translation not works SL items morpheme is translated literally to TL). The two strategies contain seven dealings, of which direct translation contains three:
1. Borrowing: The original language word is changed directly in the target language.
2. Claque: This is an unusual type of borrowing where the source language phrase or structure is changed in literal translation; for example, the French Compliments de la saison for the English Compliments of the Season.
(Vinay and Darbelnet, 1995) accepts that together borrowings and calques often become totally included in the target language, while occasionally with some semantic change, which can turn them into false friends,(a word in TL has similar utterances or form in SL, this lead the users to believe that they have the same meaning).
3. Literal translation: This is a word-for-word translation, which (Vinay and Darbelnet, 1995) explain it as being most universal between languages of the same family and culture, their example is I left my spectacles on the table downstairs which becomes Jai Laisse me Lunettes surb la table en bas. Literal translation is the author’s remedy for excellent translating. Literalness should only be sacrificed because of structural and met-linguistic necessities and only after inspection that the meaning is entirely preserved.
(Vinay and Darbelnet, 1995) points out that the translator may judges’ literal translation to be undesirable because it:
1. It gives a dissimilar meaning.
2. Has no meaning.
3. Unattainable for structural reasons.
4. It does not have an equivalent expression within the metalingusitic experience of the target language.
5. It corresponds to something at a different level of language.
In the above cases when the literal translation is not achievable (Vinay and Darbelnet, 1995) insists on using the method of oblique, which contains more four procedures.
1. Transposition: This is the transfer of one piece of writing for another without changing the sense. Transposition can be translated;
(a) Compulsory: de son lever, in particular, past context would be translated as soon as she got up.
(b) Not obligatory: in the reverse direction as soon as she got up could be translated literally as does qu ells EST levee or as transposition des son lever.
They see transposition as doubtless the most common structural modify undertaken by the translator.
2. Modulation: This transfers the semantics and the point of view of the source language. It can be:
(a) Compulsory: the time when translated as le moment ou.
(b) Not obligatory: though it’s linked to preferred structures of the two languages, for example, il est facile de dementrer is translated as it is easy to show.
Modulation is a process that is acceptable, in the words of the English edition, when even if literal or even transposed, translation consequences in a grammatically exact sound it is measured inappropriate, unidiomatic in the target language. They place many stores by modulation as the touchstone of a good translator, where as transposition basically shows a very good command of the target language.
3. Equivalence: They use the term to refer to cases where languages describe the same situation by different stylistics or structural means. Equivalence is particularly useful in translating idioms and proverbs.
4. Adoption: This involves changing the cultural reference when the situation in the source culture does not exist in the target culture. For example (Vinay and Darbelnet, 1995) suggest that the cultural connotation of a reference in an English text to the game of cricket might be best translated into French by reference to the Tour de France.
(Bassnett, 1993) he feels that the issue of significant equivalence is being pursued by two lines of progress in translation studies. The first, quite unavoidably, lays an emphasis on the particular limitations of semantics and on the shift of semantic content from SL to TL. On the other hand she states that equivalent of literary texts with the effort of Russian Formalist and the Prague linguistics developed the discourse analysis which increases the difficulties of equivalence in its use in the translation of such texts. He also stresses that equivalence in translation, must not be taken as a tool for finding sameness, since similarity cannot even be present between two TL versions of the similar text, stay separately between the SL and the TL version.
(BolanËœ os, 2005) discusses the two conflicting approaches to translation, the linguistic text, oriented theories and the non-linguistic/context oriented theories. These approaches are two unification approaches to deal with translation. He argued for the text linguistic approach supported by the concepts of equivalence.(BolanËœ os, 2005) finally opted for the concept of equivalence within the framework of the Dynamic Translation Model (DTM) as a basis for translation. In this model, translation should be understood within the framework of a communicative process. Three main components are distinguished in this model:
1. Participants (client, sender, translator, receiver).
2. Conditions and determinants (participants’ competence and socio-psychological characterizations, context).
3. Text (linguistic realization of the communicative purposes of the sender in L1).
The last component (text) is seen at five levels: syntactic, lexical, semantic, pragmatic and semiotic. The main task of the translator in this model is the establishment of equivalence in a continuous and dynamic problem-solving process.
Equivalence, therefore, is the relation that holds between a SL text and a TL text and is activated in the translation process as a communicative event in the five text levels which are identified in the model. In conclusion, we can say that translation equivalence is a ‘troubled notion’.
While (Shuttleworth and . , 1999) idea of equivalence is not a set of criteria which translations how to live up to, but is rather a group of features, which characterizes the relationships linking the TT with its ST.
Whereas (Baker, 1992) idea of equivalence is based on different kinds of the translation method. She points out four kinds of equivalence. Equivalence can be seen in the word rank and above the word rank. When transfer the meaning from one language into another language. Baker holds that the equivalence at word rank is the first stage to be taken into consideration by the translator because its involved fundamental approach to translate equivalence. Actually, when the translator starts analyzing the ST, he looks at the word as distinct units in order to get a direct equivalent term in the TL. Furthermore, it refers to the meaning of the term word while it’s supposed to be measured as a single word can have various meanings in different languages and might be considered more indistinct unit or morpheme. Furthermore, grammatical equivalence means the variation in the grammatical categories between languages. She reveals that grammatical rules may change between languages and this may create some problems in a situation of getting a straight connection between the SL and the TL.
In fact, she points out that various grammatical rules in the source language and target language may create observable changes in the way the idea or the message is passed across. These changes may encourage the translator either to insert or neglect information in the TL because of the lack of accurate grammatical procedure, which may produce hindrances in translation. She also goes on to show that the grammar problem may take place from variations intense and aspects, voice, person, number and gender.
In addition equivalence refers to the similarity between a source language text and a target language text in terms of idea and construction. Text (a sequence of cohesive and coherent sentence realizing a set of mutually relevant intention) is extremely considerable part in translation since it gives the important procedures for the comprehensives and investigation of the ST which can assist the translator in his or her effort to construct a well thought-out and consistent text for the TL audience in the exact context.
It is the translator alternative to make a judgment, whether or not to keep up the concrete ties as well as the united of the SL text. Lastly Pragmatic equivalence refers to the hypothesis and strategies of avoidance during the translation process. The implication is not about what is unambiguously said but what implied. Therefore, the translator desires to find out indirect messages in translation to obtain the ST message across
Other likes (Wilss and . 1982) based on adequacy shows that the idea of translation equivalence has been as the fundamental matter not only in translation theory over the last 2000 years, but also in current translation studies and that there is hardly any other idea in translation theory, which has produced as many contradictory statements and has set off as many adequate attempts on a comprehensive definition as the concept of translation equivalence between source language text and target language text. In his definition, translation is a transmit method, which aims at the change of a written SL text into better equivalent TL text, and, which needs the syntax, the semantic and the pragmatic understanding and investigative processing of the SL text. The concept of equivalence has also been discussed in the context of various dichotomies such as ‘formal vs. dynamic equivalence’ (Nida), ‘semantic vs. communicative translation'(Newmark) and ‘semantic v’s functional equivalence (Roger., 1991)
(Yves Gambier, 2009) points out that equivalence is a major term in the linguistics-based on translation theories of the 1960s and 1970s, although its fundamental approach of ideas as close examination shows that a number of theories think pre-existing equivalents and are therefore concerned with looking for ordinary equivalence. Other theories permit the translation to actively construct equivalents, and are as a consequence concerned with directional equivalence. The first variety of equivalence is concerned with what languages preferably do earlier study translate, the other deals with what they can do. These two closed studies are often a tidy, increase rise to several misconceptions and unreasonable criticisms of the fundamental concept.
The history ruin of the equivalence idea came when the directional applies at the word that equivalence to require will be no more successful or probability at the moment of treatment. At the identical time, source texts became a smaller amount constant and languages have been returning to more clearly hierarchical relatives, nor undermining the concept. Mainly debates of equivalence concern representative miscomprehend for example; Friday the 13th is an unlucky day in English-language cultures, while not in other cultures. In Spanish, the unlucky day is Tuesday the 13th.
Therefore, when we translate the name of that day, we have to be familiar with closely what sort of information is necessary. If we are just referring to the calendar, then Friday will do; if we are speaking regarding terrible luck, in that case, a better translation would most likely be Tuesday 13th (actually martes y13). But comprehensive of these dissimilar is a fundamental element of translating.
Sometimes the significance is in the rank of form (two words translated by two words); sometimes it is reference Friday is always the day before Saturday; sometimes it is function bad luck on 13 corresponds to Friday in English, to Tuesday, in Spanish.
Equivalence does not say exactly which kind of value is supposed to be the same in each case; it indicates that equal value can be achieved on one level or another. Equivalence is a very simple idea. Unfortunately, it becomes quite complex in its applications.
(Gideon, 1980) points out the two major used to the concept of equivalence: first, equivalence might be ‘a descriptive expression, referring to concrete objects which means the real interaction between real utterances in two languages, known as target text and source text. This definitely marks equivalence as an experimental type which might be recognized only after the occurrence of translation.
He also compared this approach with equivalence as a theoretical expression, denoting, conceptual, perfect connection or class of relationships between target text and source text, translations and their sources. This separation can be problematic. Nevertheless, it may not be mentally believable. From the translator’s outlook, cannot be seen whether the actual difference can be made between what one want to write, and what one, in fact, writes.
While (JÄGER, 1989) reveals in his study regarding the significance of dealing scientifically with the notion of translation equivalence, more distinctively in relation to the possibility or the necessity of using this idea for practical aims of the namely automatic translation against the background of present conceptions of translation theory which try to comprehend generally the linguistic replace. He reveals unavoidable question about the universal meaningfulness of the study on the finding and description of equivalence relations. Actually, it is achievable according to (JÄGER, 1989) we employ translation equivalence for practical goals of the automatic translation against these modern conceptions of translation theory that deals with linguistic exchange or is it essential to look at it and explain the equivalence relationship in translation.
While (Roger., 1991) holds that the translator has the choice of focusing on finding formal equivalents, which care in the context of the meaningless semantics of the text at the expense of its context- sensitive communicative value, or finding functional equivalents, which preserve the context-sensitive communicative value of the text at the expense of its context-free semantic.
(Halverson, 1997) points out that the analogies between the equivalence idea and a notion of scientific facts as it is and has been learned within the thinkers of science are extremely useful in the work of art out of the thoughtful matters concerned in equivalence, translation, and awareness.
He also states that rather than dismissing the concept as unwell – clear or vague, it is on the significance of the ground of translation studies to judge the origins and manifestations of this ambiguity in order that we may be improved informed and less inclined towards theoretical dislike.
As a result, the translators, by discovering equivalence in translation can illustrate the unsure nature of their believed, call the readers, as intellectual persons, to stick together and make a decision which translation correctly makes the thoughts, ideas and Lexis of the original text.
(Pym, 1992) bases his idea of equivalence of the gainful term of value and state that equivalence is still remained to take place on one level or the other, each time a translated text is acknowledged is as if it were simply translated text, given that what is replaced, what the particular reader preferably needs and receives is ultimately account to be of the value in the particular exchange situation concerned.
(Xiabin, 2005) introduced the difficult question ”can we throw equivalence out of the window” suggested that equivalence, in spite of all the challenges raised against it, is completely necessary, but not in its full mathematical sense. The justifications that he gave for this claim include:
1. Equivalence does not mean the source text is the only significant factor. However, equivalence does make out the translation from writing.
2. Equivalence to a manuscript in another language entails more difficulties, linguistic, temporal and cultural, and therefore, more challenges than monolingual interpretation.
3. Similarity to the source texts is neither possible nor even preferred.
4. Text type is a vital issue in deciding how much a translation should be equivalent as well as other factors such as translation purposes, demands of the clients and expectations of the target readers.
5. Equivalence is never a static term, but is similar to that of value in economics.
6. Equivalence and the techniques to achieve it cannot be dismissed all together because they represent a translation reality. He stresses that equivalence it will remain central to the practice of translation even if it is marginalized by translation studies and translation theorists.
Finally (Leonardi, 2002) sees the concept of equivalence as would known is one of the most problematic and complicated issues in the study of translation theory. The term has created, and it seems quite possible that it will keep on causing, heated issues in debates in the field of translation studies. This term has been classified, studies and widely discussed from various points of view and has been reached from several various perspectives.
The first debate of the concepts of equivalence in translation was the additional explanation of the term by contemporary theorists. The complexity in defining equivalence as the consequence of the impossibility of having a widespread approach to this concept. The investigation of equivalence in translation reveals that how translators exactly transfer massage in translation from the source language into target language or vice versa.