Case Study 代写 Translation Within The Same Language

In this section, the researcher will provide a brief historical introduction of Arabic language, translation and recounts of some studies conducted on equivalence and nonequivalence at the word level especially culture specific concepts. Furthermore, provide reviews of methodology and principles covering the translation theory. This led the researcher focuses on the nonequivalence at the word level, especially culture specific concept which is the main issue of the concerned.

(Chaeless, 1971) shows that Arabic as a big worldly tongue spoken by millions of citizens over the huge area from Morocco to the Persian Gulf and documented in writing for nearly a millennium and a half, offers perplexity range of variation. The breakup of the Arabic language is not permitted by the centrality of text, the Holy Qur'an which embodies officially permitted social and linguistic rules. While (Dalby, 1998 ) reveals that Arabic and English languages belong to different groups and different language families. Arabic is pointed out as a member of the Semitic family of language, English as a member of the Indo-European family.

Arabic is dominant here as official language spoken in more than 20 countries in the Middle East. English is an official language of commonwealth countries.

Translation as part of applied linguistics, the procedure of translating, and the translator used contrast and distinguish different aspects of two languages to find the equivalents. (W.B, 1976)Shows that translation is a universal term referring to the shift of view and ideas from one source language to another target language, are in a printed or verbal form; have recognized orthographies or whether one or two languages are based on symbols, as with a sign language for the deaf.

Translation has been defined by many scholars, and some of them for example (González, 1991) defines translation as the general process of transferring a message from one language to another and also, more specifically to the written form of that process.

(J.Roman, 1959) also points out that translation being the replacement of textual material in one language of equal textual material in another language. He comes up with a very important dissimilarity between three types of written translation:

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.

(Bolan˜ 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.(Bolan˜ 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.

2.4 Different views to non-equivalence at a word level especially culture- specific concepts

One of the most challenging tasks for all translators is how to render culture- specific concepts in a foreign language. Indeed, we will see how much attention has been paid to this problem by translation theories. (Newmark, 1987) define culture as the manner of life and its appearance that relate to a community that uses exact language as its way of expression; he also said that culture is object , processes , institutions , customs, idea peculiar to one group.

While (Deretti, 1980) define culture as the whole thing that individual have produced, discovered, constructed, changed, and progressed during life. (Demo, 1987) define culture as total of knowledge, a way of life, creative and moral, main beliefs, laws, habits, as well as the capability acquired by humans as members of a community.

(Albó, 2005) defines culture as an idea connected to personality asserting that citizens have the tendency to distinguish themselves as parts of a group due to the common distinctiveness they share with its other members and also to the differences they develop in relation to others.

While (Sapir, 1986) points out that no two languages are ever completely similar to be taken as indicating the same social reality in the worlds in which various societies exist are distinctive worlds, not simply the same world with different labels attached.

The idea of equivalence has a lot of disparagements and challenges. If equivalence is taken as the heart of translation, the second issue will about cases of nonequivalence in translation.

As (Baker, 1992) points out, the complicatedness and the difficulties in translating from one language into another is posed by the idea of nonequivalence, or lack of equivalence. This crisis can be seen at all language levels initially from the word level up till the textual level. She explores a variety of nonequivalence troubles and their achievable solutions at the word, above word, grammatical, textual, and pragmatic levels.

She takes a bottom-up approach for educational reasons. She goes on with her nonequivalence debate from the word to more upward levels. She claims that translators must not miscalculate the increasing consequence of main idea options on the way we understand the text. She also acknowledges the reality that there are translation troubles created by nonequivalence. She classifies common difficulties of nonequivalence and gives suitable strategies in handling such cases.

(Baker, 1992)cultural specific concepts are those SL words may state an idea that is entirely mysterious in the target culture. They possibly will cover something to do with a spiritual belief, community custom, or even a kind of food. For instance, in Arabic, we have Jihad, as a holy word which is unidentified in the majority of the other languages. The second group is SL idea is not found in the target language which reveals that the SL word can state an idea that is identified in the target culture but basically not lexicalized.

She also gives an example of landslide has no accurate equivalence in various languages. She also points out that the SL word is semantically problematical and reveals that a particular word can occasionally state a difficult meaning than an entire sentence. The other is that the TL lacks a superordinate or a hyponym which means that the TL possibly will have an exact word (hyponym) but no general words (superordinate), and vice versa. For instance, under house, English has a diversity of hyponyms which have no equivalence in several languages such as Arabic, for example in English we have: bungalow, cottage, croft, chalet, hut, and manor, lodge and so on. Diversity in meaningful is an extra difficulty of nonequivalence at the word level shown by (Baker, 1992) which show that there may present a TL word which has the similar propositional meaning as the SL word, but possibly will have a dissimilar meaningful meaning.

Terms like homosexuality offer fine examples homosexuality is not a naturally uncomplimentary word in English, although it is normally used in this way. On the other hand, the equivalence expression in numerous other languages is naturally more badly and would be reasonably not easy to employ in a neutral context without suggesting strong dissatisfaction.

(Nida, 1945) holds out that almost all would identify that language is most excellent classified as a branch of culture when dealing with several kinds of semantic problems, mainly those in which the culture under consideration is quite different from his or her own, for instance, the English expressions the houses of Commons are culture-bound. Similarly, the expression brother-in-law loses its meaning when translated literally into Arabic akh fi al-qaanun - a brother in the law.

While English applies this expression to the brother of your husband, the brother of your wife, the husband of your sister, the husband of your husband's sister, and the husband of your wife's sister, so Arabic expresses itself differently.

Most significantly, in Qur'an translation, schools of exegesis have considered as the major part in the translation. Therefore, intra-language translation plays a major function within the target text. Translating the Qur'an text is the difficult job due to the fact that the translation process is fraught with pragmalinguistic and cross-cultural limitations. The Qur'an translator, for example, must be aware of the cultural Muslim tradition that draws a difference between exegesis tafsiir and para-transfer opinion tail.

(Nida, 1964) states that a person who is engaged in translating from one language into another must to be always conscious of the dissimilarity in the entire variety of culture shown by the two languages pragmatic and contextual divides among the source language and the target language.

He also shows that the semantic associations between the words of various languages have no one-to-one sets of correspondences or even one-to-many sets. The associations are always many-to-many, with more of scope for ambiguities, unclear, and unseen boundaries. Furthermore he identifies two kinds of equivalence, formal and dynamic, where formal equivalence keeps its concentration on the message itself, in both type and content. In this kind of translation one is concerned with such correspondences as poetry to poetry, sentence to sentence, and concept to concept. He calls this kind of translation a gloss translation; which aims to let the reader to comprehend more of the SL context as possible.

(larson, 1984) stress that there is rarely completely equivalent between languages. Because of this, it is often essential to translate one word of the source language by a number of words in the target language in order to give the similar meaning. The fact that the target language is spoken by people of a culture which is often very dissimilar from the culture of those who speak the source language will mechanically make it hard to find lexical equivalents. The lexical difference will make it necessary for the translator to make various adjustments in the process of translation. This shows that, in translating, we often encounter source language lexical items that do not correspond semantically and grammatically to target language expressions.

(Schnorr, 1986) identifies the place where a lack of cultural specific of nonequivalence can be found:

1. Festivals and celebrations: Such as standing day in pilgrimage in the Islamic World, which is an extension for the example derived by Schnorr (the idea of "Guy Fawkes Day "in the United Kingdom) in the Islamic world?

2. Dressing and national traditions: Such as "Sari "in India and "shal" "a type of head garments in the Arab World". Tools and objects: Like "Mugwar" "a tool for fighting in Iraqi Arabic".

3. Historical facts: Such as the restoration in England and Al-twabeen in the Islamic history.

4. Spiritual terms such as "minister, priest" in Christianity and "Ayatollah "in Islam.

5. Educational and specialist knowledge.

A number of scholars have accepted the importance of the problem that appears at a culturally specific terminology of translation for example, (Pistor-Hatam, 1996) argument of translations from Persian to Ottoman Turkish beginning of the fourteenth century, remarks that Arabic tarjama2 meant to interpret, to care for way of explanation, rather than to transfer from one language to another as take place in its recent practice.

(Hagen, 2003) scripts of a related period and position _ Persian-Ottoman translations in the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries _ claims that the difficulty of translation into Anatolian Turkish starts with terminology, since translating the Arabic-Turkish term tercume as translation does not fully render the idea. In local usage tercume covered a much wider capacity, by transferring a text or parts of it into another language.

(Jedamski, 2005) puts a variety of terms that appear to have been used almost synonymously for translation in Malay, for example, terkarang (written, composed), terkutip (quoted, copied) and dituturkan (arranged), indicating that no single term was sufficient to describe the multiple and creative activities.

(Levy, 1984) states that any reduce or remove of complex expressions in translating were morally wrong. The translator, he supposed, had the responsibility of discovering an answer to the most discouraging of the problem, and he stated that the practical view must be selected taking into account all the aspects like appearance, style and sense. If the principle of sameness cannot exist between two languages is accepted, it becomes likely to come close to the issue of loss and get into the translation method.

(Nida, 1964) found rich materials about the reasons of failure in translation, in particular regarding the complication with a translator when he or she found a term or ideas in the SL that cannot be found in the TL. He cites the case of Guaica, a language of southern Venezuela, where there is small trouble in finding suitable terms for the English murder, stealing, lying, etc., but where the terms of good, bad, ugly and beautiful cover a very different area of meaning. When such difficulties are faced by the translator, the whole issue of the translatability of the text is raised. (Catford, 1965a) identifies two types of untranslatability, which he calls the linguistic and cultural. On the linguistic rank, untranslatability take place when there is no lexical or syntactical alternate in the TL for an SL it Catford's class of linguistic untranslatability, which is also introduced by (Popovic, 1971).

In linguistic untranslatability, he insists, because of variations in the SL and the TL, whereby cultural untranslatability is of the absence in the TL culture of a significant situational feature of the SL text. For instance, he combines the different concepts of the term bathroom in an English, Finnish or Japanese context, where both the object and the use made of that object are not at all alike.

But (Catford, 1965b) also claims that more concrete lexical items such as the English term home or democracy cannot be said as untranslatable, and holds that the English phrases like I'm going home, or He's at home can 'readily be provided with translation equivalents in most languages' while the term democracy is international.

The English phrases can be translated into the major European languages and democracy is an internationally used term. But he ignores to take into consideration two significant factors, and this seems to symbolize and add a slight approach to the issue of untranslatability. If I'm going home is transferred to as Je vais chez moi, the sense meaning of the SL sentence (positive self speech aims to carry on in place of residence and/or origin) is only insecurely produced. And if, for example, the phrase is spoken by an American stay for some time in London, it could either mean a return to the immediate 'home' or and Beyond.

(Kashgary, 2010) religious vocabulary are culture-specific they have taken as a symbol group of translation nonequivalence since they cannot be correctly translated by giving their dictionary equivalents. The lexicon equivalents of these terms may be measured within the framework of Nida's estimate in translation where equivalents are specified only to estimate the meaning in universal terms and not the details since the content of these terms is extremely dissimilar from the content of their equivalents.

(Korzeniowska and Warszawa:, 1994) the entire culture-specific concepts which take place in the source language but are completely unknown in the target language are the most notorious for the making the problems with finding equivalents. There possibly will be also circumstances where the source culture and source language build different distinctions in meaning from the target culture and target language. The target language may also lack a more specific concept or term (hyponym) or a more general one (superordinate). Also a literal, word for word, translation would be completely difficult: the speakers of English would neither understand the nature of this establishment in reference to source language culture, nor associate it with any institution of a similar type present in their system. Translators are always under pressure to reproduce the exact meaning of the original in the translated text.

(Davies., 2003) defines culture as the set of principles, way of thinking and behaviors shared by a group and accepted by learning. These culture specific items are different among cultures as a variety of countries have a dissimilar history and experience of life. When the source text expression is found as being strange to the target audience, the strategies for dealing with nonequivalence should be applied in translating. Different types of nonequivalence should be treated using different translation strategies .While he works in the field of translation with more consideration on the translation trouble of culture specific items such as different traditions, dress, or references to a variety of types of food. He identifies a number of measures that are used in translation of culture specific items:

1. Preservation takes place when translators decide to preserve the source text term in the translation when the strategy of preservation is used; the source language concepts are transferred to the target language.

2. Addiction occurs when the translator decides to remain in the original item but add the text with whatever materials is judged necessary. When this plan takes place in translation, the source language term or expression is transferred to the text but extra information is provided.

3. Omission this plan takes place when a difficult cultural specific item is removed away and there are no any replacements for it in the target text. When a translator faces complications to translate culture specific items, the items may be simply omitted in translation.

4. Globalization this is the method of changing culture specific references with ones which are more impartial or common, in the sense that they are available to audiences from a wider range of cultural backgrounds. In addition he states that the apply of this strategy may create loss of effect in translation. The strategy of globalization means that the culture-specific items of the source language are changed from the ones that have a smaller amount of cultural associations.

5. Localization this occurs when translators attempt to fix a reference tightly in the culture of the target audience. In other words, this translation plan is used when culture specific references are changed by ones that are more common to the target audience and this strategy is dissimilar to globalization because it helps to keep away from the loss of effect and at the same time it does not affect harmfully the meaning of the translated items. For example, the source culture dish that sounds out of the ordinary and unusual to the target audience is changed from the one that is common and well-known in the target-culture.

6. Transformation this translation plan may create some change in meaning. The target text may be a little unlike the source language text. The scholar gives the example of transformation about the sweets when the source languages for example, English sweets are described as vomit-fl avoured while in the target language French it is mentioned that sweets taste rubbish.

7. Creation this refers to the cases when translators build culture specific references that are not established in the original text. In other words, the target text may include references that are not present in the original text.

(Tymoczko, 1999) points out proper names belong to the group of culture-specific terms are intensively with a lot of information and often have etymological meaning. Names may offer information about an individual. For example, in several cultures, a proper name may propose what the status of a person holds in society a lower or a higher and gender. Translation of proper names is difficult since different patterns of naming takes place in different cultures. In addition, language construction has an influence on the method of naming. For example, Lithuanian is an inflectional language and certain inflections are used to create feminine and masculine proper names. Confirm For instance, inflections -a and -Ä- are generally used with feminine names. Names Vida and BirutÄ- can be taken as examples. There are endings that are used to form masculine names: -as Tomas, -is Algis, and -ius as Darius.

He notes that the names should be transferred untouched in textual rewritings. In other words, proper names should be remained in the target language without any changes. However, these preserved names may sound strange to the target audience. This may happen because different sound patterns dominate in different languages. He also remarked that the essential feature of languages is that they have different sound repertories. Therefore, the source language names may be changed from the ones that are more common to the target readers.

Another reason why source language names should be replaced by the ones that sound more ordinary for the target audience is the fact that some cultures are particularly aggressive to strange sounding names. Finally he states that in some cultures there is a particular struggle to foreign names, proper names are changed in translations in order to keep away from foreignness in the target culture.