Herman Brain Dominance

All New Theories And all New Concepts Of Translation In the New Century

The translation is finally a human activity that returns able the human beings to exchange ideas and thoughts without taking account of the used different languages. Al Wassety (2001) looks at the translation phenomenon as a legitimate offspring of the phenomenon of language, since at first, when the humans spread out over themselves the earth, their languages differed and they needed a means by that the people speaking a certain language (the language) reacts mutually with of others that spoke a different language.

The translation is, in Enani (1997) the view, a modern science to the philosophy interface, linguistics, psychology, and sociology. The literary translation is in particular pertinent to all these sciences, to the broadcasting arts, just like cultural studTranslation and intellectual is, in the words of Chabban (1984:5), "a difficult work," as it was not reduced to the strict scientific rules, and it is anxious the difference account are known that to exist between the different personalities. The translation is a heavily subjective art, especially when it treats questions outside the kingdom of science where the concepts precisely define often more are expressed by the certain generally admitted terms.

In the last analysis, the translation is a science, an art, and a competence. The this is a science in the direction that it necessitates the knowledge completes structure and the make-up of the two languages interested. The this is an art since it demands the artistic talent to rebuild the original text in the form of an a product that is presentable to the reader that is not supposed to know the original one. The this is also a competence because it means the capacity to smooth any difficulty in the translation, and the capacity to furnish the something translation that has not any equal in the target language.

In the translation, vocabulary wealth, the culture depth, and the vision of the translator could have certainly effects very of the apparent ones on his work. Another translator could produce a version raisonablement acceptable of the same text, that very well can reflect nevertheless a completely different bottom, a culture, a sensitiveness, and a temperament. Such differences do not be able, in the view of Chabban (1984), diminish the deserve or the translator. This is simply because the translation is clearly a more difficult work than a creation.

The question of the possibility of translation widely is considered as crucial to any comprehension of which language is. If the translation is not possible, then the which one is that the language does? The translation is possible in the direction that we the humans did it (or claim to have done it) for a lot of thousands of years, but we did if without any assurance that the sharp message was in fact the message that was received. If I ask you to open the window and you then just facts that, it cannot be too presumptuous to think that the message was translated with success, but in the case of a big one a lot of possible linguistic examples -- probably the vast majority -- that the kind of non ambiguous confirmation is not possible.

Even in the present case, your "accordance" with my request can be the result of pure coincidence, of my misunderstanding of what you did, or of some factor completely outside of the question.

The translation between the languages is not all translation, but the this is a limit case especially illuminating of an a lot of wider phenomena. The need to translate the spoken word (in or between the languages) presents serious practical difficulties for a big one a lot of persons on an everyday basis. Nevertheless, it is written texts that presents the most deeply the theoretical problem of translation; a translation "literal" would be inconceivable in a completely oral culture. In fact, the notion of "fidelity" to an "original" must be completely different in an oral culture that the this is in a culture characters dominated.

The texts besides, written students the question of the "translation" between the speech and the writing. The creation of alphabets and the grade of oral traditions authorizes or allows at least the separation of the linguistic means of his significant content -- after all, a "translation" already arrived, in to note it spoken word. The content or the means can change, in an independent way other. This is why Socrates attacked the writing, in the Phaedrus: The writing is powerful and dangerous -- the it is magic -- and the possibility that the translation will transform the words beyond the recognition threaten the research for the truth.

Only two centuries after Socrates distinguished between life, the word determining that results from the spirit dialectic, and the written toxic word that kills the memory, the Jewish pencil pushers translated the Ecritures hedbraa¯ques in Greek. This was at once when that Walter Ngo calls the culture of chirographic grew quickly in importance, a time in that the alphabetical writing became more and more of influential one on the

The Mediterranean world, although oral culture always dominated. The it was to this cultural transformation, and the associated threat of the loss of direction, that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- the religions on which ones the written word had fantastic influence -- replied in their different views of the translatability of writing.

The translation question has theological deep dimensions. The writing question" -- his nature, his direction, and his authority -- is inseparable of that of translation.

Even in our modern world, the readers tend to consider the original work -- if "the holy writing" or the secular literature -- as the superior one to also as and more authorized than any of its translated versions. In the Islam that this tendency attains an extremity. The Moslems believe that Allah dictated his revelation by Mohammed in Arab, and the true only or correct Quran is the Quran in Arab. The Arab is the a divine language. The material body of the text and his direction is held to be inseparable, and the translation problem is eliminated, because the possibility of valid translation is denied. Or rather, the problem is disguised and is absorbed in the biggest problem of hermeneutical -- the more general question of the direction of the text.

By opposition, the Jewish and Christian traditions allow a very first date -- with the Septuagint (California. 200 CEBS) and the New Testament (first THIS of century) ae" the translation of the language and concepts of the Ecritures hedbraa¯ques. Hebrew is thought about as the holy language in at least some Jewish communities, and Jews remain ambivalent towards the statute of the Torah in the translation. In a legend about the writing of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Ecritures hedbraa¯ques, God favors this translation act by miraculous unanimity of the seventy works of the translators.

Nevertheless, in another counts, another disapproval of God of the translation is shown by abnormal obscurity on the earth.

In the oldest layer of the Ecritures hedbraa¯ques, the history of the Tower of Babel

(Gen.11:1-9) been born implicitly that the human language is the language of God and asserts explicitly that "the language of the whole earth" was "confused" by God. Is the language multiplicity a punishment (or the gift)? of God: the translation is necessary and impossible. The this is the objective of the Kabbalah, the reading rabbinique mystical of the writings, find reflected in our post babelian the human languages, and especially the languages of the Torah, the echos of the true language of God.

Because alphabet hedbraa¯que (in the form of pred-Masoretic) has not any vowel, the writings cannot be spoken without an interpretation addition from the reader. The gulf between the manuscript and the oral one is moved away bigger than for an English or a Greek text. All alone the text hedbraa¯que is stupidity and dependent on the vocalization for the meaning, and nevertheless as the this of canon always is before the speech, to the authorized interpretation. Here the distinction between equipment, the text writes and his direction are completely evident. The significant language results from itself the difference without meaning.

The criteria for a good translation

A good translation is a that carries all the ideas of the original one just like its structural and cultural characteristics. Massoud (1988) criterion rule for a good translation as follows:

1. A good translation easily is understood.
2. A good translation is easy and smooth.
3. A good translation is idiomatic.
4. A good translation transmits, until a certain one not at all, literary subtleties of the original one.
5. A good translation distinguishes between the metaphorical one and the literal one.
6. A good translation rebuilds the cultural/historic context of the original one.
7. A good translation does which explicit is implicit in the abbreviations, and in the allusions to the words, to the songs, and to the nursery rhymes.
8. A good translation will transmit, the most possible, the direction of the original text (pages. 19-24).

Shafey of el (1985: 93) suggests other criteria for a good translation; these include three principal principles:

1. The knowledge of the grammar of the language of source more the knowledge of vocabulary, just like the good comprehension of the text to be translated.
2. The capacity of the translator to restore the given text (the text of source language) in the target language.
3. The translation should capture the style or the atmosphere of the original text; it should have all the comfort of an original composition.

Of a different perspective, El Touny (2001) set up itself on to differentiate between the different types of translation. It indicated that there are eight types of translation: the word-for-the word translation, the literal translation, the faithful translation, the semantic translation, the adaptive translation, liberate the translation, the idiomatic translation, and the talkative translation. It recommended the last type as the the one that transmits the context direction, respecting the form and the structure of the original one and that is easily understandable by the readers of the language of target.

Zeini of el (1994) did not seem satisfies with such criteria to evaluate the translation quality. Therefore she suggested a pragmatic model and stylistique to evaluate quality in the translation. She explains that the model "places the equal accent on the pragmatic component also on the component stylistique in the translation. This model covers a criterion series, that are divided in two principal categories: the contained secured criteria and the criteria forms secured" and foresaw that some have to follow these criteria, "the translators will be able to minimize the chance to produce errors or losses, just like to eliminate problems of unacceptability".

Translation problems

The translation problems can be divided in the linguistic problems and in the cultural problems: the linguistic problems include grammatical differences, the lexical ambiguity and the direction ambiguity; the cultural problems refer themselves to the characteristic different situationnelles. This classification coincides with that of El Zeini when she identified six principal problems in the translation of Arab to the English and inversely; these are the vocabulary, morphology, the syntax, the literal differences, the differences rhetoric, and the pragmatic factors.

Another level of difficulty in the translation work is what As sayyd (1995) found when she directed a study to compare and evaluate some problems in the translation of the just names of Allah in the That ran. She pointed out that certain of the major problems of translation are the on translation, it in under translation, and untranslatability.

The culture constitutes another major problem that does facing translators. A bad model of pieces translate literature can give false ideas of the original one. That is why Fionty (2001) thought that translated poorly texts distorts the original one in his tone and its cultural references, while Zidan (1994) wondered of the possible role of the content of culture of target as a variable motivating in to improve or brake the linguistics realization, talkative and, in an important way, cultural objectives of EFL (the English as a Foreign Language). Hassan (1997) underlined this notion when it pointed out the importance to do the attention to the irony translation in the context of language of source. It clarified that this will transfer not only the characteristics of the translated language but also its cultural characteristics.

The work of the translator

These problems, and of others, direct our attention to the work and the character of translators, how they attack a text if as to translate, and the processes that they follow to arrive to the final product of a text well translates in the target language.

Enani (1994:5) defines the translator as "a writer that formulates ideas in the words address to the readers. The only difference between him and the original writer is that these ideas are the last one". Another difference is that the work of the translator is even more difficult that that of the artist. The artist is supposed to produce directly its ideas and its emotions in his own nevertheless complicated language and complicated its thoughts are. The responsibility of the translator is a lot bigger one, for s/il/it must relives the experiences of a different person. Chabban (1984) believes that, nevertheless precisely the translator can search in the internal depths of the spirit of the writer, some difficulties more frightful, more linguistic and more other can always prevent the two texts of is completely equivalent. Therefore we perceive not only the differences between a certain text and his translation, but also between the different translations of the same text

On the procedure level, El Shafey (1985:95) the states: "A translator analyzes first the message, the breaking down in its elements more simple and structurelment more clear, the transfers it to this level in the target language in the form that is more appropriates itself for the desired audience. A translator instinctively concludes that the it is better to transfer the "the kernel level" in a language to the correspondent "the kernel level" in the "the receiver language".

Translation competences for the translators of novice

The present study suggests four principal macro-compedtences for any translator that begins his work in the translation field. These are: reading the comprehension, prepare, analytical competences and component. These macro-compedtences include a lot under- or the microphones competences that need to be mastered.

Reading comprehension

Not not while we translate, we do think about our activity as broke down in the phases. After doing our first translations, a lot of automatic mechanisms enter in game that allows us to translate more quickly; at the same time, we are less and less conscious of our activity.

1. The first phase of the process of translation consists in the text reading. The reading act, first, the falls under psychology competence, because it concerns our shrewd system. The reading, as the translation, is, mostly, an unconscious process. If the it was conscious, we would have forced to consume a lot more time in the act. Most of the mental processes implied in the reading act are automatic and unconscious. Had to common such a nature and little known in the same this of time in our opinion is important to analyze the reading process also precisely as possible. The works of some psychologists of perception will be serviables to widen our knowledge of this first phase of the process of translation.

When a person reads, his brain treats a lot of tasks in such quick sequences that all semblance to arrive simultaneously. The eye examines (left to the right as removed as a lot of languages of the west are concerned, or right to leave or summit to be founded in some other languages) a collection of graphic signs (graphemes) in the succession, that gives the life to the syllables, the words, the sentences, the paragraphs, the sections, the chapters, and the texts.

Simply the reading of a text is, in himself, a translation act. When we read, we do not store the words read ourselves our spirits as arrives with the data entered using a keyboard or a sweeping device in a computer. After reading, we have not the photographic or auditory recording in our text spirits read. We have an impression series rather. We recall some words or the sentences precisely, while the whole text remaining is translated verbal language in a language belongs to another system of sign, that always is especially unknown: the mental language.

The mental treatment of read it verbal equipment is of a nature syntaxique when we try to rebuild the possible structure of the sentence, c. -a -d. the relations among its elements. By opposition, the this is of a semantic nature when we identify the pertinent sectors in the semantic field of word or only the sentence; and the this is of a pragmatic nature when we treat the logical game of the possible direction with the general context and the verbal co-texte.

The difference between a reader and a critic is negligible: to try it reader to understand has the same attitude as the critic, that is a systematic, methodical reader and oneself conscious. While to read, the individual reads, and perceives that it reads, drawing interpretations and inferences of the possible intention of the author of the message.

Holmes (1988) suggested that the translation process be in fact a process of multi-niveau; while we translate sentences, we have a card of the original text in our spirits, and at the same time a card of the type of text that we want to produce in the target language. Even as translate us mass, we have this structural concept for that every sentence in our translation are determined not only by the original sentence, but also by the two cartesae”du text original and text traduitae”que let us carry us side issue as let us translate us.

The translation process has, therefore, is considered a complex system in that the comprehension, the treatment, and the projection of the translated text is interplanetary portions of a structure. We can put therefore, as does forward Hnig (1991), the existence of a kind of central unity overseeing the mental different process coordination (these connected to the reading, the interpretation, and writing) and projecting at the same time a card of the text to be.

The translators of novice just like the student translators are counseled mastery the to follow the competences of comprehension of basic reading.

• Read for the essential one and the principal ideas.
• Read for the details.
• Identify the direction again words and the new expressions using one or more of components of the suggestion of structural analysis; the prefixes, suffix them, the roots, the word order, the punctuation, the sentence model, etc.
• Identify the direction again words and the new expressions using an ore more of the analysis according to the context; the synonyms, antonyms, the examples, etc.
• Identify the style of the writer: literary, scientific, technical, instructive, persuasive, fussy, etc.
• Identify the level of used language in the text: the norm, slang, religious, etc.
• Identify cultural references in the word choice in the text.
  

Cultural translation

Cultivate and competence and the conscience interculturelles this increase of the experience of culture, are of the moved away more complex phenomena than it can seem of the translator. The more a translator is conscious complexities of differences between the cultures, the better a s/il/it of translator will be. The this is probably just to say that it never had a time when the community of translators was unaware of cultural differences and their meaning for the translation. The translation theoreticians were conscious of the custodian of problems on the cultural knowledge and of cultural differences at least since the antique Rome. The cultural knowledge and cultural differences were a major home of training of translator and of theory of translation for provided that or was in the existence. The principal worry traditionally was with the words and the sentences that are so heavily and exclusively been founded in a culture that they are almost impossible to translate in the terms ae" verbal or otherwise ae" of another. The long debate was on held when to paraphrase, when to use the equivalent local one more close, when to invent a new word while translating literally, and when to transcribe. All these words "intraduisibles" of cultural limit and the sentences continued to fascinate theoreticians of translators and translation.

The first developed theory in this field was introduced by Mounin in 1963 that underlined the importance of the meaning of a lexical item claiming that only if this notion is considered will do the translated item fills his function correctly. The problem with this theory is that all the cultural elements do not imply just the items, that a translator should do in the case of cultural implications that are implied in the knowledge of bottom of readers of SL?

The culture notion is essential to consider the implications for the translation and, despite the differences in the opinion if language is part of the culture or not, the two notions of culture and of language seem to be inseparable. In 1964, Nida discussed the correspondence problems in the translation, conferred importance equals to the linguistic and cultural differences between the SL and the TL and concluded that the differences between the cultures can cause complications more of the harsh ones for the translator than does the differences in the language structure. It more is explained than the analogies in the culture furnish often a common comprehension despite the significant definite changes in the translation. According to him the cultural implications for the translation are thus significant importance just like of lexical worries.

The definitions of Nida of definite and dynamic equivalence in 1964 consider cultural implications for the translation. According to him, a "the luster translation" symbolizes especially the definite equivalence where the form and the content are reproduced also faithfully as possible and the reader of TL can "to understand as much as it the customs can, the thought manner, and the means of expression" context of SL. Contrast with this idea, this dynamic equivalence "tries to relate the receiver to the methods of pertinent behavior in the context of his own culture" without insisting that it "understands the cultural models of the context of source language". According to him the problems can vary in the range depends on the cultural and linguistic gap between the two (or more) the languages concerned.

It can be said that the first concept in the studies of cultural translation was cultural bend Who in 1978 was left to presage by the work on the norms of Polysystems and translation by egal-zohar and in 1980 by Toury. They dismiss the linguistic types of theories of translation and refer themselves to them having moved themselves also word to send textos as a unity but not beyond. They go themselves beyond the language and beyond the home on the interaction between the translation and beyond the culture, on the culture in a manner influences of the and the translation of constraints and on the biggest problems of context, the history and the convention. Therefore, the translation movement as a text to the translation as the culture and the political one are that they call it a Cultural Bend in the studies of translation and became the ground for a metaphor adopted by Bassnett and Lefevere in 1990. The Bend in Cultural fact is the metaphor adopted by the Cultural Etudes oriented the translation theories to refer itself to the translation analysis in his context more cultural, more political and more ideological.

Since 1990, the bend spread itself to incorporate an entire range of approach the cultural studies and is a true informer of the nature interdisciplinaire of studies of contemporary translation. As the result of this Cultural Bend if called, the cultural studies took a more and more fad in the translation. A consequence of this met of the learned ones of the different disciplines. The this is here important to mention that these cultural theoreticians kept their own ideology and their clean programs that drive their clean critic. These cultural approaches widened the horizons of studies of translation with the new insights but to the same there was a strong element of conflict among them. The it is good to mention that the existence of such perspective differences is inevitable.

In the mid-year Vermeer 80 introduced skopos theory Which is a Greek word for the "objective" or the "goal". It entered into the translation theory in as a technical term with the intention of the translation and of action of translation. Skopos theory The homes by over all on the translation goal, that determines the method of translation and the strategies that are to be employed to produce a functionally sufficient result. The result is TT, that Vermeer calls translatum. , Knowing therefore why SL is to be translated and which function of TT will be is crucial for the translator.

In 1984, Reiss and Vermeer in their book with the title of 'the Preparation for a General Theory of Translation' has concentrated on the "rules" basic basic of this theory that implies: 1- ONE translatum (Or TT) is determined by his skopos, 2- A TT is an information offer in a culture of target and TL In Seen an information offer in a culture of source and SL. This relates the ST and TT to their function in their context more respective, more linguistic and more cultural. The translator is again the privileged actor the communication and the production in the process of interculturelles of the translatum Because of the translation goal.

In 1992, Coulthard underlined the importance to define the ideal reader for that the author attributes the knowledge of certain facts, the memory of certain experiences... the certain opinions more, the preferences and the prejudices and a certain level of linguistic competence. In Seen such aspects, the range to which the author could be influenced by such notions that depend on his clean direction to belong to a social specific cultural group should not be forgotten.

Coulthard declared that once posts it load of course of ideal ST was determined, the considerations must be done about the TT. It said that the difficulty of the first and major translator is the construction of a new ideal reader that, even if it has the same university one, the professional and the level intellectual as the original reader, will have literal hopes significantly of the different and the cultural knowledge.

In the extract case translates here, the it is questionable if the reader of ideal TT has "literal significantly different hopes," nevertheless his cultural knowledge certainly will vary almost strongly.

Applied to the criteria that is used to determine the reader of ideal ST it could be noted that few conditions are met with success by the reader of potential ideal TT. In fact, the historic and cultural facts are not very probable to be known in detail with the cultural specific described positions. Of more, despite to consider the level of linguistic competence to be almost equal for the reader of ST and TT, the certain differences probably could be noted in response to the usage of culturally specific glossary that must be considered while translating. Although the certain opinions, the preferences and the prejudices instinctively could be transposed by the reader of TT that can compare to them his own experience, it must be recalled that these does not equal the experience of social position of the reader of ST. Therefore, Coulthard principally declared that the aspects more basic, more social and more cultural remain problematic in Seen the cultural implications for the translation.

The equivalence in the Translation

1.1 Vinay and Darbelnet and their equivalence definition in the translation

Vinay and the translation of edquivalence-oriented of view of Darbelnet as a procedure that 'copies the same position as in the original one, while using completely different wording'. They suggest also that, if this procedure is applied during the translation process, it can maintain impact stylistique of the text of SL in the text of TL. According to them, the equivalence is therefore the ideal method when the translator must treats proverbs, the idioms, the clicheds, the nominal or adjectival sentences and the onomatopoeia of animal sounds.

In the matter of the equivalent expressions between the pairs of language, Vinay and Darbelnet claim that they are acceptable provided that they are enumerated in a bilingual dictionary as 'the equivalent full ones'. Nevertheless, later they note than the glossaries and the collections of idiomatic expressions 'never can be deepened'. They conclude by says that 'the need to create equivalencies results from the position, and the this is in the position of the text of SL that the translators must look for a solution'. In fact, they dispute themselves that even if the semantic equivalent one of an expression in the text of SL is quoted in a dictionary or a glossary, the this is not enough, and it does not guarantee a successful translation. They furnish a number of examples to prove their theory, and the following expression appears in their lists: The one to take is an expression sets up that would have as an equivalent French translation Take in one. Nevertheless, if the expression appeared as a notification next to a basket of free samples in a big store, the translator would must looks for an equivalent term in a similar position and uses the expression Free Echantillon .
1.2 Jakobson and the equivalence concept in the difference

The Roman study of Jakobson of equivalence gave the new momentum to the theoretical analysis of translation since it introduced the notion of 'the equivalence in the difference'. While basing itself on his semiotic approach to the language and his aphorism 'there is not signatum without signum' (1959:232), it suggests three types of translation:

• Intralingual (in a language, c. -a -d. reformulant or paraphrases it)
  
• Interlingual (between two languages)
  
• Intersemiotic (between the sign systems)

Jakobson claims that, in the case of translation of interlingual, the translator uses synonyms to obtain the message of ST through. This means that in the translations of interlingual there is not full equivalence between code unities. According to his theory, 'the translation implies two equivalent messages in two different codes' (ibid.:233). Jakobson continues to say that of a languages of no grammatical view can differ the one the other to a bigger one or of least degree, but this does not mean that a translation cannot be possible, in of other terms, that the translator can do facing the problem of not finding an equivalent one of translation. It recognizes that 'when there is the lack, terminology could be qualified and could be amplified by the loans or the loans translations, the neologisms or the semantic changes, and at last, by circumlocutions'. Jakobson furnishes a number of examples while comparing the English and the structures of Russian language and explains that in such case where there is no a literal equivalent one for a word of special ST or the sentence, then it this is to the translator to choose the manner more suitable to return it in the TT.

It seems there to have some similarity between the theory of Vinay and Darbelnet of procedures of translation and the theory of Jakobson of translation. The two theories stress the fact that, when a linguistic approach no longer is suitable to execute a translation, the translator can count on the other procedures as the loans translations, the neologisms and the something else as that. The two theories recognize the limitations of a linguistic theory and dispute themselves that a translation never can be impossible since there are several methods that the translator can choose. The role of the translator as the person that decides how to execute the translation is underlined in the two theories. Vinay and Darbelnet just like Jakobson conceive the try translation as something that always can be executed from one language to another, without taking account of the without taking account of the cultural or grammatical differences between ST and without taking TT into account.

It can be concluded that the theory of Jakobson essentially is based on his semiotic approach to the translation according to which the translator has reprogramme the message of first ST and then s/il/it has transmits it in an equivalent message for the TC.


1.3 Nida and Taber: The definite correspondence and dynamic equivalence

Nida disputed itself that there are two different types of equivalence, to know definite equivalenceae”that in the second edition by Nida and Taber (1982) is referred to as definite correspondenceae”and Dynamic Equivalence. The definite correspondence 'converges the attention on the message himself, in the form and the content', in contrast to the dynamic equivalence that is based on 'the principle of equivalent effect' (1964:159). In the second edition (1982) or their work, the two theoreticians furnish a more detailed explanation of every type of equivalence.

The definite correspondence consists in an item of TL that represents the equivalent one more close of a word of SL or the sentence. Nida and Taber specify that there is equivalent not always of the definite ones between the pairs of language. They suggest therefore that these definite equivalent ones used as much as possible if the translation aims at attaining the definite equivalence instead of dynamics. The usage of definite equivalent ones can time in time has serious implications in the TT since the translation easily will not be understood by the target audience (Fawcett, 1997). Nida and Taber assert themselves that 'Typically, the definite correspondence distorts the grammatical models and stylistiques of the language of receiver, and distorts therefore the message, if as to cause the receiver poorly to understand or work unduly hard'.

The dynamic equivalence is defined as a translation principle according to which a translator tries to translate the direction of the original one in such a manner that the wording of TL will release the same impact on the audience of TC as original wording did on the audience of ST. They dispute themselves that 'Frequently, the form of the original text is changed; but provided that the change follows the rules of return transformation in the source language, of consistency according to the context in the transfer, and of transformation in the receiver language, the message is preserved and the translation is faithful' (Nida and Taber, 1982:200).

The one easily can see that Nida is in the service of the application of dynamic equivalence, as a procedure of more effective translation. This is perfectly understandable if we take into account the position context in which Nida treated the translation phenomenon, that is to say, his translation of the Bible. Thus, the product of the process of translation, that is the text in the TL, must have the same impact on the different readers that it addressed. Despite the usage of a linguistic approach to the translation, Nida a more lot is interested in the text message, or in of other terms in his semantic quality.

1.4 Catford and the introduction of changes of translation

The approach Catford to the translation equivalence clearly differs of this adopted one by Nida since Catford had a preference for a based more linguistic approach to the translation and this approach is based on the linguistic work of Estuary and of Halliday. His principal contribution in the field of theory of translation is the introduction of the concepts of types and the translation changes. Catford proposed types very of the wide ones of translation in the terms of three criteria:

1. The translation range (full translation against partial translation);
   
2. The grammatical row to which the translation equivalence is established (translation of row limit Vs. translation without limit);
   
3. The language levels implied in the translation (total translation Vs. limited translation).

We will refer ourselves only to the second type of translation, since this is the one that concerns the equivalence concept, and we will move ourselves then on to analyze the notion of changes of translation, as elaborated by Catford, that are based on the distinction between the definite correspondence and the literal equivalence. In translation of row limit An equivalent one is looked for in the TL for every word, or for every morpha¨me met in the ST. One of the problems with the definite correspondence are that, despite being a useful tool to employ in comparative linguistics, it seems that the this is not really pertinent in the terms to evaluate the translation equivalence between ST and TT. For this reason that we turn now to the other dimension of Catford of correspondence, to know literal equivalence Which arrives when any text of TL or the text portion 'is observed on a special occasion... to be the equivalent one of a text of given SL or the text portion'. It executes this by a commutation process, that foresees that 'an informant or a bilingual competent translators' is consulted on the translation of various sentences of which the items of ST are changed to observe 'which changes so any arrives in the text of TL as a consequence'.

Also removed changes as of translation is concerned, Catford defines them as 'the departures of the definite correspondence in the process to go SL to the TL' (ibid.:73). Catford disputes itself that there are two principal types of changes of translation, to know the equal changes, where the item of SL to a linguistic level (for example the grammar) has an equivalent one of TL to a different level (for example the glossary), and the category changes which is divided in four types:

1. Structure changes, which implies a grammatical change between the structure of the ST and that of the TT;
   
2. Classify changes, when an item of SL is translated with an item of TL that belongs to a different grammatical class, c. -a -d. a verb could be translated with a name;
   
3. Unity changes, that implies changes in the row;
   
4. The changes of in system, Which arrives when 'SL and TL possess systems that correspond roughly definitely as for their constitution, but when the translation implies the selection of a term of no corresponds in the system of TL'. For example, when the unique SL becomes a plural one of TL.

Catford a lot was criticized for his linguistic theory of translation. One of the most of the caustic critics came from snell-hornby (1988), that disputed itself that the definition of Catford of literal equivalence is "circular", the confidence of his theory on the bilingual informants 'without inadequate hope', and its example sentences 'isolated and even ridiculously simplistic'. She considers the equivalence concept in the translation as is an illusion. She asserts that the translation process simply cannot be reduced to a linguistic exercise, as claimed by Catford for example, since there is so other factor, as the literal, cultural aspects and situationnels, that should be taken in the consideration while translating. In of other terms, she does not believe that linguistics is the only discipline that returns able the people to execute a translation, since the translation implies different cultures and different positions at the same time and they always do not equal from one language to another.


1.5 Lodge and the elaboration of evident and secret translation

Lodge (1977) is in the service of semantic and pragmatic equivalence and disputes itself that ST and TT should equal the one the other in the function. The house suggests that the it be possible to characterize the function of a text while determining the dimensions situationnelles ST.en does, according to his theory, every text is in himself is placed in a special position that correctly has is identified and is taken into account by the translator. After the analysis of ST, the House is in a position to evaluate a translation; if the ST and the TT substantially differ on the characteristic situationnelles, then they are not functionally equivalent, and the translation is not any a superior quality. Indeed, she recognizes that 'a translation text should equal not only his text source in the function, but to employ average situationnel-a  dimensions equivalent to attain this function'.

Central to the discussion of House is the concept of evident and secret Translations. In an evident translation the audience of TT directly is not addressed and there is not therefore of need to all to attempt to recreate a 'the original second one' since an evident translation 'ouvertement must be a translation'. By the secret translation, on the other hand, is meant the production of a text that is functionally equivalent to the ST. Lodge also disputes as in this translation type the ST 'is not addressed in particular to an audience of TC'.

The house exposes the types of ST that probably would produce translations of the two categories. An academic item, for example, is not very probable to expose any specific characteristic to the SC; the item has the force even, fussy or of exposition that it does if it had originated in the TL, and the Fact that it this is a translation to all must not be made known to the readers. A political speech in the SC, on the other hand, is addressed to a to group more special, more cultural or more national that the high speaker exposes to transfer to the action or otherwise influences it, while the TT informs simply foreigners that the high speaker says to his or his group of supporters. The it is clear that in the latter case, that is an example of evident translation, the functional equivalence cannot be maintained, and it is therefore desired that the ST and the TT work differently.
The theory of the house of equivalence in the translation seems to be a lot more flexible than Catford. Indeed, she gives authentic examples, the usages complete texts and, in an important way, she relates linguistic characteristics to the context of text of source and target.


1.6 Approach Baker to the translation equivalence

The new adjectives were assigned to the equivalence notion (the equivalence more grammatical, more literal and more pragmatic, and several of others) and did their appearance in the plethora of recent works in this field. An extremely interesting discussion of the notion of equivalence can be found in the Baker (1992) that seems to offer the equivalence concept to a more detailed list of conditions on which ones can be defined. She explores the equivalence notion to the different levels, in comparison with the translation process, including all different aspects of translation and climbing therefore linguistics and the talkative approach. She distinguishes enters:

• The equivalence that can appear at the level of word and above the word level, while translating of a language in another. The baker recognizes that, in one approach high bottom to the translation, the equivalence at the level of word is the first element to be taken in the consideration by the translator. Indeed, when the translator begins analyzing the ST s/il/it looks at the words as only unities to find a term "equivalent" direct in the TL. The baker gives a term definition word since it should be recalled that an only word sometimes can be assigned different direction in the different languages and could be considered as is a more complex unity or Morpha¨me. This means that the translator should do the attention to a number of factors in Seen an only word, as the number, the sex and the time.

• The grammatical equivalence, while referring itself to the variety of grammatical categories through the languages. She notes that the grammatical rules can vary through the languages and this can put some problems from the viewpoint of to find a direct correspondence in the TL. Indeed, she claims that the different grammatical structures in the SL and TL can cause remarkable changes in the manner the news or the message is carried through. These changes can induce the translator or add or omit the news in the TT because of the grammatical special device lack in the TL himself. Among these grammatical devices that could cause problems in the homes of Baker of translation on the number, the time and the aspects, voice, the person and the sex.

• The literal equivalence, while referring itself to the equivalence between a text of SL and a TL sends textos from the viewpoint of the news and on the cohesion. The texture is a very important characteristic in the translation since it furnishes useful indications for the comprehension and the analysis of the ST that can help the translator in his or his attempt to produce a cohesive and coherent text for the audience of TC in a specific context. The this is to the translator to decide if to maintain the attach cohesive just like the coherence of the text of SL. His or his decision will be directed by three principal factors, c'est-a -dire, the target audience, the goal of the translation and the text types.

• The pragmatic equivalence, while referring itself to implicatures and to the strategies of action to avoid during the translation process. Implicature is not any what explicitly is said but which is implied. Therefore, the translator needs to resolve implicit direction in the translation to obtain the message of ST through. The role of the translator is to recreate the intention of the author in another culture in such a manner that renders capable the reader of TC clearly to understand it.

Postcolonialism and Multiculturalism

In 1993 Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak was the the one that introduced postcolonialism. The post colonialisme is one of the most of the points prospering contact between the Cultural Etudes and the Etudes of Translation. It can be defined as a wide cultural approach to the study of relations of strength between the different groups, the cultures or the peuplades in that the language, the literature and the translation can play a role. The work of Spivak is indicative of how the cultural studies and especially posts it colonialisme has on the past decade set up itself on the translation problems, the translational and colonization. To link up it colonization and of translation is accompanied argument that the translation played an active role in the process of colonization and in disseminating an ideologically motivated picture of colonized people. The metaphor was used colony as a translational imitator and inferior copy of which the eliminated identity was superimposed by the settler.

The concepts of postcolonial could have transmitted a translation view as just a harmful instrument of the settlers that imposed their language and their used translation to construct a distorted picture of the eliminated people that served to reinforce the structure of hierarchal of the colony. Nevertheless, some critics of post colonialisme, as Robinson, believe that the translation view as the purely harmful tool and empire pernicieux is inexact.

As the other cultural theoreticians, Venuti in 1995 insisted that the range of studies of translation need to be widened to take the account of the nature value drives framework of sociocultural. It used the term invisibility to describe the position of translator and the activity in the culture of Anglo-American one. It said that this invisibility is produced by:

1- The manner the translators that have themselves tendency to translate often in the English, produce an idiomatic and legible TT, creating thus the illusion of transparency.

2- The manner that the texts typically translate are read the target culture:

"A text translates, if prose or poetry or not fictional, is judged acceptable by most of the editors, the critics and the readers when it reads often, when the absence of characteristics linguistic or stylistiques does it seems transparent, giving the appearance that it reflects the personality of the foreign writer or the intention or the The essential element meaning the foreign text_ the appearance, in of other terms, that the translation is not in fact a translation, but the original one".

(Venuti, 1999)

Venuti discussed the invisibility the hand in the hand with two types of translation of the strategies: domestication and foreignization. It considered the domestication as dominating Anglo-American (TL) the translation culture. Just as the postcolonialists was vigilant to the cultural effects of the gap in strength relation between the colony and to the former colony, therefore Venuti deplored the phenomenon of domestication since it implies the reduction of the foreign text to the language of target values cultural. This means the translation in a style more transparent, easier and more invisible to minimize the foreignness of the TT. Venuti believed that a translator should leave the reader in peace, the most possible one, and it should move the author towards him.

Foregnization, On the other hand, mean choosing a text and a foreign developments a method of translation alongside the lines that excluded by dominating cultural the values in the target language. Ventuti considers the method of foreignizing to be an ethno the pressure deviating on the language of target values cultural to record the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text, sending the reader abroad. According to him the this is extremely desirable in an effort to restrict the translation of violence ethnocentrique. The method of foreignizing of translation, a strategy Venuti named also 'resistancy', Is a non easy style of translation or moving away conceived to do visible the persistence of translator while underlining the foreign identity of ST and protecting it from the ideological predominance of the culture of target.

In his later book 'The Scandals of Translation' Venuti was anxious foreignizing or, as it called it also, 'minoritizing' Translatin, cultivate a varied and heterogenous speech. As for language, the method of minoritizing or foriegnizing of translation of Venuti comes by in intentional inclusion of elements of foreignizing in an offer to do the visible translator and do the reader to go counts that it reads a translation of the work of a foreign culture. Foreignization is the adhesive close one to the structure of ST and the syntax.

Venuti said also as the terms can change the direction through the time and the location.

In 1996, Simon mentioned that the cultural studies bring to the translation a comprehension of the complexities of the sex and cultivates And it allows us to situate the linguistic transfer. She considered a language of sexisme in the translation studies, with his predominance picture, the fidelity, the fidelity and the treason. She mentioned the seventeenth picture of century of "the unfaithful ones of beauties" (unfaithful beauties), the translations in French that were artistically beautiful but unfaithful. She went ampler and more examined George Steiner the male picture oriented of translation as the penetration.

The feminist theoreticians, more or less, see an analogy between the translation statute that is considered often to be diverted it and the inferior one to the original one writing and that of women often repressed if in the corporation and the literature. This is the basic feminist translation that the theory looks for to identify and critical the tangle of the concepts that rela¨guent of the women and the translation at the far end of the social and literary ladder. Simon takes this more in the concept of the project of engaged translation. The translation project here can be defined as such: An approach to the literary translation in which the feminist translators recommend ouvertement and the instrument strategies (linguistic or otherwise) in the foreground the feminist one in the translated text. It can seem worthy to mention that the opposite of project of translation arrives when the works of marked sex are translated in such a manner that their distinctive characteristics are affected.

With the broadcasting of deconstruction and of cultural studies in the academy, the ideology subject became an important sector of study. The field of presents of studies of translation no exception to this general tendency. It also should be mentioned as the concept of ideology is not new something and this was a sector of interest of there is a long time. The problem to discuss the translation and the ideology is one of definition. There is so many definitions ideology that it is impossible to reconsider them all. For example as Hats and the Mason (1997) declared that the ideology surrounds the assumptions tacites, the convictions and estimates systems that collectively are divided by the social groups. They do a distinction between the ideology of translation and the ideology translation. While the old one refers itself to the basic orientation chosen by the translator working in one in the social and cultural context. In the ideology translation they examined the mediation range furnished by a translator of sensitive texts. Here the mediation is defined as the range to that the translators intervene in the transfer process, nourishing their own knowledge and their own convictions in the text treatment.

In 1999 Hermans declared that Culture refers itself to all aspects socialesment conditioned of human life. According to him the can of translation and should be recognized as a social phenomenon, a cultural practice. It said that we bring to the translation hopes cognitive and normative, that continually are negotiated, is confirmed, is tailored, and is modified while practicing translators and by all that treats the translation. These hopes result from the communication in the translation system, for example, between the true translations and the true declarations of the translation, and between the system of translation and the other social systems.

In 2002, as for Hervey of cultural translation and Higgins believed in the cultural translation instead of literal the one. According to them accepting the literal means of translation that there is not operation of cultural translation. But evidently there are some than linguistic bigger obstacles one. They are cultural obstacles and here a transposition in the culture is necessary.

According to Hervey & Higgins the cultural transposition has a degree ladder that are towards the choice of native characteristics to target the language and the culture instead of the characteristics that are rooted in the source culture. The result here the foreign characteristics reduced in the text of target and is until a certain one not at all naturalized one. The ladder here of an extremity that especially is based on the source culture (exoticism) to the other extremity that especially is based on the target culture (the cultural transplantation) :

Exoticism< Calque< Cultural Borrowing< Communicative Translation< cultural transplantation

1) Exoticism
The degree of adaptation is very low here. The translation carries the characteristics and the cultural grammars of SL to TL. The this is very close to transfer.

2) Tracing
The tracing includes the words of TL but in SL structures therefore while the this is unidiomatic to target the reader but the it is familiar largely.

3) Cultural Loan
The this is to transfer the expression of ST word to word in the TT. No adaptation of expression of SL in the forms of TL. Apreds a time they become of ordinary a norm in the terms of TL. The cultural loan is very frequent in the history, the texts more legal, more social and more political; for example, "The language" and "The word" in linguistics.

4) Talkative Translation
The talkative translation is of ordinary one adopted for the culture clicheds specific as the idioms, the proverbs, the expression sets up, etc. In such case that the translator substitutes the word of SL with a current concept in the target culture. In the cultural replacement feels it propositional is not the same but it has similar impact on the target reader. The literal translation can seem here comical. The degree of usage of this strategy that some times depend on the permit that is given to the translator by the commissioneies and also the goal of translation.

5) Cultural Transplantation
The entire text is rewrited in the target culture. The word of TL is not a literal equivalent one but has cultural similar connotations until a certain one not at all. The this is a typical other of extremity but towards the culture of target and the entire concept is transplanted in TL. A normal translation should avoid exoticism and the cultural transplantation.

In 2004, Nico Wiersema in his essay "the globalization and the translation" declared that the globalization is linked up to the English is a lingua franca; the language is said to be used to the lectures (interpreting) and seen as the principal language in the new technologies. The usage of English as a global language is an important tendency in the world-wide communication. The globalization also is linked up to the field of Etudes of Translation. Of more, the globalization is placed in the change context in the economical science, the science, the technology, and the corporation. The globalization and the technology are very serviables to the translators in that the translators have more access to online the news, as the dictionaries of least languages known. According to him such commentaries can be spread to the translation readers. Have the target text challenges for a reader, Internet can help the understands foreign elements in the text. Thus the text can be written in a more of foreignising/the manner of exoticising. It mentioned a comparatively new tendency an in what culturally elements of limit (someone, the one could say, intraduisible), are not translated. It believed that this tendency contributes to the erudition and to the benevolent foreign cultures. The context explains the culture, and adopting (not adapting necessarily) a word selection enriches the target text, the brands it more exotic and more itself interesting thus for those that wants to learn more culture in the question. Finally, these new words can find their manner in the dictionaries of language of target. The translators will have contributed then to enrich their own languages with the words of loan of the language of source (especially. English).

It considered these words entering loan in TL as an important aspect of translation. The translation approaches cultures. It declared that to this century the process of globalization moves itself quicker than never beforehand and there is not indication than it will wedge does not import when soon. In every translation there will be a certain deformation between the cultures. The translator will must defends the choices that it/she does, but there is currently an option for including the more foreign words in the target texts. Therefore, the this is now possible to keep SL the cultural elements in the target texts. In every translation there will be a certain deformation between the cultures. The translator will must defends the choices that it/she does, but there is currently an option for including the more foreign words in the target texts.

The relation between multiculturalism and postcolonialism seems to be a worried the one. Multiculturalism treats theories of difference but in contrast to postcolonialism, that is at a big range is perceived to be defined by its specific historic legs in a retroactive manner, multiculturalism treats the direction (compromised often) of geopolitical contemporary variety in the imperial former centers just like their former similar colonies. The this is also more and more a global speech since it takes into account the flow of migrant, the refugees, Diasporas and their relations with the nations states. The reason to continue to set up itself on multiculturalism, notably a multiculturalism criticizes, is precisely because the this is itself intimately the limit in top in a lot of parties of the world with these practices and of speech that manages (often in the direction of police and of check) the "variety". In the critical theory it was often an embarrassing term to invoke partially because it is seen as automatically aligned with and without hope co-opted by the state in his role of certain types of conscious nation - constructing. Consequently, for example, it uniformly is refused by the groups anti- racist in Great Britain (the Lobby, 1995). In the kingdom of theoretical debate that it often is associated with a politics of identity base on essentialism and the complaints for the authenticity that reintegrates automatically a version of the subject of sovereign and a worry with the notions of reified of origins. Thus it becomes impossible; it seems, mention multiculturalism and the theory criticizes socially progressive in the same breath. But for all these reasons, because the this is a protested term, is exactly why it it is crucial to continue to examine the speeches and the practices mobilized in the name of multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism claims to treat minorities and implies thus a relation with a majority, but how these two categories are defined and are handled in comparison with every other extremely is protested and more complicated by the differences in the joint between the capitalist advanced countries and it so-called Third World; between 'the corporations of settler' and, for example, the European community. Usually, the factor organizing for the minorities is the terms such as "chases", the "ethnicity", and "indigeneity" while their origins are causalment linked to migration, to colonization and to the typical others of subjugation. With the respect for "to run" the would be more precise to refer itself to the processes of implied radicalization in to represent minorities than to the existence of unproblematic the racial categories. L '"ethnicity" as a category