When we talk about the equivalent translation theory, most people do not know the concept, features and other information. But, in the practical application of this theory, this information plays a vital role for us to use this theory. Only by understanding the nature of this theory can we avoid the wrong direction and better guide our study. 3.1 The concept of equivalent translation theory American translation theorist, Eugene Nida assumed that translation consists on reproducing in receptor language, the closest natural equivalent of the source language message, first in terms of meaning, and secondly in terms of style. () After that, Nida developed it into dynamic-equivalence translation theory.
It is translator’s knowledge, experience and level of language finally decides the quality of translation of a text. Thus, translator has to be sensitive and professional. On the other hand, the object of translation aesthetics is the original text and translated text. The origin text should have value to be translated and include the aspects of informative, inspirational, enlightening and descriptive. After knowing the object and subject of translation aesthetic, the other important aspect people should know is that the aesthetic of translation has to suit the local culture.
I agree with the statement “Language competence, in the sense of being bilingual, is not enough, unless it is also matched by a person’s being bicultural.” Translation is not only translating two different languages, but also translating two different cultures. Basically, primary stage of translation could be considered as converting the linguistic symbols. However, the most important thing of translation is to understand the context and translate the true meanings of the source text. Liu Miqing stated in his book that cultural differences are factors which translators should take into consideration while translating. Translators should try their best to translate the cultural information beyond the source text.
All these concepts are looked upon as different ways of trying to make visible the textual category of translator. All these factors, explain why things have turned out the way they did. The answer is because the translator adhered to certain norms, ideologies and certain conceptions on interpretation of the source text. Then the question of why did he adhere to those particular norms comes into existence. In a nut shell, descriptive translational studies takes into its fold translator’s conception of the source text as it emerges from the target text.
So, it can be seen that culture and cultural exchange are the originations of translation, and translation is the product of cultural exchange. In other words, translation can never exist without culture. Translation and culture can never be separated. In the previous research in translation studies, many theorists limited their focus on the linguistics, emphasizing the shifting of linguistic form and the differences of the linguistic system. However, since translating activity was complex, involving many social and cultural elements, many issues involved in translating activity could not be explained or analyzed on the dimension of the linguistics.
1.1 Background of the Study As a branch of applied linguistics, translation is an important tool of meaning transfer from one language to another for every aspect of life throughout the world. Major aspects of life such as religion, literature, science, and technology across the world have depended on translation role. In general, translation role in human civilization and advancement is without a doubt contributive. The contribution of translation to human knowledge is facilitated by the translator’s knowledge and expertise in at least two different languages. This notion makes the relation between translation and languages are inseparable.
A translator may subject him-/herself either to the original text, with the norms it has realized, or to the norms active in the target culture, or in that section of it which would host the end product. Translation is a complicated task, during which the meaning of the source-language text should be conveyed to the target-language readers. In other words, translation can be defined as encoding the meaning and form in the target language by means of the decoded meaning and form of the source language. Different theorists state various definitions for translation. The concept of norms in translation theory was
Translation has become an indispensible tool for the teachers of comparative literature as it is the gateway to enter the arena of the texts of the ‘other’. However, with this shift of the discipline of translation studies from a purely linguistics-oriented approach to a more culture-oriented approach, the scholars have increasingly begun to trace the exercise of ideology in translation that had been hitherto a largely neglected area in linguistics-oriented approaches. The teachers and researchers of comparative literature should use the tool of translation with sensitivity to the ideology it embodies. Since one of major achievements of comparative studies has been enlarging the canvass of cross-cultural communication and understanding, ideology
However, by the time, it is changed into an academic subject that is known as “Translation Studies”. Munday (2001) defines Translation Studies as “the academic discipline related to the study of the theory and phenomena of translation” (p.1). He also adds that Translation Studies is a multidisciplinary approach, as it covers different domains such as: science, religion, literature,
In his 1986 essay “The Translator’s Invisibility”, Venuti stated that, along with “the increasingly sophisticated literature on translation”, the urgently needed task of demystifying the process “had been initiated by the prefaces that translators themselves have occasionally appended to their work” where they describe the “labor of transformation” of the text (1986: 181). Venuti’s introduction in 1992 to Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology gave the impression that he was not as optimistic about translators’ prefaces and their contribution to the struggle to make translation a visible activity. He believed translators were so busy moving from text to text that they had no time for methodological reflection. Translators are always hard at work, but they are producing translations, not translation commentary, criticism, or theory; they appear as aesthetically sensitive amateurs or talented craftsmen, but not critically self-conscious writers who develop an acute awareness of the cultural and social conditions of their