Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository

he understands the cultural patterns of-the source-language context in
order to comprehend the message." (1964, p159) This view contrasts
sharply with Casagrande's; ie. "In effect, one does not translate
languages; one translates cultures." (1954, p338) Casagrande's
statement must not be taken too literally, for intercommunication, of
which translation is only one aspect, cannot possibly materialize
outside its relevant cultural context', What he probably meant by
translating cultures, not languages, could be taken to mean that
languages, as sign systems, could not survive in a cultural vacuum.
Languages should operate and function as perpetuators of human
knowledge and culture. This is the ultimate aim of translation: to use
language for the communication of culture-bound messages, thus bringing
the members of the human species much closer.
A dynamic equivalence translation is not only oriented towards the
receptor message, but also towards the translator in his capacity as a
bicultural and bilingual person. It is important to realise that a
dynamic equivalence translation is not simply a translation of a
source message in another language. It is a translation of the source
message in another langauge and as such, must of necessity project the
content, intent and context of the source message. Thus, a dynamic
equivalence translation can be defined as the closest natural
equivalence to the source-language message. Nida (1964, p166)
maintains that this definition contains three essential terms: "(1)
'equivalent', which points toward the source language message; (2)
'natural', which points toward the receptor language, and (3)
75