Idiomatic language becomes another knotty issue in translation. Idioms in any language are rooted in the cultural/social milieu of the community and will be difficult to relocate to a completely different soil. For example it will be practically impossible to translate ‘the apple of my eye’ into any Indian language. Of course it can be done literally by substituting the exact Hindi words for the English ones, but it would completely baffle the Hindi reader who has no idea of the English original. It is clear then, that translation means much more than substitution of one set of lexical and grammatical terms with another.
i) Linguistic equivalence: Similarity between words of the SL and TL. This occurs in ‘word for word’ translation
ii) Paradigmatic equivalence: Similarity between grammatical components
iii) Stylistic equivalence: Similarity in the meaning or impact of the expressed text/message
iv) Textual (syntagmatic) equivalence: Similarity in the structure and form of the texts
When it comes to idioms and metaphors, the translator will have to aim for stylistic equivalence where, according to Popovič, there is “functional equivalence of elements in both original and translation” (qtd by Bassnett 25).
Eugene Nida categorizes equivalence into two—formal and dynamic. In formal equivalence there is complete correspondence between the two texts in terms of structure and content, and it will try to convey as much about the SL text as is possible. A faithful translation would be characterized by formal equivalence. Dynamic equivalence aims at creating a similar impact as the SL text on its readers or to recreate a similar relationship between the reader/listener and the text. Both forms of equivalence have their pros and cons, and are relevant according to the contexts of translation.
