equivalence

Culture-specific items (CSIs) abound in languages. Sometimes these items are peculiar to one culture and sometimes they may be shared across several cultures. Every translator encounters a variety of CSIs in different texts ​​and may face difficulties in translating them, particularly in literary translation (e.g. children’s literature). To overcome the problem of finding the right equivalent, the translator has to rely on different strategies. This study investigates the strategies used to render CSIs in two Persian translations of Roald Dahl’s “Charlie and Chocolate Factory”, following Newmark’s (1988) model (which includes categories such as cultural equivalent , transference , functional equivalent , through-translation , etc.). The study also compares the two translations, inspecting and explaining the strategies used in each one to translate the CSIs observed. Based on the data analysis and the results of the study, the most widely used strategies was “cultural equivalent”, followed by “through-translation” and “recognized translation.”

The translation of religious texts plays a crucial role within the translators’ community, prompting many translators to strive for the most appropriate equivalents in order to convey the themes and ideas as comprehensively as possible. The primary objective of the present study was to investigate the differences in equivalence among translators while translating twenty conveniently selected letters from Nahj al-Balagha from the original to the target text. Specifically, it aimed to determine whether the three English translations of Nahj al-Balagha by Mohammad Askari Jafari, Morteza Motahhari, and Sayed Ali Reza convey the same message. In this context, the research sought to identify any significant differences in equivalence among the three Persian-to-English translations by these translators. Nida’s (1964) model of equivalence served as the framework for the study, allowing a comparison of the three English translations of letters 40 to 60. This analysis focused on identifying the types of equivalence used based on Nida’s distinctions between dynamic and formal equivalence. The results indicated significant differences among the three translations: Sayed Ali Reza’s and Motahhari’s translations were notably more formal in tone, while Askari Jafari's translation was characterized as dynamic. These findings can be informative for readers interested in further research on the translation of religious texts, including Nahj al-Balagha.