The paradox of translating the untranslatable: Equivalence vs. non-equivalence in translating from Arabic into English

The concept of equivalence is believed to be a central issue in translation although its definition, relevance, and applicability within the field of translation theory have caused heated controversies. Several theories on the concept of equivalence have been elaborated within this field in the past fifty years. Vinay and Darbelnet, 1995, Jakobson, 1959, Nida and Taber, 1982, Catford, 1965, House, 1977, Baker, 1992. Indeed, “Equivalence” has provided a useful theoretical and pragmatic foundation for translation processes. However, the notion of equivalence has also been criticized as “asymmetric, directional, subject-less, unfashionable imprecise and ill-defined” (Bolaños, 2005, Snell-Hornby, 1988, Nord, 1997).

This paper argues that if equivalence is the essence of translation, non-equivalence constitutes an equally legitimate concept in the translation process. The rationale for this position is that languages articulate or organize the world differently because “languages do not simply name existing categories, they articulate their own” (Culler, 1976, p. 21). Further, non-equivalence in translation is discussed and substantiated by evidence and examples in the process of translating from Arabic into English, a point that has not been adequately discussed in researches dealing with equivalence. Many researchers have discussed equivalence in translating mainly from English into Arabic (Ghazala, 2004). These two languages belong to two different cultures and hence, provide good evidence for the possibility of translating what is sometimes referred to as “untranslatable” due to non-equivalence or lack of equivalence. For example, Arabic is rich in culture-specific terms and concepts that have no equivalents in English. Yet, these terms can be translated into English using one of the strategies suggested for translating non-equivalence to convey their conceptual and cultural meanings to the English speaking readers (Baker, 1992).

In such cases, I argue that equivalence or translating using equivalence is not necessarily the best strategy, i.e., it does not produce a meaningful rendering of the source term [ST] into the target term [TT]. Rather, purposefully using non-equivalence results in a “better” translation. Non-equivalence becomes more relevant than equivalence. In other words, “non-equivalence” becomes more equivalent than “equivalence.” It is a better strategy in these cases. Hence, it is quite legitimate to discuss non-equivalence and its applicability in translating culture-specific terms and concepts including idioms, metaphors and proverbs.