Thirdly, a comprehensive and informative formula of translation equivalence has been originated by Professor Qiu Maoru, which is so detailed and exhaustive in exposition that it covers nearly all the kinds of equivalences in translation. (The full contents are available from 邱2000：339-378)
To conclude, both “equivalence” and “equivalent”, when bearing no pre-modifiers or post-modifiers, are abstract concepts. And subsequently follow a few of my reflections on translation equivalence.
ⅣA Few Reflections on Translation Equivalence
As mentioned previously in this short essay, “equivalence” and “equivalent” are, in my mind, two interrelated abstract concepts in translation. Besides, “translation” under discussion here is also an abstract concept, in contrast to the concrete act of “translating”. On further reflection, this writer found it seems possible to understand and analyse the concept of equivalence in some new way, which this writer ventures hereby to make a tentative account here.
To start with, translating, corresponding with translation, involves four major parameters (among many others), viz. the source text, the translator, the reader and the target text to be produced (which we had better distinguish from the target text that is already produced when we talk about translation instead of translating), each usually resolving into many, even inexhaustible, factors or variables that may exercise different effects on the act of translating. To be specific, the source text, for example, demands adequate consideration of its style, language (i.e. the SL), time of being written, the SL culture and so on, while the target text to be produced draws the translator’s attention to its language (i.e. the TL), the TL culture and the like; the translator has his or her particular purpose and psychology, a unique and habitual style of writing and other characteristics that vary from person to person, while the reader may be classified into several types according to different scales such as the reader’s education level, sex and age.
Secondly, the discussion here mainly focuses on the source language and culture vs. the target language and culture. As regards the relationship between language and culture, it may be concisely summarized in three statements, viz. “…language expresses cultural reality.”, “…language embodies cultural reality.”, and “…language symbolizes cultural reality.” (Kramsch 2000: 3) It follows that, translating, the rendering from one language into another, is confronted with the problem, or rather, the aim or goal, of restoring the source cultural reality embodied in the source language in the target language that usually, if not always, symbolizes the cultural reality specific to the target language. In other words, the target language is entrusted to express the cultural reality specific to the source language, which speaks of why the process of translating is so notorious for its complexity and tortuousness in the first place. Here one question recommends itself —— Whether, or to what degree, the target language is reliable or qualified to be entrusted this task of symbolizing the cultural reality that is foreign to itself in different degrees (i.e. doing something that it usually does not do, or playing a brand-new role), which is another way of articulating the disputable issue of translatability or the equally arguable concept of equivalence, the subject-matter of our concern here.
