Thirdly, concerning the question mentioned above, another topic subject to fierce controversy arises, viz. the theory of linguistic relativity, which immediately reminds us of the famous Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. As we know, the strong version of this hypothesis that language determines thought ( and which could easily give rise to prejudice and racism ) cannot be taken seriously while the weak version has been generally accepted. In other words, we may say language and thought are interdependent. Another note-worthy point here is the assumption that any language possesses the necessary resources for the speaker to express anything that he or she wants to say in that language. Then, on the understanding that human thoughts can be exchanged, we may draw a conclusion that any thought in the source language could be finally expressed in the target language. It follows naturally that, when the thought voiced in the source language gets across to the reader (who, of course, makes it by means of the target language), we may say equivalence in its abstract sense is achieved. Hence the next part of my way of understanding equivalence.
Fourthly, equivalence, in my mind, is an abstract concept here and might fall into three categories that are in accordance with the dynamic development of cultural exchanges. A tentative and descriptive exposition goes as follows:
ⅰ Equivalence before Translating
The first category is equivalence before translating, which means the kind of equivalence possible to be attained when the target text is not produced yet. It may be considered as the aim or goal of the translator who leaves no stone unturned in his pursuit of a successful transmission of the truth of the source text from the SL to the TL. If the whole process of translating could be compared to a telephone call with the translator being the operator, this kind of equivalence might be said to be still at one end of a telephone line where the truth of the ST lies.
ⅱ Equivalence in Translating
The second category occurs when the target text is just produced. At this stage, the truth of the ST has reached the translator who has put it in the target language. However, the truth, whether it has been fully encoded in the target language or not, may still be not fully understood by, or even unavailable to, the reader. In terms of the analogy of a telephone call, the message has not reached the other end of the line though the operator has performed the role of putting it through. In this case, we might say equivalence stays with the translator, but not necessarily with the reader.
ⅲ Equivalence after Translating
The third category of equivalence entails time since translation is, in essence, an activity of cultural exchange that cannot be effectuated immediately in many cases due to the cultural differences and other factors. Anyhow, as more and more cultural exchanges take place and develop further, the message that was once held up finally finds its way to the reader when equivalence, we may say, is achieved at last. In other words, equivalence of this category might be more attributable to the cultural exchange activities outside the scope of translation than to the very act of translating.
