Professor H. G. Widdowson in his book Stylistics and the Teaching of Literature, 1975, appears less extreme.

He assumes that the translation of poetry is extremely difficult because of "the patterning of sound and sense into a single meaning."

It is supposed here that since poetry has its distinctive features, it cannot be rendered into pure prose. The poet is mainly concerned with the connotative force of words. The translation of poetry into poetry entails preserving the rhyme, figurative language and the general tone of the original. This cannot be achieved unless the translator has a special talent and introspection. Some poetic translations, so deep and original, have impressed readers in the other languages. Few of the translated versions have been deemed even more illuminating than the original.

The difficulty of poetic translation leads many to think that the translator of poetry must himself be a poet otherwise he should not dare to square the circle!

To conclude, poetry can be translated by those who have deep interest in poetry and who possess the poetic feel and sensation, in addition to their mastery of the other language.

Translation used to be considered an inter-language transfer of meaning, which is the point of departure for research and study. Many earlier definitions demonstrate this, using source language and target language as their technical terms. Moreover, translation theories strictly confined themselves within the sphere of linguistics.

Translation of poetry was, and still is by some, believed as impossibility for any unfaithful elements would have been taken as failure, be it content or form

Poetry itself serves a purpose, be it an illusive matter, and aesthetics can be reproduced in another language and culture if accommodation is made. It would be highly likely that the target readers would obtain rather similar if not the same aesthetic pleasure reading the translation as would the source readers reading the original poem.

"Traduttore-traditore." (Translator = traitor.), says the well-known Italian phrase. Poetry is what gets lost in translation, Robert Frost says. Western tradition and culture is founded on untranslatability. This may sound like a paradox, if one thinks of the long tradition of translatio studii or translatio imperii in the culture, or if you just ponder the very word tradition . Tradition, from Latin tradere (hand over'), implies a

process of communication, transmission, and transference that necessarily allows for the transformation, whether in terms of losses or gains, usually associated with what we consensually mean by translation. To translate is not to say the same thing in another tongue, but to make manifest a different thing. This may sound close to what we used to call the impossibility of translation'.

Zhu guangqian (Zhu, 1987: 113) says that the reason why poetry translation poses more difficulty than prose translation lies in that poetry stress more on its musical quality while prose emphasizes more on meaning. Translating meaning is apparently easier than translating the musical quality (my translation). Chinese, unlike English, uses characters which are all single syllables, namely, one character as one syllable. So phrases and clauses are easily arranged into even number phrases and neat even number couplets, if the need arises for comparison or contrast. However, the western languages have strict grammatical rules, requiring fixed structures that forbids free inversions or disorders.

Not all words need to be translated. Some cannot. Some can be transcribable, but if there is no cultural equivalent, whether it is translatable or not it still needs to be explained, just like a jargon needs to be explained

Words, expressions or interjections that are exclusive to a culture, a religion or a jargon cannot always be translated in a satisfactory way because the same thing does not exist in the other language's culture. In many cases such words with no perfect equivalent are the words that end up being borrowed by the other language, sometimes with a possible spelling adaptation to ease pronunciation in the other language. Jacobson ( 1966: 238) (quoted in Wolfram Wilss, 2001) comes to the conclusion that poetry by definition is untranslatable. Only creative transposition is possible Ebel (1969: 50) (quoted in Wolfram Wilss, 2001) says that indeed, modern translation theory denies the very existence of translation as it has previously been understood, i.e. as the replacement of an utterance in one language by another, so that the two are interchangeable. The dream of literal or close translation, which culminated in the attempt to computerize translation, has given way in turn to what might be termed a higher subjectivity. Since there are connections but not correlations or diagnostic correspondences between cultural norms and linguistic patterns, no language is ever a valid substitute for another; faithfulness in translation is thus impossible.

As G. Steiner (1975: 45) points out, and as much research into the reading process has shown, each act of reading a text is in itself an act of translation, i.e. an interpretation. We seek to recover what is meant' in a text from the whole range of possible meanings, in other words, from the meaning potential which Halliday (1978: 109) defines as the paradigmatic

range of semantic choice that is present in the system, and to which the members of a culture have access in their language. Inevitably, we feed our own beliefs, knowledge, attitudes and so on into our processing of texts, so that any translation will, to some extent, reflect the translator's own mental and cultural outlook, despite the best of impartial intentions.

Schleiermacher thinks that the translator can either leave the writer in peace as much as possible or bring the reader to him, or he can leave the reader in peace as much as possible and bring the writer to him (quoted in Wilss, 2001: 33).

Nida (1965 as quoted in Fan, 1999: 5) says, translation consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language massage, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style.

Eugene Nida (1984) also talks about translation form the perspective of equivalence: formal equivalence (closest possible match of form and

content between ST and TT) and dynamic equivalence (principle of equivalence of effect on reader of TT). Newmark (1982) speaks about translation in the following way: semantic translation (to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning the original) and communicative translation. Naturally, actual effects on receivers of texts are difficult to gauge. Consequently, it seems preferable to handle the issue in terms of equivalence of intended effects , thus linking judgments about what the translator seeks to achieve to judgments about the intended meaning of the ST speaker/writer. Closely related to the literal versus free issue is the debate on the primacy of content over form or vice versa. Form, or style, may be seen as the result of motivated choices made by text producers; thus, we shall distinguish style from idiolect, the unconscious linguistic habits of an individual language user; and the conventional patterns of expressions which characterize particular languages. Stylistic effects are, in this sense, traceable to the intentions of the text producer and these are what the translator seeks to recover. Style, then, in the sense we are retaining, is not a property of the language system as a whole but of particular language users in particular settings. The translator, as a language user in a setting which is generally not that of the ST producer, has to be able to judge the semiotic value which is conveyed when particular stylistic options are selected.

Nida ( as quoted in Fan, 1999: 2) also says in the preface written for Professor Fang Zhongying's course-book of translation that translation practice without an adequate theory produces only haphazard results, while theory without practice is completely sterile. To sum up, Wikipedia (2004), after integrating the research

achievements of modern day translation circles provides the following understanding of translaiton, which is universally acknowledged now. Translation is an activity comprising the interpretation of the sense of a text in one language - the source text - and the production of another, equivalent text in another language - the target text . The goal of translation is to establish a relationship of equivalence between the source and the target texts (that is to say, both texts communicate the same message), while taking into account the various constraints placed on the translator. (These constraints include the rules of grammar of the source language, its writing conventions, its idioms and the like.)The term t ranslation is also used for the product of this procedure. Translation is also the name given to a profession which consists of transferring ideas expressed in writing from one language to another.

1) To determine, after careful linguistic and socio-linguistic research, the specific target audience for the translation and the kind of translation appropriate to that audience. It is recognized that

different kinds of translation into a given language may be valid, depending on the local situation, including, for example, both more formal translations and common language translations. 2) To communicate not only the informational content, but also the feelings and attitudes of the original text. The flavor and impact of the original should be re-expressed in forms that are consistent with normal usage in the receptor language. 3) To recognize that it is sometimes necessary to restructure the form of a text in order to achieve accuracy and maximal comprehension. Since grammatical categories and syntactic structure often do not correspond between different languages, it is impossible or misleading to maintain the same form as the source text. Changes of form will also often be necessary when translating figurative language. A translation will employ as many or as few terms as are required to communicate the original meaning as accurately as possible. 2) This means that a theory of translation can be embedded in a theory of human action or activity. The parameters of action theory may help to explain some aspects of translation. 3) Human actions or activities are carried out by agents', individuals playing roles. When playing the role of senders in communication Language is thus to be regarded as part of culture. And communication is conditioned by the constraints of the situation-in-culture. 1) In translation, senders and receivers belong to different cultural groups in that they speak different languages. They thus need help from someone who is familiar with both languages (and cultures) and

who is willing to play the role of translator or intermediary between them.

Benjamin (Benjamin, 1992: 77) that the task of the translator consists in finding that intended effect [ Intention ] upon the language into which he is translating which produces in it the echo of the original. It is interesting that Benjamin uses the word echo.' The task of the translator can only produce the echo of the original, not the originality of the original. The idea of the echo is that we hear our own voices sent back to us. The echo is never strictly identical with what has been voiced before. It also suggests something about the space, the topography, of the domain that creates the echo. The voice that comes back to us is similar to what we uttered but is also distorted by the response of what sends back our voice. In other words, just as Steiner (1975: 47) says, translation, in short, inside or between languages, equals human communication.

Most obviously, the translator has not only a bilingual ability but also a bi-cultural vision. Translators mediate between cultures (including ideologies, moral systems and socio-political structures), seeking to overcome those incompatibilities which stand in the way of transfer of meaning. What has value as a sign in one cultural community may be devoid of significance in another and it is the translator who is uniquely placed to identify the disparity and seek to resolve it. But there is another

sense in which translators are mediators; in a way, they are privilege readers of the SL text. Unlike the ordinary ST or TT reader, the translator reads in order to produce, decodes in order to re-encode. In other words, the translator uses as input to the translation process information which would normally be the output, and therefore the end of, the reading process. Consequently, processing is likely to be more thorough, more deliberate than that of the ordinary reader; and interpretation of one portion of text will benefit from evidence forthcoming from the processing of later sections of text. Now, each reading of a text is a unique act, a process subject to the particular contextual constraints of the occasion, just as much as the production of the text is. Inevitably, a translated text reflects the translator's reading and this is yet another factor which defines the translator as a non-ordinary reader: whereas the ordinary reader can involve his or her own beliefs and values in the creative reading process, the translator has to be more guarded. Ideological nuances, cultural predispositions and so on in the source text have to be relayed untainted by the translator's own vision of reality. we have to agree that the translators also have to face lots of difficulties when it comes to translating prose.

when the source and target languages belong to different cultural groups, the first problem faced by the prose-translator is finding terms in his or her own language that express the highest level of faithfulness possible

to the meaning of certain words. For example, there are some words that are related to typical fabrics, cookery specialties, or jobs; they also represent specific culture and the translators should be very careful in translating such words. They also find it difficult to render ambiguous puns. Similarly, the titles of stories and novels provide many examples of such ambiguities, which are hard or even impossible to translate.

Many people think that the translation of literary works is one of the highest forms of rendition because it is more than simply the translation of text. A literary translator must also be skilled enough to translate feelings, cultural nuances, humour and other delicate elements of a piece of work. In fact, the translators do not translate meanings but the messages. That is why, the text must be considered in its totality. Alternatively, Peter Newmark (1988) delineates translation as rendering the meaning of a text into another language in the way that the author intended the text

Language has more than a communicative, or societal and connective purpose in literary-prose translation.

The Essence of Translation Guiding towards the Translation of Literary Prose Plainly, the word translation derives from the Latin

translatio (which itself comes from trans-and fero, the supine form of which is latum, together meaning to carry across or to bring across) (Kasparek, 1983: 83). It began only after the appearance of written literature (Cohen, 1986: 12). It is the communication of the meaning of a source-language text by means of an equivalent target-language text (Bhatia, 1992: 1,051). In brief, to translate is to pour meaning from one vessel to another one that is equivalent to the first. Whereas, prose represents ordinary speech or writing, without metrical structure. It indicates words in their best order

At the very beginning, the translator keeps both the Source Language (S.L) and Target Language (T.L) in mind and tries to translate carefully. But, it becomes very difficult for a translator to decode the whole textbook literally; therefore, he takes the help of his own view and endeavours to translate accordingly. So, translation can be servitude and freedom (Vieira, 1999: 111). It is broadly accepted that the original text, the translated version, the language of the original and the language of the translation are constantly transformed in space and time.

translation is not a translation in reality, but the original. Incidentally, the prose-translators can learn many things from Jhumpa Lahiri

The Distinct Role of the Translator

However, Homi K. Bhabhas belief about translation is quite different and complicated as compared to the view of Nida. For instance, Bhabha (1994) begins with an epigraph from Walter Benjamins classic essay on translation, Translation passes through continua of

transformation, not abstract ideas of identity and similarity

In his article, On Linguistic Aspects of Translation, Roman Jakobson directly indicates the innermost difficulty in every category. He is of the view that there is normally no full equivalence through translation while messages may possibly serve as satisfactory analyses of code units or messages. The French theorist, Georges Mounin agrees with Jakobson

Problems in Translating Literary Prose Translation is a challenging activity and there are few difficulties that emerge throughout the translation process

since every language portrays the world in diverse way and has its own grammar structure, grammar rules and syntax variance

he difficulty in translation just lies in the fact that both the content and the style are already existent in the original and as a result, you will have to do your best to reproduce them as they are in quite a different language. (p. 7)

The most particular problems that the translators face include- illegible text, missing references, several constructions of grammar, dialect terms and neologisms, irrationally vague terminology, inexplicable acronyms and abbreviations, untranslatability, intentional misnaming, particular cultural references etc. Nonetheless, there are some theorists who think that literal translation is not possible. They present three main reasons supporting

their stance:

1. Because a particular word in one language often contains meanings that involve several words in another language. For example, the English word wall might be rendered into German as Wand (inside wall) or as Mauer (exterior wall), 2. Because grammatical particles (verb tenses,

singular/dual/plural, case markers etc.) are not available in every language, and 3. Because idioms of one language and culture may be utterly perplexing to speakers from another language and culture.

the central problem of translation practice is that of finding T.L (target language) equivalents. A central task of translation theory is therefore that of defining the nature and conditions of translation equivalence.

The translators, through using equivalence approaches, also endeavour to influence their readers by the standard translation. Yet, the notion of equivalence creates several problems since we can interpret it in miscellaneous manners. Both the words as well as context are considered in equivalence. In this connection, Catford (1965) simply puts forward that translation is the substitution or replacement of textual materials in one language by equivalent textual material in another language

the prose-translators find it very difficult to translate proper names

It is only one instance whereby the translators face problems to translate S.L system into a T.L, which is devoid of any equivalent system.

Solutions for the Translators of Literary Prose

Initially, the translation of literary works -novels, short stories, plays, poems, etc. - is considered a literary recreation in its own right. However, as far as the solutions are concerned, the prose-translators should start with the careful adherence to the following principles:

1. a great understanding of the language, written and verbal, from which he is translating i.e. the source language; 2. an excellent control of the language into which he is translating i.e. the target language; 3. awareness of translated; 4. a deep knowledge of the etymological and idiomatic correlates between the two languages; and 5. a delicate common sense of when to metaphrase or translate literally and when to paraphrase, in order to the subject matter of the book being

guarantee exact rather than fake equivalents between the source- and target-language texts.

the prose-translators can unite some of the following methods to deal with the translation problems efficiently.

1. Back Translation: Comparison of a back-translation with the original text is sometimes used as a check on the accuracy of the original translation (Crystal, 2004: 5). It is one of the most familiar practices used to search for equivalents through: a. The translation of items from the source language to the target language.

The Process of Translation

In translation, the study of equivalence demonstrates the way the translators correctly render the text in translation

from S.L into T.L or vice versa. Equivalence, for example, while discredited in the 1980s yet tends to be reintroduced by scholars (Snell-Hornby, 1988: Chapter 5). As the goal of translation is to establish a relationship of equivalence between the source and the target texts, a successful translation can be judged by two criteria:

1. Faithfulness or Fidelity (accurate translation of the meaning of the source text, without adding to it or subtracting from it), and 2. Transparency (maintaining the grammatical, syntactic and idiomatic conventions of the target language). A translation meeting the first criterion is called faithful translation; a translation meeting the second principle is known as idiomatic translation. According to Halverson (1997), Equivalence is defined as a relationship existing between two entities and the relationship is described as one of likeness/ sameness/ similarity/ equality in terms of any of a number of potential qualities

The prose-translators must not think that any bilingual individual is able to produce satisfactory or even high-quality document translations simply because he is a fluent speaker of a second language. The ability, skill and even the basic mental processes required for

bilingualism are mostly different from those required for translation. Primarily, the prose-translators must be able to read, understand and cling to somebody elses thoughts, then translate them accurately, completely and without omission. If they are able to do so, the readers will get the original meaning. Normally, the translators think that the best translations are produced by persons who are translating from their second language into their native language, because it is unusual for someone who has learned a second language to have total fluency in that language.

However, the prose-translators should not worry much about the loss of meaning, which may occur if the text describes a situation, which has elements that are unusual to the natural environment, institutions and culture of

its language area, since the transference to the translators language can only be estimated.

In the end, since translation is simultaneously a theory and a practice, the translators, beside dealing with the difficulties inherent to the translation of prose, must think about the artistic features of the text, its exquisiteness and approach, as well as its marks (lexical, grammatical, or phonological). They should not forget that the stylistic marks of one language can be immensely different from another. As far as the whole text is concerned, it is simply impossible to transfer all the message of the original text into the target text (Yinhua, 2011: 169). However, the translators can try to find equivalence in translation and show the cautious nature of their assertions accordingly and request the readers to join and select which translation renders the thoughts, notions and words of the original text correctly.

The imperative suggestion is that the meaning of the translation is supposed to be the same in both the languages and the safety of the worthiness of the contents ought to be assured collectively. Even when translation is indeed an absolute copy, it already summons the word by its name, wrenches it destructively from its context, but precisely thereby calls it back to its origin (Benjamin, 1978 [1931]: 269). Nonetheless, despite the fact that translation brings cultures nearer, in each translation, there will be a definite deformation between cultures.