the translator is bound to manage the pragmatic divergencies between both source and target context, i.e.

, he must eventually recreate textuality in all its dimensions anew.

Bearing in mind that the pragmatic dimension of a text is a level in which several parameters interact so as to engender a specific effect on its readers, then a translator will have to examine the source text closely in order to evaluate how far the textual organization reflects the communicative situation the text is embedded into in order to recreate a similar one in the target context. ANA MARIA BERNARDO
terrorist

in the first place the translator is bound to the source text pragmatics that he tries to decode appropriately. However, when coming to the next stage, that of the reverbalization, he realizes that a mere transfer of the source text pragmatics is not only impossible but also undesirable, ource and target linguistic and cultural contexts may diverge significantly and the target reader may not be aware of such discrepancies (in fact, he must not be aware of them and it is a bad sign if he does)

degree of explicitness vs. implicitness varies considerably from translation to translation and language to language.

The movement a translated text undergoes (Pym 1992) from the source to the target language, culture and audience with different background knowledge, expectations and communicative needs

Readership is like context: it can never be completely ignored

the relationship between language structure and extra-linguistic context (Levinson, p. 9).

translation is concerned with capturing the meaningful components in an original text in order to reconstruct them in a text of the target language (De Vasconcellos, p. 1).

Peter Verdonk (2002:6) in the analysis of the headline found that style does not arise out of a vacuum but that its production, purpose, and effect are deeply embedded in the particular context in which both the writer and the reader of the headline play their distinctive roles.
One such discipline is Pragmatics. The relationship may appear obscure, but a close examination of the two disciplines brings out striking areas of interest.

Through pragmatics, contextual meaning is exploited and analyzed todiscover the real meaning. It is important in pragmatics to talk about implied andintended meaning, assumptions, purposes and goals of people in communicationand various types of actions

The inability of semantics to satisfactorily explicate the sociolinguistic other non-linguistic components of verbal communication gave birth to pragmatics. Thus, pragmatics is a fairly new field of study, which shares borders with sociolinguistics and semantics. context or his culture to say the most relevant aspects of his speech that will ensure comprehension. In a similar way, this is what Hall (In Cordonnier, 1995:13) means when he says:Man himself is programmed by his culture in a very redundant way. If it were not so, he would not be able to talk or act as these activitieswould be too demanding. Each time a man talks, he only enunciates a part of the message. The remaining part is completed by the hearer. Agreat part of what is not said is understood implicitly (translationmine).Man is very often not conscious or just superficially conscious of this process.An attempt to translate the illocutionary act and the perlocutionary effectdraws the translator near to the theory of interpretative translation formulated bythe Teachers at ESIT, Paris or the theory of dynamic equivalence based on the principle of equivalent effect or response. Interpretative translation lays premiumon interpretation of the message in the light of the context, and transmits themessage in the target language by deverbalising, i.e. by forgetting the originalwords while retaining the meaning. On its part, dynamic equivalence wasformulated by Nida (1964) following Reiss where the receptors of the message inthe receptor language (should be able to) respond to it substantially the samemanner as the receptors in the source language (Nida & Taber, 1969:24). Thedesire to produce an equivalent effect made Nida to accept J.B. Phillips translationof Romans 16:16 from greet one another with a holy kiss (King James Bible) to

the translator is bound to manage the pragmatic divergencies between both source and target context, i.e., he must eventually recreate textuality in all its dimensions anew.

the translator is bound to the source text pragmatics that he tries to decode appropriately. However, when coming to the next stage, that of the reverbalization, he realizes that a mere transfer of the source text pragmatics is not only impossible but also undesirable, at the contextual level, since source and target linguistic and cultural contexts may diverge significantly and the target reader may not be

aware of such discrepancies (in fact, he must not be aware of them and it is a bad sign if he does) Contextual distance involves not only cultural but also sociocultural dimensions which have to be reappreciated when transferred into a new environment. Even at a more objective level, there may be considerable differences when expressing relative distance,1 in which social aspects, as well as familiarity or non-familiarity and also inclusiveness or exclusiveness, ironic use and impersonality can be expressed in a language and lacking in another. Also linguistic distance is abundantly exemplified as a major source of translation problems. What is considered relevant in a language, and as such is obligatory expressed, may be neglected in another language the source text goes on belonging to the source text world, it does not give up its existence there. But on the other hand, a translated text is not a free text production as any other text, it is rather a text induced text production (Neubert/Shreve 1992)

Such constraints demand from the translator a great amount of intervention in the sense of managing the pragmatic potential of the source text and adapting it to the target context according to the new circumstances of text reception and use, target audience and other relevant situational factors. Audience and other relevant situational factors. In translation, the displacement operated in a text that is to be transferred into a new linguistic and cultural context implies an exchange value (Pym 1992) that asks for certain adjustments, similar to those that take place when exchanging money for different currencies. Thus, a transaction takes place that needs to be appropriately accounted for.

It is obvious that equivalence cannot be linked to formal, syntactic and lexical similarities alone because any two linguistic items in two different languages are multiply ambiguous, and because languages cut up reality in different ways. Further, language use is notoriously indirect necessitate inferencing to various degrees. This is why functional, pragmatic equivalence a concept which has been accepted in contrastive linguistics for a long time is the type of equivalence which is most appropriate for describing relations between original and translation.

and if one looks for a yardstick, a general basis to judge a translation, there is nothing concrete but literal translation. When you ask how close, how faithful, how true a version is in relation to the original, you can have nothing else in mind except the spirit of the original, which is the reverse of concrete.
Vinay and Darbelnet rightly point out that whilst the word is rarely the unit of accurate translation,

translation is concerned with capturing the meaningful components in an original text in order to reconstruct them in a text of the target language (De Vasconcellos, p. 1).

Although the concept of constructing a translated text on the basis of meaningful equivalence to the original seems almost truistic, its application in practice becomes problematic.

debate is whether the notion of meaningful equivalence should be expanded from formal semantics to include contextual factors of the communicative situation in which translations are made.