emselves assert that Typically, formal correspondence distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language, and hence distorts the message, so as to cause the receptor to misunderstand or to labor unduly hard '. equivalence is defined as a translation principle according to which a translator seeks to translate the meaning of the original in such a way that the TL wording will trigger the same impact on the TC audience as the original wording did upon the ST audience. They argue that 'Frequently, the form of the iriginal text is changed; but as long as the change follows the rules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual consistency in the transfer, and of transformation in the receptor language, the message is preserved and the ransiation is faithful '. can easily see that Nida is in favour of the application of dynamic eqivalence, as a more effective translation procedure. This is perfectly understandable if we take into account the context of the situation in which Nida was dealing with the translation phenomenon, that is to say, his translation of the Bible, Thus, the product of the translation process, that is the text in the TL, must have the same impact on the different readers it was addressing. Only in Nida and Taber s edition is it clearly stated that 'dynamic equivalence in translation is far more than mere correct communication of information'. Using a linguistic approach to translation, Nida is much more interested in the message of the text or, in other words, in its semantic quality. He therefore strives to make sure that this message remains clear in the target text
2.3 Types of Equivalents
There are two types of translation equivalents:
. Contextual Equivalents;
. Phraseological Equivalents
. The structural similarity of Source Text and Target Text implies that relationships are equivalence established between correlated units in the two texts, that is English and Kazakh. Since language units are used in the accepted meanings, many Source Text units have their regular equivalents in Target Text units. For example, Source Text we use Austria-Австрія. Regular equivalents are connected with geographical names, proper names (Smith-Сміт) and the names of magazines, hotels. Depending on the type of language unit regular equivalents can be classified as lexical, phraseological or grammatical.words into languages ​​make correspond to each other in one or several components of their semantic structure. Though they are not fully identical in their semantic.example, ambitious-aim, wish, desire; selfish, egoistic, dishonest. The ambition of a girl was to be a teacher. ? Изди? жал? Ьіз Арма м?? Алім болу. The ambitious politicians are very selfish and may deprave their surroundings. М? Н...
