Language is studied as a sign system by Ferdinand de Saussure who believed that sign is the combination of signifier (sound image)

and the signified (concept). The relationship between signifier and signified is arbitrary. Saussure says that a sign is meaningful when it combines with other signs. It gets its meanings from its relation and difference from other signs. It has comparative position in the sign system. He says that meaning is a fixed entity. It is interpreted through language. Language does not create it. He excluded the social communication in the construction of meaning. Saussure studied the structure of language only. Bakhtin focused his attention on the semiology of Saussure and considered meaning as the most important element of language instead of sign. According to Bakhtin dialogue is an important element of language and it occurs in social settings. He says dialogue is dialogic in nature. So social set up and culture is necessary to be considered in the construction of meaning. Interpretation of meaning is culture oriented and each dialogue has an otherness embedded in it. The intake of a meaning in any society depends upon the social make up of that society. Meaning is not an objective entity as Saussure declared it. Interpretation of any meaning has a blend of many other previous talks having a particular history and culture. This thought was named as DIALOGISM. A meaning is prone to as many contexts as readers. At each reading new interpretation is given to a meaning. Author is not considered an authority; it is the reader who shapes the meanings. This thought was given by Roland Barthes who also said that meaning is created by difference and deference. These are the thought which bothered Kristeva who gave the name of intertextuality to this interconnectedness of texts. She called a text a mosaic of quotations. Meaning according to her is not a fixed entity it is always moving. It has traces of many other meanings in it as well. In the interpretation and signification of a meaning in one culture the whole social, cultural, religious and economical web is involved. A particular meaning in any language is the depiction of its culture. Re-interpretation and re-signification of this meaning in a new culture with alien social set up is done through the activity of translation

The aim of this research activity is to trace the intertextual framework of culture sensitive references. This tracing can help in knowing the process of construction of meaning in source culture and its re interpretation and re signification in target culture. In this regard I will focus on the development of intertextuality as a theory and refer to the work of chief contributors to this development. Moreover I shall discuss the realization of linguistic and cultural differences in the process of translation and the way intertextual composition of text conditions the process of translation. It becomes a leading factor in the formation of new techniques and models to innovate the major events in of literary history of target culture. There are many theories of translation which focus on linguistic and contextual factors while translating. System theories of translation are closest to present research study. According to these theories translation is a major part of target culture. Translated literature operates in social, literary and historical system of the target culture. EQUIVALENCE, INTERTEXTUALITY AND TRANSLATION Concept of equivalence is of grave importance in the field of translation. The main reason to my selection of theories of equivalence is that they talk about the lingual and cultural aspect in the translation activity. They all are of the view that translation is not the transference of text from one society to another but it is the culture which is required to be taken into account. By the activity of translation the whole culture cannot be transferred to the other society. Culture is intertextual in its nature. I will focus on how strategy of equivalence effect can help me in my study. I aim at finding a way to express the intertextual nature of the text and the difficulty in translating it. Since the start of the translation activity in the second half of the 20th century most of the translators talk about the relationship of translated text with the existing system of literary text. They tend to see the influence of translated text on the other literary texts in the target culture and vice versa. This approach determines the role of translation with in a system.
2

Moreover the relationship of source text with the literary system is also considered. EvenZohar in 1980 gave the idea of polysystem theory of translation. He fixed his attention towards the cultural aspect of the translation ignoring its linguistic aspect. He moved translation from text to culture. He claims a translation is not the reproduction of text but of the culture. This helped Bassnett and Lefevere in 1990 to coin the term cultural turn in the translation field which moved translation from text to culture and politics. Newmark (1989) suggested two ways to deal with the culture specific references in translation process: transference which emphasize on the source culture and keeps the local color and componential analysis which excludes the culture and only highlights the message in the text. In the process of translation, equivalence is the most dominant aspect and it has been the consistent attention of translator throughout the history. Production of almost similar equivalents in target language is called equivalence. Jakobson (1959) talked about equivalence in difference and proposed three kinds of equivalence: interlingual, interlingual and intersemiotic. He talks about the theoretical analysis of translation. Nida (1964) asserts two types of equivalence: dynamic and formal equivalence. Dynamic equivalence is also called as the sense for sense translation or and the meaning is supposed to be reached to the target reader with the same impact as it is to the source text reader while in formal equivalence the focus is on the form and content of the text. House (1977) talked about overt and covert translation and equivalence. Overt translation is not the original copy of the source text because in it the target audience is not addressed directly while in the covert translation functionally equivalent text is produced through translation. Baker (1992) gave four kinds of equivalence in translation: equivalence at word level and above word level, equivalence at grammatical level among languages while translating. Textual equivalence between source and target language texts regarding coherence and cohesion. Pragmatic equivalence which talks about the strategies of translation. Vinay and Darbelnet (1995) suggested equivalence oriented translation in which the same situation is created in translated text as in the original but with different wording which helps in keeping the stylistic impact of the source language. Catford (1996) gave taxonomy of translation and talked about lingual and cultural factors in translation. According to Catford (1988) translation is an activity of equal replacement of text from source language to the target language. Catford (1988) is of the view that translation is an activity of
3

equal replacement of text from source language to the target language. According to him equivalence in translation involves two factors: linguistic factors and cultural factors. In translation linguistic and cultural factors are of momentous importance. Linguistic factors are concrete but culture factors reside in the background. These are inevitable for the conveyance of meaning successfully form the source to the target culture. This equivalence is done at the morpheme level to the sentence level. Equivalence between morphemes to sentence level should exist between source and target language in the activity of translation. If this can be achieved, an accurate and correct translated version is the result which is difficult to endure. These two factors are a signification of linguistic and cultural approaches to translation. Before the theory of Catford, different studies about equivalence were already on reading. Catford had a close study of these studies which were proposed by (Jakobson, Nida, House, Baker, and Vinay & Darbelnet) he made two groups of these proposed study. One group comprised of jakobson's, and Vinay & Darbelnet's who had their main attention towards linguistic features of the equivalence. The second group comprised of Nida's, House's, and Baker who highlighted the cultural aspects of equivalence. So Catford taken all the study into his focus and based on that formulated a new classification including linguistic and cultural aspects of equivalence. These theories talk about the lingual as well as cultural aspect of the translation. But translation to me is more than that. The main focus should be on the intertextual nature of the source text which cannot be re interpreted in the target text. Intertextual references are deeply embedded into the history, religion, traditions, norms and belief system of the source culture that cannot be reinterpreted in the target society. Target reader cannot comprehend the entire intertextual baggage of the translated text. Translation through the cultural and lingual aspects cannot convey the background of the text. My aim is to find out the value and place of intertextuality in the vicinity of translation. CULTURAL TURN Language and culture are bound together to separate them, one is incomplete without the other. Translation is not possible if the linguistic or the cultural difference occurs but Nida (1964) has
4

said the difference between cultures can cause more severe problems for translator. turn.

So

translation is considered as the culture not the text. This development has lead to the cultural