The level of the purport of communication

(ST) “Be free, white and over twenty one”

(TT) «Өзі би, өзі қожа»

(ST) “Constant guest is never welcome”

(TT) «Қонақ бір келсе – құт, екі келсе – жұт, үш келсе – жыт»

«Қонақ таңертең – тәтті, түсте – тұщы, кешке – кермек»

As is evident from these examples, the purpose of communication is more common part of the expressions content, peculiar utterance as a whole, and determining its role in the communicative act. The relationship between ST and TT of this type is characterized by: 1) the comparability of lexical and syntactic organization, 2) inability to relate the vocabulary and structure of the ST and the TT with semantic paraphrase or syntactic transformation relationships, and 3) the absence of real or explicit logical links between the messages in the ST and TT which could allow to confirm that in both cases, “reports on the same” 4) lowest common content of ST and TT, in comparison with all other translations, which are recognized as equivalents.

Thus, in this type of equivalence in TT seems to say “not at all” and “not at all about” what in the ST. This conclusion is valid for the entire message as a whole, even if one or two words in the ST have direct or indirect correspondence in the TT. Translations on this level of equivalence performed in cases where a more detailed reproduction of the content is impossible, and when such reproduction would Receptor transfer to the wrong conclusions, because he has very different associations than the ST Receptor, and thus interfere with the proper transfer purpose of communication.

The level of identification of situation

(ST) “One fool makes many”

(TT) «Жаман адам – жұқпалы»

The second type of equivalence is submitted with translations semantic closeness to the ST, which is also not based on common values used by linguistic means. In its equivalents in these examples, most multilingual utterances of words and the ST syntactic structures can not find a direct match in the TT. However, it can be confirmed that between ST and TT of this group there is a large community of content than the equivalence of the first type. The relationship between ST and TT of this type is characterized by: 1) the comparability of lexical and syntactic organization, 2) inability to relate the vocabulary and structure of the ST and the TT with semantic paraphrase or syntactic transformation relations; 3) preservation in translation communication purposes, since, as we have already established, the preservation of the dominant function expression is a prerequisite for equivalence; 4) preservation in translation refers to the same situation that proved the existence of direct communications between multilingual real or logical connection, to show that in both cases "reported about the same."

The level of method of description of the situation

(ST) “Gossiping and lying go hand in hand”

(TT) «Өсек пен өтірік егіз»

The third type of equivalence. Comparison of ST and TT of this type reveals the following features: 1) lack of parallelism of lexical and syntactic structure, 2) inability to relate the structures of ST and TT with relations of syntactic transformation, and 3) preservation in translation communication purposes and identification of the same situation as in the ST; 4) preservation in translation general concepts, with the aid of which realizes the description of the situation in the ST, i.e. preservation of that part of the ST contents, which we called the "way of description the situation". The difference between the laws of constructing messages often makes the structure of messages in a language like "illogical" in terms of speakers of other languages, causing the need for semantic paraphrase in translation. English proverb such as

(ST) It is a good horse that never stumbles

the importance of which can be represented as "a horse that does not stumble, so good, that these horses will not happen" very pretentiously, in terms of Kazakh receptor expression content, similar to Kazakh reports:

(TT) «Жақсы ат малдан артық»

«Қас жүйрікте сын болмас, қас сұлуда мін болмас»