Introduction
It is conventionally believed that familiarity with the source and target languages, as well as the subject matter on the part of the translator is enough for a good translation. However, due to the findings in the field of text analysis, the role of text structure in translation now seems crucial. Therefore, the present paper tends to tackle in an illuminating way how does thinking / rhetorical patterns of thinking affect the translation process. To put this differently, do we stay faithful to the original text while translating across cultures or we can say that every language / culture has its own specifities which we can never translate? we shall answer these queries by giving some concrete examples from proverbs, newspaper articles and idiomatic expressions.
Conventionally, it is suggested that translators should meet three requirements, namely: 1) Familiarity with the source language, 2) Familiarity with the target language, and 3) Familiarity with the subject matter to perform their job successfully. Based on this premise, the translator discovers the meaning behind the forms in the source language (SL) and does his best to produce the same meaning in the target language (TL) using the TL forms and structures. Naturally and supposedly what changes is the form and the code and what should remain unchanged is the meaning and the message (Larson, 1984).
Therefore, one may discern the most common definition of translation, i.e., the selection of the nearest equivalent for a language unit in the SL in a target language. Depending on whether we consider the language unit, to be translated, at the level of word, sentence, or a general concept, translation experts have recognized three approaches to translation:
• translation at the level of word (word for word translation)
• translation at the level of sentence, and
• conceptual translation
In the first approach, for each word in the SL an equivalent word is selected in the TL. This type of translation is effective, especially in translating phrases and proper names such as United Nations, Ministry of Education, Master Students, and so on. However, it is problematic at the level of sentence due to the differences in the syntax of source and target languages. Translated texts as a product of this approach are not usually lucid or communicative, and readers will get through the text slowly and uneasily.


The structure of the source text becomes an important guide to decisions regarding what should or should not appear in the derived text.
When translating at the sentence level, the problem of word for word translation and, therefore, lack of lucidity will be remedied by observing the grammatical rules and word order in the TL while preserving the meaning of individual words. So, sentences such as "I like to swim," "I think he is clever," and "We were all tired" can easily be translated into a target language according to the grammatical rules of that language. Translation at the sentence level may thus be considered the same as the translation at the word level except that the grammatical rules and word order in the TL are observed. Texts produced following this approach will communicate better compared to word for word translation. In conceptual translation, the unit of translation is neither the word nor is it the sentence; rather it is the concept. The best example is the translation of idioms and proverbs such as the following:
“Care killed the cat” الهم قتل الهرة
“He kicked the bucket” لقي حتفه
“Cooperation is necessary” يد واحدة لا تصفق
“Early to bed and early to rise makes a man heathy, wealthy and wise
النوم باكرا والنهوض باكرا يكسبان المرء صحة وثراء وحكمة
“Do not count your chickens before they are hatched”.
لا تعد فراخك قبل أن تفقس
Such idioms and proverbs cannot be translated word for word; rather they should be translated into equivalent concepts in the TL to convey the same meaning and produce the same effect on the readers. The same thing can be said of jokes. Every culture has its own jokes for which it is known and it seems sometimes impossible to transfer them into other cultures.




Conclusion:
There is almost a general consensus that conveying a message from one language to another does not only arise from the mere use of different words and symbols, nor from the arrangement of words together in a sentence, but rather how words, sentences and paragraphs are presented to the foreign reader.
Also, it is universally well-acknowledged that languages have distinct realities in which each shapes and moulds its own. As a result, the culture of one language is bound to vary from another as speakers of a particular language have their own ways of thinking. How a writer thinks, therefore, determines how he writes. These are the views of Sapir (1951; 1956) and Nida (1964). They argue that in different cultures, approaches to making a paragraph tend to be different and these approaches are culturally influenced by patterns of thinking. None of which is better than the other. Such a rhetorical device has its real effect when translating a text from one language to another across two different cultures, where the rhetorical form of the source language does not conform fully with the rhetorical form of the target language.