“The comparison of texts in different languages ​​inevitably implies a theory of equivalence. » (Leonardi, 2005, p.1). The idea of ​​equivalence in translation studies has been debated since its conception in the late 1950s and still is today. Many innovative theorists, from Vinay to Darbelnet to Nida to Baker, have each discussed their own take on this idea. “Equivalence was intended to indicate that the source text…and the target text…share some sort of 'similarity'." (Panou, 2013, p.3)Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essayAll types of equivalence and ideas about it seem to be different translation techniques that are used to achieve different levels of resemblance. This essay will examine some of the prominent theorists of translation studies and discuss their opinions on the subject. The idea of ​​what exactly equivalence is and how it is beneficial or not is viewed differently by many people in the field and can often spark heated debate. Since many theorists have differing opinions on what equivalence is, it can be very interesting to research their opinions. I will present some of the ideas put forward by these theorists and discuss how they differ from the ideas of others to clarify what the notion of equivalence is and what its proposed limits are. Perhaps one of the most famous ideas on equivalence comes from Nida. and Taber (1982) where they discuss their ideas of formal correspondence, or formal equivalence, and dynamic equivalence. They differentiate between these two ideas, arguing that formal correspondence generally distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns of the target language (TL). They suggest that there are not always direct equivalents but that the translator must strive to always choose the closest equivalent if he or she aims for formal equivalence. They say that with formal equivalence, the source text (ST) and the target text (TT) will always look and feel similar. On the other side of their theory is dynamic equivalence. They say that dynamic equivalence is "much more than just the correct communication of information" (p. 25) and that the main idea behind this type of translation is to elicit the same feeling or reaction from the readership of TL than the original text in the original text. source language (SL). It would seem that aiming for dynamic equivalence is a good technique for a translator to adopt when there are large differences between the source culture (SC) and the target culture (TC). Taking this idea into account, it would therefore be better for a translator to strive for dynamic rather than formal equivalence when translating a text heavily laden with culturally specific elements (CSI). (Newmark, 1988, p.89) I would be sympathetic to their idea of ​​dynamic equivalence if it were always possible to generate the same reaction in one person as in another. I think the idea is limited because it is not always plausible with all types of ST. This opinion is apparently shared by some translation specialists such as Broeck (1978) when he states that the response to reading a text varies from one culture to another and that, furthermore, it is impossible to detect and record these responses (p. 40).Jakobson is a theorist known for his ideas on three different types of translation. Intralingual translation (therefore translation or reformulation in the same language), interlingual translation (translation between languages) and intersemiotic translation (translationbetween sign systems). He states that in interlingual translation there cannot be complete equivalence between a certain number of words (2000, p.114). A good example of interlingual translation is the way greetings are used in English and Italian. "Hello" in English is used in person or on the phone to greet someone, while in Italian, "ciao" is used to greet someone face to face but outside. The telephone "pronto", which literally means "ready", is used. They both serve the same function if they were to be translated into English, it just depends on the situation. The situation of the SL is very important when translating, as it can often change what might be considered equivalent or not. At least this is the case according to Vinay and Darbelnet (1995). They argue that the need to create equivalence between texts arises directly from the situation of the ST and that the translator must take this into account when choosing words for the TT. They propose that equivalence in translation occurs when a situation in the TT "reproduces the same situation as in the original, while using completely different wording." (p.32). This is the ideal method to use when dealing with many tricky translation elements such as idioms, adjectival phrases, or onomatopoeia of animal sounds. They argue that even if a semantic equivalent of a word or phrase is found in a dictionary, this is not always relevant to a situation and does not always guarantee a successful translation. If we look at their idea of ​​applying this to idioms, we can see how it works. The Spanish expression “empezar la casa por el tejado” which literally means “to begin the house with the roof” makes no sense when the equivalent words are put together in English. The translator should try to understand the meaning and the situation in which this expression is used in order to determine what a successful translation would be. In this case, it would be a question of “putting the cart before the horse”. I believe this is a strong argument in the debate over what equivalence is and what its limits are, in that if the translator does not focus on the direct equivalents for each word then they will produce a translation much more natural. situationality is an idea apparently shared by House (1997) since she argues that ST and TT should correspond in function and that if the texts differ on situational features, they cannot be completely equivalent. She says that a translation can only be considered adequate if it corresponds to the “textual” profile and function of the original text. Something seemingly important to House is how a text interacts with the audience receiving it. With this in mind, she defines equivalence in two ways, stating that translations can be overt or covert. It is stated that a text which is not directly addressed to the target audience can be translated openly because there is no risk of miscommunication due to the fact that the audience is not directly involved. She says that in this case the translator need not attempt to recreate the original and that it must “overtly be a translation” (p. 189). An example of this would be a political speech given in London on Brexit which had to be translated into Spanish. There is no need to directly involve the Spanish readership in this speech, as it is a speech aimed at the British public, encouraging them to feel or act on something. The text can be translated as an article of reported speech to provide the Spanish people with information about what is happening in British culture. InOn the other hand, a secret translation must appear as if it were the original text, it is not necessary to emphasize that the TT is in fact a translation. A good example here would be a text that is not directly addressed to an audience, an academic article or an instruction manual. The tone of the text is always the same regardless of the language and the function remains. Because these types of texts are not specifically addressed to a target cultural audience (House, 1997, p. 194), they tend not to include characteristics specific to a target culture. House's theory is interesting to me, but the fact that it is limited to interaction with the target culture makes me think that it is also limited in scope. There are many texts in which the text type (Reiss, 2004) is difficult to determine and many which are a hybrid of different types and therefore include many different traits. One of the most interesting things I have read about this debate among theorists is that there is no "perfect" equivalence between languages ​​and that equivalence is always "assumed" (Pym, 2010, p. 37). He describes equivalence as something that has equal value in all languages. His main argument here is that equivalence can be reduced to natural equivalence and directional equivalence. What he means by natural equivalence is something which already exists naturally between languages, a similarity which is not determined by the translator, but which is already there and which he discovers. He also suggests that it is not affected by what he calls the “directionality” of a translation (p. 7). A great simple example is the word “Sunday” which translates from English to Spanish as “domingo” and translates to “Sunday”. There is no variation in the translation of these two words between English and Spanish. Directionality comes up again when he describes his theory of directional equivalence. What he means here is that a word can be translated as a particular word in one direction, but will not be translated the same way. He says that “translation goes from one side to the other, but not vice versa.” (Pym, 2007, p.277). For example, if I decided to translate "trasnochar" from Spanish to English as "stay up late", I could not guarantee that someone else would translate "stay up late" into Spanish as "trasnochar" , because it is not a natural translation. equivalent between this pair of languages. The equivalence is created by the translator and the meaning is assumed, even if it is in fact a correct translation. Pym's ideas on equivalence seem to have the fewest limitations. I say this because, as he claims that equivalence is assumed and never complete, the translator has at least some freedom when translating a text and is not limited by a strict set of limitations. The last theorist I will talk about is Mona Baker. In his 1992 book, In Other Words, there is perhaps the most detailed theory of equivalence that I have encountered. Here she describes different types of equivalence at different levels such as word, grammar, text and pragmatic levels. I will explain to you what she means by the different levels. At the word level, it highlights the importance of the single word for the translator, because this is what they initially look at when they think about translating in order to begin to understand the text. She also defines the term “word” specifying that it is very complex and can often have different meanings in different languages. She says that when translating a word, things like number and gender need to be taken into account (p.11). Grammatical equivalence according to Baker draws attention to the..