“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 is still debated today. Many innovative theorists, from Vinay and Darbelnet to Nida to Baker, have each discussed their own views on this idea. “The equivalence was meant to indicate that the source text… and the target text… share some sort of “identity”.” (Panou, 2013, p.3) Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay All types of equivalence and the ideas about them appear to be different translation techniques used to achieve different levels of similarity. This essay will examine some of the most important theorists in translation studies and discuss their opinions on the topic. The idea of ​​what exactly equivalence is and how it is beneficial or not is viewed differently by many in this field and can often cause heated debate. Since many theorists have differing opinions on what equivalence is, it can be very interesting to research their opinions. I will describe some of the ideas advanced 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 about equivalence comes from Nida and Taber (1982) where they discuss their ideas of formal correspondence, or formal equivalence, and dynamic equivalence. They distinguish between these two ideas, stating that formal correspondence typically distorts grammatical and stylistic patterns in the target language (TL). They suggest that direct equivalents do not always exist but that the translator should strive to always choose the closest equivalent if he or she is aiming for formal equivalence. They say that with formal equivalence, the source text (ST) and target text (TT) will always resemble each other in terms of origin and aesthetics. On the other side of their theory is dynamic equivalence. They state that dynamic equivalence is “much more than simply the correct communication of information” (p.25) and that the main idea behind this type of translation is to arouse in the readers of the TL the same feeling or reaction as original text in the 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, therefore, it would be much better for a translator to seek dynamic rather than formal equivalence when translating a text that is heavily laden with culture-specific elements (CSI). (Newmark, 1988, p.89) I would be in favor of 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 as it is not always plausible with every type of ST. This opinion is apparently shared by some translation scholars such as Broeck (1978) when he states that the response to reading a text will vary from culture to culture and 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 (translation between sign systems). He argues that in interlingual translation there cannot be full equivalence between a certain number of words (2000, p.114). A good example of interlingual translation is the way inwhere greetings in English and Italian are used. 'Hello' in English is used in person or on the telephone to greet someone, while in Italian 'ciao' is used to greet someone face to face but in face. Telefono is used "pronto", which literally means "ready". Both serve the same function if they were to be translated into English, it just depends on the situation. The SL situation is very important during translation, 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 state that the need to create equivalences between texts arises directly from the ST situation and that the translator must take this into account when choosing words for the TT. They propose that translation equivalence occurs when a situation in the TT “replicates the same situation as the original, while using a completely different wording.” (page 32). This is the ideal method to use when dealing with many complicated translation elements such as idioms, adjectival phrases, or animal sound onomatopoeias. 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 take a look at their idea of ​​applying it to idioms, we can see how it works. The Spanish idiom "empezar la casa por el tejado" which literally means "to start the house from the roof" does not make sense when the equivalent words are put together in English. The translator should try to understand the meaning and situation of why this phrase is used to understand what a successful translation would be. In this case it would be “putting the cart before the horse”. I believe this is a solid argument in the debate about what equivalence is and what its limits are, because, if the translator does not focus on direct equivalents for each word, then he will produce a much more natural translation. situation is an idea apparently shared by House (1997) as he argues that the TS and TT should correspond in function and that if the texts differ on situational characteristics then they cannot be completely equivalent. According to her, a translation can only be considered adequate if it corresponds to the profile and 'textual' function of the original text. Something seemingly important to House is how a text interacts with the receiving audience. With this in mind, he defines equivalence in two ways, stating that translations can be overt or covert. It is stated that a text that does not directly address the target audience can be translated openly as there is no danger of miscommunication due to the fact that the audience is not directly involved. He says that in this case it is not necessary for the translator to 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 about Brexit that needed to be translated into Spanish. There is no need to engage Spanish readers directly with this speech as it is a speech aimed at the British public, encouraging them to feel something or act on something. The text can be translated rather as a speech article to provide the Spanish people with information about what is happening in British culture. A hidden translation on the other hand must appear as if it were the original text, there is no need to point out that the TT is actually a translation. A good example in this case would be a text that is not directly aimed at an audience, an academic article or an instruction manual. The tone of the text is always the same, regardlessfrom the language and the function remains. Since these types of texts are not specifically addressed to the audience of the target culture (House, 1997, p.194), they tend not to include any characteristics specific to a target culture. House's theory is interesting to me, however 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 textual typology (Reiss, 2004) is difficult to determine and many which are a hybrid of different types and therefore include many different features. One of the most interesting things I have read about this debate between theorists is that there is no “perfect” equivalence between languages ​​and that equivalence is always “assumed” (Pym, 2010, p.37). It describes equivalence as something that shows equal value between 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 that already exists naturally between languages, some similarity that is not determined by the translator, but which is already there and which is discovered by him. He also suggests that it is not influenced by what he calls the “directionality” of a translation (p.7). A great and simple example of this is the word "Sunday" which is translated from English to Spanish as "domingo" and translates back as "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 may translate as a particular word in one direction, but it will not translate 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 "staying up late", I couldn't guarantee that someone else would translate "staying up late" into Spanish as "trasnochar" since it's not a natural thing equivalent between this language pair. The equivalence is created by the translator and the meaning is assumed, even if in reality it is a correct translation. Pym's ideas about equivalence appear to have the fewest limitations associated with them. I say this because, since he argues that equivalence is presupposed and is never complete, then the translator at least has some freedom when translating a text and is not limited by a series of rigid limitations. The last theorist I'll talk about is Mona Baker. In his 1992 book In Other Words there is perhaps the most detailed theory of equivalence that I have ever encountered. Here he describes various types of equivalence at different levels such as word, grammar, text and pragmatic level. I will explain what he means by different levels. At the word level, it states the importance of the single word for the translator since it is the one he initially looks at when thinking about translating to begin to understand the text. He also defines the term "word" by stating that it is very complex and can often have different meanings in different languages. He says that when translating a word you should consider things like number and gender (p.11). Baker's grammatical equivalence draws attention to the number of grammatical categories contained in different languages. He states that differences in grammatical structures can greatly influence a translation. Things to consider here are voice, tempo, appearance etc. For example, in Spanish there are eight tenses in four different aspects, so there are 32 different ways to express a verb. When you compare it to the English language which contains 12, it will obviously be difficult for a translator to find the exact grammatical equivalent of TT. Next he talks about textual equivalence, which he refers to.