TRANSLATION EQUIVALENCE

Abstract. The relationship between the original text and the translation text is complex and multifaceted. While a translation should not be a word-for-word copy of the original, it should also be faithful to the original text’s meaning, function, and effect. Translation equivalence is the concept that a translation should b eequivalent to the original text in terms of meaning, function, and effect. However, absolute equivalence is impossible, as every translation is unique and there will always besome differences between the original and translated texts.When assessing the equivalenceof a translation, translators must consider several factors, including: The translation should convey the same meaning as the original text, the translation should serve the same function as the original text, the translation should have the same effect on the reader as the original text. By considering all of these factors, translators can produce translations that are both faithful to the original text and effective in the target language.

Keywords: equivalence, translation, original, comparison.

At the moment, there is no consensus in the scientific literature about when exactly this happened. P.M. Topper suggested that the term "equivalent", originally applied to machine translation, was suggested by R. Jacobson in his 1959 work on the linguistic aspects of translation, to be applied to "human" translation. Let's look at the different definitions of the term "equivalence". If you turn to encyclopedic dictionaries, you can find the following definitions of the concept of "equivalence:

1.the equivalent is a substitute for something, to be equal.

2.the equivalent is an equal value, something equal is another, completely replaces it. 

3 .the equivalent is an equal, complete substitute in some sense.

In Translation Studies, the attitude to the concept of "equivalence" is ambiguous. Some researchers refute this concept. In particular, M. Snell-Hornby notes that the concept of "equivalence" cannot be considered the main concept of translation studies, since it is inaccurate and distorts translation problems, and also creates the illusion of symmetry between languages. Van den Brock believes that the equivalence effect is impossible because there are no criteria by which this effect can be measured. The researcher also asks if the text gives the same effect in different cultures and at different times [Broeck 1978]. Other researchers believe that equivalence exists, but has its own characteristics. Nida believes that the concept of equivalence can change depending on the linguistic situation [Nida 1964]. According to V. S. Vinogradov, the equivalence of translation to the original is always a relative concept, since the translation will never be absolutely identical to the original text. How close the text of the translation will be to the original text depends on many factors: on the skill of the translator, on the peculiarities of the languages and cultures of the texts being compared, on the time of creation of the original and translation, on the method of translation, etc." [Vinogradov 2001]. В.С. V. S. Vinogradov believes that equivalence in translation studies should be understood as "maintaining the relative equality of content, semantic, semantic, stylistic and functional-communicative information contained in the original and translation." Moreover, the equivalent of the original and translation is, first of all, a general understanding of the information contained in the text, including those that affect not only the consciousness, but also the feelings of the recipient, and are not expressed only in an explicit form. in the text, also implicitly attributed to the subtext" [there]. J.According to Catford, determining the essence of translation equivalence, as well as the conditions for achieving it, should become the main task of translation theory. After carrying out a number of studies, J.Catford concludes that equivalence does not consist of formal identity or equality of meanings, the main condition of which should be the interchangeability of the original text and the translation text [Catford 1965]. M. Halliday considered the equivalent only at the level of text, statement or sentence [Halliday 1964].However, some scholars argue that this is the only way to produce a truly faithful translation. They believe that the translator should not make anychanges to the original text, even if those changes would make the translation more readable or understandable in the target anguage. This approach to equivalence is often used in  the translation of sacred texts or other highly specialized documents. In these cases, it is important to preserve the exact wording of the original text, even if it is difficult to understand.

Ultimately, the decision of which approach to equivalence to use is up to the translator. There is no right or wrong answer, and the best approach will vary depending on the specific text being translated.

So, A.V. Fedorov uses the concept of "complete" instead of "equivalence". This utility, according to the author, involves the full transmission of the semantic content of the original [Fedorov 2002]. The proposed approach was criticized. In particular, L. S. Barkhudarov notes that losses during translation are inevitable and, accordingly, the translation text cannot be an absolute equivalent of the original text [Barkhudarov 1973].

The second approach is to try to determine the invariant part in the content of the original, the preservation of which is necessary to achieve equivalence. As a rule, the role of such an invariant part is performed by some function of the original text or the situation described in the text. However, this approach does not stand up to criticism, since in practice it often happens that an invariant part of the content is not preserved, but the text provides Intercollegiate communication, and vice versa.

The third approach is called Empirical, it is V. N. Komissarova. Comparing a large number of completed translations with their originals, V. N. Komissarov concludes: "the degree of semantic proximity to the original is not the same for different translations, and their equivalence is based on the preservation of different parts of the original content" [Komissarov 1999].

Summing up, we note that at the moment there is no clear definition of the concept of “equivalence” in the literature, most of the definitions are given in descriptive form. However, based on the above definitions, it can be concluded that the main essence of the concept of “equivalence” can be determined by the equivalence of content, equality of information.

Ultimately, the  goal of equivalence in translation is to produce a translation that is faithful to the original text and that effectively communicates the author’s intended meaning to the reader.