Equivalencia En La Traduccion

|Equivalence in Translation: Between Myth and Reality |
|by Vanessa Leonardi  |
|he comparison of texts in different languages inevitably involves a theory of equivalence. Equivalence can be said to bethe central |
|issue in translation although its definition, relevance, and applicability within the field of translation theory have caused heated |
|controversy, and many different theories of the concept of equivalence have been elaborated within this field in the past fifty |
|years. |
|whenever there is deficiency, terminology may be qualified and amplified by loanwords or loan translations, neologisms or semantic |
|shifts, and finally, by circumlocutions |
||
|The aim of this paper is to review the theory of equivalence as interpreted by some of the most innovative theorists in this |
|field—Vinay and Darbelnet, Jakobson, Nida and Taber, Catford, House, and finally Baker. These theorists have studied equivalence in |
|relation to the translation process, using different approaches, and haveprovided fruitful ideas for further study on this topic. |
|Their theories will be analyzed in chronological order so that it will be easier to follow the evolution of this concept. These |
|theories can be substantially divided into three main groups. In the first there are those translation scholars who are in favour of a|
|linguistic approach to translation and who seem to forget thattranslation in itself is not merely a matter of linguistics. In fact, |
|when a message is transferred from the SL to TL, the translator is also dealing with two different cultures at the same time. This |
|particular aspect seems to have been taken into consideration by the second group of theorists who regard translation equivalence as |
|being essentially a transfer of the message from theSC to the TC and a pragmatic/semantic or functionally oriented approach to |
|translation. Finally, there are other translation scholars who seem to stand in the middle, such as Baker for instance, who claims |
|that equivalence is used 'for the sake of convenience—because most translators are used to it rather than because it has any |
|theoretical status' (quoted in Kenny,1998:77).  |
| |
| |
|1.1 Vinay and Darbelnetand their definition of equivalence in translation  |
| |
|Vinay and Darbelnet view equivalence-oriented translation as a procedure which 'replicates the same situation as in the original, |
|whilstusing completely different wording' (ibid.:342). They also suggest that, if this procedure is applied during the translation |
|process, it can maintain the stylistic impact of the SL text in the TL text. According to them, equivalence is therefore the ideal |
|method when the translator has to deal with proverbs, idioms, clichés, nominal or adjectival phrases and the onomatopoeia of animal...