TRANSLATION AND THE NOTION OF EQUIVALENCE       

Michaël Oustinoff, in his book Translation - History, Theories and Methods (2011), reviews Dominique Wolton’s proposal in L’autre mondialisation (2003) in which the author states the existence of three globalizations in history: 

1) the political one, which occurred at the end of World War II and with the advent of the UN.

2) the economic one, a result of the Thirty Glorious Years, and 

3) the cultural one, a result of the beginning of the 21st century and political conflicts and claims.        

For Oustinoff, translation is closely linked to these three globalizations, since it is related to the emergence of international organizations (first globalization), to technical advances (second globalization) and to the communicative and cultural influence of the third globalization.       

The author demonstrates, based on Wolton’s study, that translation has been acquiring increasing importance in the political, economic and cultural context in societies and in their respective communication needs, which are, in turn, growing exponentially.              

According to Oustinoff we live in "the age of mass communication and the democratization of exchange and travel" (OUSTINOFF, 2011, p. 119) in which translation plays a key role.     

In this context, there are many translation theories and methods that have emerged over time, and today we find ourselves faced with a very significant diversity. For our research, however, it is essential to adopt a translation perspective that considers the process from the perspective of language in use, from the perspective of communication in a real context. It is from this perspective that we will also analyze terminologies from the perspective of the Communicative Theory of Terminology (CABRÉ, 1999), which also proposes a view of the communicative context.       
       
For this reason, we adopt Hurtado Albir’s (2001) definition, according to which translation is an interpretative and communicative process that consists in the reformulation of a text with the means of another language that takes place in a social context and with a determined purpose.  (HURTADO ALBIR, 2001, p. 41)       

For the author, translation is at the same time an act of communication, a textual textual operation and a cognitive activity. In her conception, the act of communication implies that the translation activity is not only to configure the text based on its linguistic characteristics, but also to take into account the communicative intentions that lie behind it, considering the differences of expression of each language and the needs of the addressees.        These factors are extremely important for Terminology, since expert communication may have an interaction that varies between, for example, expert--expert or expert-- layman, and therefore the consideration of the addressee of the final version of the translation must be taken into account.       

The author also considers that seeing translation as a textual operation is relevant, since one does not translate decontextualized units, but texts, and, for this reason, the translator must know how to manage the mechanisms of textual functioning (coherence, cohesion, textual types and genres).       For the analysis of the relationship between UFEs and a translation process (the identification of equivalents), it is also important to consider the text as a central element, since, for TCT, the text is the basis of specialized communication and the habitat of its constituent elements, such as UFEs.

Finally, with the consideration of cognitive activity, Hurtado Albir emphasizes the translation competence is necessary to understand the meaning conveyed by the text, so that it can be reformulated in the foreign language. This interpretation is also essential so that the process of identifying equivalents of UFEs can be done adequately, and will require the translator to also have the thematic competence, that is, the competence of the specialized area in question for the understanding of the original text and, consequently, to find precision in the identification of equivalents.       

The notion of equivalence in translation        
It has been found that, regardless of the position, perspective or bias adopted       
in translation theories, equivalence is a notion always present in translation studies, being discussed, analyzed, defended and contested.        Equivalence, along with UFEs, as mentioned earlier, is one of the key concepts treated in this paper, given the importance we believe it has for the analysis of the translation process and the solutions offered in it for component units of such texts, such as UFEs in our case.    
   
The opinions of theorists vary widely regarding the notion as demonstrated by Hurtado Albir (2001), who mentions the notion’s both central and controversial character.       In her discussion of equivalence in translation studies, the author exemplifies this character by presenting views of authors ranging from those who define translation in terms of equivalence, such as Catford (1965) and Nida and Taber (1974), to those who reject it and even consider it detrimental to the theory, such as Snell--Hornby (1988).       Pym’s (2011) theory for the existence of this disparity is that equivalence is actually a very simple idea and that it is this characteristic that allows one to complicate its application.       

The term equivalence evokes the notions of equality of values and symmetry which, in turn, cause confusion and can undermine translation theory and practice. However, Pym mentions that equivalence theories only argue that some value can manifest itself at some level of translation, without specifying and delimiting this value. Thus, Snell--Hornby’s stance is rejected by Pym, since the author criticizes equivalence, claiming that this notion conveys the idea of "symmetry between languages" which Pym denies, since, in her conception, languages are not translated with the aim of finding an equality of values that express exactly the same.      
 
We agree with Wotjak (1995), for example, who is also against ignoring or denying the notion of equivalence, which he finds defined in very heterogeneous ways and still lacks an adequate definition, defending the need to describe the notion, criticizing reductionist conceptions such as those of Snell--Hornby.

   
Rabadán (1991) is another author who defends the use of equivalence in translation translation theories, considering that the notion can be updated according to the variety of texts and that its type depends on each translation project.       Rabadán is against the theories that she calls "negative" since "instead of opening doors, they close them" (RABADÁN, 1991, p. 59), hindering the development of broader and more coherent proposals.       
For considering that equivalence, despite its controversial character heterogeneous and even polemical nature, it is a fundamental notion for the understanding of translation in terms of theory and practice, and as we can see a significant variation in positions regarding the notion, we conducted a theoretical review based on the assumptions of authors who stand out in translation studies and, in particular, in the study and analysis of equivalence, seeking to reflect on the notion that permeates this research.       

Believing that this notion adds enormously to translation we have proposed to highlight some of the main theories about it, arranged in chronological order to allow the observation of its transformation and evolution.       After organizing this theoretical review and conducting the proposed research, we aim to contribute with our definition of equivalence for specialized translation, our object of study.       
       
Eugene Nida was a renowned scholar in the field of translation, with a theory developed based on his research and practice work in Bible translation.

He proposed a translation model that involved 

1) the analysis of the source text, establishing the grammatical relations between the textual units and the meanings and connotative value of the semantic units.

2) the transfer of this analysis and 

3) its restructuring considering the intended audience or, as he called it, the receiver.       

For Nida, anything that can be said in one language can be said in another if the form is not essential to the message, which can and should be changed in the translation process.              

For the author and Taber, translation consists of reproducing in the receptor language the natural equivalent of the source language message, first in terms of meaning and then in terms of style. (NIDA; TABER, 1974, p. 12, our translation)     
   
Within his model he distinguishes two types of equivalence, the formal and the dynamic.       
dynamic. Formal equivalence occurs when all the formal characteristics of the source text are maintained in the receptor language. In this process it is common for the message to be distorted and for grammatical and stylistic patterns of the target language to be changed.        

Dynamic equivalence, on the other hand, ensures that the reception of the message by the receivers of the translation is the same as it was for the receivers of the source text, even if the form has to undergo modifications. The dynamic equivalence is what the author seeks for the biblical translations, valuing the reaction of the receivers so that the biblical text can fulfill its evangelizing function.

Nida’s perspective is quite demanding in that it states that the same effects and the same idea of the original text can be reproduced in the translation, as if the translator had access to these elements as proposed by the author of the original, producing an "equivalence of effect. It is known, however, that this goal of Nida’s proposal is quite utopian, since the reception of a translation is permeated by factors specific to a language, a culture, and a historical and communicative situation that are different from those of the receivers of the original text.       

Prioritizing the restructuring of the original message with the maintenance of all from the author’s perspective, meaning prevails over form. Nida states that any message in one language can be transferred to another language, even if the form, always secondary, has to be changed or sacrificed. Larose (1989), however, criticizes such a radical assumption regarding the priority given to meaning, on the grounds that meaning and style (form) are inseparable and that the use of different words makes it impossible to say the same thing.              
For the evaluation of a translation, in addition to the reaction of the receiver and the receiver’s       
This contradicts his proposal to superimpose the importance of meaning over form in the very example that he gives of maintaining the poeticism of the Bible in his translations. As Rabadán (1991) rightly observes, Nida’s proposal is also incoherent to the extent that equivalence cannot refer to the "origin pole" due to his search for the receivers’ reaction and acceptability, considering it a "disguised formal equivalence", being necessary a more defined proposal of his notion of equivalence. 
      
Another author who came to prominence after Nida was John Catford (1965), for whom translation is the "substitution of that translation is the "replacement of textual material in one language with equivalent textual material in another language" (CATFORD, 1965, p. 20). From this definition, one can already deduce the importance that the author attributes to equivalence, a fundamental notion for his theory, in which "equivalence" is considered a "key term", since the main problem of translation practice is the search for and identification of equivalents in the target language. Catford further states that "the central task of translation theory is to define the nature and conditions for translation equivalence" (CATFORD, 1965, p. 21).       
The author distinguishes the notion of equivalence as an empirical phenomenon and as an object of study, in the analysis of conditions and justifications for equivalence to occur. Equivalence as an empirical phenomenon is seen by Catford as textual equivalence and formal correspondence. Textual equivalence is "any form of the LM [...] that is observed to be the equivalent of a given form of the LF" (CATFORD, 1980, p. 29) and can be identified by a bilingual informant who is knowledgeable and competent. This informant can be a translator.       
   
In order to observe this equivalence, one can perform a commutation process, in which one must "systematically introduce changes in the LF text and observe the changes that occur consequently in the LM text" (CATFORD, 1980, p. 30).  From this, if a portion of the LM text changes when this portion is changed in the LF, a textual equivalent is identified. To acquire equivalent status, an item must be "interchangeable in a given situation" (CATFORD, 1965, p. 49). The source and target language items must be related according to at least some characteristics of substance, which depends on the scope of the translation. Catford exemplifies with a phonological translation, for example, in which the substance would be the phonological one, or a graphological one, in which the substance would be the graphical one.       

The commutation, according to Catford, can demonstrate the lack of an equivalent in the LM,       
which can be nil, when there is no equivalent, and zero, when there is the term in the system, but not in the translation context.        The author also states the need to analyze equivalence according to contextual (situational elements related to the text) and cotextual (elements of the text itself that accompany the object of analysis) factors.       

Formal correspondence is the other possibility of equivalence as an empirical phenomenon and refers to "any category of the LM that can be said to [...] occupy in the economy of the LM ’the same’ place that the considered category of the LF occupies in the LF." (CATFORD, 1980, p. 35). 

Catford recognizes the abstraction characteristic to this notion and claims that between languages with formal correspondence at higher levels of abstraction (he gives the example of English and French that are organized with the same orders: sentence, clause, group, word, and morpheme) it is more likely to establish correspondence at less abstract levels, such as between elements of the languages.       

English and French, for example, have formal correspondence between the preposition system. This notion is closely related to that of textual equivalence that can serve as a basis for identifying correspondence.
       
The importance of Catford’s studies is widely recognized in the field of Translation, but its limitations must be acknowledged, as it completely ignores factors that are known to be fundamental to a typology of translation and equivalence for their involvement in the translation process, such as the culture of the source and target languages, the recipients of the translation, and the communicative situation.       

Catford focuses his proposal on the analysis of the text only and offers a rather illusory view, with the suggestion that elements may have the same function in all texts and even in different language systems, what he calls formal correspondence.      
 
Translation studies, specifically focusing on the notion of equivalence       
Katharina Reiss and Johannes Vermeer, who, in their book "Fundamentos para una teoría funcional de la traducción" (1996), propose a chapter on the notion of equivalence in their functionalist translation theory.

For functionalists, translation has as its dominant principle a purpose, the so-called scope, which defines the strategies to be taken by the translator and the linguistic signs to be selected.       
       
They highlight the consensus on the fact that equivalence is seen as the relationship between two texts    between two texts, the source and the target, but their concern is to describe the nature of this relationship, which is still little discussed and very diffuse.       

They do not agree to deny or renounce the term "equivalence," but they propose to delimit the content of the notion and to properly limit its use.              

They review different perspectives on equivalence in translation studies (GUTTINGER, 1963; WILLS, 1977; KADE, 1968; CATFORD, 1965)73 and conclude that they lack precision and that they refer, in most cases, to only some aspects of the notion.        

For the authors, equivalence should not be restricted to the linguistic system of the texts, but should extend to their cultural manifestation and is configured as a relationship "between linguistic elements of a pair of texts and as a relationship between texts. They emphasize, however, that equivalence between a pair of texts does not imply equivalence between all the component linguistic elements, just as equivalence between these elements does not imply equivalence between the texts. 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
Reiss and Vermeer are also concerned to distinguish the notion of  equivalence from that of adequacy.  The latter refers to the translation process and "the relationship that exists between a final text and the source text taking into account, consequently, the objective (scope) that is sought with the translation process" (REISS; VERMEER, 1996, p. 124).       

Thus, a translation is adequate when the selection of signs is made according to the purpose of the translation. Equivalence is the product or the result of the process, being also a relationship between the final text and the source text that perform the same communicative function.       

For the authors, equivalence is a type of adequacy that occurs with the constant maintenance of the function between the texts. It is a dynamic notion since, as they exemplify, the same text can have different translations according to different communication conditions and situations.        There are, therefore, no definitive equivalences, since they depend on the purpose, the scope of the translation.  
       
Following the course of development of translation studies is Rosa Rabadán, author who presents a very extensive theoretical review of the notion of equivalence in her 1991 book entitled "Equivalencia y traducción". According to the author, translation studies (also called Translemic) are divided between those that consider equivalence as a result and those that see it as a process.       This division consequently defines the views regarding the notion of equivalence that they present.       
       
From the point of view that translation is the result of a reformulation of a text in another language, equivalence is structural, linguistic, and it follows that there are pre-established equivalents for any linguistic unit of a language.     
  
The perspective that translation is a process, on the other hand, presents a more dynamic more dynamic view, in which the authors consider that several factors influence the translation process, and equivalence is seen as the "overall relationship between the source text and the target text" (RABADÁN, 1991, p. 49--50).       

According to the author, a static and structuralist view is abandoned in order to give way to a more dynamic, historical, and heterogeneous perspective of language systems. It is with this second vision that Rabadán identifies and characterizes as the Rabadán identifies with this second vision, which she characterizes as the descriptive branch of translation studies, based on the comparison of the source text and the target text.       

As postulates of these studies, the author highlights that there are two texts (source and meta) that belong to different cultural polysystems and that there should be a relation of equivalence between these texts. The Translemics that Rabadán studies is divided into three strands: the theoretical, the descriptive, and the applied. Consequently, he proposes the existence of levels of equivalence that apply to each of these strands, and this notion is given fundamental importance and prominence as the "definitional property."      
 
Rabadán considers Gideon Toury’s (1995) notion of norms (which we will discuss  Rabadán considers Gideon Toury’s (1995) notion of norms (which we will discuss below) to be very useful for the study of translanguage equivalence. For the author, they are "criteria that are used to classify a translational behavior as valid [...] and whose function is to regulate and direct possible real variations on the same abstract idea" (RABADÁN, 1991, p. 56).    She adds to these norms that of the system of the recipients of the translation, which determines the translator’s choices according to the target audience and communicative factors.       

The author joins the functionalists in affirming that what is essential is not to define the equivalence between a pair of texts, but to specify the degree of equivalence, on a scale ranging from adequacy (referring to the source pole) to acceptability (referring to the target pole), even though it is not possible to delimit these points, since equivalence is also considered dynamic and understood as "a functional-relational notion of dynamic character that constitutes a defining property of every translation" (RABADÁN, 1991, p. 58, our translation) and is found in any translation accepted by the target audience.      

   Dynamism is the most striking feature of the notion of equivalence for Rabadán, which is relative, dependent on the polysystem in which it is inserted and on its changes, and "is not one and always the same" (RABADÁN, 1991, p. 60).    
   
Wotjak (1995) is very close to Rabadán’s postulates to present his vision his view, making use of the notion of translemic equivalence, since in his conception this "encompasses to some extent the other types of equivalence, both systemic and syntagmatic textual" (WOTJAK, 1995, p. 93). The author also identifies with Toury’s proposal, who abandons the traditional notion of equivalence related to semantic identity, adding historical and dynamic aspects to it.       
   
Wotjak’s conception of translation is based on the idea that the translation process is an intercultural act of interaction and adds to this the assumptions of functionalists, with the idea of scope, of the function of the text. Thus, he considers the definition of the function and the influence of the culture for which the translation is produced to be essential for the establishment of translanguaging equivalence.     
         
Wotjak proposes that the translation process and, consequently, the search for equivalence, is based on a balance between adapting the text with the receiver in mind and, at the same time, taking into consideration the communicative and interactional intention of the author of the original text, which should guide the execution of the translation.       

The author recognizes, however, that it is not always possible to clearly deduce this intention on the part of the author of the original text, so that it must be based on the interpretation obtained in this intention, the perception and communicative effect of the receivers of the original text.       

 It is this updated and coincident effect with the original that should be reproduced by the translator and deduced by the receivers of the target text. Wotjak’s statement about the impossibility of the original and meta texts being the same text is important.       original and meta texts are the same text.       

What the author proposes is that the messages of the texts and their effects should coincide as much as possible and that the theme of the original text should remain in the target text in the same way.       

Wotjak insists on a balance that supports his notion of equivalence and that (p. 101), which the author also mentions as the scale between fidelity to the source text and the conditions that allow communication to take place in translation. The acceptability of the receptors of the target text is, according to Wotjak, one of the criteria that should guide the translator, but one of the most overlooked at the same time, mentioning Rabadán’s statement that if there is no acceptability by the receptors of the target text the translation cannot be considered valid.    

          
The illocutionary function is another recurrent notion in the author’s proposal and depends on the context, both concrete and subjective, and influences the search for equivalence. Wotjak (1995, pg.107) gives as an example the Spanish sentence "papá vendrá mañana" (daddy will come tomorrow) that could have illocutionary functions such as consolation, threat, information. The author admits, however, the difficulty of reproducing this effect, since it depends on the interpretation of the translator who, in turn, may not capture the communicative intention expressed in the original text.       

It is this enunciative-elocutionary factor that constitutes communicative equivalence that Wotjak claims must predominate in translation. He does not, however, deny the importance of semantic equivalence, since it is based on the semantic aspects that the communicative-elocutionary aspects are realized.       

For Wotjak, equivalence is an extremely complex and heterogeneous notion characterized by various aspects. Rabadán emphasizes translemic equivalence, seen from a perspective that sees translation as a process and that goes beyond linguistic and textual aspects, considering and giving maximum importance to other elements, among which he highlights the communicative ones.       

Gideon Toury’s (1995) proposal follows and stands out in translation studies mainly for introducing the notion of norm, which is closely related to his conception of equivalence and can be applied to any type of translation. For Toury, translation is an activity that includes at least two languages and their respective cultural traditions and is described based on two elements (TOURY, 1995, p.       
56, our translation):
       
1) being a text in a certain language and occupying a position, or filling a gap, in the appropriate culture or a certain section of it;    
   
2) be the representation in that language/culture of another pre-existing text in another language, belonging to another culture and occupying a defined position within it.        

For Toury, translation is inserted in a sociocultural dimension and is subject to constraints that can be described in a sociocultural       
restrictions that can be described on a scale ranging from idiosyncrasies to rules belonging to a specific historical moment.    The norms proposed by the author would be in the middle of these two poles and would be acquired by individuals during their socialization, configuring themselves as criteria that allow the evaluation of instances of behavior.    
          
In translation, Toury highlights the initial norm according to which the translator decides between subjecting himself to the norms of the original text, those of the target culture, and those of the reception of the final product. This decision determines the adequacy of the translation, if the source text is chosen, or the acceptability of the translation, if the norms of the target culture are followed.       

The author, however, states that these translation decisions may involve a combination of these two extremes that characterize the initial norm. In addition to this type, Toury presents preliminary norms, which have to do with a set of considerations for choosing textual types and languages to be translated, and operational norms, about the decisions made during the translation process.

 Norms are related to equivalence for Toury, who states that they are       
the same "that determine (the type and extent of) the equivalence manifested by real translations" (TOURY, 1995, p. 61).        The author mentions that his theory does not intend to disown the notion of equivalence as other authors do (such as Holz-Mäntäri, 1984 and Snell--Hornby, 1988), but to take it out of an ahistorical and prescriptive perspective and give it a historical aspect that can be used to refer to any relationship that characterizes a translation in a set of circumstances.
              
Thus, for Toury, equivalence is a "functional-relational concept", being       
It is a set of relations that allows us to differentiate between appropriate and inappropriate translations within a culture.       In the descriptive studies proposed by the author it is assumed that there is equivalence between a translation and its respective source.        Toury considers the idea of equivalence as an element that hides the concept of translation and the decision-making involved in this process, avoiding the relationship of the notion with an idea of an idealized process.    
   
Werner Koller also stands out, since he carries out his studies in the field of Translation based on the idea that they should be developed under the conception that translations are results of the activity of text processing, they are texts that are in a relationship of equivalence with a primary text.       For the author, the description and explanation of the notion of equivalence are quite limited and are part of a multiplicity of theories and perspectives on translation and its phenomena that he deems necessary to account for all its complexity.
              
Koller (1995) analyzes translation from a linguistic and textual perspective, defining equivalence as the relationship between the source text and the resulting text and as a relative concept that depends on a very broad list of factors and conditions, such as: the source and target languages and their structures and properties; the reality represented by each of these languages; the source text and its linguistic, stylistic and aesthetic characteristics; the cultural conditions of the target culture; and the characteristics that define the translator (his or her understanding, the theory on which it is based).       

This author presents the notion of double linkage as characterizing       
translations, which connect to the source text and to the communicative conditions of the receivers, and as defining the equivalence relation.  This relationship derives from another one the author proposes, that of relational frameworks. A target language equivalent is identified for a source language translation unit when it matches the equivalence relations that are specified in a set of relational frameworks.        

The author presents some examples of equivalence frameworks derived from his research with some specific European languages, especially German, such as extralinguistic circumstances, connotations, linguistic and textual norms, consideration of the receiver and aesthetic properties of the source language. He also points out that these frameworks can and should be "expanded, differentiated, refined and modified" (KOLLER, 1995, p. 198).    

          
He also mentions the fundamental importance given to the source text in translation studies. But he emphasizes the need to also consider the reception side of the translation due to the double linkage explained above, which also links the translation to the factors and conditions under which it is received.       

These communicative conditions of the target language and culture are still little considered and quite ignored, according to Koller. His main contribution is to highlight the evolution of the notions of translation and equivalence, moving them away from the traditional principle of fidelity to the source text and relating them to the notion of double linkage. Equivalence is relativized and conditioned by several factors, the frameworks.       


Its perspective is intended to be descriptive and in no way prescriptive or normative, and does not aim to be normative, not aiming to tell the translator "how to translate" (KOLLER, 1995, p. 200). Of great relevance is his mention of descriptive, linguistic and textual studies of translation that should "analyze, describe, classify and perhaps even explain the empirical material that translators present in the form of translation" (KOLLER, 1995, p. 200, our translation).     
  
It is also worth mentioning Amparo Hurtado Albir (2001), an author who extensively review on translation, its types and the notions that conform theory and practice.    As we have previously mentioned, the author’s vision of translation includes three essential features (it is a communicative act, an operation that takes place between texts and a cognitive activity) that result in a definition that is quite coherent with the assumptions we have adopted for this research.              
       
Equivalence is one of the notions reviewed by Hurtado Albir and is widely defended by the author, who is against renouncing it due to the fact that, contrary to the assumptions of critics of the notion, it does not "imply equality, prescription or fixity" (HURTADO ALBIR, 2001, p. 223), but is characterized by being "functional, relative, dynamic and flexible" (HURTADO ALBIR, 2001, p. 223).        

As Hurtado Albir reviews several authors and their respective proposals, his conception of equivalence is very flexible, easy to apply to any kind of translation.  Equivalence is analyzed as a relation, as a bond between the original texts and their respective translations, but the author stresses that this relation can also be between larger or smaller units of the texts.              

Hurtado Albir highlights Nida’s (1959) proposal for dynamic equivalence and values the author’s contribution to the consideration of context and receivers and their needs as a priority for the notion of equivalence. Based on Nida, the author also draws on the dynamism applied to the notion and presents factors that influence the identification/construction of equivalence (HURTADO ALBIR, 2001, p. 210--211):    
   
- the linguistic and textual context in which the elements that make up a text are found. These elements can acquire new meanings and, consequently, their respective equivalents can change.

- textual type and genre influence the search for equivalence since, as the author demonstrates, the same element can have a different equivalent in a novel and another in a comic book. In addition, genre-specific conventions may also exert their influence on equivalence due to their variation in different languages.
  
- the socio-historical context that Hurtado Albir mentions refers to the moment in time when the translation is carried out and all the elements that influence the translator’s choice, such as the norms of the time and the sociocultural environment in which the target text was received.

- the translation purpose conditions the translator’s decisions, who chooses among the methods available to find solutions for the elements to be translated. Hurtado Albir exemplifies this with purposes such as to inform, to reach a child audience, to give priority to the source or target culture, among others, and
       
- the translation modality, which, according to the author, may be written, oral or audiovisual, and which may interfere in the identification of an equivalent, since the resources available to the translator are not the same for all modalities.    In written translation an element can be resolved with an adaptation, explanation, description, while in audiovisual translation gesture is a very useful resource.    
   
By presenting these conditioning factors of the search for equivalents, Hurtado Albir intends to demonstrate that there is no pre-established equivalence, but rather that this is a process that varies according to the factors mentioned and that is configured according to associations of ideas, logical deductions and decision-making.    

The author emphasizes the importance of attributing to the notion of equivalence the character of contextual, functional, dynamic and flexible, and that characterize the relationship between an original text and its translation as a "changing" bond, which varies in each case.       
Finally, we would like to highlight the studies of Christiane Nord, an author who realized her translation studies with a close approach to the functionalist theory proposed by Reiss and Vermeer (1996), which she considers applicable to any type of translation (literary, technical, etc.).       

His vision stands out for taking into consideration and attributing great importance to professional practice for the development of theories and proposals. He mentions, for example, that the idea of "equality of values" to which the word equivalence refers is not realized in practice. That is, in many cases the translator opts for one of the equal values (pragmatic, linguistic--stylistic or semantic) to the detriment of another(s), according to what the practice (and his client) demands.       

Thus, the notion of equivalence, for Nord, must be rethought according to professional practice. The author, as we have mentioned, is close to the functionalist assumptions that that every translation is done according to a goal (scope) and that the receivers of the target text and the communicative situation are extremely important factors in the process.       

However, it does not seem acceptable to him that the communicative goal entirely determines the translation methods, a functionalist conception that he considers extremely radical.    
       
Thus, criticizing the radicalism of both the equivalents and the       
functionalists, Nord proposes a balance between the two proposals, a combination of the two models, from which he takes advantage of the two outstanding principles: functionality, "the aptitude of a text for a particular purpose" (NORD, 1994, p. 100), and loyalty, "the intentions and expectations not only of the author but also of the client who commissioned the translation" (NORD, 1994, p. 100).              

The translator has the function of mediating between the base and target cultures and, in professional practice, must adapt or adjust elements according to the communicative situation and to what the receivers need.              

The meaning of a text, for Nord, is not limited to the semantic content of the textual elements, but also encompasses the communicative function it should perform, and for this reason, the author states that one should translate functions and not structures.        

The notion of equivalence, for the author, is also related to these functions, since it follows the assumptions of the scope theory according to which    equivalence implies adequacy to a scope that requires that the target text can function in the same communicative way as the source text, thus preserving ’the functional invariance between source and target text’ (REISS; VERMEER, 1996, p. 140) (NORD, 2008, p.51, our translation) Equivalence is relative, never established a priori, and is thus sought guided by a communicative goal that must be achieved in the target culture, since, for Nord, translation is a purposeful professional activity.       

The author’s less radical and more balanced vision contributes to the identification of equivalences and the production of adequate translations, considering the actual practice of the profession by joining two fundamental criteria: the function that the text must perform in the target culture and the loyalty that relates the translator and his/her craft to the author of the original and his/her communicative intention, as well as to the receivers of the target text and the client who requested the translation.              

4.2 Our position on equivalence
       
We consider the notion of equivalence to be fundamental to translation studies, regardless of the perspective regardless of the perspective adopted, because it allows us to bring to light aspects that are essential to translation studies, such as the function of the translated text and the semantic, pragmatic and formal aspects involved in the translation process.
       
Based on a conception that takes into account the diversity of languages and their forms of communication, as well as the various factors that influence the translation process, the notion of equivalence is useful for the theoretical perspective of the area, allowing us to analyze the relationship between two texts (the source and target texts) or between minor elements that constitute them. Finally, for the didactics of translation, the notion of equivalence also serves as a basis, as a guide for the dynamic and flexible position that the translator must adopt when faced with a translation situation, helping students to see that there is more than one way or possibility of translating.       

   
From the review carried out, we conclude that the notion of equivalence depends on the definition of translation that we have chosen. Thus, the main assumption we have adopted is that it is essential to analyze translation as a process, as Rabadán (1991) and Hurtado Albir (2001) propose, since from this view we can think of the notion of equivalence as a relationship that takes place between the two texts in question (the source and target texts) and that is dynamic, flexible and depends intrinsically on specific factors and elements of this process, such as the target culture, the receivers, the communicative situation and the purpose that the translated text must fulfill. In this way, we ignore the conception that there are pre-established equivalents. heterogeneous and even polemical nature, it is a fundamental notion for the understanding of translation in terms of theory and practice, and as we can see a significant variation in positions regarding the notion, we conducted a theoretical review based on the assumptions of authors who stand out in translation studies and, in particular, in the study and analysis of equivalence, seeking to reflect on the notion that permeates this research. Considering the source text and its communicative intention is a factor that can guide the translator towards the production of a relation of equivalence between the source text and the translated text.

 In specialized translation this becomes even more important, due to the relevance of producing an adequate and accurate text according to the transmission of knowledge at issue in the translation and the communication characteristics of each specialized area.       
For the description of the notion of equivalence applied to phraseological units we will use a comparative method, analyzing the existing equivalence relationship and how it was established.       

Like Toury, we believe that the notion of equivalence is important because it influences the decisions that the translator makes during the translation process. Our object of analysis in this research are the decisions made by the translator for the production of a text in equivalence relation to another, with the UFEs as the focus of this relation.       
       
Based on this, we adopted Hurtado Albir’s definition of the notion of       
equivalence, since it prioritizes the main criteria that we value for the present research.      

According to the author:              
We can use the term equivalence to refer to the relationship established between the translation and the original text whenever and whenever we do not identify it with identity nor with merely linguistic approaches, and incorporate a dynamic and flexible conception that considers the communication situation and the socio-historical context in which the act of translation is produced.        
   
This conception of equivalence encompasses the elements that we consider fundamental to the notion on which we intend to base ourselves and to which we add criteria that we deem essential:    
          
- Equivalence refers to a relationship between two texts, the original and the translation, never between languages.  It can be analyzed in smaller units of the text that may be in a relation of equivalence, which does not imply the existence of equivalence of the whole.
     
- The notion of identity is harmful and does not apply to the notion of equivalence. 

       
- The notion of identity is harmful and does not apply to the notion of equivalence. The idea of equality of values refers to a mistaken notion and may induce the translator to seek an equality that is not only impossible, but also inadequate.
       
- Equivalence must be dynamic, flexible, and, let us add, relative.        The pre-established equivalence is not considered as a possibility and varies according to each translation process, and can be updated in each communicative situation.
       
- The communicative situation and the socio-historical context in which the translation is produced are fundamental to the establishment of equivalences in a text.    
-- The equivalence must be identified by considering two poles: that of the author of the original text and the communicative intention of his text, and, at the same time, that of the receivers of the translation, the context in which they are inserted and the culture to which this linguistic community belongs.    
   
Since the research presented here focuses on the translation of specialized texts, we believe it is pertinent to add to the criteria that make up our definition of equivalence some factors specific to the type of translation process we are studying, that is, a translation process involving terminology. To do so, we adopt Cabré’s (2000a) view, in which the theorist and terminologist presents the relationship between Terminology and Translation as two areas of study.    

Cabré highlights the similarities between the two, demonstrating that both have a long applied tradition, are interdisciplinary fields, have emerged from practice, and are in the process of reaffirming their character as disciplines.    Terminology is fundamental to specialized translation, both theoretical and applied, which aims at the adequate expression of specialized knowledge. 

The notion of equivalence for this specific type of translation, therefore, is directly influenced by the specificities of Terminology.       
Thus, having as a theoretical basis of Terminology the Communicative Theory and the Cabré’s (2000a) proposal, we have added criteria to those previously exposed and that constitute the notion of equivalence that we consider adequate for the present research:     
  
- For the case of the translation of specialized texts, the notion of equivalence must contemplate fundamental criteria of specialized communication: adequacy and precision in the transmission of knowledge are essential and are obtained, in a translation process, through the identification of equivalents that account for these factors.
       
- Specialized communication takes place at different levels of specialization, since the interlocutors may be specialists, semi-specialists, learners and laypeople. The equivalence relationship that the translator must seek varies according to the level of specialization of the text in question.
       
- Terms and phraseologies are constituent units of the general lexicon. Thus, they are subject to the same grammatical rules and to the possibility of linguistic variation, a factor that also influences the search for equivalences.

   
- In addition to linguistic and translation competences, terminological competence is required of translators, who must have sufficient command of the specialized field and its forms of communication to be able to properly establish equivalences in a translation.        This is what Cabré calls "being terminologically equipped" (CABRÉ, 2000a, p. 61).
       
- The proposition of neological units is a possibility, but it must be based on terminological and not just lexicological logic, i.e., it must take into account the area of knowledge in which a neological unit is inserted, and not just linguistic considerations.    
   
- To collect specialized terminological units and phraseologisms and use them as equivalents, the method used must be onomasiological, starting from the concept and not from the form, even though both are inseparable.       The process of searching for equivalents in this case becomes a search for natural denominations that correspond to specialized concepts in each language, according to       
Cabré.