Translation and Equivalence: An Argumentative Approach

.


INTRODUCTION
In an era of intertwined economies and borderless cultures, translating written and/or spoken texts becomes more and more an important activity.Having that in mind and without any pretension of presenting a solution for every translation problem, this paper has as objective to contribute to tradutology regarding a possible strategy to solve translation problems of humorous texts caused by the presence of polysemy and homonymy.
According to Genouvrier & Peytard (1973), there is polysemy when a single word or expression has several meanings.Homonymy approaches polysemy, because it is also a situation in which a word has at least more than two meanings, however it is different in the sense that homonyms should have similar phonic and/or graphic forms.
Seeking to establish a strategy that aids the translator when they have to make translation choices of humorous enunciates that have polysemy or homonymy, a dialogue is carried out between notions of equivalence, skopos, and what the role of the translator is facing this process.These approaches are focalized because it is understood h that they have positive aspects that might complement each other seeking a possible strategy for situations in which only the dictionary would not be enough to reach and transpose the meaning of one language to another.
To add the translator in their choices seeking meaning and function equivalence, knowledge from ADL/TSB is applied, once it is a Semantics' theory which defines that meaning can be deduced from the conformation of argumentative threads.There is a more recent version of the theory, but for this paper the work La semántica argumentativa: una introducción a la Teoria de los Bloques Semánticos, from 2005 was used.
To ADL/TSB, the basic semantic unit is the argumentative thread, which can be formed by two segments connected by DC (donc) or PT (pourtant).In addition, the meaning of the linguistic entities is defined by the threads that paraphrase them and by the possible continuations from the DC and PT connectors.From that dialogue between the translation theories and ADL/TSB, the issue placed here is whether it is possible to solve translation problems of humorous texts with homonym and/or polysemic linguistic entities, based on the argumentative description.This present paper is divided into three sections.The first of them briefly explains three important notions for translation studies.The second one discusses the theory of Argumentation in Language (ADL), focused on the phase known as Theory of Semantic Blocks, developed by Marion Carel and Oswald Ducrot (1995).The third section is in charge of showing procedures for analysis and translation of the corpus and presents one example.Finally, there are some considerations about the translation problem focalized in this paper and the contribution of ADL/TSB on the search to solve it.

Translation Theories: Focalizing The Notions of Equivalence, Skopo and the Translator's Role
The Issue about Equivalence in Translation for the Linguistic Approach One of the great issues debated in translation theory has always been the impossibility that there should be a complete identity between two languages at such a point that what is said in one will be exactly the same to what is transposed to the other.Throughout the history of translation studies, a lot of time was spent questioning losses of meaning within the translation process, coming exactly from that lack of identity between Source Language (SL) and Target Language (TL).
At his studies, Nida (1991) stablishes that a translation should prioritize the contextual conscience, for it is founded in two important linguistic facts.The first of them concerns the belief that each language has a set of terms that express every experience and are called "verbal symbols."And the second indicates that languages are different from each other in the ways which the "verbal symbols" classify the different experiences.For the author, in every language it is possible to express anything that one lives, because the set of "verbal symbols" covers signification.Nida (1964) divides the notion of equivalence in two basic guidelines: formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence.The formal focusses on the message, both in form and content.In that case, there is a correspondence between the different elements of SL (concepts, sentences).The message should have a correlation with those elements.With that concept, Nida (1964) states that a translation happens by reproducing literally form and content, and it is intended so that the interlocutor of the TL can understand how the universe of the original's interlocutor works.
The dynamic equivalence has as objective to make that the translation interlocutor has the same reaction as the original had when reading the ST.In the dynamic equivalence, it is established a relation of complete naturalness which seeks indeed to adapt to the modes of behavior that are important in the very own culture of the interlocutor TT.It is what Nida (1964) calls "equivalent effect."According to Venutti (2000, p. 129, 130), "one is not so concerned with matching the receptor-language message with the source-language message, but […] that the relationship between receptor and message should be […] the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message." For Nida & Taber (1982), the nature of translation is in transposing the closest and most natural equivalent of the message in the original language to the target language.That "transposition" should take place primarily in terms of signification and then style.Nida & Taber (1982) also affirm that, in order for the translator to do the best choices, it is necessary that they define a set of features to guide them in that process.What Nida & Taber present is that to measure the dynamic equivalence, it is only possible that one compares the equivalence of reaction and not the agreement between publics, after all it is not possible to predict what kind of receiver the author of the original text wrote for.Nida does not consider only the linguistic factors, but also the cultural circumstances that are involved both in the Source Text as in the context it is being translated into.Venutti (2000) complements, claiming that the factors that influence a translation are three, and those are the nature of the message, the purpose of the author/translator and the type or receiver.The message becomes different to the extent that one realizes if it is the form or the content that should remain in the translation.The purpose of the author, which by approximation transforms into the purpose of the translator, also has an influence on the translation, because as defends Nida (1964), it is necessary that the reactions of the receivers of the Target Language are similar to those of the original receivers.And finally, the type of public takes an influence, to the extent that each one receives the message differently and thus one does not focus on the individualities of each receiver, but on what is adequate or not.
The debate about equivalence (dynamic or not) continues until today.There is the certainty that it is not possible to consider the notion of equivalence mathematically.However, the importance of that concept that turns to the function of the ST is kept, as well as for the reaction of the receivers of the translated text, cultural and anthropological factors being considered.

The Notion of skopo in the Functionalist Approach
The appearance of a functionalist theory "marks an important moment in the evolution of the translation theory, breaking the two-thousand-year-old theoretical chain that is around the faithful vs free axis" (GENTZLER, 2009 p. 101).Functionalism is considered like that, for the translations that choose the functionalist approach can be both faithful and free.That approach allows the translator to have flexibility of decision, taking into account the function of the text they will translate.According to Nord (1997), in the functionalist approach the translation process takes into account an objective, a purpose, which is connected to the ST.Once established, that objective should be reached also in the TT, by means of a set of questions that the translator should ask themselves during their practice, focusing the final reader.That approach considers, then, that the importance of the translation process is not on the equivalence or the fidelity to ST, but in verifying if the translation has reached the objective that was proposed by whomever ordered the translation.
For the author, a complete analysis of the ST should be made previous to the translation, ensuring the translator with bases to understand and interpret the text.Thus, they can explain linguistic and textual structures, their relation with the rules of the language on the matter and ensure a trustworthy support to make decisions about their translation.The problem is now how to act in such a way as to satisfy the analysis of the ST and deal with the obstacles that might rise when one tries to translate a text.Nord (1991) affirms that there is, during the translation process, the need of an analysis model of the ST that is a constant reference for the translator.That model could be used by any professional.It would be good to systematize any textual typology, in any translation situation, it would have as a base the function performed by the ST, from its structure and other observable elements, and would ensure the translator with the possibility of choice of the most adequate strategies.Thus, it is possible to say that the functionalism also seeks equivalence, although a functional equivalence.

The Role of the Translator
The craft of the translator, such as the notion of equivalence in translation, has been debated for a long time.Whether it is fidelity or literality, both invariably touch in the translator's choice and sometimes are seen as obstacles to an adequate translation.Arrojo (1992, p. 73) states that such a conception results from the fact that many believe in the impossibility of translating any text, due to translation being an "inefficient usurper which, by taking the place of the 'original', can only offer pale and obliquus reflections of it."Thus, some strands that study translation theory end up getting divided in criteria of maintaining 'originality' or 'hiding' the translator's figure as being principles that define what would be an adequate translation.Indeed, at times it is defended that the more the presence of the translator is annulled, the closer to the original is the translation.So, by emphasizing the original and its value and placing notions of fidelity as the ultimate objective of translation, the act of translating is transformed in a mere exercise that consists of decoding meanings.However, when the role of the translator is problematized, as well as the translator, that importance of the original / originality starts to get questioned (BRISOLARA, 2011 p. 109).
According to Arrojo (1992), there are a few points that should be analyzed as of the classification of original and also literality.For example, when one defends the existence of an original text to be translated with extreme fidelity and turning null the translator's presence, one assumes the text is completely stable and unchangeable, a simple recipient for an author's intentions.Such intentions would also be always conscious and understood through reading, the process of which becomes neutral, capable of abolishing the reader's interferences and their cultural, socio-historical context.
The translation process, then, would happen from the reading that the translator performs, with their interpretation, historic, social and cultural load and then with the translator, transmitting that information in another language.Not only words, but also cultural issues are compared when translating, and that is why determining the original intentions of an author, based on an isolated text, can be an almost impossible task.In the words of Bassnett (2003, p 50), "[...] the translator cannot be the author of the source text, but as the author of the translated text, they have an unequivocal responsibility before readers of the text in the target language [...]." The translator usually works in such a way as to try to overcome translation problems as they appear.Thus, it is necessary to acknowledge the importance of that professional.It is not a machine, but a human being with cultural antecedents, who works with the linguistic operations.To do so they need not only a great knowledge of the languages involved, but also creativity to deal with pragmatic and cultural issues of the language.
It is possible to understand that the relation between translator and language is not stable nor depends only on the context where they are inserted into.There is no perfect translation model.It is possible to be categorical when making that statement, because until today there has not been identified a technique or strategy that would be able to overcome all of the obstacles that rise from the moment when one decides to bring meanings from one language to another.However, that does not prevent that theoreticians and scholars continue to think and create, searching ways out for such a complex activity.
With the dialog between those three approaches, it was possible to realize that the notion of dynamic equivalence is a notion that respects the original in its importance, but also respects translation in its particularity, to the extent that it defends that the translator's choices do not need to be literal.Thus, it is possible to say that the dynamic equivalence, more than translating the message, seeks to translate the meaning of the original.
The notion of skopos is also important, because it places a focus on the function both of the original and the translation.It is an interesting approach, because depending on the author's purpose and also the translator's, the choices can be changed so that the original message is translated.
And finally, the translator's role converges with those two approaches in the sense that its importance in that process should be valued and not hidden in the myth of the translator's invisibility as a proof of a good translation.They are the agents of that process and should be creative, have to have proper knowledge of the languages and cultures involved to interpret the message of the original, stablish its function and finally translate.Therefore, notions that guide the translation process already exist.What lacks is an analysis model of the original text so that the global meaning is discovered and that would be a constant reference for the translator, ensuring them the possibility of choosing more adequate strategies for the translation, aiming equivalence of meaning and/or function.
The next section discusses ADL/TSB in a way as to present their fundaments and phases, in an attempt to propose it as a linguistic model for the analysis of humorous enunciates where homonymy and polysemy are present.

The Theory of Argumentation within Language: Fundaments and Phases
The Theory of Semantic Blocks (TSB), developed by Carel and Ducrot, presents a radicalized vision of the Theory of Argumentation within Language (ADL), proposed by Ducrot and Anscombre (1983).It is a structuralist theory, which considers that the meaning of a given linguistic entity is within language itself.ADL has undergone some changes throughout time, having three phases, the third one being TSB.The first phase is the one called Standard, presented from the work L'argumentation dans la langue (1983) and the second, called Recente, which is considered an extension of the first.ADL appeared as a theory which opposes the traditional concept of meaning in which generally three forms of indications are differentiated, and those are the objectives (represent reality, that is, denotation) and subjective and intersubjective (respectively, point the action of the speaker facing reality and represent the relations of the speaker with their interlocutors; both would be connotation).Ducrot and Anscombre (1983) believed that language did not have a denotative aspect, that is, that it could describe reality directly.They also did not believe that the statements would give direct access to reality.
Actually, for them the description of reality is possible with the junction of the subjective and intersubjective indications, forming what they called argumentative value of linguistic entities, which would be the orientation that one entity gives for the discourse.The argumentative value is, hence, the set of possibilities of discursive continuations which rise from the deployment of a given expression, and that is the fundamental level of the semantic description.In the words of the author: Indeed, as I see, the deployment of a word makes a certain continuation of the discourse possible or impossible, and the argumentative value of that word is the set of possibilities or impossibilities of discursive continuation that its deployment determinates.[...] the argumentative value of a word is the role that it can perform within the discourse (DUCROT, 1990 p. 51.our translation).
What is pointed on Ducrot's theory with that junction of the subjective and intersubjective aspects is that the sense is in the language itself, but lies on the intentions of a speaker who acts on the will of an interlocutor.However, what is analyzed in the ADL is not the intentionality of the subject who performs the enunciation, but how the linguistic entities articulate, resulting in a "meaning" that perhaps reflects a certain intention and not another.Barbisan et al (2010, p. 198) states that ADL is a semantic theory whose purpose is explaining the meaning built by the linguistics on the use of language.Due to that, the task imposed to the creator of the theory is not defining the meaning of isolated linguistic entities, nor even paradigmatically related in notional fields, but to understand them in their linguistic context, by the relationships of meanings they establish with other entities.As linguistic semantics, ADL has as objective to explain the meaning essentially produced by the syntagmatic relations between words, expressions, sentences in the use of language.Therefore, it is a syntagmatic semantics.(our translation) That is also why it is possible to say that ADL has a connection with Saussure's Structuralism.In a chapter of the book Nouveaux regards sur Saussure: mélanges offerts à René Amacker, by Louis de Saussure, Ducrot (2006) explains that Saussurian Structuralism is close to ADL in what concerns the concept of value and the relations between signs.In Course in General Linguistics, Saussure points out that signs are defined regarding one another and it does not make any sense to regard them by themselves, or isolated.The author argues that "the value of any term whatsoever is determined by what surrounds it" (SAUSSURE, 2006, p. 135).It is possible to understand from the book that the relations between signs define their own nature and conform the notion of alterity.In other words, "(...) almost every unit of the language depends whether on what surrounds them in the spoken chain, or on successive parts that they themselves are composed of" (SAUSSURE, 2006, p. 148).Thus, Ducrot (2006, p. 160) admits that ADL approximates Saussure, because he also considers that the "meaning of a sign is a certain set of relations between signs1 " and the relation of choice is the syntagmatic, not the paradigmatic.
However, there are some aspects of the Saussurian theory that pull away from ADL.For Saussure (2006), language in general is constituted by language (langue), defined as the social side of language, the set of conventions, and speech (langage), the individual side, the use of language by speakers.Although Saussure claims that one part does not exist without the other, and that it is necessary a linguistics of speech, in Course in General Linguistics the object of Linguistics is discussing language.ADL does not conceive that separation and affirms that it is not possible to perform the semantics description of a statement considering only language.It is also necessary to analyze speech.Ducrot unifies both concepts to create a Linguistic Semantics.
Another aspect that pulls ADL away from Saussure's Structuralism is that in spite of converging in what concerns the relations between signs, for Ducrot those relations are strictly argumentative, so that any word or expression will only have complete meaning after the conclusion detained from it, the orientation that it gives to the statement from the conformation of argumentative chains.
The second phase of ADL begins when Ducrot and Anscombre begin to affirm that the establishment of the argumentative chains depended on general principles called topoi.This term is already mentioned in Aristotle, but according to Ductrot's and Anscombre's definition, it is defined as guarantees that allow moving from the argument to conclusion under the form, "the more verisimilar what one says in the argument is, the more verisimilar is what one says in conclusion" (CAREL; DUCROT, 2005, p. 12).Take as an example the chain used by Ducrot and Carel (2005), the hotel is nearby, therefore it is easy to get there.In that example it is possible to conclude that the closer one is, the easier it is to get there, what would prevent from forming the following chain: the hotel is nearby, therefore it is hard to get there.
In 1995, Carel realized that the path taken by ADL when deploying the notion of topoi, was pulling away from the Saussurian principle that defends that language can only be studied by itself.ADL had appeared with the purpose of determining that meaning comes from argumentation, which would be a purely linguistic phenomenon.However, when it is established that the argumentative relations depend on principles connected to the world, those relations are no longer linguistic-related.Hence, Carel wrote his dissertation, criticizing ADL and thus creating the Theory of Semantic Blocks (TSB), today also developed by Ducrot (CAREL;DUCROT, 2005).
TSB, such as it was for ADL, the meaning of a linguistic entity is no longer in the proprieties, nor in the ideas, but it is constituted by speeches that this linguistic entity evokes.Those speeches are called argumentative chains.However, differently from ADL, which considered only the chains of the type donc, TSB establishes that an argumentative chain can be formed by two segments that are always connected by a connector of the type donc (therefore), forming a normative chain; or pourtant (nonetheless), forming a transgressive chain.The general formula of the chains is what demonstrates figure 1.

Figure 1: General Formula of the Chains
Such opposition, normative versus transgressive, is within the words, even those that do not seem to have relations with the idea which carries the usage of donc (therefore) and pourtant (nonetheless), represented respectively by the acronyms DC and PT.To illustrate that differentiation, it is necessary to reproduce one of the examples used by Ducrot and Carel (2005):  Oh, Pedro is there.
 Sure, Pedro is there.
In spite of not appearing, the expressions Oh and Sure are presented by the opposition normative/transgressive.In (1), it is possible to realize that Pedro is there, but for some reason he should not be there.Using the general formula: X nonetheless Pedro is there.
In (2) it is possible to understand that there is any reason for Pedro to be there.Thus: X therefore Pedro is there.
In the two chains exemplified above, X is a segment that clarifies why Pedro should not be there, or, on the contrary, should.We could replace it by any linguistic entity that would keep the idea that therefore (DC) and nonetheless (PT) establish.For example: He was not invited, nonetheless Pedro is there.

Or yet:
He was invited THEREFORE Pedro is there.About that particularity, Ducrot and Carel (2005), when explaining about TSB, show that: Such a semantic interdependence is found in the fact that in a chain of type X therefore Y, segment X is understood by segment Y and vice versa, they depend one on the other so that there is meaning.It is important to highlight that an argumentative chain is not a connection between two pieces of information, because what matters in that kind of chain is the connector, which creates the discursive relation, attributing discursive meaning to a given statement.

Semantic Blocks
As previously seen, the meaning of a linguistic entity is in the discourses it evokes, that is, in the argumentative chains it forms.It was also mentioned already that such chains are constituted by two types of connectors, which results in two different types of chains, and these are the normative one and the transgressive one, the general formula of which has already been demonstrated in figure 1 above.
We call segment X by A and Y by B. Those segments can be followed or not by negation.From A and B, it is possible to build eight sets of chains called argumentative aspects, which cluster into two semantic blocks; four aspects for each block.Still regarding the aspects of each block, which is particular of them is that the semantic interdependency between A and B is the same for the four aspects of a block (CAREL; DUCROT, 2005).To illustrate, the blocks would conform the following image: In each one of the four angles of the blocks, it is possible to see the descriptions that allow suppositions about the discursive relations between the terms.For Carel and Ducrot, two blocks are necessary, because the aspects of the first block, represented by number 1, are interconnected to the extent that segments A and B are reciprocally influenced by their presence in the chain.The other four aspects represented in block 2, which is completely different from the first, conform other chains, also different from those which compose the first by the same reason: "the influence of A on B and B on A is distinct in each block" (CAREL; DUCROT, 2005).The relation between the blocks will present three possibilities of interpreting the statement: it will either be a change in meaning, or one of the blocks will not have any meaning at all, or yet one of the blocks will be doxic and the other paradoxical.
The discursive relation between the angles of the square, or argumentative block, The chains of each angle of the block therefore are argumentative descriptions of the linguistic entities that allow to predict the existing discursive relations between the four angles.The example used to explain the relations cited above establishes different discursive relations to the words easy and get it in such a way that depending on the connector (DC or PT) or if negation is used, it is possible to come to the meaning both of a fool and intelligent, and yet the intermediate ones, since non-fool does not necessarily mean intelligent and vice-versa.Otherwise, other words or expressions could replace those of the example so that their respective meanings could be sought.

External Argumentation versus Internal Argumentation
It is known that the meaning of a linguistic entity is determined by means of the argumentative aspects that are connected to that same entity.It is understood by aspect sets of chains that share the same discursive relation, that is, they are interdependent, expressing a single argumentative content.It is a purpose of this section to clarify how that association happens, between linguistic entity and their possible chains to find the meaning.TSB establishes that there are two distinct types of connection between a given expression or word and the aspects that it signifies: one external and other internal.
When the linguistic entity appears in the discourse that the argumentative aspect assumes, then it is an external argumentation (EA).See the examples given by Ducrot and Carel (2005, p. 63):  Pedro is prudent; therefore, he will be safe.prudent DC safe  He is afraid; therefore, he is prudent.being afraid DC prudent convert The statements (3) and ( 4) present specific categories of EA; the first is a case of EA to the right, because the argumentation is confirmed by the continuation of prudent, that is, safe.The second is an EA at the left, because it is what comes before the linguistic entity, in this case, being afraid.
The second characteristic of an EA is that its aspects are always double.Thus, if there is an aspect of that EA in DC, there will be in that same EA another aspect in PT + neg with the same segments, and vice versa.They are called convert aspects: prudent DC safe / prudent PT non-safe.
The Internal Argumentation (IA) of a linguistic entity is constituted by aspects to which the chains that paraphrase, reshape that same entity belong.On the contrary of EA, IA cannot contain the entity at stake as a constitutive element.However, if the same linguistic entity is itself a chain, that entity might be found in its own IA, but cannot be a segment.Convert aspects will also not be found in IA as in EA, but it is possible to find reciprocal aspects (see figures 2 and 3).An example is the IA of sieve that contain reciprocal normative chains: fine DC goes through / not fine DC does not go through.

Argumentative Analysis and Translation Suggestion of the Corpus
To analyze and later propose a solution for the translation problems of the corpus, based on ADL/TSB, it was necessary to divide the process into two different steps.
For the argumentative analysis of the corpus, the methodology to be followed was suggested by Barbisan et al (2010).At first, the humorous statement was divided in parts, according to a criterion that its reading could evoke an argumentative chain in DC or PT.
After the reading of the statement of each part, the chains evoked by the linguistic and discursive relations were identified.Then, the aspect of the block expressed in it was associated to each chain.That association builds the external or internal argumentation.
Regarding homonymy, Ducrot and Carel (2005) consider it a phenomenon intimately related to the argumentative possibilities of the words.Thus, for each homonymic or polysemic expression found in the corpus, attention was paid as to find the necessary chains to understand which meanings were at stake, because it was necessary to make explicit the double meaning that there was there and was what caused laughter, as well as the translation problem.
After the analysis in which the global argumentative meaning of the statements was constructed, the next step consisted of translating each humorous text.The translation suggestion allied both the previous knowledge the translator had of the two languages and creativity, but she based herself basically in the linguistic support that ADL/TSB provides, because there is an attempt to construct argumentative aspects in the TL that were equivalent to those conformed in the analysis of the enunciate in the SL.
The argumentative analysis limits the possibilities of words or expressions to be used, because it is necessary that the term in the TL gets found, that will be equivalent to the meaning (and not the message) and the function, demonstrating that the notions of equivalence and skopo can go together, and none of them makes the translator a professional that needs to be invisible.Humor is generated by what is called perfect homonymy, that is, words written similarly or equally, but with different meanings, as can be seen in the use of the word right, which can be straight and well at the same time.
That analysis sought to see the EA at right of he's all right now.With the argumentative chain, it was possible to specify the meaning of the expression at stake.Note that neither the linguistic nor the functionalist approach could be useful for that translation, therefore the argumentative approach is.

Suggestion of Translation Based on ADL/TSB
For the translation, it was necessary to find a term in Portuguese that had the same argumentative meaning of all right; that, at the same time, could signify having lost his left side limbs PT he's ALL RIGHT now and having only his right side DC he's ALL RIGHT now.Besides, to get a good translation of a humorous text, it is necessary not only that there be equivalence of meaning, but also that the function remain similar, that is, resulting in laughter; in this case, generated by the polysemy existing in the expression all right.
In the reading of the joke in Portuguese, the double meaning is due to the expression está tudo direito agora, which can be understood both as having lost all his left side limbs PT everything is all right now, the meaning of which is absurd, and having only his right side limbs DC he is all right now, meaning that he has only the right side of his body.
When searching the translation for all right in every bilingual dictionary, one finds tudo bem, which can be used for health issues and also to agree.However, those translation suggestions are not enough to complete the double meaning which is necessary so that the joke is funny.Thus, it was necessary to find, in Portuguese, a term that would equally evoke the aspect that defines the ambiguity resulting from the perfect homonymy, that is, ONLY HIS RIGHT LIMBS PT ALL RIGHT.The expression tudo/todo direito is colloquial and used, among other things, to denote that something is right, well, and it also refers to the right side.Thus, with the argumentative analysis, it is concluded that it was a good translation, after all, it was possible to maintain dynamic equivalence of meaning between the message of Source Text 1 and that of the translation, and it was possible to reach the final objective of the joke, which is to make fun with the pun all right -right limbs (tudo direitomembros direitos).

Final Considerations
Translating or verting texts is not an easy task.It is possible to list several factors that difficult the translation craftness, such as cultural, linguistic incompatibilities and even interpretation problems.Having as purpose to seek methods and forms of facilitating the translator's work and reaching better results, more and more studies have been rising since the first text was translated, million years ago.However, the various methods and approaches created focalize isolated aspects of translation and therefore a consensus has not been reached about the best form to transpose messages from one language to another.
Based on that, this paper sought to present a possible strategy to solve translation problems of humorous texts caused by the presence of polysemy and homonymy, in an attempt to contribute to tradutology.
Tapering the type of corpus for this research was important because primarily the intention was not trying to solve all translation problems that might exist.Secondly, it is known that both homonymy and polysemy are great obstacles to a perfect translation.In that sense, the use of homonymy or polysemy in a humorous situation is very peculiar to each language, and also considering possible cultural and linguistic incompatibilities, it becomes a problem for the translator.
To think, then, of a new strategy that would aid the translator when they have to make translation choices of humorous enunciates that have polysemy or homonymy, a dialogue was carried out between notions of equivalence, skopos, and what is the role of the translator facing this process.These approaches were chosen which present contrary one to the others, because there is, in each one of them, positive aspects that can complement when there comes a situation where only the use of the dictionary would be enough.However, with this study, it was realized that only the existing approaches of translation theory would not be enough, once, as previously mentioned, the lack of cultural and even linguistic compatibility can bring great difficulties for the translator, taking into account that their role is being faithful to the content and the function of the text they translate.To aid the translator in their choices seeking meaning and function equivalence, knowledge from ADL/TSB was applied.
The translation suggestion used previous knowledge that the translator had of the two languages, but she based herself basically in the linguistic support that ADL/TSB provides.The attempt was to construct argumentative aspects in the TL that were equivalent to those confirmed in the analysis of the statement in the SL.With the argumentative analysis previously performed, the possibilities of words or expressions started to be limited searching for equivalence of meaning and also function, and it was even possible to coin a new term: argumentative equivalence.It can be demonstrated that integrating ADL/TSB with concepts of equivalence and skopos aligns with the notion of the professional translator's invisibility.This refers to the idea that, for a translation to be deemed truly successful, the translator should strive to minimize their presence as much as possible.(RODRIGUES, 2000;ARROJO, 1992).(our translation) This study is not over, tough.It is understood that, due to this being a relatively long procedure, it could not be used, for example, in situations of simultaneous translation.However, it is possible to research the possibility of using it as a form of verifying if a written translation was adequate.A deeper study is also necessary so that more and more ways of facilitating the work of the translator can be found, as well as to establish if TSB can be used in the resolution of other translation problems in other textual genre.Finally, it is important to highlight that studies such as this are important to further open the fan of possibilities to facilitate a translator's work, in the sense that they can go through between languages and cultures with more security, linguistically supported and without having to become invisible to be acknowledged as good professionals.
Vol.5, Issue 1. No.1.pp 1 -16, 2024 www.iprjb.org6 [...] in both types of chains [normative and transgressive] a fundamental fact is manifested, knowingly, that each one of the segments chained only takes its meaning in the relation with the other.That phenomenon is what we call semantic interdependence (CAREL; DUCROT, 2005 p. 16).(our translation) Figure 2: Semantic Blocks

VolFigure 3 :
Figure 3: Semantic Block and the Relations between the Angles

Analysis of the ST and Case Description The
Source TextL1 Have you heard about the guy who had an accident and lost his left arm and leg?L2 No, what happened?L1 He's ALL RIGHT now.first meaning of he's all right now, constructed by L2, can be obtained by evoking the following argumentative chain: he suffered a serious accident PT he's ALL RIGHT now.That meaning is absurd for two reasons: first because it is hard to believe that someone who has lost both left arm and leg can be all right, and secondly because the answer he's all right now is not adequate to the question "what happened?"That absurd content can be expressed by the chain having lost his left side limbs PT he's all right now.L2 then searches a new meaning for he's all right now.Then they understand that the answer of L1 to what had happened in the serious accident, in which the boy had lost his left arm and leg is that he now has only the right side, expressed in the chain having lost his left side limbs DC he's ALL RIGHT now.For that purpose, see that the expression all right is capitalized, exposing the need that it is read as a marked, highlighted expression.