<mods:mods version="3.3" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-3.xsd" xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"><mods:titleInfo><mods:title>EKVIVALENTLIK HÁM ADEKVATLIQ: ZAMANAGÓY AWDARMA TEORIYASINDAǴI ORNI</mods:title></mods:titleInfo><mods:name type="personal"><mods:namePart type="given">Atashova</mods:namePart><mods:namePart type="family">F.D</mods:namePart><mods:role><mods:roleTerm type="text">author</mods:roleTerm></mods:role></mods:name><mods:name type="personal"><mods:namePart type="given">Esemuratova</mods:namePart><mods:namePart type="family">A.E</mods:namePart><mods:role><mods:roleTerm type="text">author</mods:roleTerm></mods:role></mods:name><mods:abstract>The article explores the concept of “equivalence” as a core notion in translation theory. Although often used interchangeably with “adequacy,” the two are not identical. The study highlights how the term “adequate translation,” introduced by I.I. Revzin and V.Y. Rosenstein in the 1960s, was associated with the idea of complete transfer of meaning and function. Later views, including those of A.V. Fedorov and L.K. Latyshev, emphasized the complexity of defining equivalence and its relation to adequacy. The paper also discusses W. Koller’s typology of equivalence, which includes denotative, connotative, text-normative, pragmatic, and formal-aesthetic types. The conclusion stresses that equivalence remains a key yet contested category in translation studies and must be distinguished from adequacy.&amp;nbsp;</mods:abstract><mods:originInfo><mods:dateIssued encoding="iso8601">2025-12-11</mods:dateIssued></mods:originInfo><mods:originInfo><mods:publisher>Conferences</mods:publisher></mods:originInfo><mods:genre>Article</mods:genre></mods:mods>