chapter 2 - copy - copy

8/13/2019 Chapter 2 - Copy - Copy

1/8

2.3 THE PROBLEM OF NON-EQUIVALANCE

Semantic fields

abstractconcepts (plants,

vehicles, speech)

Lexical sets

words and

expressions

Rizka, Putri & Kiki 1

Types of Non-Equivalence


2/8

There are 2 main areas in which anunderstanding of semantics fields &lexical sets can be useful to translator :

A) appreciating the value that a

word has in a given system

B) Developing strategies for

dealing with non-equivalence

Understanding the difference in

structure of semantic fields in the

source and target language allows a

translator to assess the value of a

given lexical item

e.g :

The field of TEMPERATURE:

cold, cool, hot, warm

Modern Arabic: baarid (cold/

cool), haar (hot: of the weather),

saakhin (hot: of objects), daafi(warm)

Semantic fields are arranged

hierarchically

(general to specific)

- Superordinate

-Hyponym

e.g :

-Vehicle= superordinate

-Bus, car, truck, = hyponyms of

vehicle



3/8

Common problems of non-equivalence

(a) Culture-specificconcepts

The source-language wordmay express a concept whichis totally unknown in thetarget language

eg. English : Speaker (of theHouse of Commons)

Russian : Chairman, whichdoes not reflect the role of

the Speaker of the House ofCommons as an independentperson who maintainsauthority and order inParliament.

(b) The source-languageconcept is not lexicalized inthe target language

The source-language word mayexpress a concept which is

known in the target culture butsimply not lexicalized, that isnot allocated a target-language word to express it.

eg. standard (meaning ordinary,not extra, expresses a concept

which is very accessible andreadily understood by mostpeople, yet Arabic has noequivalent for it.



4/8

(c) The source-languageword is semanticallycomplex

The source-language wordmay be semantically

complex.

eg: arruao,

a Brazilian word whichmeans clearing the groundunder the coffee trees of

rubbish and piling it in themiddle of the row in order toaid in the recovery of beansdropped during harvesting(ITI News, 1988:57).

(d) The source and the targetlanguages make differentdistinctions in meaning

The target language maymake more or fewerdistinctions in meaning thanthe source language.

eg. Indonesian makes adistinction between

(kehujanan)going out in therain without the knowledge

that is it raining

(hujanhujanan) going out inthe rain with the knowledgethat it is raining



5/8

(e) The target languagelacks a superordinate

The target language may havespecific words (hyponyms) but nogeneral word (superordinate)to

head the semantic field.

eg. Russian has no read equivalentfor facilities, meaning anyequipment, building, services, etc.that are provided for a particularactivity or purpose.

sredstva peredvizheniya (meansof transport), naem (loan),neobkhodimye pomeschcheniya(essential accommodation) andneobkhodimoe oborudovanie(essentialequipment).

(f) The target language lacksa specific term (hyponym)

More commonly,languages tend to havegeneral words(superordinates) butlack specific ones(hyponyms).

eg. House bungalow,cottage, croft, chalet,lodge, hut, mansion,manor, villaand hall.



6/8

(g) Differences in physical orinterpersonal perspective

Physical perspective has to dowith where things or people are

in relation to one another or toa place, as expressed in pairs ofwords such as come/ go, take/bring, arrive/ depart, etc.

eg. Japanese has six equivalentsfor give, depending on who

gives to whom: yaru, ageru,morau, kureru, itadaku andkudasaru(McCreary, 1986).

h) Differences inexpressive meaning

There may be a target-languageword which has the same

propositional meaning as thesource-language word, but itmay have a different expressivemeaning.

eg. the rendering of the Englishverb to batter (as in child/ wife

battering) by the more neutralJapanese verb tataku, meaningto beat plus an equivalentmodifier such as savagely orruthlessly.



7/8

(i) Difference in form

There is often no equivalent in thetarget language for a particularform in the source text.

eg.ish (e.g. boyish, hellish, greenish)and able (e.g. conceivable,retrievable, drinkable).

Arabic, for instance, has no readymechanism for producing suchforms and so they are often

replaced by an appropriateparaphrase, depending on themeaning they convey (e.g.retrievable as can be retrievedand drinkable as suitable fordrinking).

(j) Differences in frequencyand purpose of using specificforms

Even when a particularform does have a ready

equivalent in the targetlanguage, there may be adifference in thefrequency with which it isused or the purpose forwhich it is used.

eg.

ingI will be waiting for you

target text would result instilted, unnatural style.



8/8

(k) The use of loan words in the source text

Words such as au fait, chic and alfresco in English are used fortheir prestige value, because they add an air of sophistication tothe text or its subject matter. This is often lost in translationbecause it is not always possible to find a loan word with thesame meaning in the target language.

eg. dilettante is a loan word in English, Russian and Japanese; butArabic has no equivalent loan word. This means that only thepropositional meaning of dilettantecan be rendered into Arabic;

its stylistic effect would almost certainly have to be sacrificed.

Indonesian-English orangutan. Malaysian-English has laksa todescribe a spicy coconut noodle soup dish and Japanese-Englishhas kimonoto describe traditional Japanese clothes. SatayfromTamil, or ketchupfrom Chinese.

8Rizka, Putri & Kiki

chapter 2 - copy - copy

Documents