Equivalence at word level- the meaning of single words and expressions; Equivalence at word level

• Do we really know how we translate or what we translate?...Are we to accept “naked ideas” as the means of crossing from one language to another?...Translators know they cross over but do not know by what sort of bridge. They often re-cross by a different bridge to check up again. Sometimes they fall over the parapet into limbo.

• (Firth, 1957:197)

Equivalence at word level- the meaning of single words and expressions;

• Equivalence at word level- the meaning of single words and expressions;

• Equivalence above word level- explores combinations of words and phrases (stretches of language);

• Grammatical equivalence- deals with grammatical categories;

• Textual equivalence- discusses the text level (word order, cohesion, etc.);

• Pragmatic equivalence- how texts are used in communicative situations that involves variables such as writers, readers, and cultural context.

What does a translator do when there is no word in the target language which expresses the same meaning as the source language word?

• What does a translator do when there is no word in the target language which expresses the same meaning as the source language word?

• Is there a one-to-one relationship between word and meaning?

• There is no one-to-one correspondence between orthographic words and elements of meaning within or across language:

• eg. words such as tennis player is rendered by means of 3 words in Romanian: jucător de tenis; one word in Turkish: tenisçi, etc.; the verb to type- a dactilografia- one word in Romanian; three words in Spanish: pasar a maquina.

Common problems of non-equivalence:

• Common problems of non-equivalence:

• (a) Culture-specific concepts

• The source-language word may express a concept which is totally unknown in the target language (abstract or concrete; it may relate to a religious belief, a social custom or even a type of food).

• eg. English concept difficult to translate: Speaker (of the House of Commons)- it has no equivalent in many languages, such as Russian, Chinese and Arabic, among others. It is often translated into Russian as “Chairman”, which does not reflect the role of the Speaker of the House of Commons as an independent person who maintains authority and order in Parliament.

• (b) The source-language concept is not lexicalized in the target language

• The source-language word may express a concept which is known in the target culture but simply not lexicalized, that is not “allocated” a target-language word to express it.

• eg. the adjective standard (meaning “ordinary, not extra”, as is standard range of products) expresses a concept which is very accessible and readily understood by most people, yet Arabic has no equivalent for it.

Common problems of non-equivalence:

• Common problems of non-equivalence:

• (c) The source-language word is semantically complex

• The source-language word may be semantically complex.

• eg: arruação, a Brazilian word which means “clearing the ground under the coffee trees of rubbish and piling it in the middle of the row in order to aid in the recovery of beans dropped during harvesting” (ITI News, 1988:57).

• (d) The source and the target languages make different distinctions in meaning

• The target language may make more or fewer distinctions in meaning than the source language.

• eg. Indonesian makes a distinction between going out in the rain without the knowledge that is it raining (kehujanan) and going out in the rain with the knowledge that it is raining (hujanhujanan). English does not makes that distinction, with the result that if an English text referred to going out in the rain, the Indonesian translator may find it difficult to choose the right equivalent.

Common problems of non-equivalence:

• Common problems of non-equivalence:

• (e) The target language lacks a superordinate

• The target language may have specific words (hyponyms) but no general word (superordinate)to head the semantic field.

• eg. Russian has no read equivalent for facilities, meaning “any equipment, building, services, etc. that are provided for a particular activity or purpose.” It does, however, have several specific words and expressions which can be thought of as types of facilities, for example sredstva peredvizheniya (“means of transport”), naem (“loan”), neobkhodimye pomeschcheniya (“essential accommodation”) and neobkhodimoe oborudovanie (“essential equipment”).

Common problems of non-equivalence:

• Common problems of non-equivalence:

• (f) The target language lacks a specific term (hyponym)

• More commonly, languages tend to have general words (superordinates) but lack specific ones (hyponyms).

• eg. under house, English again has a variety of hyponyms which have no equivalents in many languages, for example bungalow, cottage, croft, chalet, lodge, hut, mansion, manor, villa and hall.

•