A. Lexical
Meaning
every
word (lexical unit) has . . . something that is individual, that makes it
different from any other word. And it is just the lexical meaning which is
the most outstanding individual property of the word. (Zgusta, 1971:67)
The
lexical meaning of a word or lexical unit may be thought of as the specific
value it has in a particular linguistic system and the ‘personality’ it acquires through usage within that system. It
is rarely possible to analyse a word, pattern, or structure into distinct
components of meaning; the way in which language works is much too complex to
allow that. Nevertheless, it is sometimes useful to play down the complexities
of language temporarily in order both to appreciate them and to be able to
handle them better in the long run. With
this aim in mind, we will now briefly discuss a model for analysing the
components of lexical meaning. This model is largely derived from Cruse (1986),
but the description of register (2.2.3 below) also draws on Halliday
(1978). For alternative models of lexical meaning see Zgusta
(1971: Chapter 1) and Leech (1974:
Chapter 2).
2.2.1. Propositional vs expressive meaning
The propositional
meaning of a word or an utterance arises from the relation
between it and what it refers to or
describes in a real or imaginary world, as conceived by the speakers of the
particular language to which the word or utterance belongs. It is this type of
meaning which provides the basis on which we can judge an utterance as true or
false. For instance, the propositional meaning of shirt is ‘a piece of
clothing worn on the upper part of the body’. It would be inaccurate to use shirt,
under normal circumstances,to refer to a piece of clothing worn on the
foot, such as socks. When a translation is described as ‘inaccurate’, it
is often the propositional meaningthat is being called into question.
Expressive
meaning cannot be judged as true or false. This is because expressive
meaning relates to the speaker’s2 feelings or attitude rather thanto what words
and utterances refer to. The difference between Don’t complain and Don’t
whinge does not lie in their propositional meanings but in the expressiveness
of whinge, which suggests that the speaker finds the actionannoying. Two
or more words or utterances can therefore have the samepropositional meaning
but differ in their expressive meanings. This is true not only of words and
utterances within the same language, where such words are often referred to as
synonyms or near-synonyms, but also for words
and utterances from different
languages. The difference between famous in English and fameux in
French does not lie in their respective propositional meanings; both items basically
mean ‘well-known’. It lies in their expressive meanings. Famous is
neutral in English: it has no inherent evaluative meaning or connotation. Fameux,
on the other hand, is potentially evaluative and can be readily used in
some contexts in a derogatory way (for example, une femme fameuse means,
roughly, ‘a woman of ill repute’). It is worth noting that differences between
words in the area of expressive
meaning are not simply a matter of
whether an expression of a certain attitude or evaluation is inherently present
or absent in the words in question. The same attitude or evaluation may be
expressed in two words or utterances in widely differing degrees of
forcefulness. Both unkind and cruel, for instance, are inherently
expressive, showing the speaker’s disapproval of someone’s attitude. However, the element of disapproval
in cruel is stronger than it is in unkind. The meaning of a word
or lexical unit can be both propositional and expressive, e.g. whinge, propositional
only, e.g. book, or expressive only, e.g. bloody and various
other swear words and emphasizers. Words which contribute solely to expressive
meaning can be removed from an utterance without affecting its information
content. Consider, for instance, the wordsimply in the following text:
2.2.2 Presupposed
meaning
Presupposed
meaning arises from co-occurrence restrictions, i.e. restrictions
on what other words or expressions
we expect to see before or after a particular lexical unit. These restrictions
are of two types:
1. Selectional restrictions: these
are a function of the propositional meaning of a word. We expect a human
subject for the adjective studious and an inanimate one for geometrical.
Selectional restrictions are deliberately violated in the case of
figurative language but are otherwise strictly observed.
2. Collocational restrictions: these
are semantically arbitrary restrictions which do not follow logically from the
propositional meaning of a word. For instance, laws are broken in
English, but in Arabic they are ‘contradicted’. In English, teeth are brushed,
but in German and Italian they are ‘polished’, in Polish they are ‘washed’,
and in Russian they are ‘cleaned’. Because they are arbitrary, collocational
restrictions tend to show more variation across languages than do selectional
restrictions.
The
difference between selectional and collocational restrictions is not always
as clear cut as the examples given
above might imply. For example, in the following English translation of a
German leaflet which accompanies Baumler products (men’s suits), it is
difficult to decide whether the awkwardness of the wording is a result of
violating selectional or collocational restrictions:
Dear Sir
I am very pleased that you have
selected one of our garments. You have made a wise choice, as suits, jackets
and trousers eminating from our Company are amongst the finest products Europe
has to offer.
Ideas, qualities, and feelings
typically emanate (misspelt as eminate in the above text) from a
source, but objects such as trousers and jackets do not, at least
not in English. The awkwardness of the wording can be explained in terms of
selectional or collocational restrictions, depending on whether or not one sees
the restriction involved as a function of the prepositional meaning of emanate.
3. Evoked meaning
Evoked
meaning arises from dialect and register variation. A dialect is
a variety of language which has currency within a specific community or
group of speakers. It may be classified on one of the following bases:
1. Geographical (e.g. a Scottish
dialect, or American as opposed to British English: cf. the difference between lift
and elevator);
2. Temporal (e.g. words and
structures used by members of different age groups within a community, or words
used at different periods in the history of a language: cf. verily and really);
3. Social (words and structures used
by members of different social classes: cf. scent and perfume, napkin
and serviette).
Register is a variety of language that a language user considers appropriate
to a specific situation. Register
variation arises from variations in the
following:
1. Field of
discourse: This is an abstract term for ‘what is going on’ that is
relevant to the speaker’s choice of linguistic items. Different
linguistic choices are made by different speakers depending on what kind of
action other than the immediate action of speaking they see themselves as participating
in. For example, linguistic choices will vary according to whether the speaker
is taking part in a football match or discussing football;
making love or discussing love;
making a political speech or discussing politics; performing an operation or
discussing medicine.
2. Tenor of
discourse: An abstract term for the relationships between the
people
taking part in the discourse. Again, the language people use varies depending
on such interpersonal relationships as mother/ child, doctor/ patient, or
superior/inferior in status. A patient is unlikely to use swear words in
addressing a doctor and a mother is unlikely to start a request to her child
with I wonder if you could . . . Getting the tenor of discourse right in
translation can be quite difficult. It depends on whether one sees a certain
level of formality as ‘right’ from the perspective of the source culture or the
target culture. For example, an American teenager may adopt a highly informal
tenor with his/her parents by, among other things, using their first names
instead of Mum/Mother and Dad/Father. This level of informality
would be highly inappropriate in most other cultures.
3. Mode of
discourse: An abstract term for the role that the language is playing
(speech, essay, lecture, instructions) and for its medium of transmission
(spoken, written).3 Linguistic choices are influenced by these dimensions. For example, a word such as re
is perfectly appropriate in a business letter but is rarely, if ever, used
in spoken English.
B. THE
PROBLEM OF NON-EQUIVALENCE
Based
on the above discussion, we can now begin to outline some of the more common
types of non-equivalence which often pose difficulties for the translator and
some attested strategies for dealing with them. First, a word of warning. The
choice of a suitable equivalent in a given context depends on a wide variety of
factors. Some of these factors may be strictly linguistic. Other factors may be
extra-linguistic. It is virtually impossible to offer absolute guidelines for
dealing with the various types of nonequivalence which exist among languages.
The most that can be done in this and the following chapters is to suggest
strategies which may be used to dealwith non equivalence ‘in some contexts’.
The choice of a suitable equivalent will always depend not only on the
linguistic system or systems being handled by the translator, but also on the
way both the writer of the source text and the producer of the target text,
i.e. the translator, choose to manipulate the linguistic systems in question.
2.3.1 Semantic
fields and lexical sets – the segmentation of experience
The
words of a language often reflect not so much the reality of the world,
but the interests of the people who
speak it. (Palmer, 1976: 21) It is sometimes useful to view the vocabulary of a
language as a set of words referring to a series of conceptual fields. These
fields reflect the divisions and sub-divisions ‘imposed’ by a given linguistic
community on the continuum of experience.4 In linguistics, the divisions are
called semantic fields. Fields are abstract concepts. An example
of a semantic field would be the field of SPEECH, or PLANTS, or VEHICLES. A large
number of semantic fields are common to all or most languages. Most, if not
all, languages will have fields of DISTANCE, SIZE, SHAPE, TIME, EMOTION,
BELIEFS, ACADEMIC SUBJECTS, and NATURAL PHENOMENA. The actual words and
expressions under each field are sometimes called lexical sets.5 Each
semantic field will normally have several sub-divisions or lexical sets under
it, and each subdivision will have further sub-divisions and lexical sets. So,
the field of SPEECH in English has a sub-division of VERBS OF SPEECH which
includes general verbs such as speak and say and more specific
ones such as mumble, murmur, mutter, and whisper. It seems
reasonable to suggest that the more detailed a semantic field is in a given
language, the more different it is likely
to be from related semantic fields
in other languages. There generally tends to be more agreement among languages
on the larger headings of semantic fields and less agreement as the sub-fields
become more finely differentiated. Most languages are likely to have
equivalents for the more general verbs of speech such as say and speak,
but many may not have equivalents for the more specific ones. Languages
understandably tend to make only those distinctions in meaning which are
relevant to their particular environment, be it physical, historical,
political, religious, cultural, economic, legal, technological, social, or
otherwise.
Limitations aside, there are two
main areas in which an understanding of semantic fields and lexical sets can be
useful to a translator:
a. appreciating the ‘value’ that a
word has in a given system; and
b. developing strategies for dealing
with non-equivalence.
(a) Understanding the difference in
the structure of semantic fields in the source and target languages allows a
translator to assess the value of a given item in a lexical set. If you know
what other items are available in a lexical set and how they contrast with the
item chosen by a writer or speaker, you can appreciate the significance of the
writer’s or speaker’s choice. You can understand not only what something is,
but also what it is not. This is best illustrated by an example.
In
the field of TEMPERATURE, English has four main divisions: cold, cool, hot and
warm. This contrasts with Modern Arabic, which has four different divisions:
baarid (‘cold/cool’), haar (‘hot: of the weather’), saakhin (‘hot:
of objects’), and daafi’ (‘warm’). Note that, in contrast with
English, Arabic (a) does not distinguish between cold and cool,
and (b) distinguishes between the hotness of the weather and the
hotness of other things. The fact that English does not make the latter
distinction does not mean that you can always use hot to describe
the temperature of something, even metaphorically (cf. hot temper, but
not * hot feelings). There are restrictions on the cooccurrence
of words in any language (see discussion of collocation: Chapter 3,
section 3.1). Now consider the following examples from the COBUILD corpus
of English:6
1. The air was cold and the wind was
like a flat blade of ice.
2. Outside the air was still cool.
Bearing in mind the differences in
the structure of the English and Arabic fields, one can appreciate, on the one
hand, the difference in meaning between cold and cool in the
above examples and, on the other, the potential difficulty in making such a
distinction clear when translating into Arabic.
(b) Semantic fields are arranged
hierarchically, going from the more general
to
the more specific. The general word is usually referred to as superordinate
and the specific word as hyponym.
In the field of VEHICLES, vehicle is a superordinate and bus,
car, truck, coach, etc. are all hyponyms of vehicle. It stands to
reason that any propositional meaning carried by a superordinate or general
word is, by necessity, part of the meaning of each of its hyponyms, but not
vice versa. If something is a bus, then it must be a vehicle, but not the other
way round. We can sometimes manipulate this feature of semantic fields when we
are faced with semantic gaps in the target language. Translators often deal
with semantic gaps by modifying a superordinate word or by means of
circumlocutions based on modifying superordinates. More on this in the
following section.
2.3.2
Non-equivalence at word level and some common strategies for
dealing with it
Non-equivalence
at word level means that the target language has no direct equivalent for a
word which occurs in the source text. The type and level of difficulty posed
can vary tremendously depending on the nature of nonequivalence. Different
kinds of non-equivalence require different strategies, some very
straightforward, others more involved and difficult to handle. Since, in
addition to the nature of non-equivalence, the context and purpose of
translation will often rule out some strategies and favour others, I will keep
the discussion of types of non-equivalence separate from the discussion of
strategies used by professional translators. It is neither possible nor helpful
to attempt to relate specific types of non-equivalence to specific strategies, but
I will comment on the advantages or disadvantages of certain strategies wherever
possible
.
2.3.2.1 Common
problems of non-equivalence
The
following are some common types of non-equivalence at word level, with examples
from various languages
:
(a) Culture-specific concepts
The
source-language word may express a concept which is totally unknown in the
target culture. The concept in question may be abstract or concrete; it may
relate to a religious belief, a social custom, or even a type of food. Such concepts
are often referred to as ‘culture-specific’. An example of an abstract English
concept which is notoriously difficult to translate into other languages is
that expressed by the word privacy. This is a very ‘English’ concept
which is rarely understood by people from other cultures. Speaker (of
the House of Commons) 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. An example of a concrete
concept is airing cupboard in Englishwhich, again, is unknown to
speakers of most languages.
(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 targetlanguage word to express it. The word savoury has
no equivalent in many languages, although it expresses a concept which is easy
to understand. The adjective standard (meaning ‘ordinary, not extra’, as
in standard range of products) also expresses a concept which is
very accessible and readily understood by most people, yet Arabic has no
equivalent for it. Landslide has no ready equivalent in many languages,
although it simply means overwhelming majority’.
(c) The source-language word is semantically
complex
The
source-language word may be semantically complex. This is a fairly common
problem in translation. Words do not have to be morphologically complex to be
semantically complex (Bolinger and Sears, 1968). In otherwords, a single word
which consists of a single morpheme can sometimes express a more complex set of
meanings than a whole sentence. Languages automatically develop very concise
forms for referring to complex concepts if the concepts become important enough
to be talked about often. Bolinger and Sears suggest that ‘If we should ever
need to talk regularly and frequentlyabout independently operated sawmills from
which striking workers are locked out on Thursday when the temperature is
between 500° and 600°F, we would find a concise way to do it’ (ibid.: 114). We
do not usually realize
how semantically complex a word is
until we have to translate it into a language which does not have an equivalent
for it. An example of such a semantically complex word is arruação, a
Brazilian word which means clearing the ground under 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).7
(d) The source and target languages
make different distinctions in meaning
The
target language may make more or fewer distinctions in meaning than the source
language. What one language regards as an important distinction in meaning
another language may not perceive as relevant. For example, Indonesian makes a
distinction between going out in the rain without the knowledge that it is raining
(kehujanan) and going out in the rain with the knowledge that it is
raining (hujan-hujanan). English does not make this 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, unless the context makes
it clear whether zor not the person in question
knew that it was raining.
(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. Russian has no ready equivalent for
facilities, meaning ‘any equipment, building, services, etc. that are
provided for a particular activity or purpose’.8 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’).
f)
The target language lacks a specific term (hyponym)
More commonly,
languages tend to have general words (superordinates) but lack specific ones
(hyponyms), since each language makes only those distinctions in meaning which
seem relevant to its particular environment.
There are
endless examples of this type of non-equivalence. English has many hyponyms
under article for which it is difficult to find precise equivalents in other
languages, for example feature, survey, report, critique, commentary,
review, and many more. 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. Under
jump we find more specific verbs such as leap, vault, spring, bounce,
dive, clear, plunge, and plummet.
g)
Differences in physical or interpersonal perspective
Physical
perspective has to do with where things or people are in relation to one
another or to a place, as expressed in pairs of words such as come/go,
take/bring, arrive/depart, and so on. Perspective may also include the
relationship between participants in the discourse (tenor). For example,
Japanese has six equivalents for give, depending on who gives to whom: yaru,
ageru, morau, kureru, itadaku, and kudasaru (McCreary, 1986).
h)
Differences in expressive meaning
There may be a
target-language word which has the same propositional meaning as the
source-language word, but it may have a different expressive meaning. The
difference may be considerable or it may be subtle but important enough to pose
a translation problem in a given context. It is usually easier to add
expressive meaning than to subtract it. In other words, if the target-language
equivalent is neutral compared to the source-language item, the translator can
sometimes add the evaluative element by means of a modifier or adverb if
necessary, or by building it in somewhere else in the text. So, it may be possible,
for instance, in some contexts to render the English verb batter (as in
child/wife battering) by the more neutral Japanese verb tataku, meaning
‘to beat’, plus an equivalent modifier such as ‘savagely’ or ‘ruthlessly’.
Differences in expressive meaning are usually more difficult to handle when the
target-language equivalent is more emotionally loaded than the source-language
item. This is often the case with items which relate to sensitive issues such
as religion, politics, and sex. Words like homosexuality and homosexual
provide good examples. Homosexuality is not an inherently pejorative
word in English, although it is often used in this way. On the other hand, the
equivalent expression in Arabic, shithuth jinsi (literally: ‘sexual
perversion’), is inherently more pejorative and would be quite difficult to use
in a neutral context without suggesting strong disapproval.
i)
Differences in form
There is often
no equivalent in the target language for a particular form in the source text.
Certain suffixes and prefixes which convey propositional and other types of
meaning in English often have no direct equivalents in other languages. English
has many couplets such as employer/employee, trainer/trainee, and payer/payee.
It also makes frequent use of suffixes such as -ish (e.g. boyish,
hellish, greenish) and -able (e.g. conceivable, retrievable,
drinkable). Arabic, for instance, has no ready mechanism for producing such
forms and so they are often replaced by an appropriate paraphrase, depending on
the meaning they convey (e.g. retrievable as ‘can be retrieved’ and drinkable
as ‘suitable for drinking’). Affixes which contribute to evoked meaning,
for instance by creating buzz words such as washateria, carpeteria, and groceteria
(Bolinger and Sears, 1968), and those which convey expressive meaning, such
as journalese, translationese, and legalese (the -ese suffix
usually suggests disapproval of a muddled or stilted form of writing) are more
difficult to translate by means of a paraphrase. It is relatively easy to
paraphrase propositional meaning, but other types of meaning cannot always be
spelt out in a translation. Their subtle contribution to the overall meaning of
the text is either lost altogether or recovered elsewhere by means of
compensatory techniques.
j)
Differences in frequency and purpose of using specific forms
Even when a
particular form does have a ready equivalent in the target language, there may
be a difference in the frequency with which it is used or the purpose for which
it is used. English, for instance, uses the continuous - ing form for
binding clauses much more frequently than other languages which have
equivalents for it, for example German and the Scandinavian languages.
Consequently, rendering every -ing form in an English source text with
an equivalent -ing form in a German, Danish, or Swedish target text
would result in stilted, unnatural style.
k)
The use of loan words in the source text
The use of loan words in the source text poses a special
problem in translation. Quite apart from their respective prepositional
meaning, loan words such as au fait, chic, and alfresco in
English are often used for their prestige value, because they can add an air of
sophistication to the text or its subject matter. This is often lost in
translation because it is not always possible to find a loan word with the same
meaning in the target language. Dilettante is a loan word in English,
Russian, and Japanese; but Arabic has no equivalent loan word. This means that
only the prepositional meaning of dilettante can be rendered into
Arabic; its stylistic effect would almost certainly have to be sacrificed.
The above are some of the more common examples of non-equivalence
among languages and the problems they pose for translators. In dealing with any
kind of non-equivalence, it is important first of all to assess its
significance and implications in a given context. Not every instance of
non-equivalence you encounter is going to be significant. It is neither
possible nor desirable to reproduce every aspect of meaning for every word in a
source text. We have to try, as much as possible, to convey the meaning of key
words which are focal to the understanding and development of a text, but we
cannot and should not distract the reader by looking at every word in isolation
and attempting to present him/her with a full linguistic account of its
meaning.
STRATEGIES USED BY PROFESSIONAL TRANSLATORS
With the above proviso in mind, we can now
look at examples of strategies used by professional translators
for dealing with various types of nonequivalence. In each example,
the source-language word which represents a translation problem is
underlined. The strategy used by the translator is highlighted in
bold in both the original translation and the back-translated version.
Only the strategies used for dealing with non-equivalence at word level
will be commented on. Other strategies and differences between the source
and target texts are dealt with in subsequent chapters.
a)
Translation by a more
general word (superordinate)
This is one of
the commonest strategies for dealing with many types of nonequivalence,
particularly in the area of propositional meaning. It works equally well in
most, if not all, languages, since the hierarchical structure of semantic
fields is not language-specific.
Example D
Source text (China’s Panda Reserves; see Appendix 3, no. 3):
Today there may be no more than 1000 giant
pandas left in the wild, restricted to a few mountain strongholds in the
Chinese provinces of Sichuan, Shaanxi and Gansu.
Target text (back-translated from Chinese):
Today there may be only 1000 big pandas which still remain in the wild
state, restricted to certain mountain areas in China’s Sichuan, Shaanxi
and Gansu.
What the translators of the above extracts have done is to go up a
level in a given semantic field to find a more general word that covers the
core propositional meaning of the missing hyponym in the target language.
(b) Translation by a more neutral/less expressive word
Example
A
Source text: (Morgan Matroc – ceramics company brochure; see Appendix 2):
Today people are aware that modern ceramic materials offer unrivalled
properties for many of our most demanding industrial applications. So is this
brochure necessary; isn’t the ceramic market already overbombarded with
technical literature; why should Matroc add more?
Because someone mumbles, ‘Our competitors do it.’ But why should we
imitate our competitors when Matroc probably supplies a greater range of
ceramic materials for more applications than any other manufacturer.
Target text: (Italian):
Qualcuno suggerisce: ‘i nostri concorrenti lo fanno.’
Someone suggests: ‘Our competitors do it.’
There is a noticeable difference in the expressive meaning of mumble
and its nearest Italian equivalent, mugugnare. The English verb mumble
suggest confusion or embarrassment, as can be seen in the following
examples:9
Simon mumbled confusedly: ‘I don’t believe in
the beast.’
I looked at the ground, shuffled my feet and
mumbled something defensive.
‘I know it wasn’t very successful,’ he
mumbled. ‘But give me another
chance.’
The Italian near equivalent, mugugnare, on the other hand,
tends to suggest dissatisfaction rather than embarrassment or confusion.
Possibly to avoid conveying the wrong expressive meaning, the Italian
translator opted for a more general word, suggerisce (‘suggest’).
(c) Translation by cultural substitution
This strategy involves replacing a culture-specific item or expression
with a target-language item which does not have the same propositional meaning
but is likely to have a similar impact on the target reader. The main advantage
of using this strategy is that it gives the reader a concept with which s/he
can identify, something familiar and appealing. On an individual level, the
translator’s decision to use this strategy will largely depend on (a) how much
licence is given to him/ her by those who commission the translation and (b) he
purpose of the translation. On a more general level, the decision will also
reflect, to some extent, the norms of translation prevailing in a given
community. Linguistic communities vary in the extent to which they tolerate
strategies that involve significant departure from the propositional meaning of
the text.
Example :
Source text (The Patrick Collection – a leaflet produced
by a privately owned museum of classic cars; see Appendix 4):
The Patrick Collection has restaurant facilities to suit every taste –
from the discerning gourmet, to the Cream Tea expert.
Target text
(Italian):
. . . di soddisfare tutti i gusti: da quelli del gastronomo esigente a
quelli
dell’esperto di pasticceria.
. . . to satisfy all tastes: from those of the demanding gastronomist
to
those of the expert in pastry.
In Britain, cream tea is ‘an afternoon meal consisting of tea to drink
and scones with jam and clotted cream to eat. It can also include sandwiches
and cakes.’12 Cream tea has no equivalent in other cultures. The Italian
translator replaced it with ‘pastry’, which does not have the same meaning (for
one thing, cream tea is a meal in Britain, whereas ‘pastry’ is only a type of
food). However, ‘pastry’ is familiar to the Italian reader and therefore
provides a good cultural substitute.
This strategy involves replacing a
culture-specific item with a target language item which does not have the same
meaning but may have a similar [impact] influence on the receptor.
|
Source text
|
Target text [Italian]
|
|
The
Patrick Collection has restaurant facilities to suit every taste from
discerning gourmet to the Cream Tea expert.
|
…………………….to
satisfy all tastes, from those of the demanding gastronomist to those of the
expert in pastry.
|
In Britain, cream tea is “an afternoon meal” consisting of tea to
drink and scones with jam and clotted cream to eat. It can also include
sandwishes and cakes.
d. Translation by
using a loan word plus explanation
We use this strategy to deal with culture-specific items/ notions/concepts,
especially modern concepts.
|
Source text
|
Target text [German]
|
|
The
Patrick collection has restaurant facilities to suit every taste – from the
discerning gourment, to the Cream Tea expert
|
...vom
anspruchsvollen Feinschmecker bis zum ‘Cream tea’
|
e. Translation by
paraphrase [ using a related / close word ]
The concept in the source text is lexicalized but the source text
is significantly higher than the natural target language
|
Source text
|
Target text [ German ]
|
|
Hot
and cold food and drinks can be found in the Hornet’s Nest, overlooking the
Alexick Hall
|
In
the Hornet’s Nest, which overlooks the Alexick Hall, you can have hot
and cold meals and drinks.
|
f. Translation
by paraphrase [ using a unrelated word ]
The concept in the source text is not lexicalised in
the receptor text [ so this means there is no equivalent word / lexical unit]
à The
translator has to paraphrase by using unrelated words
|
Source text
|
Target text [in German]
|
|
You
can even “alfresco” in the summer on our open air terrace
|
In
the summer you can also sit and eat on the terrace in the open.
|
à “alfresco”
and “in the open” have the same propositional meaning but different evoked meaning
|
Source text
|
Target text [ in Arabic]
|
|
They
have a totally integrated operation from the preparation of
the yarn through to the weaving process.
On
the basis of the world view uncovered by the Shaman’s faculties, with its
vision of another and miraculous plane which could interact causally
with our own, the more advanced..
|
The
company carries out all steps of production in its
factories, from preparing the yarn to weaving it.
…………….with
the image of another miraculous dimension which can causallyinfluence each
other mutually with……..
|
The main advantage of
the paraphrase strategy is that it achieves a high level of precision in
specifying propositional meaning.
|
g. Translation
by omision
|
This strategy may sound rather drastic, but
in fact it does no harm to omit translating a word expression in some context.
|
Source text
|
Target text
|
|
This
is your chance to remember the way things were, and for younger visitors to
see in real-life detail, the way their parents, and their parents before
them lived and travelled.
|
Here
is the chance to rediscover your youth and for the younger ones to see how
their parents and grandparents used to live and travel
|
h.
translation by illustration
This strategy to useful option if the word which
lacks an equivalent.
- Lipton Yellow Tea Packet in
Arab market as Tagged teabags
refrensi : Mona Baker, In other word
