منابع و ماخذ پایان نامه semantic، the Middle East، Discourse

word which is used in the SL. This level of difficulty has been one of the main problems for the translators. However, it is not the only case where no direct equivalence can be found for a word. Baker (1994, cited in Rayisi Dehkordi, 2010) classified some common types of non-equivalence at word level as:
1. Culture-specific items
This situation happens when the SL word expresses a concept which is totally unknown in the target culture. For instance dhoti which is Indian clothes is completely unknown to speakers of other speech communities. In the following sections, this item will be explained in more details.
2. The SL concept is not lexicalized in the TL
It happens when the SL word expresses a concept which is known in the target culture but a TL word is not lexicalized to express it. For example, although the word savory expresses an easy understandable concept, it has no equivalent in many languages.
3. The SL word is semantically complex
This occurs when the SL word is semantically complex. A single word which consists of a single morpheme can express a more complex set off meaning than a whole sentence. For instance the word arruacao, is a Brazilian word which means “cleaning 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”, as it is obvious this word does not have any equivalent in many languages.
4. The source and target languages make different distinctions in meaning
This situation happens whenever the TL makes more or fewer distinctions in meaning than the SL. For example, Indonesian make a distinction between going out in the rain without knowing that it is raining (kehujanan) and going out in the rain when knowing that it is raining (hujanhujanan).
5. The TL lacks a superordinate
As the name clarifies, it happens when the TL has specific words (hyponyms) but no general words (superordinate) to head the semantic field. For instance, the Tlingit of Alaska have no general word for “swim”, instead they have many specific words for different kinds of swimming.
6. The TL lacks a specific term (hyponym)
In a more common situation, languages tend to have general word (superordinate) but they lacks specific ones (hyponyms), because each language makes only those distinctions in meaning which seem relevant to its particular environment. For example, under house, English has a variety of hyponyms which have no equivalents in many languages, such as, bungalow, cottage, croft, chalet, lodge, hut, mansion, manor, villa, and hall.
7. Differences in physical or interpersonal perspective
There are cases where the physical perspective is more important in one language than it is in another. These concepts deals with where things or people are in relation to one another or to a place, as expressed in pairs of words such as take/bring, arrive/depart, etc.
8. Differences in expressive meaning
It occurs when there is a TL word which has the same propositional meaning as the SL word, but it may have a different expressive meaning. For instance Homosexuality is not a pejorative word in English but the equivalent expression in Arabic shithuthjinsi is pejorative and it would be quite difficult to use in a neutral context without suggesting strong disapproval.
9. Differences in form
Differences in form appear when there is no equivalent in the TL for a particular form in the TL. For instance, English frequently uses suffixes such as _ish (e.g. boyish, hellish, greenish) but Arabic has no ready mechanism for producing such forms.
10. Differences in frequency and purpose of using specific forms
Even when a particular form has a ready equivalent in the TL, there are situations where there is a difference in the frequency with which it is used or the purpose for which it is used, e.g. English uses the continuous _ing form for binding clauses rather than other languages which have equivalent for it.
11. The use of loan words in the ST
Last but not least, the use of loan words in the ST poses a special problem in translation such as aufait, chic, and alfresco in English.
2.6.2 Social Differences
According to Brown (1980) social distance refers to the cognitive and affective proximity of two cultures which come into contact within an individual. Distance is obviously used in an abstract sense to denote dissimilarity between two cultures. Rose (1994, cited in Mansouri, 2009) regards social distance as a binary variable, that is, the interlocutors either know one another (minus social distance) or they have never met (plus social distance).
2.6.3 Cultural Differences
It is known that languages are different from each other from linguistic and cultural point of view. Vilceanu (2006, cited in Lohrasbi, 2009) believes that, however the linguistic difference is regarded as a problematic area for the translator; it is not the only element that causes translation difficulty. The translator also needs to consider the extra linguistic criteria while translating because even if an ideal situation there is no linguistic gap, there will be translation problems due to different values, cultural artifacts, customs, and the other extra linguistic elements in two linguistic systems. In this situation, the translator will face a disturbance in translation. Nida (1964) confers equal importance to both linguistic and cultural differences between the SL and the TL and concludes that differences between cultures may cause more severe complications for the translator than do differences in language structure. Therefore, the less cultural differences between two languages, the easier are the job of translator.
Thriveni (2001) emphasizes this point by saying that “Cultural meanings are intricately woven into the texture of the language. The creative writer’s ability to capture and project them is of primary importance for, and should be reflected in, the translated work” (P.1). According to her, now, it should be noticed that when there is a cultural difference between source and the target language, there may be some concepts which are not known in the target language and there is no lexical equivalent for those concepts. And sometimes there are some concepts in the source culture that exist in the target culture but in a different way. In both cases a kind of problem arises and the translator’s job becomes more difficult and risky. All there are because of the fact that “to attempt to impose the value system of the SL culture onto the TL culture is a dangerous ground” (Bassnett, 1991, P.23).
Nida (1964) says that:
No translation that attempts to bridge a wide cultural gap can hope to eliminate all traces of the foreign setting”. He continues that “it is inevitable that when source and receptor languages represent very different cultures there should be many basic themes and accounts which cannot be ‘naturalized’ by the process of translation. (P.167)
She argues that naturalness of expression in the receptor language is basically a problem of co-suitability. This problem occurs at several levels:
1. Word classes (where a noun is used instead of a verb)
2. Grammatical categories (in some languages predicate-nominative must agree in number with the subject)
3. Semantic classes (swear words in one language may be based on the perverted use of divine names, but in another language may be primarily excremental and anatomical)
4. Discourse type (some languages require direct quotation and others indirect)
5. Cultural context (some actions are strange to other cultures). (P.137)
Dagut (1981) states that, cultural gaps are caused by ‘community-specific’ referents in one community and their absence in another culture. Cultural objects, beliefs, customs and institutions are determined by the cultural history and traditions of the specific language community. A language community create “designators” to symbolize referents which do not occur in the other language community. This resulting gap is more language-specific and more translation-resistant. Based on Nida (1964) in some case, languages and cultures are closely related, such as Arabic and Hebrew. In other cases the languages are not related but there are similarities between the cultures, such as German and Hungarian. In the third case, the languages and cultures differ completely, for example English and Zula.
According to Larson (1984) when the concept is a key concept in the information, the problem becomes more critical. He points out that in searching for approximate equivalent, distinguishing between form and function is important. An equivalent may be of different form (e.g. pen vs. quill) but have the same function (e.g. writing) or be of similar form (e.g. dog) but have different function (e.g. pet vs. hunting dog). In the worst case there may be no equivalents for both form and function. He gives the example of ‘sheep’ which in the Middle East have a function of being a ‘sacrifice for a sin’. In the Amazon sheep-like animals do not occur nor is there any notion comparable to ‘sacrifice for sin’. When the information makes important distinctions between concepts which even the generic equivalent is unknown in the TL, further difficulties come to exist. He also gives the example of distinctions made between church, mosque and synagogue when generic equivalent ‘shelter for religious purposes’ may have little meaning in the receptor cultures. This situation becomes more complicated when the key words carry symbolic meanings.
Yule (1985) writes:
Many of the

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید