Two types of translation equivalence

Research output: Chapter in Book/Conference proceeding with ISSN or ISBNChapter

Abstract

This paper looks at two examples of unexpected correspondences that were found in a translation corpus: the German word kaum and its equivalents in English, and the English word contain with its counterparts in French. The patterns that came to light were different: for kaum, the expected translation equivalent hardly is relatively rare, but the range of actual equivalents is small and tractable, whereas for contain, the expected equivalent contenir is relatively common but there are many unique equivalents. We claim that kaum is “lexicographically complex” with respect to English, whereas contain is “translationally under-specified” with respect to French. We examine why this might be, drawing on the notion of “modulation” in translation theory, and we consider the implications for lexicographers, translators and contrastive linguists. The data are taken from the INTERSECT corpus, consisting of about 1.5 million words in French and English and about 800,000 words in German and English.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationLexis in contrast
EditorsB Altenberg, S Granger
Place of PublicationAmsterdam, Netherlands
PublisherJohn Benjamins
Pages51-71
Number of pages21
ISBN (Print)9027222770
Publication statusPublished - 2002

Fingerprint

Translation Equivalence
English Words
Translation Theory
Translation Corpora
Translator
Translation Equivalents
Contrastive
Modulation

Cite this

Salkie, R. (2002). Two types of translation equivalence. In B. Altenberg, & S. Granger (Eds.), Lexis in contrast (pp. 51-71). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Salkie, Raphael. / Two types of translation equivalence. Lexis in contrast. editor / B Altenberg ; S Granger. Amsterdam, Netherlands : John Benjamins, 2002. pp. 51-71
@inbook{e48cb20a061a4a99921559324c2b3cf8,
title = "Two types of translation equivalence",
abstract = "This paper looks at two examples of unexpected correspondences that were found in a translation corpus: the German word kaum and its equivalents in English, and the English word contain with its counterparts in French. The patterns that came to light were different: for kaum, the expected translation equivalent hardly is relatively rare, but the range of actual equivalents is small and tractable, whereas for contain, the expected equivalent contenir is relatively common but there are many unique equivalents. We claim that kaum is “lexicographically complex” with respect to English, whereas contain is “translationally under-specified” with respect to French. We examine why this might be, drawing on the notion of “modulation” in translation theory, and we consider the implications for lexicographers, translators and contrastive linguists. The data are taken from the INTERSECT corpus, consisting of about 1.5 million words in French and English and about 800,000 words in German and English.",
author = "Raphael Salkie",
year = "2002",
language = "English",
isbn = "9027222770",
pages = "51--71",
editor = "B Altenberg and S Granger",
booktitle = "Lexis in contrast",
publisher = "John Benjamins",

}

Salkie, R 2002, Two types of translation equivalence. in B Altenberg & S Granger (eds), Lexis in contrast. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 51-71.

Two types of translation equivalence. / Salkie, Raphael.

Lexis in contrast. ed. / B Altenberg; S Granger. Amsterdam, Netherlands : John Benjamins, 2002. p. 51-71.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Conference proceeding with ISSN or ISBNChapter

TY - CHAP

T1 - Two types of translation equivalence

AU - Salkie, Raphael

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - This paper looks at two examples of unexpected correspondences that were found in a translation corpus: the German word kaum and its equivalents in English, and the English word contain with its counterparts in French. The patterns that came to light were different: for kaum, the expected translation equivalent hardly is relatively rare, but the range of actual equivalents is small and tractable, whereas for contain, the expected equivalent contenir is relatively common but there are many unique equivalents. We claim that kaum is “lexicographically complex” with respect to English, whereas contain is “translationally under-specified” with respect to French. We examine why this might be, drawing on the notion of “modulation” in translation theory, and we consider the implications for lexicographers, translators and contrastive linguists. The data are taken from the INTERSECT corpus, consisting of about 1.5 million words in French and English and about 800,000 words in German and English.

AB - This paper looks at two examples of unexpected correspondences that were found in a translation corpus: the German word kaum and its equivalents in English, and the English word contain with its counterparts in French. The patterns that came to light were different: for kaum, the expected translation equivalent hardly is relatively rare, but the range of actual equivalents is small and tractable, whereas for contain, the expected equivalent contenir is relatively common but there are many unique equivalents. We claim that kaum is “lexicographically complex” with respect to English, whereas contain is “translationally under-specified” with respect to French. We examine why this might be, drawing on the notion of “modulation” in translation theory, and we consider the implications for lexicographers, translators and contrastive linguists. The data are taken from the INTERSECT corpus, consisting of about 1.5 million words in French and English and about 800,000 words in German and English.

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9027222770

SP - 51

EP - 71

BT - Lexis in contrast

A2 - Altenberg, B

A2 - Granger, S

PB - John Benjamins

CY - Amsterdam, Netherlands

ER -

Salkie R. Two types of translation equivalence. In Altenberg B, Granger S, editors, Lexis in contrast. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. 2002. p. 51-71