word is ‘the smallest unit of language that can be used by itself’

***

some linguists have suggested the term morpheme to describe the minimal formal element of meaning
in language, as distinct from word , which may or may not contain several elements of meaning. Thus, an
important difference
between morphemes and words is that a morpheme cannot contain more than one element of meaning
and cannot be further analyzed. To take an example from English, inconceivable is written as one word
but
consists of three morphemes: in , meaning ‘not’, conceive meaning ‘think of or imagine’, and able
meaning ‘able to be, fi t to be’. A suitable paraphrase for inconceivable would then be ‘cannot be
conceived/imagined’. Some morphemes have grammatical functions, such as marking plurality ( funds ),
gender ( manageress ) and tense ( consider ed ). Others change the class of the word, for instance from
verb to adjective ( like : like able ), or add a specific element of meaning such as negation to it ( unhappy
). Some words consist of one morpheme, for example, need and fast .
****

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.
****
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 that provides the basis on
which we can judge an utterance as true or false.
****

Expressive meaning cannot be judged as true or false. This is because expressive meaning relates to the
speaker’s feelings or attitude rather than to what words and utterances refer to.
****

Presupposed meaning arises from co-occurrence restrictions, that is, restrictions on what other words
or expressions we expect to see before or after a particular lexical unit.
****

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
***

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 : this is 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 . . .
.
3. Mode of discourse : this is an abstract term for the role that the language is playing (speech, essay,
lecture, instructions) and for its medium of trans-
mission (spoken, written). 3 Linguistic choices are influenced by these dimensions. For example, a word
such as re is perfectly appropriate in a business
letter or as part of the subject line in an email communication, but it is rarely ,if ever, used in spoken
English.
****

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 fi eld of
VEHICLES, vehicle is a superordinate and bus , car , truck , coach and so on 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
***

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
nonequivalence, the context and purpose of
translation will often rule out some strategies and favor 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.
****
Common problems of non-equivalence
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 and is rarely understood by people from other cultures.
Speaker (of the House of Commons) has no equivalent in 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 English, which, 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 target-language 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 other words, 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 frequently about 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). 8

(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 ( hujanhujanan ). 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
or 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’. 9 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 pomeshcheniia (‘essential
accommodation’) and neobkhodimoe oborudovanie (‘essential equipment’). Brennan (1999 ) discusses
a range of interesting examples that demonstrate this type of difficulty in interpreting between English
and British Sign Language (BSL):

(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.

(i) Differences in form

There is often no equivalent in the target language for a particular form in the source text.

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 propositional meaning
Loan words also pose another problem for the unwary translator, namely the problem of false friends ,
or faux amis as they are often called. 11 False friends are words or expressions which have the same
form in two or more languages but convey different meanings.

Strategies used by professional translators

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.

(b) Translation by a more neutral/less expressive word

There is a noticeable difference in the expressive meaning of mumble and its nearest Italian equivalent,
mugugnare . The English verb mumble suggests confusion, disorientation or embarrassment
)‫( کلمه بار معنایی خنثی دارد پس خنثی ترجمه میشود نه مثبت تر و نه منفی تر‬

c) Translation by cultural substitution

This strategy involves replacing a culture-specific 15 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, for instance by evoking a similar context in the target culture.

(e) Translation by paraphrase using a related word

This strategy tends to be used when the concept expressed by the source item is lexicalized in the target
language but in a different form and when the frequency with which a certain form is used in the source
text is significantly higher than would be natural in the target language (see section on common
problems of non-equivalence above, items (i) and ( j))

(f) Translation by paraphrase using unrelated words

If the concept expressed by the source item is not lexicalized at all in the target language, the paraphrase
strategy can still be used in some contexts. Instead of a related word, the paraphrase may be based on
modifying a superordinate or simply on unpacking the meaning of the source item, particularly if the
item in question is semantically complex.

g) Translation by omission
This strategy may sound rather drastic, but in fact, it does no harm to omit translating a word or
expression in some contexts. 22 If the meaning conveyed by a particular item or expression is not vital
enough to the development of the text to justify distracting the reader with lengthy explanations,
translators can and often do simply omit translating the word or expression in question

(h) Translation by illustration

This is a useful option if the word which lacks an equivalent in the target language refers to a physical
entity that can be illustrated, particularly if there are restrictions on space and if the text has to remain
short, concise and to the point.