12.07.2015 Views

equivalence versus non-equivalence in economic translation

equivalence versus non-equivalence in economic translation

equivalence versus non-equivalence in economic translation

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Although she attempts to outl<strong>in</strong>e some of the most common types of <strong>non</strong>-<strong>equivalence</strong>which often pose difficulties for the translator and some attested strategies for deal<strong>in</strong>g withthem, Baker admits that: “It is virtually impossible to offer absolute guidel<strong>in</strong>es for deal<strong>in</strong>gwith the various types of <strong>non</strong> <strong>equivalence</strong> which exist among languages” (1992/2006: 17).Nevertheless, a translator needs to be aware of some strategies which may be used to dealwith <strong>non</strong>-<strong>equivalence</strong> <strong>in</strong> certa<strong>in</strong> contexts.2.1. Lexical Sets and Semantic Fields <strong>in</strong> Economic TranslationIf a translator understands the concepts of semantic fields and lexical sets, he/she canappreciate the value that a word has <strong>in</strong> a given system and develop strategies for deal<strong>in</strong>gwith <strong>non</strong>-<strong>equivalence</strong> (ibid.: 19). The difference <strong>in</strong> the structure of semantic fields <strong>in</strong> theSL and TL allows a translator to assess the value of a given item <strong>in</strong> a lexical set. Know<strong>in</strong>gwhat other items are available <strong>in</strong> a lexical set and how they contrast with the item chosenby a certa<strong>in</strong> author, you can appreciate the significance of the author’s choice.In addition, the hierarchical arrangement of semantic fields could help translators toface semantic gaps <strong>in</strong> the TL “by modify<strong>in</strong>g a superord<strong>in</strong>ate word or by means ofcircumlocutions based on modify<strong>in</strong>g superord<strong>in</strong>ates” (ibid.: 20).Whereas semantic fields are abstract concepts, the actual words and expressionsunder each field are sometimes called lexical sets (ibid.: 18). Each semantic field hasseveral sub-divisions or lexical sets under it and each sub-division has further sub-divisionsand lexical sets. For example, the field of change <strong>in</strong> <strong>economic</strong> English has more subdivisions<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g verbs show<strong>in</strong>g an upward trend (bounce back; climb; escalate; go up;grow; improve; <strong>in</strong>crease; leap; jump; pick up; rally; recover; rise; rocket; shoot up; soar;surge; take off), verbs show<strong>in</strong>g a downward trend (come down; crash; decl<strong>in</strong>e; decrease;dip; drop; fall; fall off; go down; plummet; plunge; shr<strong>in</strong>k; slide; slump), verbs show<strong>in</strong>g nochange (flatten out; hold steady; level off; level out; settle down; stabilize; stagnate; standaround; stick at around; stay steady) and verbs show<strong>in</strong>g fluctuation (change; fluctuate;oscillate). A variety of general or more specific verbs are used to express the idea ofchange and they range from the <strong>in</strong>formal to the formal register ask<strong>in</strong>g for similarcounterparts when translated <strong>in</strong>to Romanian. The problem is that the more detailed asemantic field is <strong>in</strong> a given language, the more different it is likely to be from relatedsemantic fields <strong>in</strong> other languages. There generally tends to be more agreement amonglanguages on the larger head<strong>in</strong>gs of semantic fields and less agreement as the sub-fieldsbecome more f<strong>in</strong>ely differentiated.2.2. Non-<strong>equivalence</strong> and Translation Strategies of Economic TextsNon-<strong>equivalence</strong> at the word level means that the TL has no direct equivalent for aword which occurs <strong>in</strong> the ST. Baker (1992/2006: 21-26) identifies the follow<strong>in</strong>g commontypes of <strong>non</strong>-<strong>equivalence</strong> at word level:a) Culture-specific concepts – are totally unknown <strong>in</strong> the target culture (TC)because they reflect a reality specific to the source culture (SC): aff<strong>in</strong>ity card – “card decredit, emis în Statele Unite, pentru un anumit grup (aff<strong>in</strong>ity group), precum membrii unuiclub, colegiu etc.” (Dic ionar de bus<strong>in</strong>ess englez-român 2009: 23); <strong>in</strong>land bill – “cambiecare este emis i pl tit în Regatul Unit al Marii Britanii” (ibid.: 349); moonlight<strong>in</strong>g – “aavea dou slujbe, una cu norm întreag , pe timpul zilei, i una cu jum tate de norm (parttime)seara” (ibid.: 450); primary earn<strong>in</strong>gs per share – “în SUA, reprez<strong>in</strong>t un calculdest<strong>in</strong>at evalu rii performan elor companiilor cu <strong>in</strong>strumente complexe” (ibid.: 538); primerate – “rata dobânzii, la care b ncile americane împrumut bani debitorilor de primacategorie (base rate în Marea Britanie)” (ibid.: 539). Gradually, some of these terms maybecome part of the reality <strong>in</strong> the TC and they could be borrowed and used as loans.77

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!