Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Acknowledgements
- List of abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- I Toward a Taxonomy of Cross-Linguistic Lexical
- II Lexicographical Considerations
- 5 Introduction
- 6 Zero equivalence
- 7 Multiple equivalence
- 8 Partial equivalence
- 9 Lexical anisomorphism in machine-readable dictionaries
- 10 Lexicographic considerations: summary
- 11 Outlook
- References
- Index
6 - Zero equivalence
from II - Lexicographical Considerations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2016
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Acknowledgements
- List of abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- I Toward a Taxonomy of Cross-Linguistic Lexical
- II Lexicographical Considerations
- 5 Introduction
- 6 Zero equivalence
- 7 Multiple equivalence
- 8 Partial equivalence
- 9 Lexical anisomorphism in machine-readable dictionaries
- 10 Lexicographic considerations: summary
- 11 Outlook
- References
- Index
Summary
As previously discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, zero equivalence can occur in operators and symbols, and the latter type can be entity- or concept-related, with concept-related zero equivalence able to be hierarchical or nonhierarchical. The established types of zero equivalence do not directly translate into lexicographic solutions; rather, they represent those parameters that valid solutions need to take into consideration.
It should also be mentioned that the strategies for solving zero equivalence in translation (as presented by Fernández Guerra, 2012, and discussed in section 2.8) do not in any way translate into valid lexicographic strategies. Being deeply embedded in the fiber of the entire translation, a textual translational equivalent can be imprecise, underspecified, overly broad, etc. (with the broader or narrower context resolving all these issues). In a dictionary, in which each entry is its own textual unit (a user will typically consult just one entry or its part at a time), the realm of possibilities is considerably more limited: a sound lexicographic equivalent has to be precise yet comprehensive, so as to allow a set of possible deployments in texts. Even if the translator deviates from the dictionary equivalent (and this is a very common and sound strategy), he/she needs to have a full grasp of the SL zero equivalent, and the dictionary is expected to provide it.
Some lexicographers have exhibited rather strong preferences for a particular combination of strategies, as in the following passage discussing Nahuatl (Amith, 2002: 241–2):
Even when a primary focus is on the translation of received texts, there is a need for careful definition of many culturally specific terms or of words for which the “equivalents” of source and target language do not overlap. For example, even though “bird” and “leg” would be correct glosses for to:to:tl and ikxi:tl, respectively, the English translations should include the clarifications that to:to:tl refers only to small birds (as in the case with Spanish pajáro as opposed to ave) and that when referring to animals, ikxi: tl signifies only the back legs (the front legs of animals are its “arms” matli). Care must always be exercised in providing the caveats and distinctions that result from incomplete overlap or equivalence between the terms of each language.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Lexical ConflictTheory and Practice, pp. 172 - 180Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2015