Mona Baker’s equivalence typology
1. Equivalence at word level- the meaning of single words and expressions; 2. Equivalence above word level- explores combinations of words and phrases (stretches of language); 3. Grammatical equivalence- deals with grammatical categories; 4. Textual equivalence- discusses the text level (word order, cohesion, etc.); 5. Pragmatic equivalence- how texts are used in communicative situations that involves variables such as writers, readers, and cultural context. Equivalence at word level
Definition of a word:
Brief remark, speech sound or a series of speech sounds that communicates a meaning, written representation of a word. The smallest unit which we would to expect to possess individual meaning is the word. Defined loosely, the word is the smallest unit of language that can be used by it. (Bollinger and sears1968:43) A word is a morpheme or series of morphemes possessing internal cohesion and positional mobility. When we say a word has internal cohesion, we simply mean that it cannot be interrupted, or that other elements of linguistics cannot be interpolated within it. The property of positional mobility distinguishes the word from the next level of meaning below it, the morpheme. Thus, a word is mobile in that it is capable of being distributed in several positions in a sentence, as in: ‘the man bit the dog’; ‘the dog bit the man’; ‘the man gave the dog a bone’, etc. These examples show that in languages where word-order reflects grammatical function, as is the case in English and French, a word can occupy different positions in a sentence in a way that reflects its grammatical role: thus, ‘dog’ is the grammatical object in our first example, subject in the second, and indirect object in the third. The lowest meaningful linguistic unit, the morpheme, is not always mobile in this way. We need at this point to distinguish between the various types of morpheme. The basic distinction divides free and bound morphemes. In the case of free morphemes, the morpheme and word levels coincide: so, simple words like ‘house’, ‘girl’, ‘beer’, etc. cannot be divided into smaller meaningful units. Examples like these contrast with polymorphemic words such as ‘privatise’, ‘redraw’, ‘accepting’, and so on endlessly – literally endlessly, since morphemes can be combined to form an indefinite set of new words. These last three examples show the difference between free and bound morphemes. The free element forms as it were the semantic core of each word: ‘private’, ‘draw’, ‘accept’. These words (and morphemes, since they cannot be analysed further) are ‘free’ in the sense of being freestanding; they can exist independently, are mobile, and hence contrast with the morphemes (but not words) ‘–ise’, ‘re–’ and ‘–ing’. Some words are therefore also single morphemes, not all morphemes are words, and some words are composed of sequences of morphemes. The examples ‘–ise’, ‘re–’ and ‘–ing’ show that bound morphemes convey abstract information: something like ‘make into’, ‘again’ ‘continuous action’, in these examples. The morphemes we have been discussing are of the type referred to as derivational or lexical morphemes. Morphemes that are bound in this way are called affixes, and as these examples show, derivational morphemes can occur at the front of a word (as prefixes) and at the end (suffixes).
* What does a translator do when there is no word in the target language which expresses the same meaning as the source language word? * Is there a one-to-one relationship between word and meaning? * There is no one-to-one correspondence between orthographic words and elements of meaning within or across language: eg. words such as tennis player is rendered by means of 3 words in Romanian: jucător de tenis; one word in Turkish: tenisçi, etc.; the verb to type- a dactilografia- one word in Romanian; three words in...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document