Morphology

MorphologyDr. C. George Boeree

---

Morphology is the study of morphemes, obviously.  Morphemes are words, word stems, and affixes, basically the unit of language one up from phonemes. Although they are often understood as units of meaning, they are usually considered a part of a language's syntax or grammar.  It is specifically grammatical morphemes that this chapter will focus on.

It is in their morphology that we most clearly see the differences between languages that are isolating (such as Chinese, Indonesian, Krewol...), ones that are agglutinating(such as Turkish, Finnish, Tamil...), and ones that are inflexional (such as Russian, Latin, Arabic...).  Isolating languages use grammatical morphemes that are separate words.  Agglutinating languages use grammatical morphemes in the form of attached syllables called affixes.  Inflexional languages may go one step further and actually change the word at the phonemic level to express grammatical morphemes.

All languages are really mixed systems -- it's all a matter of proportions.  English, for example, uses all three methods:  To make the future tense of a verb, we use the particlewill (I will see you); to make the past tense, we usually use the affix -ed (I changed it); but in many words, we change the word for the past (I see it becomes I saw it).  Looking at nouns, sometimes we make the plural with a particle (three head of cattle), sometimes with an affix (three cats), and sometimes by changing the word (threemen).  But, because we still use a lot of non-syllable affixes (such as -ed, usually pronounced as d or t, and -s, usually pronounced as s or z, dependeing on context), English is still considered an inflexional language by most linguists.

---

Affixes


Most languages, but especially agglutinating and inflexional ones, differentiate between the stem of the word, which carries the basic meaning, and various affixes or attachments that carry additional, often grammatical, meanings.  There are several kinds of affixes:

 Suffixes are attached to the end of the stem;
 Prefixes are attached to the front of the stem;
 Infixes are put in the middle of the word;
 Ablaut is a change in a vowel that carries extra meaning;
 Reduplication is a matter of doubling a syllable to do the same.

Suffixes are the most common, and English uses them.  For example, the past tense of most verbs is a matter of adding -ed to the stem; the present participle is made by adding -ing; the plural of a noun is made by adding -s.

Turkish is an example of an agglutinating language that makes extensive use of suffixes.  One example I found on the internet (Learning Practical Turkish) is the wordterbiyesizliklerindenmis:

good manners	terbiye
without good manners, rude	terbiyesiz
rudeness	terbiyesizlik
their rudeness	terbiyesizlikleri
from their rudeness	terbiyesizliklerinden
I gather that it was from their rudeness	terbiyesizliklerindenmis

Note that a language doesn't necessarily need to be agglutinating to have long words.  German, for example, has Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz, and English has Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis!

Although prefix languages are a bit rarer, they can be every bit as expansive.

Ablaut is common in English and its Germanic cousins.  For example, the past tense of sing is sang, and the past participle is sung.  The plural of goose is geese.  Ablaut seems to come from former suffixes that influenced the pronunciation of the vowel, then disappeared over time.  Goose-geese was once gos-gese, and before that gos-göse, and before that gos-gose.  The plural suffix -e caused the fronting of the vowel o to ö and then e.


Infixes are best illustrated by the Semitic languages, such as Arabic.  Many words in Arabic are composed of three consonants, and many of the grammatical variations are produced by altering the vowels between and around them.  For example, the root for writing is ktb:

to write	kataba
writing	kaatib
a book	kitaab
books	kutub
author	kattaab

Perhaps, thousands of years ago, some people began generalized from ablauts -- as if we were to start saying pan-pen (rather than pan-pans), following the pattern of man-men.

Irish (and other Celtic languages, such as Gaelic, Welsh, and Breton) are unusual in that it is the consonants that change in various situations, rather than the vowels.  Note that th is pronounced h, dt is pronounced d, ea is a, ch is as in loch, and bh is v.

		house	flat
		teach	árasán
my	mo	mo theach	m'árasán
your	do	do theach	d'árasán
his	a	a theach	a árasán
her	a	a teach	a hárasán
our	ar	ar dteach	ar n-árasán
your	bhur	bhur dteach	bhur n-árasán
their	a	a dteach	a n-árasán

---

Nouns


Nouns are words that name or denote a person, thing, action, or quality.  They are “thing” words -- although “things” can include all sorts of abstract ideas that might otherwise look more like verbs or adjectives.  In various languages, they are marked, by affixes or particles, as to their number, gender, definiteness, and especially cases.


Definiteness concerns the extent to which we are talking about a specific thing or event, one that is known to the speakers, or about something less well defined, such as any old thing, or something not specific.


In English, the definite is marked by the article the.  It can also be marked by other words, such as this, that, my, yours, and so on.  The indefinite is marked by the article a oran, as well as the plural without an article, or words such as one, two, some, any, etc.  On the other hand, many languages don't use articles at all -- Latin, Russian, Hindi, and Chinese come to mind!


In a number of languages, the definite is marked with a suffix.  This is true of Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Rumanian, Bulgarian, and Albanian, among others.  The Scandinavian languages are, of course, closely related, so we would expect them to share a feature like this.  But Rumanian, Bulgarian, and Albanian are only distantly related. It seems that they influenced each other, or perhaps there were people living in the Balkans in ancient times who influenced them all.


Number, of course, refers to how many of the item we are talking about.  There are three common numbers:  Singular, meaning one; plural, meaning more than one; and somewhat rarer, the dual, meaning two.  You can see the significance of the dual in our own use of words such as couple, pair, and so on.  Again, many languages do not mark the plural, much less the dual.


The most complex aspect of nouns is cases, also known as declensions.  Philosophers in ancient Greece and India were already discussing this as much as 2500 years ago!  Much of the terminology we still use today was invented during the Roman Empire, and reflects the cases used in Latin.


The first case is the nominative, roughly the subject of the sentence.  In many languages, it is the basic form, sometimes represented by the bare stem.  A second case is thevocative, which is the form used when calling out to someone, sort of like “Oh, Claudius!”  The rest of the cases are referred to as oblique or objective.  Languages that make many distinctions among the oblique cases use them in the same way that other languages use prepositions or postpositions.

Accusative -- the direct object of the verb:  He threw the ball.

Dative -- the indirect object:  He threw it to John.

Ablative -- expressed in English with the preposition from: He threw from first base.

Locative -- expressed in English with prepositions such as at or in:  We were at the hotdog stand in the stadium.

Genitive -- the possessive form, often expressed in English with the word of, but also with the case suffix ‘s:  It was John’s ball.

Instrumental -- expressed in English with prepositions like with:  He hit it with a bat.

Sociative -- also expressed in English with with, but now referring to people:  I went out with her.

There are many others.  A language in the Caucasus Mountains called Tassaran has 48 noun cases!  However, many linguists point out that cases should only refer to inflexional languages such as Latin.  Agglutinative languages such as Finnish can be better thought of as having postpositions that are attached to the noun, since they are very consistent and easy to recognize, unlike the cases in Latin.Here is an example of the Russian word for country, singular and plural:

	singular	plural
nominative	strana	strany
accusative	stranu	strany
genitive	strany	stran
dative	strane	stranam
instrumental	stranoj	stranomi
locative	strane	stranax

This wouldn’t be such a strain, until you realize that there are several different declensions, and quite a few exceptions as well.

Compare that with an example of the word for man in Tamil, a Dravidian language of southern India:

	singular	plural
nominative	manitan	manitarkal
accusative	manitanai	manitarkalai
dative	manitanukku	manitarkalukku
sociative	manitanotu	manitarkalotu
genitive	manitanutaiya	manitarkalutaiya
instrumental	manitanal	manitarkalal
locative	manitanitam	manitarkalitam
ablative	manitanitamiruntu	manitarkalitamiruntu

Although there are even more cases, these endings are the same for all other nouns! And notice how the plural is just a matter of sticking kal inbetween the stem and the affix.


One interesting side issue: In most languages, the subject of an intransitive verb (he sits) is in the same form (i.e. the nominative) as the subject of a transitive verb (he sees him), and the object of a transitive verb is different (i.e. the accusative).  These languages are known as nominative-accusative languages. But there are also languages where the subject of an intransitive verb is in the same form as the object of a transitive verb (i.e. the absolutive), and the subject of a transitive verb is different (i.e. theergative). In these languages, it would be as if we said he sees him but then him sits!  These are called ergative-absolutive languages.

Among the ergative-absolutive languages are Basque, the northern Caucasian languages, many Australian aborigine languages, Eskimo-Aleut, and many other languages of north and central America. They are all verb-first or verb-last languages.


Gender is perhaps the oddest noun variation.  It is called gender because it is -- loosely -- tied to the physical sex of people and animals.  Many languages differentiate between masculine nouns and feminine nouns, with different endings for each, and requiring different articles and adjective forms along with them.  French, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese are examples.


Other languages, such as German, count three genders:  Masculine, feminine, and neuter.  Neuter presumably refers to things that don’t have a gender, but there is little consistency there.  In Dutch, there are two genders, but they are neuter and common, common deriving from what was originally masculine and feminine.  English nouns have no gender.


Many languages outside the European sphere differentiate between animate and inanimate, one referring to people, animals, and spirits, the other to things.  And there are many languages that make many differentiations:  Bantu languages, for example, have many noun categories, such as "long, thin things," "body parts," "places," and so on.


In Chinese, there is a strong isolating (non-affix) version of this:  When you want to indicate more than one of something, you must use a special word called a classifierbetween the number and the object.  
This is analogous to the way we might say three head of cattle.


There are still more examples of noun variation:  Diminutives express smallness (dog becomes doggy, for example), and augmentatives express largeness.  Diminutives are often also used to express affection, and augmentatives sometimes express danger or evil.


Some languages have a variety of honorifics, often suffixes or prefixes that indicate status.  The Japanese -san is a well known example.  There are also affixes that indicate lowly status, and in some languages several different degrees of status!

---

Pronouns


Pronouns are words that serve as place-holders for nouns.  Instead of referring to a person by his or her name, we use he or she; instead of naming something repeatedly, we refer to it as it.  Pronouns have many of the same variations as nouns, including gender, number, and case.  There are also three persons that are differentiated in most languages:  First refers to the person speaking or his/her group (I, me; we, us); Second person refers to the person spoken to or his/her group (you); And the third person refers to other people outside the conversation or to things (he, him, she, her, it, they, them). In English, for example...

	nominative	oblique	possessive (adjective)	possessive (pronomial)
first person singular	I	me	my	mine
second person singular	you		your	yours
third person singular male	he	him	his
third person singular female	she	her		hers
third person singular neuter	it		its
first person plural	we	us	our	ours
second person plural	you		your	yours
third person plural	they	them	their	theirs

("Oblique" is the name for a case that covers the objects of a verb or any preposition.)
For comparison, here's the Icelandic declension of the pronoun anyone:

		masculine	feminine	neuter
singular
	nominative	nokkur	nokkur	nokkurt
	accusative	nokkurn	nokkra	nokkurt
	dative	nokkrum	nokkurri	nokkru
	gentive	nokkurs	nokkurrar	nokkurs
plural
	nominative	nokkrir	nokkrar	nokkur
	accusative	nokkra	nokkrar	nokkur
	dative	nokkrum	nokkrum	nokkrum
	genitive	nokkurra	nokkura	nokkura

In some languages, there are two forms of the third person plural:  One is inclusive, and refers to the speaker and the listener together (Why don’t we go have a drink together sometime?); the other is exclusive, and refers to the speaker’s group distinct from the listener (We are going to beat your team!).


There are also pronouns that reflect the action back onto the subject -- appropriately named reflexive pronouns.  In English, they are often nicely marked with -self (myself, yourself, himself, etc.).  In many languages, there is a generic reflexive for the third person singular or even third person singular and plural.  In Spanish, for example, that function is performed by the single word se.


Politeness is often an issue with pronouns.  In many European languages, there is a distinction made between a familiar and a formal version of the second person singular.  In French, for example, you call your friends tu and your parents, teachers, or boss vous.  You don’t switch to tu until it is subtly agreed between the two of you that it is okay to “tutoyer.”  In some Asian languages, there is considerably more detail involved.


There are other kinds of pronouns besides the personal ones.  Demonstrative pronouns include this, that, these, and those.  Many languages have three sets of these, one for things nearby the speaker, one for things nearby the listener, and one for things away from either.


Indefinite pronouns include words such as someone, anyone, many, and so on.  Like the indefinite article, they don’t indicate precisely whom are what we are talking about.


Interrogative pronouns are used to ask question:  Who is that man?  Relative pronouns are used to connect a noun with a clause that gives more detail about the noun:  He is the one whom you saw yesterday.  As you can see, in English, these two groups of pronouns are often the same!

---

Verbs


Verbs are words which express action taken by something, the state something is in or a change in that state, or an interaction between one thing and another.  Like nouns, there are many variations of verbs.
Transitive verbs are ones that have both a subject and an object: John hit the ball.  John is the subject and ball the object of the verb hit.  Intransitive verbs are ones that only have a subject: I laughed.  


There is nothing that is laughed (except, I suppose, the laugh itself.)  Many verbs have an intermediate form called the reflexive, meaning that the subject is also the object:  I hurt myself.  As the example shows, reflexive verb forms often take a reflexive pronoun as their object!  But there are reflexive verbs that don’t: They got married.


The biggest issue with verb forms is conjugation.  In some languages, it is a fairly simple matter; in others, there are a huge variety of affixes.


Most familiar to Europeans are tenses.  Many languages differentiate between the past tense, the present tense, and the future tense.  Some languages also differentiate various details of timing, such as an immediate form, a proximate form (near in time), and a distal form (the distant past or future.)  Quite a few languages (Russian and Japanese included) only distingish past from "non-past."
In French, I sing goes through the following changes:

past (definite)	chantai
present	chante
future	chanterai

Aspect is actually much older, and seems to tie into our psychology as human beings.  The perfect aspect (as well as the similar completive or aorist) tells us that the action is finished, completed, “perfected.”  In English, it is represented by various forms of the word to have, followed by the past participle:  I have said (past perfect, aka pluperfect), I had said (present perfect), I will have said (future perfect).  As the last one suggests, by the time we reach a particular point in the future, my saying something will be over and done with.

There is a passive version of the perfect called the effective.  In English, an example might be He got seen.


The imperfect (aka durative or continuative) has an ongoing tone to it:  The action continues through the moment.  In English, we use a form of the verb to be followed by the present participle:  I was saying, I am saying, I will be saying.


There are a number of variations on the imperfect aspect.  The progressive -- I have been saying -- suggests that the action started a bit earlier and continues through the present.  The iterative (aka repetitive) -- I keep saying -- indicates that a single action is repeatedly performed.  And the inceptive (aka commencement) -- Let’s get going-- says to us that the action should get started.


Finally, there is the simple (or indefinite) aspect.  This includes the usual tenses used as is:  I said, I say, I will say.  The simple past is often called the preterite.


Next up is mood or mode.  The basic form is the indicative:  We are saying something that happened, is happening, or will happen.  A version of the indicative is the stative, which indicates that someone or something is in a particular state, as opposed to taking a particular action:  He sits.


The next three are used when there is a degree of unreality involved, and are often blended together.  The optative (aka desiderative) indicates a desire or wish for something to happen.  In English, this is usually expressed with auxiliary (helper) verbs such as should or would, as well as with expressions such as I wish....


The conditional mood is used when the reality of one event depends on the reality of another:  I will go if you go.  English has the remnants of a conditional:  We say If Iwere to go... rather than If I was to go....  But it is rapidly going the way of the who-whom distinction!


The subjunctive mood is used when there is some doubt or uncertainty about the event.  Many languages have entire conjugations of subjunctive, in various tenses and aspects.  It was the bane of my high school French class.


There are other moods.  In Japanese, for example, there are provisional and tentative versions of verbs.  And many languages have the imperative: Do this!  In English this is expressed by leaving out the subject (you).


In French, the aspect and mood variations on I sing look like this:

imperfect	chantais
conditional	chanterais
present subjunctive	chante

Next, we have various voices.  The active voice is the basic one.  It is used when the subject performs an action.

The passive voice is used when the subject of the sentence is actually the object of the action.  In English, we use a form of to be with the past participle:  I was hit.


The causative is a voice used when the subject causes the object to perform an action, as in He made me do it.


When the causative is combined with the reflexive, it is called the dynamic: They married themselves!
Person is an aspect of verb forms in many languages.  Most commonly, there is an ending or other affix that indicates something about the subject (such as first, second, or third person, gender, and singular or plural).  In English, the only person ending left in almost all verbs is the -s in the third person singular of the present tense (he does, vs I, you, we, he, she, it, or they do).


There are languages (Basque comes to mind) where the direct object and even the indirect object is also included in the verb form.  Dakarzkizu, for example, means he brings them to you, while Zenekarzkidan means you brought them to me. (Kar is the piece of these words that is the equivalent to bring in English)


Here's a simple French conjugation, in the present tense, showing person:

	singular	plural
first person	chante	chantons
second person	chantes	chantez
third person	chante	chantent

In addition, some languages have variations that express various levels of politeness.  In Japanese, for example, Hon o katta means I bought a book -- but in a sort of abrupt, no nonsense way. Hon o kaimashita means I bought the book, but more politely expressed.

Another common verb variation is the negative.  In English, we use the word not after one of several auxiliary (see below) verbs.  There is a tendency, however, for many verbs to change in the negative, by combining with the not:  I can’t, I won’t, I don’t, I ain’t....  Although we can still see where they come from (and the apostrophe reminds us),  they are well on there way to becoming separate forms.


There are other languages where the verb changes when it is a part of a question.  In Irish, for example tá (to be) becomes an bhfuil in questions.


I can't move on without mentioning that in Hausa (a language of Nigeria), tense, aspect, etc., are indicated with variations of the subject pronoun, not the verb, as in these example of the word for he:

perfect	kin
future	záaki
predictive	kyâa
habitual	kíkàn
subjunctive	kì
continuous	kínàa

(It might surprise you to know that we are moving this way in English, too:  I'd, I've, I'll, etc.)
In isolating languages such as Chinese, or in languages moving strongly in that direction, such as English and French, many of the preceding variations are not done by adding endings or changing the verb.  They are done with auxiliary verbs.  In English, for example, we say He will sing, rather than Il chantera as in French.  In French, on the other hand, we often say Il a chanté instead of He sang.  These particular examples are called compound tenses, but they can also involve aspects and moods and so on.

Participles are forms of the verb that are often used in such compound verbs.  In English, we have two:  
The past participle (which usually ends in -ed, just like the past tense) and the present participle (which ends in -ing).  Participles are also used as adjectives: He is a dancing fool.  He was a beaten man.  And they can even be used as nouns:  Help the down-trodden.  Winning is everything.  Note that the past participle is often referred to as the passive participle, and the present participle as the activeparticiple.


Another form of the verb often used in compound verbs is the infinitive.  In English, we don't have a real infinitive form -- we just put to in front of it:  To sleep, perchance to dream....  And so we say He wants to run, a compound made with wants plus the infinitive of run.  In many languages, there is a special form.  In French, for example, it usually ends in -r, and is used as the dictionary form.


There are many forms of verbal nouns (gerunds) -- i.e. verbs used as nouns, with or without special endings.  The infinitive and the participles are examples.  But we can also use the verb as is in many languages -- English being the best example, since we do it all the time:  I dance and I go to the dance and I do a dance and I devote my life to the dance!

---

Other Parts of Speech


Adjectives are words which modify nouns.  In many languages, adjectives have affixes that must agree with their nouns in case, number, gender, etc.


One peculiar feature of adjectives in many language is comparison:  There may be special forms of the adjective when you are using it to say that a noun is more or less of whatever quality the adjective expresses (the comparative form), or that is is the most or least of that quality (the superlative form).  


In English, we still see special words like good/better/best, regular endings such as big/bigger/biggest, and analytic forms such as significant/more significant/most significant.


Adverbs are words or phrases which modify verbs, adjectives, or even other adverbs.  There are often special endings that differentiate adverbs from similar adjectives:  In English, adverbs often end in -ly; In French, they often end in -ment.


Sometimes, adverbs are used to ask questions or to introduce certain kinds of subordinate clauses which tell more about such things as when, where, and how the action will happen.  For example, when will you be going? and I will go when I am good and ready.


Numerals (or just numbers) often come in both adjective and adverbial forms.  In Shakespeare's time, we said three men, but it was done thrice.  Today, of course, the latter is analytic: It was done three times.


The simple form of numerals is the cardinal number, which indicates a certain quantity of something.  There is also the ordinal number, which indicates the position of something in a sequence: He was the third man.  We see a analytic construction more and more frequently today:  He was her number one man, or she was bachelorette number three.


Prepositions are words which can allow a noun to qualify another noun or a verb in a way that parallels adjectives or adverbs:  The man in the yard ran into the house.  Many languages -- Japanese, for example -- have postpositions instead of prepositions, but they serve the same purpose.  Noun cases are often a substitute for prepositions or postpositions, and may in fact have developed out of them.
Irish is interesting in that its prepositions ofen vary by person, just like verbs:  Here is the "conjugation" of the preposition roimh (before) (mh is pronounced w):

before me	romham
before you (singular)	romhat
before him	roimhe
before her	roimpi
before us	romhainn
before you (plural)	romhaibh
before them	rompu

Conjunctions are words that connect two parts of a sentence. There are two kinds of conjunctions.  The most familiar are the coordinating conjunctions, such as and, or,and but.  The second kind are the subordinating conjunctions (sometimes just called subordinators) such as if, because, so that, that, etc. These introduce certain kinds of subordinate clauses, such as I work so that I can feed my children and I think that she is lovely.

Finally, there are interjections.  Interjections are expressions of emotion -- not true words but rather vocal noises that reflect the feelings of the speaker:  Oh!  Huh?  Hey!  Shit!  The last one is, of course, also a regular word, but its use in this case has nothing to do with what it literally refers to.

http://webspace.ship.edu

Principles of Translation

 Vinay and Darbelnet and their definition of equivalence in translation 

Vinay and Darbelnet view equivalence-oriented translation as a procedure which 'replicates the same situation as in the original, whilst using completely different wording' (ibid.:342). They also suggest that, if this procedure is applied during the translation process, it can maintain the stylistic impact of the SL text in the TL text. According to them, equivalence is therefore the ideal method when the translator has to deal with proverbs, idioms, clichés, nominal or adjectival phrases and the onomatopoeia of animal sounds.

With regard to equivalent expressions between language pairs, Vinay and Darbelnet claim that they are acceptable as long as they are listed in a bilingual dictionary as 'full equivalents' (ibid.:255). However, later they note that glossaries and collections of idiomatic expressions 'can never be exhaustive' (ibid.:256). They conclude by saying that 'the need for creating equivalences arises from the situation, and it is in the situation of the SL text that translators have to look for a solution' (ibid.: 255). Indeed, they argue that even if the semantic equivalent of an expression in the SL text is quoted in a dictionary or a glossary, it is not enough, and it does not guarantee a successful translation. They provide a number of examples to prove their theory, and the following expression appears in their list: Take one is a fixed expression which would have as an equivalent French translation Prenez-en un. However, if the expression appeared as a notice next to a basket of free samples in a large store, the translator would have to look for an equivalent term in a similar situation and use the expression Échantillon gratuit(ibid.:256).


Jakobson and the concept of equivalence in difference 

Roman Jakobson's study of equivalence gave new impetus to the theoretical analysis of translation since he introduced the notion of 'equivalence in difference'. On the basis of his semiotic approach to language and his aphorism 'there is no signatum without signum' (1959:232), he suggests three kinds of translation:

• Intralingual (within one language, i.e. rewording or paraphrase)
   
• Interlingual (between two languages)
   
• Intersemiotic (between sign systems)

Jakobson claims that, in the case of interlingual translation, the translator makes use of synonyms in order to get the ST message across. This means that in interlingual translations there is no full equivalence between code units. According to his theory, 'translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes' (ibid.:233). Jakobson goes on to say that from a grammatical point of view languages may differ from one another to a greater or lesser degree, but this does not mean that a translation cannot be possible, in other words, that the translator may face the problem of not finding a translation equivalent. He acknowledges that 'whenever there is deficiency, terminology may be qualified and amplified by loanwords or loan-translations, neologisms or semantic shifts, and finally, by circumlocutions' (ibid.:234). Jakobson provides a number of examples by comparing English and Russian language structures and explains that in such cases where there is no a literal equivalent for a particular ST word or sentence, then it is up to the translator to choose the most suitable way to render it in the TT.

There seems to be some similarity between Vinay and Darbelnet's theory of translation procedures and Jakobson's theory of translation. Both theories stress the fact that, whenever a linguistic approach is no longer suitable to carry out a translation, the translator can rely on other procedures such as loan-translations, neologisms and the like. Both theories recognize the limitations of a linguistic theory and argue that a translation can never be impossible since there are several methods that the translator can choose. The role of the translator as the person who decides how to carry out the translation is emphasized in both theories. Both Vinay and Darbelnet as well as Jakobson conceive the translation task as something which can always be carried out from one language to another, regardless of the cultural or grammatical differences between ST and TT.

It can be concluded that Jakobson's theory is essentially based on his semiotic approach to translation according to which the translator has to recode the ST message first and then s/he has to transmit it into an equivalent message for the TC.


Nida and Taber: Formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence 

Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal equivalence—which in the second edition by Nida and Taber (1982) is referred to as formal correspondence—and dynamic equivalence. Formal correspondence 'focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content', unlike dynamic equivalence which is based upon 'the principle of equivalent effect' (1964:159). In the second edition (1982) or their work, the two theorists provide a more detailed explanation of each type of equivalence.

Formal correspondence consists of a TL item which represents the closest equivalent of a SL word or phrase. Nida and Taber make it clear that there are not always formal equivalents between language pairs. They therefore suggest that these formal equivalents should be used wherever possible if the translation aims at achieving formal rather than dynamic equivalence. The use of formal equivalents might at times have serious implications in the TT since the translation will not be easily understood by the target audience (Fawcett, 1997). Nida and Taber themselves assert that 'Typically, formal correspondence distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language, and hence distorts the message, so as to cause the receptor to misunderstand or to labor unduly hard' (ibid.:201).

Dynamic equivalence is defined as a translation principle according to which a translator seeks to translate the meaning of the original in such a way that the TL wording will trigger the same impact on the TC audience as the original wording did upon the ST audience. They argue that 'Frequently, the form of the original text is changed; but as long as the change follows the rules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual consistency in the transfer, and of transformation in the receptor language, the message is preserved and the translation is faithful' (Nida and Taber, 1982:200).

One can easily see that Nida is in favour of the application of dynamic equivalence, as a more effective translation procedure. This is perfectly understandable if we take into account the context of the situation in which Nida was dealing with the translation phenomenon, that is to say, his translation of the Bible. Thus, the product of the translation process, that is the text in the TL, must have the same impact on the different readers it was addressing. Only in Nida and Taber's edition is it clearly stated that 'dynamic equivalence in translation is far more than mere correct communication of information' (ibid:25).

Despite using a linguistic approach to translation, Nida is much more interested in the message of the text or, in other words, in its semantic quality. He therefore strives to make sure that this message remains clear in the target text.


Catford and the introduction of translation shifts 

Catford's approach to translation equivalence clearly differs from that adopted by Nida since Catford had a preference for a more linguistic-based approach to translation and this approach is based on the linguistic work of Firth and Halliday. His main contribution in the field of translation theory is the introduction of the concepts of types and shifts of translation. Catford proposed very broad types of translation in terms of three criteria:

1. The extent of translation (full translation vs partial translation);
    
2. The grammatical rank at which the translation equivalence is established (rank-bound translation vs.unbounded translation);
    
3. The levels of language involved in translation (total translation vs. restricted translation).

We will refer only to the second type of translation, since this is the one that concerns the concept of equivalence, and we will then move on to analyze the notion of translation shifts, as elaborated by Catford, which are based on the distinction between formal correspondence and textual equivalence. In rank-bound translation an equivalent is sought in the TL for each word, or for each morpheme encountered in the ST. In unbounded translation equivalences are not tied to a particular rank, and we may additionally find equivalences at sentence, clause and other levels. Catford finds five of these ranks or levels in both English and French, while in the Caucasian language Kabardian there are apparently only four.

Thus, a formal correspondence could be said to exist between English and French if relations between ranks have approximately the same configuration in both languages, as Catford claims they do.

One of the problems with formal correspondence is that, despite being a useful tool to employ in comparative linguistics, it seems that it is not really relevant in terms of assessing translation equivalence between ST and TT. For this reason we now turn to Catford's other dimension of correspondence, namely textual equivalence which occurs when any TL text or portion of text is 'observed on a particular occasion ... to be the equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text' (ibid.:27). He implements this by a process of commutation, whereby 'a competent bilingual informant or translator' is consulted on the translation of various sentences whose ST items are changed in order to observe 'what changes if any occur in the TL text as a consequence' (ibid.:28).

As far as translation shifts are concerned, Catford defines them as 'departures from formal correspondence in the process of going from the SL to the TL' (ibid.:73). Catford argues that there are two main types of translation shifts, namely level shifts, where the SL item at one linguistic level (e.g. grammar) has a TL equivalent at a different level (e.g. lexis), and category shifts which are divided into four types:

1. Structure-shifts, which involve a grammatical change between the structure of the ST and that of the TT;
    
2. Class-shifts, when a SL item is translated with a TL item which belongs to a different grammatical class, i.e. a verb may be translated with a noun;
    
3. Unit-shifts, which involve changes in rank;
    
4. Intra-system shifts, which occur when 'SL and TL possess systems which approximately correspond formally as to their constitution, but when translation involves selection of a non-corresponding term in the TL system' (ibid.:80). For instance, when the SL singular becomes a TL plural.

Catford was very much criticized for his linguistic theory of translation. One of the most scathing criticisms came from Snell-Hornby (1988), who argued that Catford's definition of textual equivalence is 'circular', his theory's reliance on bilingual informants 'hopelessly inadequate', and his example sentences 'isolated and even absurdly simplistic' (ibid.:19-20). She considers the concept of equivalence in translation as being an illusion. She asserts that the translation process cannot simply be reduced to a linguistic exercise, as claimed by Catford for instance, since there are also other factors, such as textual, cultural and situational aspects, which should be taken into consideration when translating. In other words, she does not believe that linguistics is the only discipline which enables people to carry out a translation, since translating involves different cultures and different situations at the same time and they do not always match from one language to another.


House and the elaboration of overt and covert translation 

House (1977) is in favour of semantic and pragmatic equivalence and argues that ST and TT should match one another in function. House suggests that it is possible to characterize the function of a text by determining thesituational dimensions of the ST.* In fact, according to her theory, every text is in itself is placed within a particular situation which has to be correctly identified and taken into account by the translator. After the ST analysis, House is in a position to evaluate a translation; if the ST and the TT differ substantially on situational features, then they are not functionally equivalent, and the translation is not of a high quality. In fact, she acknowledges that 'a translation text should not only match its source text in function, but employ equivalent situational-dimensional means to achieve that function' (ibid.:49).

Central to House's discussion is the concept of overt and covert translations. In an overt translation the TT audience is not directly addressed and there is therefore no need at all to attempt to recreate a 'second original' since an overt translation 'must overtly be a translation' (ibid.:189). By covert translation, on the other hand, is meant the production of a text which is functionally equivalent to the ST. House also argues that in this type of translation the ST 'is not specifically addressed to a TC audience' (ibid.:194).

House (ibid.:203) sets out the types of ST that would probably yield translations of the two categories. An academic article, for instance, is unlikely to exhibit any features specific to the SC; the article has the same argumentative or expository force that it would if it had originated in the TL, and the fact that it is a translation at all need not be made known to the readers. A political speech in the SC, on the other hand, is addressed to a particular cultural or national group which the speaker sets out to move to action or otherwise influence, whereas the TT merely informs outsiders what the speaker is saying to his or her constituency. It is clear that in this latter case, which is an instance of overt translation, functional equivalence cannot be maintained, and it is therefore intended that the ST and the TT function differently.

House's theory of equivalence in translation seems to be much more flexible than Catford's. In fact, she gives authentic examples, uses complete texts and, more importantly, she relates linguistic features to the context of both source and target text.


Baker's approach to translation equivalence 

New adjectives have been assigned to the notion of equivalence (grammatical, textual, pragmatic equivalence, and several others) and made their appearance in the plethora of recent works in this field. An extremely interesting discussion of the notion of equivalence can be found in Baker (1992) who seems to offer a more detailed list of conditions upon which the concept of equivalence can be defined. She explores the notion of equivalence at different levels, in relation to the translation process, including all different aspects of translation and hence putting together the linguistic and the communicative approach. She distinguishes between:

• Equivalence that can appear at word level and above word level, when translating from one language into another. Baker acknowledges that, in a bottom-up approach to translation, equivalence at word level is the first element to be taken into consideration by the translator. In fact, when the translator starts analyzing the ST s/he looks at the words as single units in order to find a direct 'equivalent' term in the TL. Baker gives a definition of the term word since it should be remembered that a single word can sometimes be assigned different meanings in different languages and might be regarded as being a more complex unit or morpheme.This means that the translator should pay attention to a number of factors when considering a single word, such as number, gender and tense (ibid.:11-12).

• Grammatical equivalence, when referring to the diversity of grammatical categories across languages. She notes that grammatical rules may vary across languages and this may pose some problems in terms of finding a direct correspondence in the TL. In fact, she claims that different grammatical structures in the SL and TL may cause remarkable changes in the way the information or message is carried across. These changes may induce the translator either to add or to omit information in the TT because of the lack of particular grammatical devices in the TL itself. Amongst these grammatical devices which might cause problems in translation Baker focuses on number, tense and aspects, voice, person and gender.

• Textual equivalence, when referring to the equivalence between a SL text and a TL text in terms of information and cohesion. Texture is a very important feature in translation since it provides useful guidelines for the comprehension and analysis of the ST which can help the translator in his or her attempt to produce a cohesive and coherent text for the TC audience in a specific context. It is up to the translator to decide whether or not to maintain the cohesive ties as well as the coherence of the SL text. His or her decision will be guided by three main factors, that is, the target audience, the purpose of the translation and the text type.

• Pragmatic equivalence, when referring to implicatures and strategies of avoidance during the translation process. Implicature is not about what is explicitly said but what is implied. Therefore, the translator needs to work out implied meanings in translation in order to get the ST message across. The role of the translator is to recreate the author's intention in another culture in such a way that enables the TC reader to understand it clearly.

http://translationjournal.net

Intro to Stylistics: Linguistics of Meaning

Lexis – this linguistic category falls under word construction and meaning and generally defined as the total word stock and usage that depends on choice and appropriateness. The presence of multi-word lexical items in the lexis is what differentiates it from vocabulary - the collection of only single words.


Example:
traffic light, take care of, by the way and don't count your chickens before they hatch. 


Lexis means the vocabulary of a language as opposed to other aspects such as the grammar of the text. Lexis is clearly an important aspect of creating a suitable style or register (i.e. when choosing language and language features to suit a particular genre, context, audience and purpose).


Lexis and semantics are very close and often used interchangeably.


Lexical cohesion occurs when words have an affinity for each other as in collocations.Many words are habitually put together - or collocated. A collocation is any habitually linked group of words - a kind of lexical partnership, e.g. 'fish and chips', 'salt and pepper', 'don't mention it', 'it's nothing...', 'Oh well!', 'bangers and mash'... and so on.


Semantics is a branch of linguistics dealing with the meaning of words, phrases and sentences, however, contrary to pragmatics it does not analyze the intended speaker meaning, or what words denote on a given occasion, but the objective, conventional meaning. Additionally, it is concerned with the conceptual meaning and not the associative meaning. The conceptual meaning is what a word in fact denotes, as for example Friday the 13 th is a day between Thursday the 12 th and Saturday the 14 th, and that is the conceptual meaning of the phrase Friday the 13 th. Yet, for many people the idea of that day brings to mind thoughts of bad luck and misfortune, which is the associative meaning.


The meaning of words is analyzed in several different ways in order to account for as many aspects of meaning as possible. First of all, words are analyzed in terms of their semantic features that is basic elements which enable the differentiation of meaning of words.



A semantic feature is a notational method which can be used to express the existence or non-existence of semantic properties by using plus and minus signs.


Man is [+HUMAN], [+MALE], [+ADULT]
Woman is [+HUMAN], [-MALE], [+ADULT]
Boy is [+HUMAN], [+MALE], [-ADULT]
Girl is [+HUMAN], [-MALE], [-ADULT]


Intersecting semantic classes share the same features.


Some features need not be specifically mentioned as their presence or absence is obvious from another feature. This is a redundancy rule.



Apart from the semantic features of words also semantic roles (sometimes called ‘thematic roles’) are examined. Semantic roles describe the way in which words are used in sentences and the functions they fulfill. Thus, the entity that performs an action is known as an agent, while the entity involved in an action is called the theme (or ‘patient). When an agent uses an entity in order to do something this entity is called an instrument. However, when a person in a sentence does not perform any action, but only has a perception, state of feeling then the role is described as experiencer. Finally there are roles connected with motion or position of entities. So, the location is where an entity is, the source is the initial position of the entity, the place where it moves from and the goal is where the entity moves to.


One other issue investigated by semantics is the relationship between words, some of which are known to almost every language user, others very abstract and vague for a common speaker. To begin with the simplest relationship between words let us have a look at synonymy. Synonyms are two words with very similar, almost identical meaning, such as buy and purchase, or cab and taxi. In some cases however, although the meaning seems nearly identical there is a difference in the word usage or the level of formality and therefore the words can not always be substituted. 


The next relationship between words is the case when two words have opposite meanings, the words such as male/female, old/new, interesting/boring are antonyms. What is interesting is that antonyms are divided into gradable and non-gradable antonyms. Gradable antonyms are opposites along a scale in that when someone says ‘I am not high’ it does not necessarily mean ‘I am short’. Non-gradable antonyms do not present such flexibility: when we say ‘I am married’ the only antonym available in this sentence would be ‘I am single’.


Sometimes the meaning of one word is included in the meaning of another, broader term. Then the relationship between words can be described as hyponymy as in the case of words: vegetable andcarrot. A carrot is necessarily a vegetable, therefore the meaning of the word vegetable is included in the word carrot, so carrot is a hyponym of vegetable. In this relation the word vegetable is the superordinate (higher level term) of the word carrot.


A very common word type in the English language is that of homophone. Homophones are words which have different written forms, but the same pronunciation such as: right/write, to/too/two, bear/bare. Homophones are often mistaken for homonyms, but homonyms are words which have the same written or spoken forms and unrelated meanings, as for example: bat (flying creature) and bat (used in baseball), race (contest) and race (ethnic group). Still when a word has multiple related meanings then linguists speak of polysemy as with head for instance: head as a part of body; mind, or mental ability; a person in charge.


Another interesting relation between words is that of metonymy which is based on close connection of certain entities in everyday experience. The connection can be that of container-content, whole-part, or others. It is clearly visible in the following example ‘he drank the whole bottle’ when it is obvious that he did not drink the container, but the content of the bottle.




source:


http://www.putlearningfirst.com
http://www.englishbiz.co.uk
http://tripatlas.com
http://www.tlumaczenia-angielski.info

Essay Biography: Documentation

Documentation is the act or an instance of the supplying of documents or supporting references or records. Supporting references may be in the form of written information, media, and other content used. This also referred as the process of providing evidences.

In biography writing, evidences or supporting documents serves as ‘eye candy’ for the readers as it concretize the point that the writing wants to emphasize.

Graphical insertions like photos are like ads that trap the readers in a glancing moment. If a photo is interesting enough, the reader will stop to it and read the caption and if the interest stays there the title of the article is read next. If the beginning of the article is catching enough, the reader will read all of it. In conclusion only 5% of readers read an article but almost all the photos get noticed. There are times that pictures can do more to tell a story than words.

Photographs allow readers to see exactly what a person, place or event looked like out without having to infer from just a word description.  A picture also often times packs much more of an emotional punch than a paragraph and can do more to engage and interest readers. 

In general perspective, pictures are up for interpretations and allow readers to make their own judgments on what they see.

Essay Biography: Data Gathering

· used to discover information details to define the information structure

· helps to establish the priorities of the information needs

· further leads to opportunities to highlight key issues

· a complicated task especially in a large and complex system

· must be organized to ensure that nothing is overlooked and all details are eventually captured

· must identify most if not all problems, requirements and objectives

· must avoid repetitive actions

Two Important Points:

1. identification of information source including the manner of obtaining the information

2. use of the proper modeling to keep track of what has been done to date and what remains to be done for work completion

Steps in Gathering Information

· Schedule initial visit to interviewee’s location

· Gather and read background materials

· Establish data gathering objectives

· Determine what data gathering techniques to use

· Identify contact persons

· Schedule data gathering activities

· Identify deliverables

In Focus: Interview

   Interview is an art of encounter between a researcher and the source. John Brady, an American professor, defined interview process as “ the art of gaining trust, then gaining information.” It is easier for the researcher for the interviewer to get the views of his source if he has cultivated a friendship with him or her.

Types of Interview

1. Formal Interview –usually conducted after prior appointment with the source of interviewee. It can either be face-to face or through a written questionnaire. In both cases, the interviewee should know beforehand the subject r topic of the interview so that he can prepare his answer in advance.

2. Informal interview – a spontaneous shooting of questions o a person at the first opportunity. This is also known as “on-the-spot” interview.

Tips on good interviewing:

1. Always be prepared.

2. Ask the most important questions first.

3. Wait for the interviewee, don’t let him wait for you.

4. Don’t argue with your source.

5. Keep your personal bias to yourself.

6. Always remember that you are a researcher.

7. Expressing yourself counts a lot.

8. Suffer the interviewee.

9. Be polite.

10.Know when to introduce yourself.

11.Be sure you record your interview.