Channels, Fall 2020

Page 24 Beale • Equivalence in Translation with no known relation to the TL (Aramaic – English) in a culture that is removed from that of the TL by values, perceptions, and time with the author writing in a genre unfamiliar to the current target audience Curiously, this set of descriptors is remarkably applicable to biblical texts. Missing Cultural Categories Appropriately following the consideration of audience from differing cultures is a short note on missing categories, concepts that may exist in the collective conscious of one culture but not in the other (Kesić, 2015; Yaqub, 2014). This could also exten d to words which have no exact equal in capturing the same semantic qualities and pragmatic connotations (Mansoor, 2018). Beekman and Callow (1979) propose some solutions to this problem which, though not always perfectly preserving the form of the text, attempt to maintain the equivalent meaning of the ST. One such solution is modifying a generic word in the TL, specifying features of its form, stating its function and comparison, or using a combination of these tactics. Another solution, especially with culturally locked elements, is to employ loan words, typically with an explanation of word. The last option they give is cultural substitution, which preserves equivalence in terms of audience impact to the greatest degree by using a culturally understood equivalent of a word or phrase in the TL. Lexical Considerations Any discussion on translation must include lexical considerations, as words are the medium by which messages are communicated. Beekman and Callow (1979) classify lexicon as a key component of form, the basis for communicating the intended message. Shapochkin (2011), in his work on pragmatic equivalence, pays close attention to the selection of the best possible word to communicate not only the informational, but also the pragmatic aspect of the word used by the author in the ST to achieve what the translator perceives to be the author’s intended effect for the reader. However, while not excluding the possibility of good translation, Jakobson (1959) argues that full equivalence between two words does not exist due to differing linguistic structures and terminology in the lexicons of the two languages (Panou, 2013). Saeed (2009) makes much the same point, attributing this lack to different conceptual classifications arising from linguistic relativity, especially between highly different cultures. Beekman and Callow (1979), in addition to making the same point as Shapochkin and Saeed, offer some specific examples of how lexical terms may not line up, including usage of generic terms in the SL where the TL uses specific terms or vice versa, such as when one commonly used word in the SL has a host of more specific terms in the TL, as well as where the specificity or generality of the word is not entirely clear even in context. Additionally, the translator faces instances where one word in the ST has no one word equivalent in the TL and where explication may cause loss of some of the word’s meaning or effectual value. Phrasal verbs and idioms also present their own problems, as they cannot be translated word for word but must be translated as a whole unit, requiring the translator to find the word or phrase to match the idiom or phrasal verb in the ST (Saeed, 2009).