Channels, Fall 2020

Channels • 20 20 • Volume 5 • Number 1 Page 25 As touched on in the section on genre, context plays an unignorable role in lexical considerations. If a word has more than one possible sense, the translator must consider the broader context to determine which sense is most fitting to the situation (Beekman and Callow, 1979; Saeed, 2009). Looking for common collates in reoccurring patterns via elicitation techniques can likewise help dispel ambiguities regarding context. As a subtopic under context and semantic range, collocational range is worth an independent mention. Beekman and Callow (1979) define collocational range as the acceptable comp any of words in relation to the word in question. For example, “strong” and “powerful” have similar semantic meaning, but due to collocational restrictions of word groups, one cannot speak of “powerful tea” but can of “strong tea” (Saeed, 2009). As a rule, more generic terms will have larger collocational ranges than specific terms. Since collocational ranges differ across languages and are based in large part on choices and preferences of native speakers, the translator must be well studied to understand which words can hold the company of other particular words while still communicating the same idea as in the ST (Beekman and Callow, 1979; Saeed, 2009; Suchanova, 2013). A collocational clash, then, occurs when meaning components chosen conflict in meaning and agreement. Some methods Beekman and Callow (1979) propose to avoid collocational clashes include carefully studying meaning components of words and looking at both the primary (more common) and secondary (typically metaphorical) senses of the word in question (pp. 166-167, 172-173). Saeed (2009) reviews several categories of lexical relations that a translator must keep in mind, either when analyzing the ST or choosing a word or phrase to use in the TT: homographs, where one written word has several unrelated meanings (letter: a written document or a unit in an alphabet); polysemy, where one word has several related meanings (говорить, “speak” or “say”); synonymy, in which multiple words have the same or similar meanings (use, utilize, or exploit); antonymy, where opposite meaning is expressed either as a binary pair (alive or dead), gradable scale (cold-cool-warm-hot), or reverse relations (above me or below you); and hyponymy, where a more specific word (hyponym) includes the meaning of a more general term (hypernym) plus an additional level of meaning (run or sprint). This last relation, notes Saeed (2009), can offer a view on various perspectives of cultural organization based on what words are considered hyponyms of others (p. 69). As words are a foundational unit of language, the importance of their consideration cannot be overstated in the translation process, especially in attempting to reach an equivalent effect on the reader of the TT. Despite the frequent lack of perfect alignment of a word in the SL and TL in all categories, with careful analysis of semantic and collocational range, lexical relations, and context, a proficient translator can achieve a close, if not perfect, equivalent semantic effect. Hierarchical Approach Among other strategic decisions required for creating an equivalent translation, Reiss (1981) speaks of a hierarchy of equivalence criteria, whereby the key characteristic elements of an ST are determined for preservation in the TT. This is potentially at the expense of other elements in the ST, should various elements, such as wordplay and