Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 6:1 (1994) ► pp.1–13

Semantic Models and Translating

| Mainz/Germersheim

This paper examines the relevance of three semantic models for translation. Structural semantics, more specifically semantic feature analysis, has given rise to the maxim that we should translate "bundles of semantic features". Prototype semantics suggests that word-meanings have cores and fuzzy edges which are influenced by culture. For translation this means that we do not necessarily translate bundles of features but have to decide whether to focus on the core or the fuzzy edges of the meaning of a particular word. Scenesand-frames semantics suggests that word meaning is influenced by context and the situation we are in. Word-meaning is thus not static but dynamic, and it is this dynamism which should govern our decisions as translators.

Article outline
  • 1.Structural Semantics and Its Limitations
  • 2."Bedroom" and "Bachelor" - Prototypical Cases
  • 3.Scenes-and-Frames Semantics
  • References
Published online: 1 January 1994
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.6.1.02kus
References
Arntz, Reiner
1986 “Terminologievergleich und internationale Terminologieangleichung”. Snell-Hornby 1986 : 283–310.Google Scholar
Diller, Hans-Jürgen and Joachim Kornelius
1978 Linguistische Probleme der Uber-setzung. Tübingen: Niemeyer.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1976 “Frame Semantics and the Nature of Language”. J. Harnard et al., eds. Origins and Evolution of Language and Speech: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2801. New York, 1976. 20–32.Google Scholar
1977 “Scenes-and-Frames Semantics”. Antonio Zampolli, ed. Linguistic Structures Processing. Amsterdam: North Holland 1977 55–88.Google Scholar
Handwerker, Brigitte
1988 “Wortbedeutung und Textverstehen”. Reiner Arntz, ed. Textlinguistik und Fachsprache: Akten des Internationalen übersetzungswissenschaftlichen AILA-Symposions, Hildesheim, 13.-16. April 1987. Hildesheim, Zurich, New York: Olms 1988 333–347.Google Scholar
Hönig, Hans G. and Paul Kußmaul
1982 Strategie der Übersetzung. Tubingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Hörmann, Hans
1981 Einfiihrung in die Psycholinguistik. Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. and Jerry A. Fodor
1963 “The Structure of a Semantic Theory”. Language 391. 170–210.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koller, Werner
1979 Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer.Google Scholar
Kupsch-Losereit, Sigrid
1986 “Scheint eine schöne Sonne? oder: Was ist ein Ubersetzungsfehler?” Lebende Sprachen XXXI:1. 12–16.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
1974 Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Neubert, Albrecht
1988 “Top-down-Prozeduren beim translatorischen Informations-transfer”. Gert Jäger and Albrecht Neubert, eds. Semantik, Kognition und Äquivalenz. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie 1988 18–30.Google Scholar
Neubert, Albrecht and Otto Kade
eds. 1973 Neue Beitràge zu Grundfragen der Ubersetzungswissenschaft. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopadie.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A.
1964 Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A
1974 “Semantic Structure and Translating”. Wolfram Wilss and Gisela Thome, eds. Aspekte der theoretischen, sprachenpaarbezogenen und angewandten Ubersetzungswisenschaft II1. Heidelberg: Groos 1974 33–63.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A.
1975 Componential Analysis of Meaning: An Introduction to Semantic Structures. Den Haag/Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A. and Charles Taber
1969 The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor
1973 “Natural Categories”. Cognitive Psychology 41. 328–350.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, Peter A.
1986 “Die ‘Eindeutigkeit’ von Fachtexten: Bemerkungen zu einer Fiktion”. Snell-Hornby 1986 : 252–282.Google Scholar
1992 “Culturally Specific Elements in Technical Translation”. Joachim Schwend, Susanne Hagemann and Hermann Volkel, eds. Literatur im Kontext - Literature in Context: Festschrift fur Horst W. Drescher. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang 1992 495–515.Google Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary
ed. 1986 Übersetzungswissenschaft: Eine Neuorientierung. Tubingen: Francke.Google Scholar
1988 Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stock, Penny
1992 “The Cultural Dimension in Defining”. Hannu Tommola, Krista Varantola, Tarja Salmi-Tolonen and Jürgen Schopp, eds. EURALEX ’92 Proceedings I1. Tampere: Tamperen Yliopisto 1992 113–120.Google Scholar
Vannerem, Mia and Mary Snell-Hornby
1986 “Die Szene hinter dem Text: ‘Scenes-and-frames semantics’ in der Übersetzung”. Snell-Hornby 1986 : 184–205.Google Scholar
Vermeer, Hans J. and Heidrun Witte
1990 Mögen Sie Zistrosen?: Scenes & frames & channels im translatorischen Handeln. Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar
Vinay, J.P. and J. Darbelnet
4 1968 Stylistique comparée du français et de l'anglais: Méthode de traduction. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Wilss, Wolfram
1977 Ubersetzungswissenschaft: Probleme und Methoden. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 9 other publications

Behr, Dorothée, Michael Braun & Luisa Aiglstorfer
2024. Showcasing the usefulness of web probing: Do subtle variations in questionnaire translation lead to different survey responding?. Quality & Quantity DOI logo
Doms, Steven, Bernard De Clerck & Sonia Vandepinte
2016. Non-human agents as subjects in English and Dutch. In Atypical predicate-argument relations [Lingvisticæ Investigationes Supplementa, 33], ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Herold, Susann
2011. Ausbildung von „Universalgenies“? Zum Kompetenzbegriff und translatorischen Kompetenzmodellen. Lebende Sprachen 55:2 DOI logo
Hönig, Hans G.
1996. Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Heidrun. 1994. Übersetzungswissenschaftliches Propädeutikum. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 8:1 ► pp. 188 ff. DOI logo
Kassapi, Eleni
2006. Semantic Models for the Translation of Greek Institutional Terms in the Field of Education. Meta 51:1 ► pp. 160 ff. DOI logo
Kurbal-Hranovska, O
2021. Metaphorical Terminology in Ukrainian and English in the Designation of Homeopathic Raw Materials: Comparative and Translation Asp. Mìžnarodnij fìlologìčnij časopis 12:3 ► pp. 57 ff. DOI logo
Marmaridou, A. Sophia S.
1996. Directionality in Translation Processes and Practices. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 8:1 ► pp. 49 ff. DOI logo
Pozhar, A & N Yemets
2021. Model of Translation of International Legal Discourse: to the Problem of Applying the Transformation Model and the Model of the Reference Set of Features. Mìžnarodnij fìlologìčnij časopis 12:4 DOI logo
Sandra, Halverson
2002. Cognitive Models, Prototype Effects and 'Translation'. Across Languages and Cultures 3:1 ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.