Semantic models and translation

Paul Kussmaul

Table of contents

The academic study of translation has been concerned with meaning early on. Nida made use of structural semantics and componential analysis, especially with reference to bible translation (see Religious translation), in his pioneering work (e.g., Nida 1964: passim). Structural semantics is concerned with language as a system, and in those days it provided a strong theoretical basis for translation. One of the main insights, according to Nida, was that we do not translate words but bundles of semantic components. The word “forgiveness”, for example, has the components (1) a reprehensible action by one person, (2) a decision by an affected individual to overlook this action, and (3) a resulting state essentially equivalent to what existed before the reprehensible action occurred. In Navajo this bundle of features is represented by the paraphrase “to give him back his sin” (Nida 1974: 47).

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Fillmore, Charles J
1977“Scenes-and-Frames Semantics.” In Linguistic Structures Processing, Antonio Zampolli (ed), 55–88. Amsterdam: N. Holland.Google Scholar
Hönig, Hans G
1995Konstruktives Übersetzen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Kadric, Mira, Kaindl, Klaus & Kaiser-Cooke, Michèle
2005Translatorische Methodik. Wien: Facultas. (Quoted as Kadric et al. 2005.)  TSBGoogle Scholar
Kussmaul (=Kußmaul), Paul
1995Training the Translator. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Kußmaul, Paul
2000aKreatives Übersetzen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Kussmaul, Paul
2000b“A cognitive Framework for Looking at Creative Mental Processes.” In Intercultural Faultlines. Research Models in Translation Studies I. Textual and Cognitive Aspects, Maeve Olohan (ed), 57–71. Manchester: St Jerome.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Crossref logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W
1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Neubert, Albrecht
1988“Top-down-Prozeduren beim translatorischen Informationstransfer.” In Semantik, Kognition und Äquivalenz, Gert Jäger & Albrecht Neubert (eds), 18–30. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A
1964Toward a Science of Translating. With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: Brill.  TSBGoogle Scholar
1974“Semantic Structure and Translating.” In Aspekte der theoretischen, sprachenpaarbezogenen und angewandten Übersetzungswisenschaft II, Wolfram Wilss & Gisela Thome Gisela (eds), 33–63. Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary
1975“The Meaning of Meaning.” In Language, Mind, and Knowledge. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science Vol. 7, Keith Gunderson (ed), 131–193, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor
1973“Natural categories.” Cognitive Psychology 4, 328–350 Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary
1988Translation Studies. An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins Crossref logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
2005“Of catfish and blue bananas: Scenes-and frames semantics as a contzrastive ‘knowledge system’ for translation.” In Knowlede Systems in Translation, Helle V. Dam, Jan Engberg & Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast (eds), 193–206. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.  TSB Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Vannerem, Mia & Snell-Hornby, Mary
1986“Die Szene hinter dem Text: ‘scenes-and-frames semantics’ in der Übersetzung.” In Übersetzungswissenschaft. Eine Neuorientierung. Mary Snell-Hornby (ed), 184–205. Tübingen: Francke.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Vermeer, Hans J. & Witte, Heidrun
1990Mögen Sie Zistrosen? Scenes & frames & channels im translatorischen Handeln. Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar