Semantic Differences In Translation


Download Semantic Differences In Translation PDF/ePub or read online books in Mobi eBooks. Click Download or Read Online button to get Semantic Differences In Translation book now. This website allows unlimited access to, at the time of writing, more than 1.5 million titles, including hundreds of thousands of titles in various foreign languages.

Download

Semantic differences in translation


Semantic differences in translation

Author: Lore Vandevoorde

language: en

Publisher: BoD – Books on Demand

Release Date: 2020-05-06


DOWNLOAD





Although the notion of meaning has always been at the core of translation, the invariance of meaning has, partly due to practical constraints, rarely been challenged in Corpus-based Translation Studies. In answer to this, the aim of this book is to question the invariance of meaning in translated texts: if translation scholars agree on the fact that translated language is different from non-translated language with respect to a number of grammatical and lexical aspects, would it be possible to identify differences between translated and non-translated language on the semantic level too? More specifically, this books tries to formulate an answer to the following three questions: (i) how can semantic differences in translated vs non-translated language be investigated in a corpus-based study?, (ii) are there any differences on the semantic level between translated and non-translated language? and (iii) if there are differences on the semantic level, can we ascribe them to any of the (universal) tendencies of translation? In this book, I establish a way to visually explore semantic similarity on the basis of representations of translated and non-translated semantic fields. A technique for the comparison of semantic fields of translated and non-translated language called SMM++ (based on Helge Dyvik’s Semantic Mirrors method) is developed, yielding statistics-based visualizations of semantic fields. The SMM++ is presented via the case of inchoativity in Dutch (beginnen [to begin]). By comparing the visualizations of the semantic fields on different levels (translated Dutch with French as a source language, with English as a source language and non-translated Dutch) I further explore whether the differences between translated and non-translated fields of inchoativity in Dutch can be linked to any of the well-known universals of translation. The main results of this study are explained on the basis of two cognitively inspired frameworks: Halverson’s Gravitational Pull Hypothesis and Paradis’ neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism.

Semantic differences in translation


Semantic differences in translation

Author: Lore Vandevoorde

language: en

Publisher: Language Science Press

Release Date: 2020


DOWNLOAD





Although the notion of meaning has always been at the core of translation, the invariance of meaning has, partly due to practical constraints, rarely been challenged in Corpus-based Translation Studies. In answer to this, the aim of this book is to question the invariance of meaning in translated texts: if translation scholars agree on the fact that translated language is different from non-translated language with respect to a number of grammatical and lexical aspects, would it be possible to identify differences between translated and non-translated language on the semantic level too? More specifically, this books tries to formulate an answer to the following three questions: (i) how can semantic differences in translated vs non-translated language be investigated in a corpus-based study?, (ii) are there any differences on the semantic level between translated and non-translated language? and (iii) if there are differences on the semantic level, can we ascribe them to any of the (universal) tendencies of translation? In this book, I establish a way to visually explore semantic similarity on the basis of representations of translated and non-translated semantic fields. A technique for the comparison of semantic fields of translated and non-translated language called SMM++ (based on Helge Dyvik’s Semantic Mirrors method) is developed, yielding statistics-based visualizations of semantic fields. The SMM++ is presented via the case of inchoativity in Dutch (beginnen [to begin]). By comparing the visualizations of the semantic fields on different levels (translated Dutch with French as a source language, with English as a source language and non-translated Dutch) I further explore whether the differences between translated and non-translated fields of inchoativity in Dutch can be linked to any of the well-known universals of translation. The main results of this study are explained on the basis of two cognitively inspired frameworks: Halverson’s Gravitational Pull Hypothesis and Paradis’ neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism.

Differences in Translation Approaches between Translation Students and Language Teaching Students


Differences in Translation Approaches between Translation Students and Language Teaching Students

Author: Abdullah Qabani

language: en

Publisher: GRIN Verlag

Release Date: 2019-10-24


DOWNLOAD





Academic Paper from the year 2011 in the subject Speech Science / Linguistics, grade: 99.5, King Abdulaziz University, course: MA, language: English, abstract: This paper investigates the differences in translation approach between translation students and language teaching students. In particular, it discusses differences in the way each group approaches translation and the effect of those approaches on the translation or the final product. Two groups of students attending King Saud University in Saudi Arabia, one the faculty of Languages and Translation and the other the Faculty of Education, participated in the study, which applied qualitative and quantitative methods to answer the research questions. The findings concluded that there are differences in the way each group approaches translation. However, the observed approaches and patterns are not distinctive; they are shared by both groups in varying intensity. Attributing those differences in approaches to educational background requires further investigation.