Semantic Models and Translating
Published online: 1 January 1994
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.6.1.02kus
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.6.1.02kus
Abstract
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.
Résumé
Le présent article examine l'importance de trois modèles sémantiques pour la traduction. La sémantique structurale, plus précisément l'analyse sémique des lexèmes, propose de traduire un ensemble de sèmes. Suivant la sémantique des prototypes, le sens d'un mot se compose d'un noyau et de zones aux contours imprécis qui subissent l'influence de facteurs culturels. On ne traduit donc pas un ensemble de sèmes: on mettra l'accent soit sur le noyau, soit sur les zones imprécises du sens d'un mot. La sémantique des "scenes-andframes" fait dépendre le sens d'un mot du contexte et du type de communication. Aussi la signification n'est pas une donnée statique, mais le fruit d'un processus dynamique. Cette dynamique devrait guider nos décisions de traducteur.
Article outline
- 1.Structural Semantics and Its Limitations
- 2."Bedroom" and "Bachelor" - Prototypical Cases
- 3.Scenes-and-Frames Semantics
References
References (28)
Arntz, Reiner. 1986. “Terminologievergleich und internationale Terminologieangleichung”. Snell-Hornby 1986: 283–310.
Diller, Hans-Jürgen and Joachim Kornelius. 1978. Linguistische Probleme der Uber-setzung. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
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.
1977. “Scenes-and-Frames Semantics”. Antonio Zampolli, ed. Linguistic Structures Processing. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1977. 55–88.
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.
Katz, Jerrold J. and Jerry A. Fodor. 1963. “The Structure of a Semantic Theory”. Language 391. 170–210.
Kupsch-Losereit, Sigrid. 1986. “Scheint eine schöne Sonne? oder: Was ist ein Ubersetzungsfehler?” Lebende Sprachen XXXI:1. 12–16.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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.
Neubert, Albrecht and Otto Kade, eds. 1973. Neue Beitràge zu Grundfragen der Ubersetzungswissenschaft. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopadie.
Nida, Eugene A. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: Brill.
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.
Nida, Eugene A. 1975. Componential Analysis of Meaning: An Introduction to Semantic Structures. Den Haag/Paris: Mouton.
Schmitt, Peter A. 1986. “Die ‘Eindeutigkeit’ von Fachtexten: Bemerkungen zu einer Fiktion”. Snell-Hornby 1986: 252–282.
. 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.
. 1988. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
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.
Vannerem, Mia and Mary Snell-Hornby. 1986. “Die Szene hinter dem Text: ‘Scenes-and-frames semantics’ in der Übersetzung”. Snell-Hornby 1986: 184–205.
Vermeer, Hans J. and Heidrun Witte. 1990. Mögen Sie Zistrosen?: Scenes & frames & channels im translatorischen Handeln. Heidelberg: Groos.
Cited by (9)
Cited by nine other publications
Behr, Dorothée, Michael Braun & Luisa Aiglstorfer
Kurbal-Hranovska, O
Pozhar, A & N Yemets
Doms, Steven, Bernard De Clerck & Sonia Vandepitte
2016. Non-human agents as subjects in English and Dutch. In Atypical predicate-argument relations [Lingvisticæ Investigationes Supplementa, 33], ► pp. 87 ff.
Herold, Susann
Kassapi, Eleni
Sandra, Halverson
Hönig, Hans G.
1996. Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Heidrun. 1994. Übersetzungswissenschaftliches Propädeutikum. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 8:1 ► pp. 188 ff.
Marmaridou, A. Sophia S.
1996. Directionality in Translation Processes and Practices. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 8:1 ► pp. 49 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. 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.
