Polysemy and synonymy: Their management in Translation Studies dictionaries and in translator training. A case study

Vaerenbergh, Leona Van

doi:10.1075/bct.20.04van

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Illustrative snapshots of this divergent terminology are offered in Tables 2-4. As shown in Tables 1-4, while different terms are often used with the same or analogous meaning, the same terms are also often used with different meanings. Such terminological and conceptual instability, evidenced by cases of synonymy and polysemy, can be seen in TS in general (Van Vaerenbergh 2007), so it seems unrealistic to expect ITr research to be an exception. However, in line with the rationale laid down we propose that, when analysing the chain of texts and languages in the process considered here, it may be more beneficial to use the following designations: the ultimate ST/SL > mediating text/language > ultimate TT/TL.…”

Section: Terminological Discrepanciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theoretical, methodological and terminological issues regarding indirect translation: An overview

Rosa

Pięta

Maia

2017

Translation Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The practice of indirect translation (ITr), here understood as a translation of a translation (see Gambier 1994, 413; 2003, 57), has a long-standing history (e.g. the Bible, I Ching, Shakespeare translation or the activity of the so-called Toledo School), widespread use in various areas of today's society (e.g. audiovisual, computer-assisted and literary translation, localization) and, arguably, a promising future (e.g. due to globalization and the increasingly high number of working languages in international organizations, which entails editing documents via the linguae francae). Despite all this, ITr has traditionally attracted only marginal attention from translation scholars and only in recent years has it become a more popular concept in translation studies (TS) research. This growing popularity is evident from the noticeable surge in the number of scientific publications (see Pięta 2017, in this special issue) and academic events (e.g. those held in Barcelona, Germersheim and Lisbon in 2013), as well as the founding in 2016 of an international network of researchers working on ITr (IndirecTrans, www.indirectrans.com). Such developments have made a significant contribution by, for example, challenging the conventional binarism in the study of translation or offering insights into the historiography of intercultural relationships and the complex role of intermediary centres in the cross-cultural transfer between peripheries. However, ITr research remains very fragmented and this concept is thus still largely undertheorized, and its position within TS still marginal. Research has not kept pace with the rapidly evolving practice. In an effort to overcome this fragmentation, launch this area of research from a scientific basis and accelerate the production of (a common core of) knowledge, this special issue will shed light on the state of the art of research on ITr, expand/challenge current understanding of this practice and reflect on future research avenues. Our focus is on conceptual, terminological and methodological issues. Claims, assumptions and motivations Before addressing the main terminological, theoretical and methodological issues, it may be useful to identify claims, assumptions and motivations regarding indirect translation. It is said to be a common practice. Given an apparently still predominant demand for closeness to the source text (ST), ITr tends to be negatively evaluated because it arguably increases the distance to the ultimate ST and, therefore, is often hidden or camouflaged.

show abstract

Section: Terminological Discrepanciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theoretical, methodological and terminological issues regarding indirect translation: An overview

Rosa

Pięta

Maia

2017

Translation Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some scholars (Pokorn 2007;Snell-Hornby 2007;van Vaerenbergh 2007) have suggested that the existence of non-standardised (fuzzy) terms and concepts may be inevitable in certain disciplines, and indeed, may be 'a sign of research progress and dynamism ' (van Vaerenbergh 2007, p. 236). However, there can be little doubt that confusion regarding what an author is talking about when using a particular name does pose a distinct problem for any kind of unified academic discussion on a subject (Snell-Hornby 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Origins and Meanings of Names Describing Investment Practices that Integrate a Consideration of ESG Issues in the Academic Literature

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Others even defend synonymy and polysemy as necessary properties of texts (Temmerman 2000;van Vaerenbergh 2009). Rey claims that terms depend on "interlinguistic criteria, which are evidenced by the possibility of translation and then at least of partially homogeneous terminologies for the same theory or science in different languages. "…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

The use of Latin American, Hispanic and Latino in US academic articles, 2000–2010

Valdeón¹

2013

TERM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses the issue of terms, namely Latin American, Hispanic and Latino, whose definitions are affected by social, economic, historical and ideological factors and which are at the crossroads of two or more disciplines. Definitions will be provided, using the Merriam-Webster for American English, the Oxford Dictionary for British English, and the Diccionario de la Real Academia for Spanish. The concept of ethnicity, introduced by the US Census Office in the 1970s to identify the Hispanic minority, will also be dealt with. The next section will examine the preferred choices of usage in academic journals in two broad areas, the Social Sciences on the one hand, and the Medical and Nursing professions on the others. It covers a total of 58 academic papers from two distinct periods, 2000-2005 and 2006-2010, in order to establish whether the terms are used consistently in the two broad areas, and whether there are major differences in use in the two time spans. The paper will conclude with a discussion of the findings, a reference to other activities that can be affected by the ambiguities of the definitions, and suggestions for further research.

show abstract

Polysemy and synonymy: Their management in Translation Studies dictionaries and in translator training. A case study

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Theoretical, methodological and terminological issues regarding indirect translation: An overview

Theoretical, methodological and terminological issues regarding indirect translation: An overview

The Origins and Meanings of Names Describing Investment Practices that Integrate a Consideration of ESG Issues in the Academic Literature

The use of Latin American, Hispanic and Latino in US academic articles, 2000–2010

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About