Surrogaatekwivalensie in tweetalige woordeboeke met spesifieke verwysing na zero-ekwivalensie in Afrikataalwoordeboeke

Gouws, Rufus H. ; Prinsloo, Danie J. (2010-12)

CITATION: Gouws, R. H. & Prinsloo, D. J. 2010. Surrogaatekwivalensie in tweetalige woordeboeke met spesifi eke verwysing na zero-ekwivalensie in Afrikataalwoordeboeke. Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe, 50(4):502-519.

The original publication is available at


AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Tweetalige woordeboeke word om die onttrekking van verskillende tipes inligting geraadpleeg. Die datatipe waaraan die gemiddelde en kundige gebruiker van tweetalige woordeboeke die grootste behoefte het en wat daarom die algemeenste teiken van woordeboekraadpleging is, is die vertaalekwivalente, dit is die doeltaalvorme wat vir ’n bepaalde brontaalvorm verskaf word. Die leksikograaf moet vir drie hooftipes ekwivalentverhoudinge voorsiening maak, te wete absolute ekwivalensie, gedeeltelike ekwivalensie en zero-ekwivalensie. Dit is veral gevalle van zeroekwivalensie wat leksikograwe voor die uitdaging stel om op verskillende maniere daarvoor voorsiening te maak dat die gebruikers ’n optimale onttrekking van inligting aan woordeboekartikels behaal. In hierdie artikel word gefokus op die aard en besondere omvang van zeroekwivalensie in die Afrikatale en word verskillende tipes surrogaatekwivalente en benaderingswyses onder die loep geneem. ’n Onderskeid word ook gemaak tussen verskillende vlakke van surrogaatekwivalensie. Die benadering is kontemplatief sowel as transformatief en die behoeftes van die teikengebruikers ten opsigte van teksresepsie en teksproduksie word vooropgestel.

ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The focus in a general bilingual dictionary is on the item presenting translation equivalents for the words represented by the lemma signs. Three major types of equivalent relations prevail, i.e. full equivalence, partial equivalence and zero equivalence. These different relations of equivalence confront lexicographers with different challenges to ensure that the users will be able to achieve an optimal retrieval of information from a given dictionary article. Ideally, suitable translation equivalents in the target language would be available for each source language item. Instances where a suitable translation equivalent is not available occur in any given language pair to be treated as source and target. Adamska-Sałaciak (2006:99) goes as far as to state that “due to interlingual anisomorphism a bilingual dictionary is, strictly speaking, an impossibility” and that “all we can hope to produce are better or worse approximations”. Lexicographers have an obligation towards their specifi c users to ensure a presentation and treatment of translation equivalents that will enable an unambiguous retrieval of information from the data on offer in the comment on semantics of a bilingual dictionary. The nature and extent of this treatment should be determined by the needs and reference skills of the intended target user group, the user situation and the lexicographic functions of the specifi c dictionary. There are frequent instances in any given language pair where a suitable translation equivalent is not available to be treated as source and target language in a bilingual dictionary. This is known as zero equivalence and can be regarded as the most complex type of equivalence to be dealt with in a bilingual dictionary. A linguistic gap can be identifi ed when the speakers of both languages are familiar with a certain concept, but when one language does not have a word to refer to it, whereas the other language does have such a word. A referential gap can be postulated when a lexical item from language A has no translation equivalent in language B. This would be because the speakers of language B do not know the referent of the lexical item from language A. This article addresses the various ways in which lexicographers of different dictionaries deal with the lack of equivalence and the subsequent use of surrogate equivalents. There are a number of strategies that the lexicographer can use when dealing with instances of zero equivalence, e.g. the use of glosses, paraphrases, illustrations and even text boxes with lexicographic comments. This article suggests different types of surrogate equivalents based on user needs, and it will be done in accordance with the relevant dictionary functions, i.e. the cognitive function and the communicative functions of text reception, text production and translation. It will be indicated that lexicographic treatment of zero equivalence is a major factor in bilingual dictionaries bridging, for example, Afrikaans or English with African languages. In many cases a substantial part, even a large number of sequential lemmas in any given alphabetical stretch, comprise zero equivalence. Such instances, mostly in respect of cultural terms pose a great challenge to the lexicographer. They vary in nature and complexity and call for different and innovative ways of lexicographic treatment. In this article the focus will be on the nature and extent of zero equivalence in the African languages, and different types of surrogate equivalents form the basis of the discussion. A distinction will also be made between different levels of surrogate equivalence. The approach is contemplative as well as transformative, with the emphasis on the needs of target users in respect of text reception and text production. Acknowledging different degrees of complexity in the relation of surrogate equivalence leads to a tiered view of the concept. The fi rst level in the hierarchy provides for linguistic gaps where a mere gloss or brief paraphrase of meaning will suffi ce. More complicated are the gaps where the surrogate equivalent also has to provide grammatical guidance. The top tier in the hierarchy provides for referential gaps where taboo, culture-specifi c or sensitive values have to be expressed. The lexicographer has to utilise available treatment options maximally and select the most appropriate one(s) in each case.

Please refer to this item in SUNScholar by using the following persistent URL:
This item appears in the following collections: