The Source Language Concept Is Not Lexicalised in the Target Language

This problem is one of the two most frequent problems which were found in this study with four instances: “Youngster, zip lock, hidey-holes and tagged” which are the best candidates to be included in this category from the list of problematic words and expressions. Tables 4-5 and 4-6 below, represent the students’ problem-strategy tables for lack of lexicalisation in Persian language for the two words “youngster and hidey-holes” respectively.

This problem arises when the target language does not contain a linguistic element for a specific word in the source language. Lack of lexicalisation sometimes is due to lack of an object or atypical nature of a concept in target language culture. For example, there are two floor coverings in Persian, as »هّبگ« (transliterated as “gabbeh”) and »ولیز«(transliterated as “zilu”), not found in English, and therefore, while translating Persian text into English, they could be rendered by transliteration (as a dominant strategy) or explanation, or other strategies depending on the decisions of the translator¹. These words may seem too long in meaning to be glossed in a single word in the target language. Other examples for Persian speakers from English are upstart (someone who behaves as if they are more important than they are and shows a lack of respect towards people who are more experienced or older, LDOCE: Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 2007), or debut (the first public appearance of an entertainer, sports player etc. or of something new and important, ibid).

The above-mentioned four examples in the translation texts do not also have clear one-word dictionary equivalents in Persian. In the following sub-sections, the two instances of lack of lexicalisation problem will be studied. Utilizing Tables 4-5 and 4-6, the words “youngster and hidey-holes” which were translated by students within the related texts using different strategies and were assessed by three raters will be evaluated based on P-S relation method.

1 Transliteration and Transliteration + Using classifier or explanation are two strategies in the list used in this study, as strategy 9 and strategy 18, respectively (Table 4-2).

124

Table 4-5: A representative selection of students’ problem-strategy table for P10: The source language concept is not lexicalised in the target language (from Source Text 2: Mass

Media) lexicalised in the ‎target language”, is translated by 25 students, not separately from the text but

125

as a part of their given task, and in “The typical youngster in the United states watches about four hours of television each day”context. The data collected demonstrate that these 25 students have provided the researcher with 7 various equivalents, mostly in diverse contexts, based on 4 different translation strategies. As can be seen in the table, “Translation using a hyponym”

strategy has been the most frequent one (48%) which has resulted in the provision of 2 different Persian equivalents including »ناوج«(6 times) and »هچبرسپ«(5 times) which can be back-translated as “young” and “juvenile boy” respectively. Moreover, the second most frequent strategy (36%) and the best scored one (3.44) has been “Translation by a contextual equivalent”

which is substantiated in the choice of the most frequent equivalent that is »ناوجون« back-translated as “youngster” (8 times). Some students have decided to apply “Translation by a more general equivalent” strategy (12%) resulting in the selection of the equivalent »درف« back-translated as “individual” (3 times). This strategy has been scored the worst by the raters though.

Interestingly, all the students have correctly realized the function of the word (i.e. subject) under question and correctly transferred it to the target language¹. Another point to add is the co-occurrence of the features “the most frequent strategy” and “the best scored” one which can be indicative of the relative ability of the students to overcome the translational problem. However, while the worst scored strategy is related to an equivalent which has only been used in 3 of the cases (i.e. 12%) can indirectly reconfirm the students’ relative ability to overcome the translation problem under study. In another hand, the total average score given by the raters to all the strategies applied to solve the translational problem is 2.04 which is indicative of the medium level of ability of the students to overcome such a problem in the translation process. Finally, the point that the inter-rater reliability of the scores given by the raters has been good (0.89) needs to be mentioned which proves the assured nature of the rating process administered in the course of the study for this specific instance of the problem under question.

1. However, in other instances which are not demonstrated in the above table (see: Appendix 2) there are some cases of miscomprehension, e.g. choosing back-translated equivalents like “a prominent individual” or “children” or

“those who are younger”…

126

Table 4-6: A representative selection of students’ problem-strategy table for P27: The source language concept is not lexicalised in the target language(from Source Text 8:

Torchlight Tag)

127

28 students have tried to translate the sentence “This game is best played outside after dark, but can be played inside with the lights off if you have plenty of hidey-holes” into Persian. The underlined word is not lexicalized in Persian which is exactly the problem that is going to be focused on. The data obtained show that there have been 12 different equivalents used by the students through the application of 7 various translational strategies in order to transfer the meaning of the word “hidey-holes” including »هاگیفخم« (back-translated as “hideout”) that has been chosen 7 times which can be regarded as the most frequently used equivalent based on the strategy “Translation by a more general equivalent (or superordinate)” (i.e. the second most frequent strategy).»ندش ناهنپ یارب ییاهناکم«(→The places for hiding) and »ندش یفخم یارب ییاهناکم« (→ The places for hiding - using the synonym word) are the second most frequently utilized equivalents (each 4 times) based on the strategy “Coining a ‎new phrase” which has been recognized as the most frequent strategy and the best scored one at the same time. These equivalents can be back-translated as “Places for hiding” (using non-informal word »ندش ناهنپ« and »ندش یفخم«for hiding and formal word »اهناکم«for places). The point to mention is that although the range of equivalents chosen is really diverse (12 different equivalents selected by just 28 student translators), they are mostly synonymous and interchangeable ones like the ones mentioned above together with »ندش ناهنپ یارب ییاهاج«(back-translated as “places for hiding [using non-informal word »ندش ناهنپ«for hiding]), and »ندش ناهنپ یارب اضف«(back-translated as

“place for hiding [using non-informal word »ندش ناهنپ«for hiding] and formal word »اضف«for places). The only difference found between these equivalents is their being formal or not.

Moreover, there have been 2 cases of ‘omission’ which have been the worst scored ones by the raters as well. ‘Omission’ is a strategy which is often used as the last solution and is usually not accepted by the raters without compensation. Its highest occurrence could be a good indication of the level of difficulty of the problem and will be studied through the other sections in this chapter. It will be seen that it happens with higher frequencies for a problem like ‘lack of punctuation marks’ (P5) or some odd ‘culture specific concepts’ (P26). Another point to refer to, which seems necessary to mention, is that although some of the equivalents have been used frequently, their contexts of usage have not been the same in all cases which makes them worthy of being referred to separately and were found in the main table (see the appendix 2). Regarding the total average score given to all the strategies applied to solve the translation problem (2.30),

128

it can be concluded that the students are already able to determine and solve the problem up to a medium level; this is the same as score in the previous table for the same problem. Though the level of the educational significance of this problem will be studied later, there of course is a need for the problem to be focused on in the translation training classes. Furthermore, the calculation of the inter-rater reliability (0.88) indicates the suitability of the rating process that has been administered in the course of this study regarding this specific instance of the problem under investigation.

On the whole, both of the words “youngster” and “hidey-holes”, the translated equivalents of which have been focused on so far, are among the instances which are not lexicalized in the Persian language. In the case of the word “youngster”, the students have tried to expand the meaning of the near Persian equivalents to encompass the meaning of the non-lexicalized word, i.e. they have not tried to explain the concept and all the equivalents proposed are one-word ones. A completely reverse method has been applied to translate “hidey-holes”. Majority of the students have tried to explain the word using some newly coined phrases which shows their awareness of the problem, because this strategy has been a highly scored one by the raters.

However, the total average score granted by the raters to the student translators for the translation of the two words shows that the students are needed to focus on the problem under question and practice more to be able to overcome similar challenges in future.