A study on translation equivalence between some poems of prison diary (vietnamese version) and its english translation by aileen palmer on form based approach of mona baker (1992)

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES LÊ THỊ NHUNG A STUDY ON TRANSLATION EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN SOME POEMS O

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-

GRADUATE STUDIES

LÊ THỊ NHUNG

A STUDY ON TRANSLATION EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN SOME POEMS

OF PRISON DIARY (VIETNAMESE VERSION) AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY AILEEN PALMER ON FORM-BASED APPROACH OF

MONA BAKER (1992)

NGHIÊN CỨU TƯƠNG ĐƯƠNG DỊCH THUẬT GIỮA MỘT SỐ BÀI THƠNHẬT KÝ TRONG TÙ ( BẢN TIẾNG VIỆT) VÀ BẢN DỊCH TIẾNG ANHTƯƠNG ỨNG CỦA AILEEN PALMER THEO QUAN ĐIỂM CỦA MONA

BAKER (1992)

M.A COMBINED PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics Code: 60220201

Hanoi - 2016

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-

GRADUATE STUDIES

LÊ THỊ NHUNG

A STUDY ON TRANSLATION EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN SOME POEMS

OF PRISON DIARY (VIETNAMESE VERSION) AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY AILEEN PALMER ON FORM-BASED APPROACH OF

MONA BAKER (1992)

NGHIÊN CỨU TƯƠNG ĐƯƠNG DỊCH THUẬT GIỮA MỘT SỐ BÀI THƠNHẬT KÝ TRONG TÙ ( BẢN TIẾNG VIỆT) VÀ BẢN DỊCH TIẾNG ANHTƯƠNG ỨNG CỦA AILEEN PALMER THEO QUAN ĐIỂM CỦA MONA

BAKER (1992)

M.A COMBINED PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics Code: 60220201

Supervisor: Assoc.Prof Dr Nguyễn Xuân Thơm

Hanoi - 2016

I, the undersigned, hereby certify my authority of the study project report

entitled “A study on translation equivalence between some poems of Prison Diary (Vietnamese version) and its English translation by Aileen Palmer on form-based approach of Mona Baker (1992)” submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Master in English Linguistics Except where thereference is indicated, no other person‘s work has been used without dueacknowledgement in the text of the thesis

Hanoi, 2016

Lê Thị Nhung

This thesis could not have been completed without the help and support from

a number of people

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Assoc Prof

Dr Nguyen Xuan Thom, my supervisor, who has patiently and constantly supported

me through the stages of the study, and whose stimulating ideas, expertise, andsuggestions have inspired me greatly through my growth as an academic researcher

A special word of thanks goes to Assoc Prof Dr Le Hung Tien; without hisinteresting lectures on Research Methodology in Applied Linguistics andTranslation Studies, consultancy and encouragement, it would never have beenpossible for me to have this thesis accomplished

Last but not least, I am greatly indebted to my family for the endless sacrificethey have devoted to the fulfillment of this academic work

Given that translation equivalence lies at the center of what translation isand the translation of Prison Diary has posed both interests and challenges, theresearcher conducted a study, investigating types of form-based equivalenceproposed by Mona Baker (1992) between thirty Prison Diary poems and theirstranslated versions by Aileen Palmer as well as some obstacles encountered by thetranslator Pairs of data were compared, contrasted and interpreted into differentcategories Three prevalent types of non-equivalence have been identified, includingthat at the level of word, above word, and grammatically upon careful collection andinterpretative analyses of data from both source texts and target texts In coupledwith the existence of such non-equivalence, many obstacles were addressed by thetranslator due to gaps in both linguistic and literary terms The paper also shedssome light on practical applications for translators, and teachers and students withtheir work of translation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART A : INTRODUCTION 1

1 RATIONALE 1

2 AIMS OF THE STUDY 2

3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY 3

4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 3

5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 4

5.1 Research questions and concepts 4

5.2 Research approach (Theoretical framework) 5

5.3 Research methods (analytical framework) 5

6 DESIGN OF THE STUDY 6

PART B : DEVELOPMENT 8

CHAPTER 1 : LITERATURE REVIEW 8

1.1.TRANSLATION THEORY 8

1.1.1 Definition of translation 8

1.1.2 Translation equivalence 11

1.2 MONA B AKER S THEORY ON EQUIVALENCE‘ 24

1.2.1 Equivalence at word level 24

1.2.2 Non-equivalence at word level 26

1.2.3.Equivalence above word level 37

1.2.4 Grammatical equivalence 44

1.2.5 Textual equivalence 47

1.2.6 Pragmatic equivalence 52

1.3 LITERARY TRANSLATION 57

1.3.1 Literary translation 57

1.3.2 Some problems in literary translation 58

1.3.3 Features of poetic translation and language 58

1.4 PREVIOUS STUDIES ON TRANSTION EQUIVALENCE IN LITERARY WORKS 62

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 65

2.1 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 65

2.1.1 Aims 65

2.1.2 Objectives 65

2.2 RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES 66

2.2.1 Research design 66

2.2.2 Research procedures ( procedural framework) 66

2.3 RESEARCH METHODS 67

2.3.1 Subjects of study 67

2.3.2 Data collection and description 67

2.3.3 Data analysis (discovery – phenomenon – analysis and evaluation/explanation) 68

CHAPTER 3 : FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 70

3.1 TRANSLATION ( NON) EQUIVALENCE AND THE MOST POPULAR ONE 70

3.1.1 At-word-level non-equivalence 70

3.1.2 Above- word- level non-equivalence 73

3.1.3 Grammatical non-equivalence 74

3.2 TRANSLATOR‘ S STRATEGIES FOR NON- EQUIVALENCE 83

3.2.1 At word level 83

3.2.2 Above-word level 85

3.3 REASONS FOR NONEQUIVALENCE 87

3.3.1 Linguistic reasons 87

3.3.2 Literary or aesthetic reasons 88

PART C: CONCLUSION 90

1 RECAPITULATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ………… 90

2 IMPLICATIONS AND APPLICATIONS 92

3 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES 93

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale

The idea, the question to which the thesis attempts to answer, came from bothlinguistic (scientific), practical and situational motivations To begin with linguisticreasons, translation has long been a fertile land for research because of its importantrole in bridging the world and also recording and building up the history of theworld Translation theory is extensively regarded one big branch in appliedlinguistics that is worth researcher‘s intellectual curiosity It brings about theattractiveness of different languages to certain human communities The authorherself constantly holds on to the wonder whether or not translation of poetry isdifferent from that of other genres, if so, to what extent, and if there is any workingstrategy for this special type of translation, especially in the case that it hassomething to deal with both linguistic and cultural gaps Therefore, it is important toconduct studies on this theory Practically, as one of the most important and commonfields of translation, the translation of literary works (literary translation) is indeed ahelp to the understanding of different cultures and civilizations, so responsible for itscomplexity and the must for translator of literature to consider every aspect of thematerial and even beyond the material to produce a good translation Literarytranslation in general and the translation of poems between English and Vietnameseand other ways round have been such a challenging but charming task for me that Ireally want to clarify or at least understand the way translators of these worksemploy when doing translations Another practical and inspiring motivation for myconducting this study is because of the fact that the year 2015 is the 125th celebration

of President Ho Chi Minh‘s birthday I really wish to be knowledgeable of how thetranslated versions of his poems have effects on target readers, whether to be thesame to or different from those on Vietnamese counterparts Last but not least, thefindings of the paper are expected to be helpful in cross-cultural language learningand teaching

In order to evaluate a translation, there is a wide variety of approaches,procedures, methods, all of which more or less draw assumption and notion oflinguistic deviation and translation equivalence The latter - equivalence remains themost interesting to me because it is equivalence that in my opinion conveys ordestroys the effects on the two groups of readers, source language reader, and thetarget ones Naturally, there are many theoretical approaches and previous studies onthis cornerstone concept The successful evaluation of the translated equivalents inEnglish by Aileen Palmer is also helpful to the reading, teaching, and translating, andstudying literary works in Vietnam Lastly, a considerable number of studies havebeen conducted on the translation of poems and novels between English andVietnamese, the most famous of which are ―Gone with the Wind‖, ―The Old Manand the Sea‖, and ―The General Retires‖ However, very few studies have madeefforts up to date to understand the rendering of Vietnamese great literarycompositions into English in spite of numerous translated works This, to mypersonal viewpoint, represents a gap in the circle of translation criticism andevaluation and motivates me to invest my effort into this topic.

2 Aims of the study

The conduct of the study firstly aims at providing a theoretical background onseveral concepts related to the topic of the study such as translation, translationstudies, literary translation, and translation equivalence Subsequently, it made aninvestigation into the achievement of equivalence in the translated equivalents byAileen Palmer based on Mona Baker‘s theory Equivalence effect can be found atdifferent aspects, namely quantity, function, and form Seeing that poems in PrisonDiary remain a great source of literary and translating values, this study employedthe form-based approach to equivalence by Mona Baker (1992) to investigate thiscentral issue in translation field, equivalence, at both word and above-word levels,

grammatical, textual and pragmatic levels More specifically, the research aims at

reasoning out:

-identifying and describing types of equivalence in the approach of Mona Baker andclarifying the most prevalent ones;

- examining Mona Baker-proposed strategies for dealing with such non-equivalence employed by the translator;

- clarifying obstacles faced by the translator in rendering the selected poems

3 Scope of the study

Prison Diary, also known as Reflection in Captivity, encompasses some 133 Tang,

Luc Bat and Ngu ngon poems written by President Ho Chi Minh when he was kept

wrongly in jail in China Nam Tran, a famous Sino-Vietnamese translator in VietNam, transforms them into Vietnamese Therefore, the study in nature makes acomparison between Nam Tran‘s translations and Aileen Palmer‘s However, thisstudy will merely select 30 poems translated by Aileen Palmer for discussion,analysis and comparison There have been in reality a few translators of this work,but Aileen Palmer appeared to have translated creditably almost the whole workwhile the others just focus on a modest number of poems from Prison Diary, leading

to my choice of his translation More importantly, the study, in spite of the title, made

an investigation into existent types of Mona Baker‘s form-based non-equivalenceand corresponding strategies employed by the translator

4 Significance of the study

The study is expected to be an effective and useful evaluation of translationequivalence between the two texts It results in several theoretical and practicalvalues, in terms of translation light Firstly, the study will help reader obtain a betterunderstanding of explanation on equivalence suggested by Mona Baker through awide variety of examples from the two groups of sample poems Upon reading andanalyzing the English version of Prison Diary, of course, they are likely to acquiresome of effects used by the translator However, when approaching the whole work

of Prison Diary with some analytical conclusions, the effects will be significantly

greater to their understanding Secondly, practically, the study will help teachers andstudents of translation subjects as a reference channel to their conducting research.This is because the study will provide a detailed and relevant theoretical framework

to the topic as well as a carefully conducted analytical framework for thediscussions of findings Overall, this paper is an attempt to examine the challengesand obstacles that literary translator – Aileen Palmer confronted when translating agreat Vietnamese literary work of President Ho Chi Minh into English, which issupposed to be a different culture from Vietnamese This extensive investigationhelps readers of both languages to appreciate further his noble job in transferringboth literary and cultural values from Vietnamese into English

5 Research methodology

5.1 Research questions and concepts

In order to realize these aforementioned objectives, the study aims to provide

answers to questions as follows:

1 What is the most common group of non-equivalence used in the translation from Mona Baker perspective?

2 What are prevalent strategies applied to deal with such type(s) of

non-equivalence?

3 What are the underlying reasons contributing to the existence of translation nonequivalence faced by Aileen Palmer in transferring the values of Vietnamese version of Prison Diary into English?

Of importance it is to mention concepts pertaining to the study, including the

following terms:

- definition of translation and translation studies

-definition of literary translation in general and poem translation in particular and itstypical features

- translation equivalence in general and equivalence in translation in Mona Baker‘ s perspective

5.2 Research approach (Theoretical framework)

It can be quite confusing, obscure, and hard to analyze the data if the thesis covers

in detail almost, if not all, theories on equivalence in translation Upon the in-depthsurvey and review of pertinent and most well-known theories on this type, theresearcher decided to manipulate the one given by Mona Baker (1992) as theguiding theory for this paper There are a number of reasons for the adoption of thisapproach It is true that so a few linguists and scholarly translators belonging todifferent points of view and perspectives have made efforts on discussing translationequivalence – one cardiac issue in translation field The most noticeable figures toname are Jakobson (1959), Nida and Taber (1982), Koller (1979), and Baker (1992).Jakobson‘s approach analyzes meaning-based equivalence, including denotative,connotative, text normative, pragmatic, and formal equivalence In favor ofmeaning-based equivalence, too, Koller‘s deals with rather quite the same type ofequivalence to that of Jakobson As figures in the functional – linguistic translators,Nida and Baker, viewing the issue quite differently, suggest function-basedequivalence including formal, and dynamic or functional ones It seems to me thatBaker (1992) recommends a possibly most comprehensive approach to the concept

of equivalence in translation: at word, above-word levels, grammatical, textual, andpragmatic equivalence Also, the researcher conceptualizes some solutions for non-equivalence at different levels, which also strongly motivate me to have a carefulstudy on

5.3 Research methods (analytical framework)

5.3.1 Subjects of the study

In this study, the subjects put into investigation are thirty randomly selected pairs of poems in Prison Diary, one coming from Vietnamese version by Nam Tran, and the

other in English, by Aileen Palmer published by Hanoi Foreign Languages Publisher(1967).

5.3.2 Collection of research data

The very first and foremost step in the analytical process is how data are collectedeffectively for the research The data in this research, as a matter of fact, belong to awide range, from word level to above-word level, and grammatical one It is truly thecase that data are collected according to the classifications of equivalence stated assuch aforementioned and given by Mona Baker (1992) The most typical features ineach group of equivalence will be collected, analyzed and described, facilitating thefindings for the study

5.3.3 Data analysis

The forthcoming step after collecting data is the analysis of these tokens The mainmethods to analyze the data are comparative, descriptive, or discursive Firstly, theST-source text and TT-target one in each pair of data in the same group ofequivalence will be compared to define, and then describe the type of equivalence.The process, then, is repeated until all groups of equivalence are investigated; as aresult of which, it can be possible to identify the highest-frequency type ofequivalence used in these sample poems The researcher discusses supposedlyworking strategies applied by the translator and the potential difficulties intranslating the corpus Lastly, it comes to the investigation of obstacles encountered

by the translator

6 Design of the study

The thesis is made up of the followings:

Part A: Introduction: this briefly describes the rationale and scope of the study as

well as basic information on the analytical, procedural and theoretical frameworksfor the study, which was deeply clarified in chapters in Part B

Part B: Development: As suggested by the name itself, this part is the keystone of

this study, by which the author has conceptualized almost pertinent theoreticalconcepts, especially the approach of translation equivalence by Mona Baker anddescribed the findings as the answers to the research questions

Part C: Conclusion: This last writing deals with the summary of the whole thesis,

confirmation of limitations concluded in the paper, and the recommendations forfurther studies

PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

This section is mostly a meta-analysis (or a synthesis) of conceptualized phenomena

in translation field The literature review as a whole will help firstly establish thesignificance of the general field of study, then identify a place where a newcontribution could be made, answering the study‘s focused questions, and also plays

a guiding part in leading readers to the discussions and findings of the paper.Notably, the bulk of the chapter was on a critical evaluation of the differentmethodologies used in this field to identify the appropriate approach forinvestigating the research question(s)

1.1 Translation theory

1.1.1 Definition of translation

One of impressive and interesting definitions on translation is given by Landers(2001, p.6), who shares that the translation activities ―give them access to a worldthey would never penetrate in the home country‖ Then it comes to the question ofwhat exactly translation is Admittedly, translation, as a human activity, is ofenormous importance in the modern world and of great interest to both linguists,language teachers and translators and the professionals in other fields JereryMunday (2011) in his introduction to translation theories claimed ―translation ismultilingual and also interdisciplinary, encompassing languages, linguistics,communication studies, philosophy and a range of types of cultural studies.‖Translation, therefore, remains the dynamic and broad topic of discussions for anumber of book writers who regard translation in different lights, as a literary art, or

a computer-progamming problem, or a science The following review brieflyprovides a panorama of changes in the definition of this dynamic concept

At first, translation was defined as an inter-linguistic communication process withcode-switching, so that it was seen merely as an exchange of source language (SL)material by target language (TL) material (Catford 1965; Kade 1968) The Czech

structuralist Roman Jakobson (1959/2000:114) described process-orientedtranslation, which is the changing an original written text – ST in the original verballanguage into a written text in a different one – TT Translation is classified intodifferent groups known as ―interlingual translation‖ or translation proper which isthe change of verbal signs between different languages, ―intralingual translation orrewording which is the change of verbal signs within the same language, andintersemiotic translation which is the change of verbal signs by means of nonverbalsigns Successive translators have conceptualized more about this In words of J.C.Catford- 1965, ―Translation is the replacement of textual material in one language(source language) by equivalent textual material in other language (targetlanguage).‖ The definition of translation, according to Nida (1974), is more inclined

to the equal values, or equivalent between the two texts because ―it consists inreproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the sourcelanguage massage, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style.‖ He alsoclaimed that a best translation ―as the one capable of evoking in the TL reader thesame response as the SL text does to the SL reader‖ (1964) Preferring a translationthat retains the original meaning, L.S Barkhudarov (1975) expressed that

―Translation is the transformation of a speech product in one language into that ofother language keeping the content (or meaning) unchanged.‖

How translation is perceived is not restricted to the above authors, but more writers

in later years Also, translation itself is not solely a matter of linguistic transfer orcode-switching; therefore, the focus has turned to aspects from the situation and SLwriters In other words, it has something to do with pragmatics and communication.Newmark (1980, p.7) believes that ―translation is a craft consisting in the attempt

to replace a written message and/or statement in one language by the same messageand/or statement in another language‖ So, the ―textual material‖ now changes intothe message, which is by far more communicative Wilss (1982) is known to thereader with the belief that ―translation is the procedure which leads from a written

SL text to an optimally equivalent TL text, and which requires the syntactic,

semantic, stylistic and text pragmatic comprehension by the translator of theoriginal text.‖ Clearly, she raised the need for translator to ensure grammatical,meaning and pragmatic features in the translated text Similarly, translation isperceived by Marlone (1988) as the ―expression in another language of what hasbeen expressed in the source language, preserving semantic and stylisticequivalences.‖ In 1989, Tudor, in Duff, suggested a communication-orienteddefinition of translation ―as the process of conveying messages across linguisticand cultural barriers, is an eminently communicative activity‖ He was followed andfavoured by Hatim and Mason (1990) who voiced ―translating is a communicativeprocess which takes place within a social context.‖ Bell (1991) emphasized someoriginal text‘s retained features, ―as far as possible, the content of the message, andthe formal features and the roles of the original text.‖ Another scholar, Richards et al(1992) with quite a straightforward nature, ―changing speech or writing from onelanguage (the Source Language) into another (the Target Language)‖.

Overall, the conceptualization of translation varies largely from author toauthor who follow different approaches It is not just related to inter-linguisticelements, but also to extra-linguistic factors It can be the representation, theexchange, and the reformulation of SL texts‘ features including content, form andstyle into the TL one Indeed, the gulf of discussion on translation seems to be tooendless and various to be included fully in this part For the sake of the thesis, theabove provision of translation is expected to be helpful to reader‘s understanding ofthis thesis

Some of authors also mention translation principles as follows:

According to Nida, a translation should be:

2 Conveying the spirit and manner of the original

3 Having a natural and easy form of expression

4 Producing a similar response

Whereas Savory (1968:54) sets up twelve objectives for a translation:

1 A translation must give words of the original

2 A translation must give the idea of the original

3 A translation should read like an original work

4 A translation should read like a translation

5 A translation should reflect the style of the original

6 A translation should possess the style of the original

7 A translation should read as a contemporary of the original

8 A translation should read as a contemporary of the translation

9 A translation may add to or omit from the original

10 A translation may never add to or omit from the original

11 A translation of verse should be in prose

12 A translation of prose should be in prose

Clearly, it is hard to come to a single best definition of translation Interestingly, asclaimed by Honig (1995:74), a translation is adequate when it functions and it is apurposeful text production The next part discusses the way in which a translationfunctions – that is to say equivalence in translation

1.1.2 Translation equivalence

The key discussion of this current thesis is broadly motivated from and grounded onthis part, which touches upon how a translation is considered of equal values, orequivalent to the original version It figured out the answers to the following

questions: 1/ What is translation equivalence? 2/ Why is translation equivalence

of essential role? 3/ What approaches have been used to investigate translation equivalence?

1.1.2.1 The issue of equivalence in translation

It is widely believed that translation equivalence (TE) is the central, thorny, anddebatable realm in translation theory Cited by Le Hung Tien (2010) from Munday(2011), translation equivalence is the ―central concept of any studies on translation‖

Similarly, as Venuti points out, ―translation equivalence has its roots from thespecial nature of translation‖ (2001) Since late 1950s of the twentieth century,scholars have truly involved, elaborated and contributed different viewpoints of thedefinition, relevance, and applicability of equivalence However, ―the concept oftranslation equivalence is sometimes distorted‖ (Xiang, 1: 2011), and this results inpeople‘s denying its validity and importance Therefore, just like translationdefinition, of importance it is to understand in great detail how TE is featured aswell as how varying it is classified.

Obviously, no two words in any two languages are completely synonymic oridentical in meaning not to mention a great body of peculiarities in phonology,grammar, vocabulary, and ways of denoting experiences Meanwhile, translation,naturally, touches upon two systems of language at the same time; therefore, anytranslation will face ―a certain degree of loss or distortion of meaning‖ of the SLtext That may be the reason why Le Meiyun (1989) claimed that there is a widerange of types of equivalence, from phonetic equivalence, phonologicalequivalence, morphological equivalence, lexical equivalence, to syntacticalequivalence and semantic equivalence

1.1.2.2 The importance of equivalence in translation

The principal task by translators is to ―establish equivalence or the original text in thetarget language‖ (Xiang, 2011) That is the job of translator, and the subject oftranslation studies is also equivalence, as claimed by (Catford 21: 1965): ―A centraltask of translation theory is that of defining the nature and conditions of translationequivalence‖ Le, Hung Tien (2010) in his published article again asserts that the use oftranslation equivalence is often found in theorists‘ definition or process of translation,especially in assessment and appraisal of the quality of a translation It is three aspectsthat the concept of translation equivalence are attached with, emphasized and givenmuch importance Accordingly, no few efforts has been put into investigation of thisconcept during the last century Typically, there are some

famous theorists such as Vinay and Darbelnet, Jakobson, Nida and Taber, Catford,House, and finally Baker whose fruitful ideas on equivalence in translation aredeveloped differently because of different points of views A discussion on theseabove different approaches to equivalence should be given in order to identify onecertain and possibly suitable theoretical background for this thesis.

1.1.2.3 Approaches to translation equivalence

Translation equivalence is approached from different views of points as time goes

on When understood in a simple fashion, equivalence in translation is therelationship between a source text and a target text that allows the TT to beconsidered as a translation of the ST or any relation characterizing translation under

a specified set of circumstances or a relation existing between two texts in twolanguages, rather than between the languages themselves (Dr Tien‘s lecture, 2014).Investigated broadly, there seem to be no fixed answer for this because differentscholars belonging to different linguistic approaches will be committed to his or herown way of definition These theories can be conventionally divided into three maingroups Firstly, many theorists regard translation equivalence optimistically as a

―communicative process‖, with a focus on the transference of the message from the

SC to the TC ( like Catford, Nida, Koller) This first group holds on to apragmatic/semantic or functionally oriented approach to translation Translation task

is definitely possible because of translator‘s success in dealing with interculturalaspects Secondly, there are translation theorists who are in favor of a linguisticapproach to translation, hence remain pessimistic of translation They treattranslation as purely a matter of linguistics Due to unavoidable distinctions betweenthe two languages, it is hard or even impossible to obtain translation equivalence Infact, when a message is transferred from the source language (SL) to targetlanguage (TL), the translator is working with two different cultures concurrently;therefore, ―equivalence is an illusion.‖(like Snell – Hornby, Gentzler) Finally,there are other translation scholars who seem to ―stand in the middle‖ (Kenny,1998), or to be neutral, integrating both linguistic and communicative

aspects (like Baker) They believe that whatever it is, interlingual translation is stillthere in success because translation equivalence can be either fully or partlyestablished, and that will not affect the translation process In other words,culturally- oriented and linguistically-oriented approaches to translation ―are not,necessarily, mutually exclusive‖.( Menfredi, 2007, p204)

And some of the most innovative theorists in this field will be mentionedchronologically in order that it will be easier to keep track of the evolution of thisconcept

Jakobson (1959):

Roman Jakobson's study of equivalence deals with the problem of equivalence inmeaning between SL and TL words He asserted that ―there is no full equivalencebetween code-units.‖, and this results in translator‘s choice to paraphrase themessage from original SL words in some other language (recoding the ST messagefirst and transmitting it into an equivalent message in the TC In the end,

―translation involves two equivalent messages in two different languages.‖ Thisauthor believes that linguistic meaning is made up of: linguistic sign/ signifer andconcept/ signified, and claims that this is basically root of issues of untranslatability

On the basis of his semiotic approach to language and his aphorism 'there is nosignatum without signum' (1959:232), he suggests three kinds of translation:

oIntralingual (within the same language, i.e rewording or paraphrase)

oInterlingual (between two languages)

oIntersemiotic (between sign systems)

Nida (1969):

His simple but straightforward definition of equivalence that equivalence is equal value did evoke the question: how to find the ‗correct‘ equivalence And ‗correct‘

for whom? He believes that the notion of ‗equivalence‘ is not universal – butdependent on nature of target audience.

It is Nida who moved from translation as a subfield of applied linguistics (Catford,Jacobson) to translation studies, a discipline in its own right Nida gives anemphasis on message over form, equivalence, naturalness: Translating must aimprimarily at reproducing the message‘ or ―if all languages differ in form then formmust be altered to preserve content‖ or ―the best translation does not sound like atranslation‖

Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal equivalence—which in the second edition by Nida and Taber (1982) is referred to as formal correspondence—and dynamic equivalence Formal correspondence 'focuses

attention on the message itself, in both form and content' Formal correspondenceconsists of a TL item, which represents the closest equivalent of a SL word orphrase Nida and Taber make it clear that there are not always formal equivalentsbetween language pairs They therefore suggest that these formal equivalents should

be used wherever possible if the translation aims at achieving formal rather thandynamic equivalence The use of formal equivalents might at times have seriousimplications in the TT since the target audience (Fawcett, 1997) will not easilyunderstand the translation

Dynamic equivalence is based upon ―the principle of equivalent effect‖(1964:159) A dynamic equivalent translation is a translation that seeks tocommunicate to its target audience on three levels:

• provide information that people can understand (Informative function),

• in a way that people can feel its relevance (Expressive function)

• and can then respond to it in action (Imperative function)

Accordingly, the translator seeks to translate the meaning of the original in such

a way that the TL wording will trigger the same impact on the TC audience as

the original wording did upon the ST audience They argue that ―Frequently,the form of the original text is changed; but as long as the change follows therules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual consistency inthe transfer, and of transformation in the receptor language, the message ispreserved and the translation is faithful‖ (Nida and Taber, 1982:200) One caneasily see that Nida is in favour of the application of dynamic equivalence as amore effective translation procedure if considering his own translations Also, it

is important to notice that despite using a linguistic approach to translation, Nida

is much more interested in the message of the text or, in other words, in itssemantic quality He therefore strives to make sure that this message remainsclear in the target text

Catford ( 1965):

Catford's approach to translation equivalence clearly differs from that adopted byNida since Catford had a preference over a more linguistic-based approach totranslation based on the linguistic work of Firth and Halliday His main contribution

in the field of translation theory is the introduction of the concepts of types andshifts of translation (structure-shifts, class-shifts, unit shifts, and intra-systemshifts)

According to Catford (1964), translation is an operation performed on language: aprocess of substituting a text in one language for a text in another Clearly, then, anytheory of translation must draw upon a theory of language – a general linguistictheory He coined the two textual and formal equivalence types One of theproblems with formal correspondence is that, despite being a useful tool to employ

in comparative linguistics, it seems that it is not relevant in terms of assessingtranslation equivalence between source text - ST and target text -TT For this reason

we now turn to Catford's other dimension of correspondence, namely textual equivalence which occurs when any TL text or portion of text is 'observed on a

particular occasion to be the equivalent of a given SL text or portion of text

While textual equivalence looks for correspondence at the level of individualutterances, formal correspondence looks for correspondence at the level of linguisticprinciples (phonetics, lexis, syntax etc.) A textual equivalent is ‗any target languagetext or portion of text which is observed on a particular occasion to be equivalent of

a given SL text or portion of text‘ A formal correspondent is ‗any TL category(unit, class, structure) which can be said to occupy as nearly as possible the sameplace in the economy of the TL as the SL given category occupied in the SL‘

House (1977)

House (1977) is in favour of semantic and pragmatic equivalence and famous forthe elaboration of overt and covert translation Her argument is that ST and TTshould match one another in function and it is possible to characterize the function

of a text by determining the situational dimensions of the ST as in ―a translation

text should not only match its source text in function, but employ equivalentsituational-dimensional means to achieve that function.‖

Central to House's discussion is the concept of overt and covert translations In an

overt translation the TT audience is not directly addressed and there is therefore noneed at all to attempt to recreate a 'second original' since an overt translation 'mustovertly be a translation' (ibid.:189) Covert translation, on the other hand denotes theproduction of a text which is functionally equivalent to the ST House also arguesthat in this type of translation the ST 'is not specifically addressed to a target culture(TC) audience' (ibid.:194)

House's theory of equivalence in translation seems to be much more flexible thanCatford's In fact, she gives authentic examples, uses complete texts and, moreimportantly, she relates linguistic features to the context of both source and targettext

Baker (1992): This female theorist remains neutral in the three previously

mentioned groups Her viewpoint of translation equivalence includes both linguistic

and communicative levels She also seems to offer a more detailed list of conditionsupon which the concept of equivalence can be defined She gives a new coinage tovarious kind of equivalence in translation: at –word- level, above-word - level,grammatical, textual, and pragmatic equivalence) These different levels areexplored in relation to the translation process and hence putting together bothlinguistic and communicative approach.

 Grammatical equivalence refers to the sameness between SL text and TLtext with regard to their diverse grammatical categories across languages.She notes that grammatical rules may vary across languages and this maypose some problems in terms of finding a direct correspondence in the TL Infact, different grammatical structures in the SL and TL may cause remarkablechanges in the way the information or message is carried across Thesechanges may induce the translator either to add or to omit information in the

TT because of the lack of particular grammatical devices in the TL itself.Amongst these possibly problematic grammatical devices in translation,Baker focuses on number, tense and aspects, voice, person and gender

 Textual equivalence refers to the equivalence between a SL text and a TLtext in terms of information and cohesion Texture is a very important feature

in translation since it provides useful guidelines for the comprehension andanalysis of the ST which can help the translator in his or her attempt toproduce a cohesive and coherent text for the TC audience in a specificcontext It is up to the translator to decide whether or not to maintain thecohesive ties as well as the coherence of the SL text His or her decision will

be guided by three main factors, that is, the target audience, the purpose ofthe translation and the text type

 Pragmatic equivalence refers to implicatures and strategies of avoidanceduring the translation process Implicature is not about what is explicitly said

but what is implied Therefore, the translator needs to work out impliedmeanings in translation in order to get the ST message across The role of thetranslator is to recreate the author's intention in another culture in such a waythat enables the TC reader to understand it clearly.

Other scholars associated with this concept are Newmark, Koller, Venuti, Wilss, andBarkhudarop No matter how different their ideas are, they appear to belong to thethree groups as aforementioned Group 1 focuses on the linguistic nature ofequivalence; translation is a mechanical process basing on corpus linguistics Group

2 stresses on the communicative process - translation is linked with illustration andexamples Group 3 centers on a neutralized position of the first two Asrecommended and appraised by Vanessa Leonardi (2000, p.7), Baker‘s theory is

―an extremely discussion on the notion of equivalence‖ as she provided ―a moredetailed list of conditions upon which the concept of equivalence can be defined‖.Her theory (1992) believed to stand in the middle of linguistic and communicativeapproaches to translation is adopted to be the guiding background for this paper.However, detailed discussions on her theory is on the following section

1.2.1.4 Different types of equivalence

Translation equivalence has been categorized as follows:

a Quantitative equivalence by Munday 2001 ( one to one, one to many, one-to-part-of-one, and nil equivalence);

b Meaning based equivalence by Koller 1979(denotative, connotative, pragmatic, formal equivalence );

c Function based equivalence by Nida 1964(dynamic and formal equivalence); and

d Form based equivalence by Baker 1992 (Equivalence at word, sentence, grammar or text and pragmatic levels)

e

a Quantitative Equivalence

Munday (2001) is famous with his writing ―Introducing Translation studies‖, inwhich he discusses this type of equivalence Quantitative equivalence encompassesthe followings

- One-to-one equivalence: A single expression in TL is equivalent to a single

expression in SL, for example:

Information technology = Công nghệ thông tin Orange fruit= quả cam

- One-to-many equivalence: More than one TL expressions are equivalent to a

single SL expression, for example:

Nuôi – to breed, to feed, to raise, to keep, to support

Bamboo- tre, nứa, trúc, mai, vầu, phấn

Group health plan - BHSK theo nhóm, Chương trình sức khỏe chung, Tổ hợp BHYT lớn

người tham gia BH - Subscriber / Participant/Enrollee

- One-to-part-of-one equivalence: a TL expression covers part of a concept

designated by a single SL expression

Rồng => dragon

Kỳ lân – kylin/unicorn, but the image of this animal is different in Vietnamese culture from English culture.

- Nil equivalence: No TL expression is equivalent to a single SL expression

Eg: Internet = Mạng internet

Bánh chưng = chung cake

Áo dài = ao dai

Gene = gen

OR : sushi, pizza, nano, whiskey

b Meaning-based equivalence

This was suggested by Koller with 5 types of equivalence:

- Denotative equivalence: Denotative equivalence is one in which the SL words

and TL words refer to the same thing in the real world This is the referentialidentity between SL and TL units This is equivalence of the extra linguistic content

of a text, otherwise called ―content invariance‖

Eg: an orange fruit – quả cam – picture of the orange

- Connotative equivalence: besides denotative value, SL and TL words should

produce the same communicative values in the mind of native speakers of the twolanguages There are different types of connotative equivalence or different aspects

of connotation (connotation of socially determined usage: student language, militarylanguage, geographical relation or origin, medium, stylistic effect, register,evaluation) However, within the scope of the study, these concepts are notdiscussed in more detail

- Text-normative equivalence: The SL and TL words using the same or similar

text types in their respective languages

Examples: - in correspondence : Faithfully yours => Kính thư, Dear An = An thân mến!

- Pragmatic/ Dynamic equivalence: The SL and TL words have the same effect on

the reader OR mainly aiming at the receiver, to whom the translation is directed,also called ―communicative equivalence‖

He => anh/ y/ gã.

It is cold in here => trong này lạnh quá/ làm ơn đóng hộ cửa sổ/ bật điều hòa hộ với.

Chào nhé, đi đầu đấy ?=> Hi, where are you going?/ Hi, how are you?

- Formal equivalence: Possibilities of formal equivalence respect to categories

such as rhyme, verse form, rhythm, special stylistic forms of expression in syntaxand lexis word play, metaphor and so on Formal equivalence is particularly intranslation of poems, songs, etc; also called ―expressive equivalence‖

Eg:

The war’ly race my riches chase

And riches still may fly them, O!

And tho’ at last they catch them fast

Their hearts can never enjoy them.O!”

(Green Grow the Rashes by Robert

Burns)

Others : ―Where do I begin?‖ = ―Câu chuyện tình năm xƣa‖ ( a song)

Formal equivalence attempts to translate the text word-for-word (literally) (e.g.) in

translating Bible, international diplomacy)

E.g: Your Excellencies, Your Majesty, Ladies and Gentlemen vs Kính thưa quý vị đại biểu, Thưa Ngài/ Quốc vương/ Thưa quý vị.

Or Oh my God = Lạy chúa tôi/ ôi chúa ôi.

Whole heartedly yours = Muôn tâu thật lòng,

Yours sincerely/ faithfully = Kính gửi/ trân trọng

Dynamic equivalence/ functional equivalence focuses on the message itself,

emphasizing readability (e.g in translating novels and appliance manuals)

E.g Oh my God = ôi giời ơi, ôi mẹ ơi.

d Form-based equivalence

The details on this theory, on which the thesis is based, was presented in the nextsubsequent part

1.2 Mona Baker’s theory on equivalence

Continuing the above discussion on types of equivalence, this theory belongs to thefourth type – form-based equivalence While equivalence in translations isapproached by different theories as mentioned in the previous part, there is a greatneed to adopt one suitable theory to be the working ground for any discussions andinvestigations Given the importance of such adoptation, this part aimed at building

a theoretical framework and background for the discussions of phenomena foundbetween the two corpora Mona Baker‘s approach to translation equivalence isbelieved to belong to the third approach for the reason that the phenomena areinspected at differently hierarchical levels, both linguistically and communicatively(from word level to above-word level, grammatical level, textual level, andpragmatic level.) For that reason, this part is an in-depth review of Mona Bakertheory on this phenomenon, establishing the theoretical background which is needed

to look at translation equivalence between the two versions of Prison Diary poems.The following parts will provide an insight into her theory before any discussionsand findings, which are in the next chapters, are given

1.2.1 Equivalence at word level

Mona Baker follows a hierarchy of discussion on translation equivalence, the firstlevel of which is equivalence at word level She first mentions different types ofword meaning, differences in choosing certain meanings amongst differentlanguages, and then suitable solutions in the case that there is no word in the TL toexpress the same meaning as the SL word are suggested

Semantically defined, word meaning is constituted from the meanings of itsgrammatical and lexical elements For example, the word ―redoes‖ has its lexicalmeaning of ―doing again‖ and grammatical meaning of ―verb used for thirdsingular subject‖ However, in the scope of this study, the researcher will contentherself with lexical meaning only

According to Baker (1992, 12), lexical meaning of a word ―may be thought of asthe specific value it has in a particular linguistic system and the ―personality‖ itacquires through usage within that system.

Meaning can be classified in different ways, but according to Cruse, there are fourmain types of meaning in words and utterances: propositional meaning, expressivemeaning, presupposed meaning, and evoked meaning

Propositional meaning is defined as the relation between that meaning and what itrefers to or describes in a real or imaginary world; it provides the ground on which ajudgment for an utterance is true or false For example, the propositional meaning of

―book‖ is a set of printed or electronic papers that is informative or expressive andserves the needs of information In this regard, an ―inaccurate‖ translation is oftendue to the problematic propositional meaning

On the contrary, expressive meaning cannot receive either true or false judgment Thereason for this is because it is related to speaker‘s feelings or beliefs rather than to whatwords and utterances refer to (Baker, 1991) An illustration for this is the two words

―tired‖ and ―exhausted‖, with the latter expressing being extremely tired and sweated.Obviously, the two words are similar in its propositional meaning – tiredness, butdifferent in its expressive meaning Interestingly, these two words are both English and

to some extent synonymic to each other, and the naturally coming question is howabout the case between words from different languages The same case does occur,actually For instance, even though sharing the same propositional meaning- beingwell-known, ―famous‖ in English differs from ―fameux‖ in French in that the former

is neutral in English while the latter potentially evaluative and derogatory ( une femmefameuse means ―a woman of ill repute‖ (Baker, 1991, 14) The mention of thismeaning remains noted to any translators

The third group of meaning is presupposed meaning It comes from the restrictions

on a preceding or following word or lexical unit Two subtypes of restrictions are

selectional restrictions and collocational restrictions For example, for selectionalrestrictions, the pre-restriction expected for the word ―studious‖ is a human subjectwhile that for the ―geometrical‖ is inanimate The happening of violation of theserestrictions is in the case of figurative meaning ( metaphor or personalization) Forcollocational restrictions, for the meaning ―trà đặc‖, English people will prefer theword ―dense‖ to precede tea, instead of saying ―heavy tea‖.

The fourth, evoked meaning, derives from dialect and register variation Dialect is avariety of language which has ―currency within a specific community or group ofspeakers‖ For example, geographically, there are British English and American

English, like, temporally, there are verily and really.

Register is a variety of language that is supposed by language users to beappropriate to a specific situation Let‘s see the following example:

In a discourse between a mother and her son, it is unusual for her to state somethinglike ―I wonder if you could…‖; the favored one would be otherwise very different.However, the above sample statement will be accepted in such cases as patient-doctor and speaker-audience discourses

1.2.2 Non-equivalence at word level

This part presents Mona Baker‘s outlining some common types of linguisticallyand/or non-linguistically-rooted non-equivalence with which translators sometimesfind hard to deal as well as solutions suggested for them in some contexts only

1.2.2.1 Semantic fields and lexical sets

An example of semantic field can be the field of plants or vehicles Most, if not all,languages share a large number of semantic fields: measurement, emotion,academic subjects The actual words and expressions within each field are calledlexical sets which are in turn divided into smaller sub-divisions For example, thefield of ―Sentence‖ in English has a subdivision of clause, divided in to differentcategories depending on criteria: it can be independent and dependent clauses (by

function) or finite and nonfinite clauses ( by structure) A possible conclusion fromthe discussion of semantic field and lexical sets is that the more detailed thesemantic field is, the larger the number of lexical sets is; also, the more different itwill be to relate a deeper lexical set from one language to another In other words,different languages will make more distinctions in meaning as long as they havegreater differences in semantic field and lexical sets For example, it is quite an easytask for a Vietnamese- English translator to find an equivalent for the word ―nhà‖

in English (house) because these two words seem to be so common However, thetask would be otherwise more challenging when s/he try to find English equivalentsfor, to name just a few, such words as : ―kèo, xà, cột, hoành, móng‖ or ―nhà sàn,nhà biệt thự, nhà ống, nhà cấp 4.‖

Although the idea of semantic fields, according to Baker (1992, p 19), works well

in case of words and expressions with ―a well-defined propositional meaning‖ andnot in other cases, it is still understandable that an understanding of the nature andorganization of semantic fields in both languages are of importance in translation.Baker claims that limitations aside, two main areas benefit from this understandingare: appreciating the ―value‖ of a word, viz, the significance of the writer/speaker‘schoice of word, and developing strategies for non-equivalence problems A goodexample for the first benefit mentioned here is translating the sentence ―Her beauty

is her only fortune‖ as ―Con ấy chỉ đƣợc mỗi cái xinh‖ Given a context that showsironic attitudes to the other person, the translators should be able to identify thevalue of the hyperbolic phrase ―only fortune‖

From the above discussion, one may realize that semantic fields are ―arrangedhierarchically‖, going from the more general to the more specific which if semanticallydefined, they are superordinate and hyponym, respectively Interestingly, in the face ofsemantic gaps in the target language, it is possible for translators to turn this feature totheir advantage by ―modifying a superordinate word‖ For example, they may translatethe sentence ―ngôi nhà cấp bốn đã phủ xanh

rêu‖ communicatively as ―the house is green‖ if their prior knowledge of the word

―moss‖ is not readily availabe

Importantly, it is believed that semantic fields are not fixed, with the addition anddeletion of new words and expression However, for the current purpose of thestudy, it will not provide extensive discussion of semantic fields

1.2.2.2 Non-equivalence at word level and corresponding strategies

Non-equivalence at Word Level

4 TL lacks a superordinate term

5 SL word is semantically complex

6 Differences in expressive meaning

Table 1: Baker‘s taxonomy of non-equivalence at word level (1992)

a Common problems of non-equivalence

a.1 Culture-specific concepts

This non-equivalence happens when the SL concepts, abstract and concrete alike,are totally unknown in the TL culture which extends to a wide range, from religiousbelief, social and political norms to clothing and wearings, marriage, housing, types

of food For example, the title ― Bí thƣ Tỉnh ủy‖ in Vietnamese has no equivalent

in English; it is often translated using the method of couplet, that is to say, acombination of descriptive and functional equivalent methods ( e.g Provincial Bithu (the person who …) Similarly, the word ―potluck‖ has no VietnameseEquivalent They are used for English/American parties when guests come to the

party with a type of foods to be shared by everyone The other examples given bythe author Trinh Nhat, cited by Nguyen Ninh Bac, M.A (2008, p32) are the words

―challenge‖ used in court, and‖ hiếu tiết hạnh, nói thách‖ In Australian SupremeCourt, the concept ―challenge‖ means ―refusal/ disagreement with the decisionthat this person must take a seat of the jury‖ In Vietnamese legal courts, there are nocases for such voice, and the translator used ―phản đối‖ to be the equivalent, but it

is not really the original meaning Also, the word ―hiếu‖ refers to ―daughter andson‘s duties toward their parents, including respect, love, and care‖ The supposednearest equivalent is ―filial piety‖ The word ―tiết hạnh‖ is about the quality andduties of wives to their husbands, even if the husband is dead‖ – the holding ofvirgin (bodily and spiritual) to their man There is no available word in English withthe same concepts, and the nearest equivalent that can be resorted to is ―chastity‖.The word ―nói thách‖ can be only reworded as ―to put the price up expectingpeople to bargain‖ ( Trinh Nhat)

Pham Thanh Binh (2010, p.27) provides more examples for this type of equivalence in his thesis

non-a.2 The SL concept is not lexicalized in the TL.

In this regard, both SL and TL share the same concept but the TL does not lexicalizethat concept, viz, there is no word to conceptualize that meaning For example,

―ông/ bà thông gia‖ in Vietnamese is used to refer to the persons whose their sons/daughters are married English, however, does not have single noun to lexicalizethis meaning; in order to translate this word, the most often way is to paraphrase itinto ―connected by marriage‖ Otherwise, the example by Trinh Nhat, cited byNguyen Ninh Bac (2008), illustrated this point by the example ―quân tử‖- aConfucius man of great talent and warm-heartedness and nobility; he believes thatthere is no availability of its equivalent in English The question is whether the word

―gentleman‖ as often translated totally transfers the original meanings inVietnamese

a.3 The SL and TL make different distinctions in meaning

E.g.: Bring: carrying things to a place where the speaker is or is to be

Take: conveying things to a place where speaker is not.

Vietnamese does not make this distinction

Solution: translation by adding meaning to equivalence

a.4 SL words are semantically complex

This is a common problem in translation when a single word expresses manymeanings even though it is not morphologically complex In English andVietnamese, this can be understood through cases of polysemous words

a.5 The TL lacks a superordinate

Superordinate or general – hyponym words belong to one category in semantic, like

in the following examples: flower – rose, lily, orchid, tulip, sunflower, etc or hoa –hồng, huệ, lan, tuplip, hướng dương,… However, it is not always the case that one

can easily find corresponding superordinates and hyponyms between SL and TL,which represent the next problem of non-equivalence This part illustrates theabsence of a superordinate or a hypernym word in the TL although there aresufficient hyponyms for that word in the TL Take a look at the following examples:

Superordinateword

Aunt

=> The SL just has the superordinate word, and no equivalent words for the hyponymic words in Vietnamese, which does not have a general word to cover its specific hyponyms.

( Examples above were given by Trinh Nhat, cited by Nguyen Ninh Bac (2008,p34).)

a.6 The TL lacks a specific term/ hyponym

This problem seems to be the reverse case for the formerly discussed one Forexample, the superordinate ―house‖ in English can have a large number of specificword like ― bungalow, cottage, croft, chalet, lodge, hut, mansion, manor, villa, hall,

…‖ Compared with their Vietnamese counterparts, we also have the umbrella word

―nhà‖ and its hyponyms ― nhà sàn, nhà tranh, nhà tranh vác đất, nhà lá, nhà ngói,nhà gạch/ cấp 4, nhà cây, biệt thự, nhà chòi, lều, nhà trệt, …‖ However, whatremains problematic here is it is not simple to match perfectly the two TL and SLwords to be absolute equivalents

More noticeably, in English and Vietnamese, there remains quite many salientexamples by Trinh Nhat, indicating that the TL has the superordinate words, but notthe hyponyms: