3. Theory of Non-Equivalence
If the target text and the source text have an equivalence aspect in the term of meaning, there must be texts which are not equivalent to the source texts. Baker
1992:21-25 mentions eleven common problems of non-equivalence: a.
Culture-specific concepts It happens if the source language is translated into an idea that target readers feel
unfamiliar with. It usually associates with a social custom, a religious belief, or a type of food 1992:21.
b. The source-language concept is not lexicalized in the target language
A word in the source language is translated into target language, but it is not lexicalized. It means that the target language is not assigned to express it. For
example, the word „standard‟ in English, which means „ordinary‟ or „not extra‟, does not have any equivalent in Ara
bic. It happens so even though „standard‟ expresses an idea that people easily understand 1992:21.
c. The source-language word is semantically complex
It happens if a word in the source language is semantically complex that it does not have an equivalent word to translate in target language. For instance, English
does not have the equivalent of Brazilian word „arruaçāo‟ which means „clearing the ground under coffee trees of rubbish and piling it in the middle of the row in
order to aid in the recovery beans dropped during harvesting‟ 1992:22.
d. The source and target languages make different distinctions in meaning
There are few distinction words in meaning in target language than in source language. Indonesian words „kehujanan‟, that means „going out in the rain and not
knowing that it is raining‟, and „hujan-hujanan‟, which means „going out in the rain and knowing that it is raining‟, does not have equivalent words in English
1992:22. e.
The target language lacks of superordinate This happens if target language has specific words hyponyms, but it does not
have general word superordinate 1992:22. f.
The target language lacks a specific term hyponym Target language lacks of specific words hyponyms, but it has general word
superordinate 1992:23. g.
Differences in physical or interpersonal perspective Physical perspective relates to where things or people are in association to one
another or to a place which are expressed in pairs of words. For example, English physical perspective words „come‟ and „go‟, take‟ and „bring‟ and „arrive‟ and
„depart‟. Interpersonal perspective relates to the connection of a person to others in the discourse. There are six Japanese equivalents for „give‟: „yaru‟, „ageru‟,
„morau‟, „kureru‟, „itadaku‟ and „kudasaru‟. The use of those words depends on who gives to whom 1992:23.
h. Differences in expressive meaning
This happens if a word from target language has the same meaning as the source language, but it has different expressive meaning. The translator usually adds a
modifier or an adverb to make the word sounds more natural and equivalent. The word „batter‟ has a Japanese equivalent „tataku‟ which means „to beat‟ with an
additional equivalent adverb „savagely‟ or „ruthlessly‟ 1992:23.
Kategori