Chapter Eighteen
388
fine-grained semantic interpretation than the one originating with
an initiator or, in the case of translation, an original SL author.
Particularised communication can be carried out by resorting to
two types:
(iiia) Depth particularization – in which one or more interactants
provide a description or definition of an item by uncovering deeper
semantic layers of particular meaning components in an original
context (e.g. Eng. or the motor blew? translated into Polish as MoĪe
wystrzeliáy bezpieczniki? lit. ‘perhaps the fuses blew/shot?’).
(iiib) Width particularization – is identified in such contexts in which
the original meaning is compared or contrasted with other senses
(i.e. by using figurative language, or categorization hyper-/hypo-
nymic, synonymic or antonymic relations) and new conceptual
links created to? embrace wider cognitive areas (e.g., Pol. Bo to
chyba motor. lit.‘it may be a motorcycle’ considered a translational
equivalent of Eng. Looks like a hog to me).Aligned and particularised communication is typical of LSP texts,
especially when a novel approach, theory or concept is presented, more
often in written than in spoken texts. In each of these types the approximate
meanings are of two types, so-called more-or-less when epistemological, i.e.,
(a degree of) knowledge acquisition-related vagueness is observed or else
ontological vagueness, i.e., natural, inherent indeterminacy of so-called
almost meanings (Sossinsky 1996, Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk 2016).
This type of communication can appear in any of the interaction types,
literary or non-literary discourse, spoken or written and their variants, as
well as general and specialist, although with reference to specialist
discourse, particularly a specialist-to-specialist type, the incidence of
parallel aligned communication is the highest. However, as will be argued
in the present paper, even in specialist communication unique equivalence
types are rare and give way rather to corresponding clusters of senses.
Parallel aligned domain-sensitive equivalence of terms
Parallel meanings are typically used in a domain-specific communication
type in specialist varieties of language. They mainly involve the use of
terms, i.e. those lexical items and phraseology whose meanings and
application are based on the information “extracted from specialized texts
and the structure of terminological definitions.” (Faber 2012: 99). Parallel
meanings are applied in monolingual specialist contexts, when fully
conventionalised – frequently international – forms, often possessing the