1. science
2. social science
3. linguistics
4. translation

MINISTRY OF HIGHER AND SECONDARY
SPECIAL EDUCATION OF THE REPUBLIC
OF UZBEKISTAN
Karakalpak state University
named after Berdaq
SEYTOVA D.U.
THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF TRANSLATION
(Texts of lectures for magistracy)
Nukus-2007
INTRODUCTION
Translation trains to scorch flexibility for the most appropriate words to convey what is
meant. Translation theory derives from comparative linguistics. It is mainly an aspect of
semantics. All questions of semantics relate to translation theory. Social linguistics which
investigates the social registers of language and the problems of languages in contact also relate
to translation theory.
Semiotics the science of signs, is an essential factor in translation theory. The American
philosopher C.S.Piece (1934) is usually regarded as its founder. He says that a communicative
factor of any sign has a self contained meaning. One word may be understood differently by
different people: for eg. “My lolly”, “ice”.
Translation is a craft consisting of replacing one statement in one language by the
statement or message in another language. The American linguist Nida did much for the
development of translation theory. In his books almost every translation problem is discussed.
He adapts transformational grammar to translation. He proposes eight model kernel sentences as
transnational stages between source and target language structures. He applies componential
analysis, discusses the logical relation of words with each other, the difference between cultural
and linguistic translation practical problems of translation and etc. Federal stresses that
translation theory is an independent linguistic discipline, he believes that all experience (all
words, sentences) is translatable and he rejects the view that language expresses a peculiar
mental word-picture.
The last decade saw considerable headway in the development of the linguistic theory of
the translation.
A number of fundamental contributions to this theory have been recently made both in
our country and abroad.
Theoretical studies in translation have kept abreast with the recent advances in linguistics
which provided some new insights into the mechanism of translation and the factors determining
it.
The theory of translation has benefited from new syntactic and semantic models in
linguistics and from development of such hyphenated disciplines as psycho-and-sociolinguistics. Equally insightful was the contribution to the theory of translation by semiotics, a
general theory of sign systems.
A condensation of the major problems of translation introduces the reader to basic
concepts and defines the terminology.
The subjects discussed include the subject-matter of the theory of translation and the
nature of translating, semantic and pragmatic aspects of translation/ these lectures were written
by I.D.Sgvaytser/,Grammatical problems of translation and grammatical transformations
(L.S.Barkhudarov), Lexical Problems Of translation and lexical translations (A.M.Fiterman),
Stylistics aspects of translation and its socio-regional problems (A.D.Shveitser).
The summary of the lecture is based on the syllables of foreign scholars: prof.A.Neubet,
prof. E.Nida, prof. Roger, T.Bell s view points on theory and practical of translation.
LECTURE-1
TRANSLATION THEORY AS A SCIENCE
Problems for discussions:
1. Subject matter of the theory of translation.
2. The main directions in the history linguistic theory of translation.
3. The nature of translation.
4. Linguistic and extra linguistic aspects of translation.
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE THEORY OF TRANSLATION
The theory of translation is subdivided into general, theory, dealing with the general
characteristics of translation, regardless of its type, and special branches, concerned with a
theoretical description and analyses of the various types of translation, such as the translation of
fiction poetry, technical and scientific literature, official documents, etc.
The general theory of translation has a clearly defined subject matter, the process of
translating in its entirely, including its results with due regard for all the factors affecting it. Each
special branch depends and specifies the general theory for it is the job of the general theory to
reflect what is common to all types and varieties of translation while the special branches are
mainly concerned with the specifics of each genre.
The general theory of translation is an interdisciplinary area, predominantly linguistic,
but also closely allied to philology, sociology, ethnography and etc. It is based on the application
of linguistics theory to a specific type of speech behavior, i.e. translating. It differs from
contrastive linguistics in that the former seem to compare different language systems with a view
to determining their seminaries and distinctive features while the theory of translation has a
subject matter of its own (the process of translation) and uses the data of contrastive linguistics
merely as a point of departure.
THE MAIN DIRECTIONS IN THE HISTORY LINGUISTIC THEORY OF
TRANSLATION
The curliest linguistics theory of translation was developed by Russian scholars
Y.L.Retsker and A.V.Fedorov who pioneered in a linguistic analysis of translation problems.
Their theory came to be known as the theory of regular correspondences.
Translation, they agreed, is inconceivable without a sound linguistic basis, and this
study of linguistic phenomena and the establishment of certain correspondences between the
language of the original and that of the translation. The authors of this theory were mainly
concerned with the typology of relationship between linguistic units equivalents-permanent
correspondences not sensitive to context such as The League of Nations-Лига Наций, and
context-Sensitive variant correspondences, such as Slander-клевета нового поколения/, but
also investigated some of the translation techniques, such as antonymic translation (sec below,
thus mapping out some ways of dealing with translation as a process.
In the 60 th some linguistics /N.U.Rozentsveig in Russia and L.E.Nida in the USA/
proposed a theoretical model of translation based on generative ore transformational grammar.
E.Nida subdivided the process of translation into 3 stages; analysis where an ambiguous surface
structure is transformed into non-ambiguous kernel sentences to facilitated semantic
interpretation / the foundation of school/ somebody founded a school or a school has a
foundation / transfer where equivalent in the target language are found at a kernel or near-kernel
level and restructuring where target- language kernel sentences are transformed into surface
structures.
It is there that in some cases it is necessary to paraphrase the source- language structure
to facilitate it’s translation. Such transformations come in hardly especially when the targetlanguage,/e.g. He stood with his feet planted wide a part; he stood, his feet were planted wide
apart- Он стоял, его ноги были широко расставлены; он стоял, широко расставив ноги.
But transformations in terms of generative are not the only type of paraphrases used in
translation. What is more, in some cases, especially when close parallels exist between the
Source-and target language structure, they are not even necessary.
The structural model of translation is based on analysis in linguistics developed others.
It is based on the assimilation that languages are somewhat different sets of semantic
components/ constituents of meaning/ to describe identical extra-linguistic situations, Russsian
verbs of motion contain the component of move but not always the direction of movement while
their English equivalents are often neutral, the direction of/ Вот он идет-Here he comes/ Here he
goes/.
The structural model provides some interesting nights into the mechanism of
translation, especially when a situation is described in different semantic categories of /
проточный пруд and spring-fed pond/ but does not seem to apply to sentences going beyond a
mere description of a situation.
Different translation models complement each other and should therefore be combined
in analyzing of translation as a process.
THE NATURE OF TRANSLATION
Translation is the expression in target language of what has been said in source
language preserving stylistic and semantic equivalence.
Traditionally under translation is understood:
1. the process, activity of reproduction source language originally in target language.
2. the product of the process of translation.
Translators must have:
A: knowledge of the languages/ at least 2 languages/
b. cultural background: ability to interpret the text.
c. the background of the subject knowledge of techniques, transformations and precious
of quality translation.
The translators decodes messages transmitted in one language and records them in
another.
Translation may be orewed. As a interlingual communicative act in which at least 3
participants are involved: the scnder of source/ the author of the source language message/, the
translator who acts individual capacity of the receptor of the source- language message and as
the sender of the equivalent target-language/message/, and the receptor of the targetlanguage/translation/. If the original was not intended for a foreign-language receptor there is
one more participant: the source-language receptor for whom the message was originally
produced.
Translation as such consists in producing a text /message/ in the target language,
equivalent to the original text /message/ in the source language. Translation as an interlingual
communicative act includes 2 phrases: communication between the sander and the translator and
communication between the translator and the receptor of the newly produced target-language
text. In the first phrase the translator acting as a source-language receptor, analysis the original
message. Extracting the information contained in it.
In the second stage, the translator acts as a target-language sender, producing an
equivalent message in the target-language and re-directing it to the target language receptor.
In producing the target-language text the translator changes its plane of expression
/linguistic form/ while its plane of context /meaning/ should remain unchanged. In fact, an
equivalent /target-language/ message, should match the original in the plane of content. The
message, produced by the translator, should make practically the same response in the targetlanguage preceptor as the original message in the source language receptor. That means, above,
all, that whatever the text says and whatever it implies should be understood in the same way by
both the source-language user for whom it was originally intended and by the target-language
user. It is therefore the translator’s duty to make available to the target language receptor the
maximum amount of information carried by linguistic sighs, including both their denotation
/referential/ meanings /i.e. information about the extra linguistic reality which they denote/ and
their emotive-stylistic connotation.
LINGUISTIC AND EXTRALINGUSTIC ASPECTS OF TRANSLATION
However the information conveyed by linguistic signs alone, i.e. the messages overtly
expressed in the text, would not be sufficient for adequate translation. Some linguists distinguish
between what they call translation, based palely on the meaning expressed by linguistic sighs,
and involving recourse to extra linguistic information. In fact, the two are very closely
intertwined and in most cases effective translation is impossible without an adequate knowledge
of the speech-act situation and the situation described in the text. The phrase “Two on the aisle”/
Два места ближе к проходу/ would hardly make much sense unless it is known that the
conversation takes place at a box-office/ speech act situation/.
The please «Поворотом рычага установить момент поступления воздуха в
цилиндр» was translated “turn the handle until the air comes into the cylinder” because the
translator was familiar with the situation described in the text knowledge of the subject is one of
the prerequisites of an adequate translation.
The translation of technical and amount of technical and scientific knowledge.
QUESTIONS
1. What is translation?
2. What subjects is the translation of theory and practice based on?
3. What is the subject matter of the translation?
4. What are the main directions in the history of translation?
5. What are the main features of the nature of translation?
6. What linguistic and extra linguistic aspects of translation do you know?
Recommended literatures
1. Barkhudarov L.S. Language and translation. M.1975
2. Shvaytser A.D. Translation and linguistics. M.1973.
3. Levitskaya T.R. Fiterman A.M. The problem of translation on the material of the
contemporary English language. M.1974.
4. Nida E. Towards a science of translation. Leiden. 1964.
5. Roger E.Towards a science of translation. Leiden. 1964.
6. Roger N.Bell. Translation and translating. (theory and practice). London, New
York. 1995.
7. Peter Newmark. A textbook of translation. Singapore. 1993.
8. Peter Newmark. Approaches to translation. G.B.1993.
LECTURE 2
TRANSLATION AND ITS PECULIARITIES
Problems for discussions:
1. The basic problems of translation.
2. The choice of the word.
3. The meaning of the word and its use.
4. Emotive meaning of the word.
5. The translation of international words and neologisms.
6. Methodology, investigating translation.
7. Translation with the help of antonyms.
THE BASIC PROBLEMS OF TRANSLATION
The difference between educational and professional translation is as follows:
The aim of professional translation is to acquaint the reader with the original and at
school is one of the methods of more conscious and profound study of the foreign language by
the way of showing up in the English text lexical, grammar and stylistic peculiarities of the
English language.
Before speaking of the basic principles of translating process the concept of the term
“faithfulness of translation” should determined.
The translation is considered to be faithful when the content of the book, its stylistic
peculiarities are rendered by the linguistic means of the native language. It means that very often
we have to use such linguistic categories of the native language, which formally don’t, coincide
with those of the English language but have the same emotional and psychological effect on the
Russian reader.
The process of educational translation presents 4 stages:
1. First of all the text should be thoroughly understood. It means that the student
should be acquitted with the whole book, should have some knowledge of the history of
literature and mode of life of the people from whose language the translation is being done.
2. The student should realize the stylistic functions of lexical and grammar and
phonetic phenomena which are used to express the content of the text.
3. Then the work on the choice of corresponding means of expression in the native
language should be done.
4. The last stage is a work on the Russian text.
THE CHOICE OF THE WORD.
The choice of the word is one of the most difficult problems of translation
which is closely connected with the following problems.
THE LOGICAL MEANING OF THE WORD
Any grammatical phenomena or stylistic peculiarities do not always coincide
with those of the foreign language as well as the meaning of the separate words which
are lexical equivalents. The main meaning of the English word “table” coincides with
that of the Russian “стол” has one additional meaning “питание” “пансион”means while
in English we have the special words to express the idea:
“board”, “room and board”. At same time English “table” has the additional
meaning to “таблица”
table
стол
board
таблица
питание
room and board
пансион
INDEPENDENT AND CONNECTED MEANING OF WORD
The logical meaning of the word may be both independent and connected with
other words. The letter can be understood in the given combination of words.
A color bar- цветной / ярко окрашенный/ барьер was seen in the distance.
There exist a color bar (расовая дискриминация) in the South Africa.
THE MEANING OF THE WORD AND ITS USE
The meaning of the word shouldn’t’ t be mixed with its use. Sometimes even a
monosemantic word can be combined with a lot of words and is rendered in Russian by
different words:
A young man
Молодой человек
A young child
Маленький ребенок
Young in a crime
Неопытный преступник
The night is young
Началась ночь
Department of justice
Министерство юстиции
Ministry of defense
Министерство Обороны
Board of trade
Министерство торговли
Admiralty
Морское министерство
The First Lord of Admiralty
Военно-Морской министр
Chancellor
Министр финансов
War office
Военное Министерство
A bad headache
Сильная головная боль
A bad mistake
Грубая ошибка
A bad weather
Плохая погода
A bad debt
Невозвращенный долг
A bad accident
Тяжелый/несчастный/случай
A bad wound
Тяжелая рана
The word in the sentence may acquire so-called contextual meaning. It may be not
constant, as a rule we can’t find the contextual meaning of the word in the dictionary. But it
always has something in common with the main meaning of the word.
“In the atomic war common and children will be first hostage. “The dictionary gives only
one meaning of the given word-«золотник», but in the given sentence the word acquires a new
meaning, «жертва». It’s a great difficulty to find out the contextual meaning of the word as the
dictionary only gives hints how to search for the necessary word in our native town language.
The majority of the words are known to be polysemantic and the context becomes
especially important while translating polysemantic words as translating in different languages is
quite different.
SYNONYMS
Besides finding the exact meaning of the word the students should be able choose the
necessary word from corresponding number of synonyms in the native language “She was brave
about it”
“Brave” means «храбрый», «смелый», «благородный», «прекрасный» sentence and
other words can be used in translating the given sentence and other words should be given
preference too «отважный», «мужественный».
The English language is very rich in synonyms. Synonymous pairs are very characteristic
of the English language. They are more emblematic.
-The week and humble Jewo. (“The Path of Thunder” page 80)
EMOTIVE MEANING OF THE WORD
A lot words may acquire emotive meaning and the same word in different sentences may
be rendered by different words.
-China is a large country (страна)
-We are ready to die for our country (родина)
While translating one should take into consideration on that in different languages the
words which are lexical equivalents mat arouse quite different associations.
For Russians «зима» means snow and frost, for Englishmen-fog and cold wind.
«Она ходит навой перед ним»-Дело Артомановых.
For Russians «Пава» arouses the idea of something beautiful, stately, majestic, proud/ a
sama-to величава, выступает будто пава-Пушкин/.
For Englishmen “peahen” has nothing in common with these associations. That’s why
it’s quite correct to translate the sentence as follows”
“She poses proudly before him/to pose-позировать/.
While translating one should remember he may use the words not included in the
dictionary because it’s impossible to include in the dictionary all the correct meaning of the word
which it may acquire in the context.
“He was developing grammatical nerves”-У него развивалось грамматическое чутьё.
We can find a lot of meanings of the word “nerves” нервы, сила, мужество,
хладнокровие, дерзость, нахальство» but in our text it is rendered as «чутьё».
The student are to make out that thoughts, reflections should be translated not by separate
words. So it’s quits possible and natural cither to introduce some words and even:
-I lit my candle at the watchman’s/Dickens/-Я зажег свою свечу от фонаря ночного
сторожа.
Sentences or omit them it one can manage without them.
THE TRANSLATION OF INTERNATIONAL WORDS
Those words which have similar form and meaning in different languages are called
international words.
Some of them completely coincide in their meaning /such as football, diplomacy,
artillery/ some of them partially.
They may be different in their stylistic coloring e.g. “businessman”, “cosmopolitan” are
neutral in English while in Russian they have negative meaning. Some of them have entirely
different meaning:
Compositor-наборщик
Conductor-дирижёр, кондуктор
These words are called pseudointernational words:
решительный- dramatic
pathetic-1) трогательный
2) политический
science and technology - наука и техника
TRANSLATION OF NEOLOGISMS
The
English language is very rich in neologisms-the word have been created recently
and perhaps will not live in the language for a long time. It is very seldom that we find
equivalent for the translation of neologisms and for the most part we use descriptive translation
and word-for-word translation/people of good will, top level talks.
A model, like all models, is an attempt at a description rather than an explanation. An
explanation is a theory. A theory may be defined as ‘a statement of a general principle, based
upon reasoned argument and supported by evidence, that is intended to explain a particular fact,
event, or phenomenon’. i.e. while a model answers the question what?, the theory answers the
question why?
Given the ambiguity of the ‘translation’, we can envisage three possible theories
depending on the focus of the investigation; the process or the product. These would be:
1. A theory of translation as process (i.e. a theory of translating). This world require a study
of information processing and, within that, such topics as (a) perception, (b) memory and (c) the
encoding and decoding of messages, and world draw heavily on psychology and on
psycholinguistics.
2. A theory translation as product (i.e. theory of translated texts). This would require a study
of texts not merely by means of the traditional levels of linguistic analysis (syntax and
semantics) but also making use of stylistics and recent advances in text-linguistics and discourse
analysis.
3. A theory of translation as both process and product (i.e. a theory of translating and
translation). This would require the integrated study of both and such a general theory is,
presumably, the long-term goal for translation studies.
For the moment at least, we are after a theory of translating, and given that there is
considerable agreement on the characteristics, which a theory should possess, we can state what
our ideal theory should look like.
Essentially, a theory is judged on the extent to which it is externally and internally
adequate. It must correspond with the data (which is external to itself) and also conform to
particular (internal) design features.
Ideally, a theory must reflect four particular characteristics:
(1) empiricism;
(2) determinism;
it must be testable
it must be able to predict
(3) parsimony;
it must be simple
(4) generality;
it must be comprehensive
Clearly, a theory of translation would be required to conform, as far as possible, to
these criteria and the greater the conformity the more powerful the theory. However, the
relationship between external and internal adequacy resolves itself into the long-running issue of
idealization and abstraction. The more idealized the data, the more abstract and the further from
the ‘fuzziness’ of the ‘real world’ does the theory become.
It may be that, once again, we are now asking too mush of translation theory-at least for
the moment-in contrast with the rather minimal (or, even, impossible) demands which have been
made on it in the past.
From the applied linguistic point of view, translation theory can be criticized for having
limited its activities to the level of technique (the language teaching equivalent of classroom
activities) or, at best, to that of method (in language teaching terms, the equivalent of global
collections of techniques; audio-visual method, direct method, etc). when what is needed is a
principled approach from which the rest would flow.
Equally, in descriptive rather than applied terms, it might perhaps be more feasible to
think of developing an approach rather than a theory, I.e. orientation to the problem of describing
and explaining the translation process which derives from an amalgam of insights from
psychology and linguistics into the nature of the activity of translating. If we adopt this plan of
action, we can draw upon considerable-expertise in applied linguistics, from which the approach
method, technique series comes, and produce a tentative initial list of what we might expect from
a theory of translation:
(1) statements of the conventions which constrain the activity of translation rather than
definitions of rules which determine it; (2)
(2) models which otter probabilistic post facto explanations of what has been done,
rather than deterministic a prior models which claim to predict what will be done;
(3) models of the dynamics of the process rather than state descriptions of the structure
of the product;
(4) indications of the relationships which exist between translation on one side and
broader notions such as communicative competence, discourse coherence and appropriateness in
the use of the code, rather than the more narrowly defined concerns of “core” linguistics, i.e.
linguistic competence, textual cohesion and grammaticality in the usage of the code on the other.
We are, to summarize, in search of ‘an integrated, interdisciplinary, multimethod, and
multilevel approach’ to the explanation of the phenomenon of translation” and we would locate
the approach within a broadly defined applied linguistics which would embrace, in addition to
the teaching and learning of foreign languages, lexicology and lexicography, speech pathology,
stylistics, language planning.
We firmly believe that such an approach will facilitate the creation of a more relevant
and up-to-date theory of translation which will take its rightful place as a key area in the human
sciences (particularly linguistics-broadly defined-and psychology) and are encouraged by a
striking assertion from a major figure in translation theory:
In short: inside or between languages, human communication equals translation. A
study of translation is a study of language.
How, though, are we to set about creating such an approach? This question brings us to
the lineal part of this section: methodology.
Methodology; in instigating translation
An initial and seemingly significant objection to the notion of describing and
explaining the phenomenon of translation might well be that the whole of the process (with the
obvious exception of the physical aspects of reading and writing takes place in the mind of the
translator and, given that we have, therefore, no direct access to it, we shall be forced back into
precisely the unsatisfactory kind of description of the product which we have been saying that
we wish to avoid.
We would counter this by pointing out that it is perfectly legitimate to build up a model
on the basis of inferences drawn from an objective study of the product. Indeed, such an
approach would constitute no more than a special instance of the classic engineering problem of
the ‘black box’ which contains a mechanism which converts input into output but is otherwise
totally inaccessible. How is it possible, in such a case to specify the nature of the mechanism?
The solution is to ‘work back’ from the output of the mechanism (the product) and make a set of
statements about the necessary characteristics of the system itself (the process), i.e. to make use
of the logical process of induction.
This analogy, however, does not fit the process of translation exactly, since we do have
a degree of access to it through the substantial insights we have into the workings of our minds.
This being the case, it should be possible by introspection (i.e. by adopting a deductive approach
to the problem), to build a model of what we ourselves are doing when we translate.
Ultimately-as the development of psychology has shown- multiple approach, involving
both induction and deduction in a cyclic investigation, is more likely to be revealing than the
strict adherence to cither induction or deduction alone’.
We might illustrate this by taking up another issue which has exercised translation
theorists over a very long period indeed; the problem of the size of the unit of translation. The
question ‘What is the unit of translation? resolves itself all too readily into a search for the
answer to the question ‘What ought the unit of translation to be? The notion unit of translation
sometime
s written ‘UT’-has been defined in these terms:
The cycle of enquiry
Phenomena
perceive and attempt to
understand
By induction
built
observe
Hypothesis
no
systematically
complete
yes
operationalize the
hypothesis
yes
disapproved
test
test
no
Operationalize the
prediction
by induction
create
THEORY
by deduction
propose
Prediction
The smallest segment of an SL [source language] text which can be translated, as a
whole, in isolation from other segments. It normally ranges from the word through the
collocation to the clause. It could be described as ‘as small as is possible and as large as is
necessary’ (this is my view), though some translators would say that it is a misleading concept,
since the only UT is the whole text.
It is difficult to imagine a better example of an issue which cries out for empirical
investigation. If we ask what the unit is that the translator actually processes in the translating,
we discover that there is good psychological and linguistic evidence to suggest that the unit tends
to be clause.
There is also experimental evidence which sup ports the notion of co-occurrence
between cognitive ‘chunk’ bound arise and syntactic boundaries within the clause; boundaries
between major structural units (Subject, Predicator, Complement, etc.) and the forms which
realize them (phrases for the most part). For example:
The United Nations Secretary General reported substantial progress in the peace
negotiations in Geneva today.
would be likely to be segmented during reading into live or six units:
[the United Nations Secretary General]
[reported]
[substantial progress in the peace negotiations]
[in Geneva]
[today]
or
[the United Nations Secretary General]
[reported]
[substantial progress]
[in the peace negotiations]
[in Geneva]
[today]
and not
[the United]
[Nations Secretary]
[General reported substantial]
[progress in the]
[peace negotiations]
[in Geneva today]
nor even
[the United]
[Nations]
[Secretary]
[General re]
[ported sub]
[stantial]
[progress in the]
[peace negoti]
[ations in Ge]
[neva to]
[day]
as it would be in speech with the rhythmic boundaries (of the feet) cutting through
lexical and syntactic units.
We intend to approach translation issues in this way throughout the book, i.e. by
providing text which illustrates the problem and working from that towards descriptive rules
rather than prescribing or proscribing a priori, what should be done.
TRANSLATION WITH THE HELP OF ANTONYMS
The translation with the help of antonyms can’t be escaped in case of different structure
peculiarities of the English, Uzbek and Russian languages.
1.
The combination of negative prefixes with negative particleslitotes /widely used
in English but not typical of the Russian language.
He was not unfriendly to a particular type of prisoner.
“Soames, with his set lips and his squre chin, was not unlike a bulldog”/Galam. The
Man of Property/…
2.
Negative conjunctions “until” and “unless” used with negation:
The United States didn’t enter the war until April 1917- Соединенные Штаты вступили
в войну только в апреле 1917 г.
QUESTIONS
1. Is there any difference in the aim of educational and professional translation?
2. What does the term “faithfulness of translation” mean?
3. What meaning is important in translation, dictionary or contextual. Why?
4. Say a few words about the international and pseudo international words?
5. What is the main problem in translating neologisms?
6. What can you say about the role of antonymous translation?
RECOMMENDED LITERATURE
1. Barkhudarov L.S. Language and translation. M.1975
2. Shvaytser A.D. Translation and linguistics.M. 1973.
3. Levitskaya T.R. Fiterman A.M. the problem of translation on the material of the
contemporary English language.M.1964.
4. Nids E.Towards a science of translation. Lei den. 1964.
5. Roger. N.Bell. Translation and translating. (theory and practice). London, New
York. 1995
6. Salomov G. Tarjima nazariyesiga kirsch. T.1978.
7. Salomov G. Tarlima nazariyasi asoslari. T. 1983.
8. Catford C.A. Linguistic theory of translation. L.N/Y.
9. Adams P. “Language in thinking” Harmondsworth. 1972.
10. Benjamin W. “The translator’s task”. London. 1923
11. Catford J.C. “A linguistic theory of translation” 1965
12. Fedorov A.V. «Введение в теорию перевода». 1958
13. Fedorov A.C. «Основы общей теории перевода» 1968.
LECTURE 3
PRINCIPLES OF TRANSLATION LEVELS OF EQUIVALENCE AND THE
CONCEPT OF ADEQUATE TRANSLATION
Problems for discussions:
1. Principles of translation.
2. Methods and types of translation.
3. The communication process.
PRINCIPLES ES OF TRANSLATION
Although this is a theoretical subject we think that the following guidelines will help
the students to evaluate their own work on translation. Below are some general principles which
are relevant to all translation.
a) Meaning. The translation should reflect accurately the meaning of the original text.
Nothing should be arbitrarily added or removed, though occasionally part of the
meaning can be “transposed”, for example: He has limp with fatigue might become.
Ask yourself:
- is the meaning of the original text clear?
if not what does the uncertainty mean?
- are any words “loaded” that is, are there any underlying implications?/ “correct me if
I’m wrong suggests know I’m right”
- Is the dictionary meaning of a particular word the most suitable one?/ should
субверсия be subversion in English?/
- does anything the translation sound unnatural or forced?
b) Form. The ordering of words and idea in the translation should match the original as
closely as possible/ this is particularly important in translating legal documents, guarantees,
contracts and etc/. But differences in language structure often require changes in the form and
order of words. When the doubt underline in the original text the words on which the maim
stress falls.
c) Register. Languages often differ greatly in their levels of formality in a given
context /say the business letter/. To resolve theses differences, the translator must distinguish
between formal or fixed expressions/ Le vous prie, madme, d’agrier I’expression de mess
sentiments distinguis, or please find enclosed/ and personal expressions in which the written or
speaker sets the tone. Consider also:
– would any expression in the original sound too formal/ informal, cold/ warm,
personal/ impersonal/… if translated literally.
-
What is the intention of the speaker or writer/ to persuade/ dissuade apologize/
criticize?/ Does come through in the translation?
d)
Source language influence. One of the most frequent criticisms of translation is
that “It doesn’t sound natural. This is because the translator’s thoughts and choice of words are
too strongly molded by the original text.
A good way of shaking of the source language /SC/ influence a few sentence aloud,
from memory. This will suggest natural, patterns of thought in the first language/ I.I/. which may
not come to mind when the eye is fixed on the SL text.
e) Style and clarity. The translation should not change the style of the original. But if
the text is stoppily written, for the reader sake correct the defects.
f) Idioms. Idiomatic expressions are notoriously untranslatable. These include similes,
metaphors, vends and sayings /as good as gold/, jargon, slang, colloquialisms/ user friendly, the
Big Apple, Yuppie, etc/, and/ in English/ phrasal verbs. If the expressions cannot be directly
translated, try any of the following:
- retain the original word in inverted commas: “yuppie” replacing the original
expression, with a literal expression in brackets; Indian summer/ dry, hazy weather in
late autumn/
- use a close equivalent talk of the devil-veek na oratima/literally/the wolf at the door.
- use a non- idiomatic or plain prose translation a lot over the top un puck excessive.
The golden rule is: if the idiom does work in the I, I, do not force in into the translation.
/The principles outlined above are adopted from Frederic Fuller, the translator’s handbook.
LEVELS OF FOUIVALENCE AND CONCEPT OF ADEQUATE
TRANSLATION
Levels of equivalence: This problem was briefly discussed in the previous lecture in
connection with the distinction between semantic and programmatic equivalence. In the theory
of translation. For instance: V.G.Gark and I.N.Levin distinguish the following types of
equivalents: formal semantic and situational. Formal equivalence may be illustrated by speech
cases as: The sun disappeared behind a cloud-солнце скрылось за тучей.
Here we find similarity of words and forms in addition to the similarity. The
differences in the plane of expression are in fact, those determined by overall structural
differences between Russian and English. The use of articles in English, the use of perfective
aspect, forms etc, in Russian.
Semantic equivalence exists when the same meanings are expressed in the two
languages in a way.
Examples - Troops were airlifted to the battlefield - войска были переброшены по
воздуху на поле.
The English word “airfield” contains the same meaning as the Russian phrase
перебросить по воздуху. Although different linguistic devices are used in Russian and in
English/a word group and a compound word/the sum of semantic components is the same
situational equivalence is established between that both linguistic devices but, nevertheless,
describe the same extra linguistic situation: to let someone pass-уступит дорогу. It should be
noted that formal equivalence alone is insufficient. In fact the above examples pertain to two
types of semantic equivalence:
1. Semantic equivalence and formal equivalence.
If equivalence is to be “preserved” at a particular level at all costs, will be? What are
the alternatives? The answer, it turns put, hinges on the language itself. Language is a formal
structure-a code-which cause which can combine to signal semantic “sense” and, at the same
time, communication system which uses the forms of the code to refer the word/and create
signals which possess communicative “value”.
The translator has the option, then, of focusing on finding for which “preserve” the
context-free semantic sense of the text at the context-causative communicative value of the text
expense of semantic sense.
Each of these questions defines one or more parameters of variant. What is the message
contained in the text; the content of the signals content of the speech act. Why? orients us
towards the intention of purpose for which the text was issued, the illocutionary forces of which
constitutes the underlying structure of the text, discourse whole gamut from informing through
persuading to flattering… and, it is rare for a text to possess a single function. Multiply functions
are than the exception for adult language so our task as receivers of text, primary function from
those which are secondary. When? it concern of the communication realized in the text and
setting it in its has contemporary or set in the recent or remote past on future.
How? Is ambiguous since it can refer to:
a) manner of delivery; the tenor of the discourse; serious; flippant or b) medium of
communication; the mode of the discourse; the channel c) verbal/ non-verbal, speech/ writingselection to carry the signal. Where? is concerned with the place of communication the physical
speech level realized in the context.
Who? Refers to the participants involved in the communication recover/s/. Both
spoken and written texts will reveal to a greater characteristics of the speaker or writer as an
individual and also, attitude the sender adopts in relation to the receiver/s and to the transmitted,
tabulated above are the following major types of translation formal equivalence+ semantic
componential
equivalence+ pragmasemantic componential and/or referential equivalence+
pramapragmatic equivalence alone.
Pragmatic equivalence which implies a close fit between con and the receptor’s
response is required at all levels of equivalence, appear alone, without formal or semantic
equivalence, as in to-рождения!-Many happy returns of the day!
Semantic equivalence free without formal equivalence.
As to “situational equivalence”, it is in our view another variety of semantic
equivalence that differs from, the first type in that it is based on the same semantic components
may be semantically equivalent /a b/=/c d/, upside down вверх ногами.
We shall therefore speak of two types of semantic equivalence, componential /identity
of semantic components/ and referential/referential equivalence of semantic components/. The
later is preferable to “situational equivalence” for descriptions of the same situation are not
necessary semantically equivalent.
We may thus distinguish the following levels of equivalence:
Formal
equivalence
+
-
Semantic
equivalence
+
+
-
Pragmatic
equivalence
+
+
+
-
Component
equivalence
+
+
+
+
EQUVALENCE SEMANTIC AND STYLISTIC
Let us add to the definitions we have given so far a third which, in is extended form,
takes us directly into problem we must address: the nature of equivalence.
Translation is the replacement of a representation of a text in one language by a
representation of an equivalent text in a second language.
The authors continue and make the problem of equivalence very plain.
Texts in different languages can be equivalent in different degrees/ fully or partially
equivalent/ in respect of different levels, of presentation/ equivalent in respect of context, of
semantics, of grammar, of lexic, etc./and at different ranks /word - for - word, phrase-for-phrase,
sentence-for-sentence.
It is apparent and has been for a very long time indeed, that the ideal of total
equivalence is a chimera. Languages are different from catch other, they are different in form
having distinct codes and rules regulating the construction of grammatical stretches of language
and these forms have different meanings.
To shift from one language from another is, by definition to alter the forms. Further, the
contrasting forms convey meanings which cannot but fail to coincide totally; there is no absolute
synonymy between words in the same language, so why should anyone be surprised to discover
a lack of synonymy between languages?
Something is always lost/or, might one suggest “brained”/ in process and translators
can find themselves being accused of reproducing only part of original and so “betraying” the
authors intentions. Hence the traitorous nature ascribed to the translator by the notorious Italian
proverb: Traduttore traitor.
METHODS AND TYPES OF TRANSLATION
The central problem of translating has always been whether to translate literally or
freely. The argument has been going on science at least the first century B.C.Up to the beginning
of the XIX century, many writes favored some kind of “free” translation: the spirit, not the letter,
the sense not the words, the message rather than the form, the matter not the matter. This was the
often revolutionary slogan of writers who wanted the truth to be read and understood - Tyndale
and Dalet were burned at the stake, Wycliff’s works were banned. Then at the turn of the XIX
century., when the study of cultural anthropology suggested that the linguistic barriers were
insuperable and that language was entirely and that language was entirely the product of culture,
the view that translation was impossible gained some currency and with it that, if attempted at
all, it must be as literal as possible. This view culminated in the statements of the extreme
“literalists” W.Benjamin and V.Nobokov.
The argument was theoretical, the purpose of the translation, the nature of the
readership, the type of text, was not discussed. Too often, writer, translator, and reader were
implicitly identified with each other. Now the context has changed, but the basic problem
remains. Here it is put in the firm of a flattened V diagram:
SL emphases
TL emphases
Word for word translation
Adaptation
Literal translation
free translation
Faithful translation
idiomatic translation
Semantic translation
communicative translation
Word for word translation
This is often demonstrated as interlinear translation with the TL immediately below the
SL words. The word-order is preserved and the words translated singly by their most common
meanings, out of context, Cultural words are translated literally. The main use of word for word
translation is cither to understand the mechanics of the source language or to construct a different
text as a pre-translation process.
Literal translation
The SL grammatical constructions are converted to their nearest TL equivalents but the
lexical words are again translated singly, out of context. As a pre-translation process, this
indicates the problems to be solved.
Faithful translation
A faithful translation attempts to reproduce the precise contextual meaning of the
original within the constraints of the constraints of the TL grammatical structures. It “transfers”
cultural words and preserves the degree of grammatical and lexical “abnormality” (deviation
from SL norms) in the translation. It attempts to be completely faithful to the intentions and the
text-realization of the SL writer.
Semantic translation
Semantic translation differs from “faithful translation” only in as far as it must take
more account of the aesthetic value (that is, the beautiful and natural sound) of the SL, text,
compromising on “meaning” where appropriate so that no assonance, word-play or repetition
jars in the finished version. Further, it may translate less important cultural words by culturally
neutral third or functional terms but not cultural equivalents and it may other small concessions
to the readership. The distinction between “faithful” and “semantic” translation is that, the first is
uncompromising and dogmatic, while the second is more flexible, admits the creative exception
to 100% fidelity and allows for the translator’s inductive empathy with the original.
ADAPTATION
This is the “freest” from of translation. It is used mainly for plays (comedies) and
poetry: the themes, characters, plots are usually preserved, the SL culture converted to the TL
culture and the text rewritten. The deplorable practice of having a play or poem literally
translated and then rewritten by an established dramatist or poet has produced many poor
adaptations, but other adaptations have “rescued” period plays.
Free translation
Free translation rep reduces the matter without the manner or the content without the
form of the original. Usually it is the paraphrase much longer than the original, a so called
“intralingual translation”, other prolix and pretentious and not translation at all.
Idiomatic translation
Idiomatic translation reproduces the “message” of the original bat tends to distort
nuances of meaning by preferring colloquialisms and idioms where these do not exist in the
original. (Authorities as diverse as Seleskovich and Stuart Gilbert tend to this form of lively,
“natural” translation.)
Communicative translation
Communicative translation attempts to render the exact contextual meaning of the
original in such a way that both content and language are readily acceptable and comprehensible
to the readership. Commenting on these methods, first should be said that only semantic and
communicative translation fulfill the two main aims of translation, which are first, accuracy, and
second, economy. In general a semantic translation is written at the author’s linguistic level, a
communicative at the readership’s. Semantic translation is used for “expressive” texts,
communicative for “informative” and “vocative” texts.
Semantic and communicative translation treat the following items similarly: stock and
dead metaphors, normal collocations, technical terms, slang, colloquialism, standard notices,
pacifisms, ordinary closely, it not literally, but where they appear in informative and vocative
texts, they are normalized or lined down. Cultural components tend to be transferred and
explained with culturally neutral terms in informative texts; replaced by cultural equivalents in
vocative texts.
Badly and/or inaccurately written passages must remain so in translation if they are
“expressive” although the translator should comment on any mistakes of factual or moral truth, if
appropriate. Badly or inaccurately written passages should be “corrected” in communicative
translation. It is referred to “expressive” as “sacred” texts: “informative” and “vocative”,
following Jean Delouse, as “anonymous” since the status of their authors is not important.
So much for the derail, but semantic and communicative translation must slap be seen
be seen as wholes. Semantic translation is personal and individual, follies the thought processes
of the author, tends to over-translate, pursues nuances of meaning, yet aims at concision in order
to reproduce pragmatic impact. Communicative translation is social, concentrates on the message
and the main fore of the text, tends to under-translate, to be simple, clear and broil, and is a
always written in a natural style.
A semantic translation is normally inferior to its original, as there is both cognitive and
pragmatic loss, a communicative translation is often better than its original. As a pinch a
semantic translation has to interpret, a communicative translation-to explain- theoretically,
communicative translation allows the translator no more freedom than semantic translation. In
fact, it does, since the translator is serving a putative large and not well defined readership,
whilst in semantic translation, he is following a single well declined authority, i.e. the author of
the SL text.
Equivalent collect
It has sometimes been said the overriding purpose of any translation should he to
achieve “equivalent effect”, i.c. to produce the same effect on the readership of the translation as
was obtained on the readership of the original. As it is seen, “equivalent effect” is the desirable
result. Rather than the imam of any translation, bearing in mind that it is an unlikely result in two
cases:
A) if the purpose of the SL text is to affect and the TL translation is to inform;
B) if there is a pronounced cultural gap between the SL and the TL text.
I low ever, in the communicative translation of vocative texts, equivalent effect is not
only desirable, it is essential; it is the criterion by which the addictiveness and therefore the value
of the translation of notices, instructions, publicity, propaganda, persuasive or critical writing
and perhaps popular fiction, is to be assessed. The readers respond=to keep of the grass, to by the
soap, to join the Party, to assemble the device=could even be quantified as a percentage rate of
the success of the translation.
If informative sexy equivalent effect is desirable only in respect of their insignificant
comitial: it is not possible if SL and TL culture are remote from catch other since normally the
cultural items have to be explained by culturally neutral or genetic terms, the topic content
simplified, SL difficulties clarified.
§3. THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS
The translator, as we have been saying, is by definition a communicator who involved
in written communication. We might, therefore, began by providing a rough, general model of
the process of written communication before moving on the special and particularly problematic
process in which translators are involved.
The model of communication process may contain 9 steps which take us from encoding
the message through its transmission and reception to the decoding of the message by the
reciver. It provides us with a starting point for the exclamation of the process of communication,
abbot limited to the monolingual and, by implicating, to dyadic interaction one sander one
receiver:
CODE
SENDER channel
SIGNAL/MESSAGE/channel
RECEIVER
CONTENT
Monolingual communication. Even with these limitations, however, it contains within
it the Clements and process which need to be explained and raises a large number of questions
which require an answer. If we are to success at all in our attempt to make sense of the
phenomenon of translation. We could describe this process in terms of 9 steps:
1. the sender selects message and code
2. codes message
3. selects channel
4. transmits signal containing message
5. receiver receives signal containing message
6. recognizes code
7. decodes signal
8. retrieves message
9. comprehends message
We ought not, however, to assume that this is a simple, unidirectional and linear
process nor that cash step must be completed before the nest can be stared. Processing is by its
very nature both cycling/the sender/sends more message at the receiver takes over the chider’s
rolc/and cooperative/the send may well begin again at step I while the recover is no future
advanced than step 5 or 6.
The model of translating process is as follows:
1.
Translator receives signal I containing message
2.
Recognizes
3.
Decodes signal 1
4.
Retrieves message
5.
Comprehends message
6.
Translator selects code it
7.
Encodes message by means of code 11
8.
Selects charnel
9.
Transmits signal 11 containing message
We might commit here. There are several crucial points of difference between the
monolingual communication and bilingual communication involving translation/we are stinking
to written communication in both cases/: there are two codes, two signals/or utterances or texts/
and given what we have been saying about the impossibility of 100% equivalence, the scats or
content/i.e. more than one message/.
It follows, then that in our modeling of translating we shall need two kinds of
explanation:
1.
Psycholinguistic explanation which focuses mainly on steps 7- decoding and
encoding-and.
2.
A more text linguistic or sociolinguistic explanation which successes more on the
participants on the nature of the message and on the ways on which the resources of the code are
drawn upon by uses create- carrying signals and the fact sociocultural approach is required to set
the process in context.
Questions-tasks
1. What are general principles which are relevant to all translation? Name them.
2. What are the reasons for using translation in the classroom?
3. Speak about the levels of equivalence.
4. What is semantic equivalence?
5. What is stylistic equivalence?
6. What is formal equivalence?
7. What is situational equivalence?
8. What is a communication process?
Recommended literature
1. Alan Diff. Translation. Oxford University press. 1972
2. Barkgundarov I.S. Language and Translation. M.1975
3. Frederick Fuller. The translation’s handbook. L.N/Y.
4. Cat ford I.C. A Linguistics theory of translation L.N/Y.
5. Peter new mark. Approaches to translation. London
6. Slivaytser A.D. Translation and Linguistics. M.1973
7. Levitskaya T.R. Fiterinan A.M. The problems of translation on the material of the
contemporary English language. M.1974
8. Nida E. Towards a science of translation. Leaden. 1964
LECTURE 4
SEMANTIC AND PRAGMATIC ASPECTSOF TRANSLATION
PLAN
1.
The role of semantic, syntactic and pragmatic relations.
2.
The effect of the pragmatic motivation of the original message.
3.
The effect of the text relation
4.
The effect of the translator’s angle of view
5.
The problem of translatability
6.
The rendering of the words of national/local/coloring
7.
The ways of rendering retaliates
THE ROLE OF SEMANTIC, SYNTACTIC AND PRAGMATIC RELATIONS
Semantics/ the science investigating the general properties of sign system/ distinguish
following types of relations:
1.
semantic (sign to object)
2.
syntactic (sign to sign)
3.
pragmatic (sign to man)
One of the two text /the original and its translation should be semantically equivalent scts
a relationship between the linguistic science and their dentate (referents). The goal of translation
is to produce a text, bearing the same relation to the extra-linguistic situation as the original.
Semantic equivalence of message does not necessary to imply semantic identify of each
linguistic sign. Semantically equivalent utterances include not only those, made up of the
semantically identical signs/ as for instance, He lives in Paris- ол Парижда жасайды, but also
utterances comprising different sets of signs which in the theory totality at up detonates the same
types of relationship to the extra linguistic word and dentate the same exralinguistic situation
(e.g. Wet paint-Абайлы болын. Боялган.) semantic relation effect translation both in the initial
stage of analysis and in producing the target-language text.
As distinct from semantic relations, syntactic relations are important only at the stage of
analysis since relations between linguistic signs are essential for their semantic interpretation
(e.g. Bill hits Lohn hits Bill). But also they may be occasionally preserved in translation, the
translator does not set himself this goal, very often and syntactically non-equivalent utterances
prove to vie semantically equivalent: He was considered invisible Оны женилмейтугын деп
есаплар еди.
Pragmatic relations are superimposed on semantic relations and play an equally
important role in analyzing the original text and in producing an equivalent text in the target
language. Semantically equivalent message do not necessary mean the same thing to the source
and language receptors, and there are not necessary pragmatically equivalent. The phrases “He
made 15 yard and run”- У 15 ярдга сакради semantically equivalent for they denote the same
situation but the American reader, familiar with American football will extract far more
information.
From it-then Uz__- counterpart who would neither understand the ann. of the manures
nor appreciate the football player’s performance. The pragmatic problem involved in translation,
arise from three types of pragmatic relations. The relation of the source language sender to the
original message, the relation of the target- language receptor to the target- language message
and the relation of the translator to both messages.
THE EFFECT OF THE PRAGMATIC NOTIVATION OF THE ORIGINAL
MESSAGE
The first type of relations amount to the sender’s communicative intent or the pragmatic
motivation of the original message. The translator, in other words, should be aware whether the
message is a statement of fact a request, an entreaty or a joke. Very often the speaker’s
communicative intent differs from what of fact in which cask it would be translated as «Мен
билмеймен» but also expression or hesitation «Сизге не десем екен? “What gives?” in
American slang may cither a question «Кандай жаналыклар бар?» or huts a greeting «Салем»?
“Is Mr.Brown there, places” is not a question but a distinguished request «Телефонга жанаб
Враунни шакырып жиберин»
THE EFFECT OF THE RECEPTOR TO THE NEXT RELATION
Prof. A.Newbert/ Text and Translation/ has proposed a classification of texts depending
on their orientation towards different types of receptors: Texts, Intended for “domestic
consumption” /Local advertising. Legislation home news. Etc./, tests interred primarily for the
source-language receptor but having also a universal human appeal/ belle-letters/ and texts
without any specific national addresses/ scientific literature/.
Typically, in written translation the translator deals with the text, not intended for targetlanguage audience and therefore subject to pragmatic adaptations. Allowances are made for
sociocultural; psychological and other differences in their background knowledge.
According to E. Nida/ Linguistics and ethnology in translation problems/Language in
culture and society; Language structure and translation/, “snow”-white is translated into one of
the African languages as a feathers of a “write heron” Pragmatic factors mat effect the scope of
semantic information conveyed in translating. Differences in background knowledge call for the
addition of deletion in some indormation/e.g. “Part of the nuclear station in Cumberland has
been closed down”-Каберленд электростанциясидаги атом электростанциясинын бир
болеги жабылган еди?» “According to Newsweek”- «Ньюсвик журналинын хабар
бериуинше» Some cultural realize may be translated by their functional analogies/ Америка
империализмиын жандарми a watchdog of US imperialism from story about the 7 th US Flect/
THE LELECT OF THE TRANSLATOR’S ANGLE OF VIEW
Another pragmatic factor relevant to translation, is the socio-psychological and
ideological orientation of the translator himself.
Translation is a process determined by quite a number of factors. In addition to
conveying the semantic information, contained in the text, the detonation meanings and emotive-
stylistic connotations, the translator has take into account the author’s communicative intent the
of an audience for which the message is intended socio-philological characteristics and background of knowledge. A process governed by so many variables cannot have a single outcome.
A process governed by so many variable cannot have a single outcome. What is more,
the synonymy and paraphrasing potential of ;language is so high that these may be several ways
of describing the same extra linguistic situation, and even though they be not quite identical, the
differences may be neutralized by the context. It should slag be remembered that the translator’s
decision may very depend on the receptor/ of the translation of regalia, for the specialists and for
the laymen/ and the purpose of translation.
If the old and the modernized version of the Bible: a woman, who had an evil spirit in her
that had kepi her such for 18 years… A woman who for 18 years had been ill from some
psyological cause. Also the poetic translation of Shakespeare by Paternal and the scholarly
translation by prof. Morozov.
THE PROBLEM OF TRANSLATABLITY
Conflicting views have been expressed by linguistic concerning the problem of
translatability ranging from entirely negative stand, typical of national spirit and the nation’s
world view and therefore regarded translation as an impossible task, to an unqualitified positive
attitude, found in many contemporary writings on translation. The very fact that translation
makes interlinguial communication, possible is in argument in favor translatability.
Yet it is over implication to claim that every meaningful element of the text is
translatable.
In the preface to the “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” Mark Twain says, that he had
reproduces in the book “painstakingly and with the …” support of personal familiarity the
shadings of a number of dialects/The Missouri Negro dialects the backwoods-South- Western
dialect, the Pike-country dialect, ect.…/.. Naturally none of these fine distractions can be
reflected in the translation.
Yet by using colloquial and substandard forms the translator can give an adequate
impression of the character’s socio and educational status and will render the most essential
functional characteristics of these dialects features.
THE RENDERING OF WORDS OF NATIONAL/ LOCAL/COLOURING
National or local coloring is one of the main features of national peculiarities in
literature. Here belong the following elements:
1.
The word denoting things peculiar to the social and material life of the Nation/ реалии/-star
chamber-въездная палата; камни; дилижанс; клуб.
2.
Proper rains, geographical denominations, names of streets, big shops, theatres.
3.
The way of greetings, formulas of politeness/ Hello, sir/
4.
Lamar measures liquid measures, day measures/ мера сыпучих тел/
The translation
of realty usually presents some difficulties. It’s necessary to have a
thorough knowledge of the of the nation to avoid ridiculous mistakes. Here are some ways of
translating the words of local coloring: by translator/cab-кеб, sercop/. It helps to preserve foreign
coloring in the translation, but the word translated should be clear to the reader. Otherwise, the
disruptive translation is desirable.
-A tall man entered the room. He wore a tweed coat and pair of hob-nails”
-“Tweed” a kind of Scottish woolen stuff dyed into two colors.
-«Болмеге узын Адам кирип келдию лнын устинде твидан тигилген куртка бар
еди хам шегеленген етик бар еди. But for the Russian and Uzbek readers it is not clear what
the word “tweed” means that’s s__hy it’s batten to translate the sentence as follows:
Болмеге жун куртка кийген адам кирип келди.
But if we have no idea of the context we can’t say if the translation is correct. First of
all we should und out for what reason the author mentioned the fact that the coat was made of
tweed. After the reading the story we learn that the person who entered the room was a detective
distinguished as a pleasant. So the translation should be as follows.
Болмеге апиуайы дийхан курткага кийинген Адам кирип келди.
If the author waned to accentual that it was cold outside we should translated it as
follows.
Болмеге жыллы жун куртка кийген адам кирип келди.
THE WAYS OF RENDERING REALIAES
Proper names, geographical
denominations are rendered as a rule by means of
translation, but we should take into account concerning historical proper names, geographical
denominations, etc.
William the conquer- Вильгельм баскыншы
King Charles-Карл I
/But Charles Darwin-Чарльз Дарвин/
Hamlet-Гамлет
Paris-Париж
England- Англия
The names of political parties and state offices are usually not translated. The names of
newspapers and journals are usually translated, as well as the names of firms and companics.
House of Commons- Общинлар палатасы
Security council-Кауиплик Кенеси
But Scotland yard- Скотленд ярд/Лондонский полициясы баскармасы/
Intelligence service-интелегенция сервис/ Англиянын разведка баскармасы
But modern languages-модерн ленгвижее
New time-хазирги уакыт
We translate the proper names which make some semantic meanings. Dramatic/
театральное/persons of “The Scholl for scandal” by Sheridan.
Sir Peter Teasel/воре/
Sn Oliver Surface
Sir Harry Bumper-соккыларды басатугын ускене
Sir Benjamin Backbite-/to backbite-осек айтыу
Joseph Surface
Charles Surface
Careless
Snake
Crabtree/ crab-жабайы алма
Jody screwball-/ to sneer-еситтирмеу
Mrs. Can dour-/туурылык
Formulas of politeness are rendered by means of translations. But in official documents
and indurations «мырза» and «мырза» are usually used.
As for as linear measures, liquid measures and etc. They are usually rendered by means
of translation, but the tradition is also taken into consideration:
A pound of sterling-фунт стерлинг
Ounce- унция
Mile- миля
Pint- пинта
Some peculiarities of English measures are not reflected in Russian:
Six ,months- ярым жыл
Eighteen month-бир ярым жыл
Fortnight- еки хапте
The peculiarities of the English language are extremely exact
indications of measures, which seem for Russian quite unusual. He could take
nothing for dinner but a partridge with an imperial “cab”.
1.
Жалланба экипаж /We want for example to stress that the hero was rich/
2.
Кеб /we have for an object to preserve national coloring/
3.
Арбакеш/ Russian coloring/
4.
Такен /modern life/
Questions tasks
1.
The role of semantic, stylistic and pragmatic relations in translation.
2.
What is the effects of the pragmatic motivation of the original
message?
3.
Speak about the effect of the receptor to the text relation
4.
What are the main features of rendering of the words of national
coloring?
5.
The problem of translatability?
6.
What is pragmatics?
Recommended literature
1.
Alan Dulf. Translation. Oxford University press. 1972
2.
Barkhudarov L.S. Language and Translation’s. 1975
3.
Frederick Fuller. The translation’s handbook. L.N/Y
4.
Cat ford I.C. F. Linguistic theory of translation L.N/Y
5.
Peter New mark. Approaches to translation. London
6.
Pragmatics and translation. M.1990
7.
Levitskaya T.R. Fisherman A.M. The problems of
translation on the material of the contemporary English language.M.1974
8.
Language Transfer Cross-Linguistic influcuce in language
learning. Cambridge University Press. 1993
9.
Nida E. Towards a science of translation. Leaden. 1964
10.
Nida E. Linguistics and ethnology in translation problems.
Language structure and Translation. Stanford. 1975
11.
Roger N. Bell. Translation and translating. Theory and
practice London, New York. 1995
L.1986
12.
Shvaytser A.D. Translation and Linguistics. M.1973
13.
Salomov G. Tarjima nazariyasiga kirish.T. 1978
14.
Salomov G. Tarjima nazariyasi asoslari.T. 1983
15.
Tommola Q. Translation as a psycho-linguistic Process.
Lecture V
Lexical problems of translation
Problems for discussions:
1.
Complete lexical problems of translation
2.
Partial lexical correspondences
3.
Types of lexical translations
4.
Absence of lexical correspondences
Key
words:
comicality,
perception,
significance,
supplementation,
vidating,
comprehensible, to ensure, politely, synonym, component
Due to the semantic features of language the meaning of words their usage, ability to
combine with other words associations awakened by them, the “place” they hold in the lexical
system of a language do not concur for the most part. All the same “ideas” expressed by words
coincide, in most cases, though the means of expression differ.
As it is impossible to embrace all the cases of semantic differences between two
languages, we shall restrict this course to the most typical feature.
The principal types of lexical correspondences between two languages are as follows:
1. Complete correspondence
2. Partial correspondences
3. The absence of correspondences
1. COMPLETE LEXICAL CORRESPONDENCES
Complete correspondences of lexical units of two languages can rarely be found. As a
rule they belong to the following lexical groups.
1. Proper names and geographical denominations;
2. Scientific and technical terms/ with the exception of terminological polysemy
3. The months and days of the week, numerals
II. PARTIAL LEXICAL CORRESPONDENCES
While transiting the lexical units partial correspondences mostly occur. That happens
when a word in the language of the original conforms to several equivalents in the language it is
translated into. The reasons of these facts are the following.
1.
Most words in a language are polysemantic, and the system of word-
meaning in one language does not concur with the same system in another language completely
/compare the nouns “house” and “table” in English, Uzbek and Russian/. That’s why
the selection of a word in the process of translating is detrained by the context.
2. The specification of synonymous order which pertain the selection of words.
However, it is necessary to allow for the nature of the semantic signs which an order of
synonyms is based on consequently it is advisable to account for the concurring meanings of
members in synonymy order, the difference in lexical and stylistic meanings, and the ability of
individual components of orders of synonyms to combine c.g. dismiss, discharge/ bookish/, sack,
fire/ colloquial/ the cadge of the table- the run of the n__ жумыстан босатыу/-адебий тилде/,
столдын шети/айдын шети.
3. Each word effects the meaning of the object it designates. Not infrequently
languages “select” different and signs to describe the same denotations. The way, cash language
it’s crates sewn “picture of the word”, is mown as” various principles of dividing reality into
parts”. Despite the difference of signs, both languages reflect one and the same phenomenon
adequately and to the same extent, which must be taken into coconut when translating words of
this kinds, as equivalence is not identical to having the same meaning /e.g. compare: not milk
skin on it- каймаклы ыссы сут-горячее молоко с пенкой.
4. The differences of semantic content of the equivalent words in two languages.
These words can be divided into three sub-groups:
a)
words with a differentiated/ undifferentiated/ meaning e.g. in
English: to swim of a human being to sail/ of a ship/. Float/ of an inanimate object/; in
Karakalpak
сузиу/
адамлар
хаккында
сузиу/кеме
хаккында/суй
жузинде
жузип
журиу/предмет хаккында.
b)
Words with a “broad” sense. Verbs of state/ to be/, perception and
brainwork/ to see, to understand/ verbs of action and speech/ to go, to say/, partially
desemantisized/ thing case/.
c)
“adverbial verbs” with a composite structure, which have a
semantic content, expressing action and nature at the same time e.g. The train whistled out of the
station- Поезд дауыс шыгарып станциядан жонеп кетти.
5. Most difficulties are encountered when translating
the so called psendo-
international words i.e. words which are similar in form in both languages, but differ in meaning
or use. The regular correspondence of such words, in spelling and sometimes in articulation/ in
compliance with the regularities of cash language. Coupled with the structure of word-building
in both languages may lead to a false identification/ .e. English moment, in Karakalpak –
ахмийетли момент.
6. Each language has its own typical rules of combinability. The latter is limited by
the system of the language. A language has generally established traditional combinations which
do not coneur with corresponding ones in another language.
Adjectives offer considerable difficulties in the process of translation, that is explained
be the specific ability of English adjectives to combine. It does not always coincide with their
combinability in Karakalpak or Russian languages on account of differences in their semantic
and valence. Frequently one and the same adjective in English combines with a number of
nouns, while in Karakalpak and in Russian different adjectives are used in combinations of this
kind. For this reason it is not cays to translate English adjectives which are more capable of
combining than their Karakalpak and Russian equivalents/A bad headache, a bad
mistake…/катты бас ауырыу, улкен кате.
A specific feature of the combinatory of English nouns is some of them can function as
it a subject of a sentence, indicating one who acts Hough they do not belong to a lexiconsemantic category Nominal Agents This tends to the predicate adverbial mitotic” construction
being replaced by that of the “subject- picdicate”
-The stride closed most of the schools in New-York.
-ис таслау натийжесинде Ньюйорктагы мектеплар жауылып калды.
Of no less sentience is the habitual use of a word. Which is bound ap with the history of
the language and the formation and the development of its lexical system. This gave shapes to
clichés peculiar to cash language, which are used for describing particular situation e.g. in
English “We point”, in Karakalpak. «Абайлы болын, боялган».
TYPES OF LEXICAL TRANSRORMATIONS
In order to attain equivalence, despite the differences in formal and semantic system of
two languages the translator is obliged to do various linguistic translations. Then anis are to
censure that the text imparts all the knowledge inferred in the original text, without violating the
of the language it is translated into the following 6 elementary types are seemed most suitable for
describing all kinds of lexical translations.
1. Lexical substation
2. supplementation
3.
omissions/dropping
1. Lexical substation
1. In substitutions of lexical units words stable word combinations are replaced by
others which are not their equivalents. More often 3 cases are met with:
a)
A concrete definition-replacing a word with a broad sense by one of a
narrower meaning I le is at school-Он учиться в школе; Ол мектепте окыйды. He is in the
army. Ол армияда хызмет етип атыр.
b)
Generalization -replacing a word’s narrow meaning by one with a broad
sense. A Navajo blanket-жун одеяло.
c)
An integral translation: How do you do-Салем.
2. Antonymous translation is a complex lexico- grammatical substitution of a positive
construction for the negative one/ and vice-versa/, which is coupled with a replacement of a
word by its antonym when translated/ Keep off grass-Шоп устинен журмен.
3. Compensation is used when certain clement in the original text cannot be expressed
in terms or the language it is translated into. In cases of this kind the same information is
communicated by other or another place to as to rake up the semantic deficiency.
“He was ___ of his paretic because they said don’t” and “she don’t/ Cylinder/- Ол атааналарынан уялатугын еди, ебеби ол калейди деп ойлайтугын еди (Ран Ковалевтын
аудармасы).
II. Supplementations. A formal inexpressibility of semantic components is the reason
most met with for using supplementation as a way of lexical transformation. A formal
inexpressibility of certain semantic components is specially of English word combinations N+N
and Adj+N
Pay claim- Ис хаккыны кобейтиуге талап. .
Logical computer- Логик операцияларди орынлайтугын есаплау машина. .
III. Omission dropping. In the process of lexical transformation of omission generally
words with a surplus meaning are omitted/ e.g. Components of typically English pair-synonyms,
possessive pronouns and exalt measures/in order to give a more concrete expressions. To raise
one’s cyc-brows-жалт етип карау. Хайран калганнан касын котериу.
ABSENCE OF LEXICAL CORRESPONDENCES
Realize are words denoting objects, phenomena and so on, which are typical of people.
In order to render correctly the designation of objects referred to in the original and image
associated with them it is necessary to know the tenor of life epoch and specific features ot the
country depicted in the original work.
The following groups of words can be regarded as havening no equivalents: I retaliate
of everyday life words denoting objects, phenomena etc, which typical of a people/ cab, fire-
place/; 2. Proper names and geographical denominations; 3. Addresses and greetings; 4. The
titles of journals, magazines and newspapers; 5. Weighs, linear measures and etc.
When dealing with retaliate it is necessary to take special account of the pragmatic
aspect of the translation because “the knowledge gained by experience” of the participants of the
communicative act turns out to be different. As a result, much of which is cagily understood by
an Englishmen is in comprehensible to an Uzbek or Russian readers or experts the opposes
influence upon them. It is particularly important to allow for the pragmatic factor when
translating fiction, foreign political propaganda material and advertisements of articles for
export.
Below are three principle ways of translating words denoting specific retaliate:
1. Translocation /complete or partial/, i.e., the direct use of word denoting retaliate or
its roots in the spelling or in combination with suffixes of the mother tongue/ cab, ьоппы,
сандал, изба/;
1. Creation of new single of complex word for denoting an object on the basis of
elements and morphological relationship in the mother tongue.
2. Use of word denoting something close to realer of another language. It represents
an approximate translation specified by the context, which sometimes on the verge of
description.
QUESTIONS:
1. What are the lexical problems of translation?
2. What is the difference between complete and partial correspondences?
3. What includes the types of translations?
4. What is the absence of lexical correspondences?
5. What is the supplementation in translation?
LITERATURE:
1. Peter New mark. A textbook of translation. Singapore. 1993.
2. Peter New mark. Approaches to translation. G.B.1993
3. Mitered L.Larson “Meaning-based translation” USA. 1984
4. Aznaurova E.S. and others. “Translation: theory and practice” Tashkent. 1989
5. Vocabulary and language teaching. London and New York. 1989
6. Headway. Teacher’s book. Oxford. 1994
7. Alan Daff. Translation. Oxford.1992
LECTURE 6
PHRADEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF TRANSLATION
Problems for discussions
1. Pharmacological problems of translation
2. Absence of conformities
3. Verbatim translation
4. Translating by analogy
5. Descriptive translation
Key words: adequacy, verbatim, coincidence, identical identify, contact homonymy,
distinction, analogy, phrases.
Translating pharmacological unit is not an cays matter as it depend on several factors:
different combinability of words, homonymy, polysemy, synonymy of pharmacological units
and presence of falsely identical units, which makes it necessary to take into account of the
context. Besides, a large number of pharmacological units have a stylistic-expressive component
in meaning, which usually has a specific national facture. The afore-cited determines the
necessary to get acquainted with the main principles of the general theory of phraseology. The
following types of pharmacological units may be observed: presumes and idioms. A unit of
constant context consists of a dependent and a constant indicators may be called a phrase me. An
idiom is a unit of constant context which is characterized by an integral meaning of the whole
and by weakened meanings of the components, and in whish the dependent and the indicating
elements are identical and equal to the whole lexical structure of the phrase.
Any type of pharmacological unit can be presented as a definite micro-system. In the
process of translating of pharmacological units functional adequate linguistic units are selected/
by comparing two specific linguistic principles. These principles reveal elements of likeness and
distinction. Certain parts of these systems may correspond in form content (completely or
partially) or have no adequacy.
The main types of pharmacological conformities are as follows:
1. Complete conformities
2. Partial conformities
3. Absence of conformities
1. COMPLETE CONFORMATIES. Complete coincidence of from and contene in
physiological units is rarely met with.
2. Black frost/phrase me/
-катты сууык
3. To bring oil fire/idiom/
4. – ошегистириу
5. To loves one hind idiom/
-есин жогалтыу
II. PARTIAL CONRORMETIES. Partial conformities of porascological units in two
languages assume. Lexical grammatical and lexico-grammatical differences with identity of
meaning and stymie, i.e. they are figuratively close but differ in lexical composition morphologic
number and syntactic arrangement of the order of words. One may find.
1)
Partial lexical conformities. I lexical parameters/ lexical composition/
a)-To get out of bad on the wrong foot/idiom/
- исини тырысыу
b) –To have one sheat in one’s boots/idiom/
-Кокып кетиу
c) –To lose one’s temper/phrase me/
-шыдап тура алмау
d) –To dance to semebody’s pipe/idiom a/
- Биреудин айтканы менен турыу
2)
Partial conformities by grammatical parameters
3)
Differing as to morphological arrangement/number/
a)
To lish in troubled waters/idiom/
-Бирудин жаман ахуалынан пайцдаланыу
b)
From hcad foot-/idiom/
- бастан аякка дейин
c)
To agree like cats dogs/phrase me/
– бир – биреуине атларга огы болыу
d. To keep one’s head /idiom a/
-озин жойтпау
4. Differing as to syntactical arrangement
a)
Strike while the iron is not
–темирди кызганда сок
b)
Egyptian darkness
-кап-карангы
c)
Armed to teeth
-басынан аягвна шекем
d)
All is not gold that glitters
–жалтыраганнын бари алтын емес
ABSENCE OF CONFORMITIES
Many English pharmacological units have no pharmacological conformities in Uzbek
and Russian. In the instance this concerns pharmacological units based on realize. When
translating units of this king it is advisable to use following types of translation:
A.
VERBATUM TRANSLATION is possible when the way of thinking /
in the phraseologigal unit / does not bear a specific national feature.
1.
_
хар затты озинин аты менен айтыу
2
B.
To call things by their true names /idiom /
The arms race / phrase me /
_
аса куралланыу
3.
Cold war / idiom /
_
салкын урыс
TRANSLATING BY ANALOGY: this way of train slating is resorted to
when the phrase logical unit has a specific national regalia.
1. “Dick” said the dwarf, thrashing his head in at the door- “my pet, my pupil,
the
apple of my eye hey”. Ch Dickens “The Old Curiosity Shop” ch 1/idiom//.
Капыга басын сугып «Дик, азизим, окыушым, козимнин нуры» -, деп тил катты
иргежейли адам.
2. To pull somebody’ s leg /idiom/
- биреуди алдау.
С. DESCRIPTIVE TRANSLATION i. e
translating phrase logical units by a
free combination of words is possible when the phrase logical units has a particular
national feature and has no analogy in the
language it
is to be
translated
into.
1. To enter
the house/phrase me/
- парламентка агза болыу
2. Torsos the flour of the
-
house ./ idiom /
бир партиядан екинши партияга отиу.
QUESTIONS
1.
What are the phrase logical problems of translation?
2.
What are the complete conformities?
3.
What are the partial conformities?
4.
What are the absence conformities?
5.
What is the descriptive translation?
LITERATURE
1.
Peter New mark. A textbooks of translation. Singapore. 1993
2.
Peter New mark. Approaches to translation. G.B.1993
3.
Nildered L. Larson “Meaning-based translation” USA. 1984
4.
Aznaurova E.S. and others. “Translation: theory and practice”
Tashkent.1989
5.
Vocabulary and language teaching. London and New York.1989
6.
Headway. Teacher’s book. Oxford.1994
7.
Alan Daffy. Translation. Oxford.
LECTURE 7
GRAMMATICAL PROBLEMS OF TRANSLATION
Problems for discussions:
1.
Subject-predicate
2.
Complete morphological correspondence
3.
Partial morphological correspondence
4.
Absence of morphological correspondence
5.
Complete syntactic correspondence
6.
Partial syntactic correspondence
7.
Absence of syntactic correspondence
8.
Key words: inflection, correspondence. Frequency, quantity, divergence to maintain,
syntactic collocation, identical, translation.
Every language has a specific system which differs from that of any others. This is all
the more so with respect to English, Uzbek and Russian, whose grammatical systems are
typologically and genetically heterogeneous. English and Russian belong to the Germanic and
Slavonic groups respectively in the Undo-European family of languages. The Uzbek language
patronize to the Turkish group of the Altaic family. Concerning the-morphological type both
English and Russian are inflected, through the former is notable for its analytical character and
the latter for its synthetic character in the main, Uzbek is an agglutinative language:
As to grammar the principle means of expression in languages possessing in analytical
character/English/Is the order of words and use of function words/though all the four basic
grammatical means-grammatical inflections, function words, word order and intonation pattern
are found in any languages/. The other two means are of secondary importance.
The grammatical inflections are principal means used in such languages as Russian and
Uzbek, though the rest of grammatical means are also used but they are of less frequency than
the grammatical inflections.
The comparison of the following examples will help to illustrate the difference between
the language considered;
The hunter killed wolf
Аншы борини олтирди.
In English the order of words is fixed. The model of simple declarative sentences this
language is us follows.
SUBJECT PREDICATE
This means that subject/S/ is placed in the first position ?V/-in the second position. If
the predicate is expressed by a transitive verb when in the third position we find the object/O/that
is
S-Vtr-O
Any violation of the order of the word brings about a change or distortion of the
meaning. The corresponding Russian silence adheres to the patters S-Vtr-O. But it permits the
translation of the word i.g.
Борини аншы олтирди.
These patterns are not equivalent. The first allows translation of words, which leads to
stylistic marking/ characteristic of poetry/. Besides, the ceding “NI” expresses an additional
meaning of definiteness. The second pattern doesn’t tolerate translation of words.
The principal types of grammatical correspondences between two languages are as
follows:
a. complete correspondence
b. partial correspondence
c. the absence of correspondence
COMPLETE MORPHOLOGICAL CORRESPONDENCE
Complete morphological correspondence is observed when in the languages
considered there are identical. Grammatical categories with identical particular
meanings.
In all the three languages there is a grammatical category of number. Both the
general categorical and particular meanings are alike:
NUMBER
SINGULAR PLURAL
Such correspondence may be called complete.
PARTIAL MORPHOLOGICAL CORRESPONDENCE
Partial morphological correspondence is observed when in the languages
examined there are grammatical categories ways identical categorical meanings
but with some difference in the particular meanings.
In the languages considered there is a grammatical category of case in nouns.
Though the categorical meaning is identical in-all there languages the particular
meanings are different both from the point of view of their number and the
meanings they express. English has 2 particular meanings while Uzbek and
Russian have 6. Though latter two languages have the same quantity of
particular cases, their meaning do not coincide.
The difference in the case system or in any other grammatical categories are
usually expressed by other means in languages.
ABSENCE OF MORPHOLOGICAL CORRESPONDENCE
Absence of morphological correspondence is observed when there are
corresponding grammatical categories in the languages examined. As for
instance in Karakalpak there is a grammatical category of possessiveness, which
shows the affixation of things to one of the three grammatical persons, e.g.
Uzbek
Китаб-ым
Китаб-ын
Китаб-ы
This grammatical category is neither found in English nor in Russian. These
languages use pronouns for this purpose.
English
My book
Менин китабым
Your book
Сенин китабын
His/her book
Онын китабы
In English we use certain grammatical means to express a definite and indefinite
meanings, that is articles. But there are no equivalent grammatical means in
Uzbek and Russian, They use lexical or syntactic means to empress those
meanings. See substitution/
COMPLETE SYNTACTIC CORRESPONDENCE
By complete syntactic correspondence is understood the conformity in structure
and sequence of words in word-combinations and sentences.
Complete syntactic correspondence is rarely to be found in the languages
examined here. However, the pattern adj+noun is used in word-combination:
red flags-кизил байроклар, красные знамёна. The same may be said of
sentences in cases when the predicate of the simple sentences is expressed by an
intransitive verb: he laughed-у кулди, он засмеялся.
PARTIAL SYNTACTIC CORRESPONDENCE
By partial syntactic correspondence in word- combinations is understood
the conformity in meaning but discrepancy in the structure of phase.
Partial syntactic correspondence in word-combinations are found in this
following patterns.
1. Attributes formed by the collocation of words.
Owing to the fact that English is poor in grammatical inflections, attributes are
widely formed by means of mere collocation of words in accordance with the
pattern N(1) N(2) which expressed the following type of relations.
Attributive
English
Karakalpak
Russian
Glass tube
Шише трубка
Стеклянная трубочка
N(1) }N(2)
N(1) N(2)
ADI-N
In this example English and Karakalpak translation is unmarked while
Russian is marked
Possessive
English
Uzbek
Russian
House-plan
a) уй планы
План дома
N(1)+N(2)
N(1)+N(2)(n)
N(1)+N(2)(a)
b) уйдин планы
N(1 ин)+N(2) (n)
The Karakalpak and Russian versions are marked, while English is unsnarled.
Besides in Russian the transposition is observed.
As it is seen in the examples cited, languages differ as to the way they express
these relations, though they maintain identical relations between the
components of word-combinations.
1. word-combination whose first component is expressed by a numeral.
One book
Бир китап
Одна книга
Two books
Еки китап
Две книги
Three books
Уш китап
Три книги
Four books
Торт китап
Четыре книги
Five books
Бес китап
Пять книг
The order of words in these combinations is the same in all the three languages, though
the manner of expressing plurality differs in the second components.
Compare:
English
Karakalpak
Russian
Num+N(pl)
Num+N sing
From two to tive
Num+N(sin) rod.p
From five on
Num+N(pl) rod.p
2.
As is seen in English and Russian the second components are grammatically
marked, though the markers do not coincide.
In Karakalpak it is unmarked
3.
Partial syntactic correspondence is also observed in complete polycomponent
prepositive attributes with inner predication as in the following examples:
4.
This is to be or not to be a struggle- Катты гурес алып барыу.
Go-to-hell voice-Турпайы дауыс.
By partial syntactic correspondence in sentence is understood the divergence in the order
of the words, omission or partial substitution of parts of sentences:
It is forbidden to smoke here- бул жерде темеки шегиу кадаган.
With that he blue out his candle-ол шамды оширди. (P.Stivenson).
ABCENCE SYNTACTIC CORRESPONDENCE
By absence of syntactic correspondence we mean lack of certain syntactic construction in
the target languages, which were used in the Source language. In English this concerns
syntactic constructions with non- finite forms of the verb which compose the extended part of a
sentence with an incomplete or secondary predications.
The
semantic
function
of
predicative
construction
can
be
formulated
as
intercommunication and interconditionality of actions or states with different sublets. These
constructions have no formal grammatical connection with the main parts of sentences though
there is always a conformity between them. The degree of attendance of action or condition in
predicative constructions determines the chaise of complex compound or simple in translation.
Compare:
I heard the door open..-Капы ашылганын еститтим.
In the English scntences the predicative construction which functions as an object is
composed of a noun in the common case and an infinitive. In Uzbek this construction
corresponds to the word-combination «капы ашылгганы » which carries
Out the same function, though there is neither structural in morphological conformity: it
is a word combination expressed by a noun and participle.
QUESTIONS:
1.
What are the grammatical problems?
2.
What is the subject-predicate?
3.
What is the morphological correspondence?
4.
What is the syntactic correspondence?
LITERATURE:
1.
Brakhudarov L.S. Language and translation. M.1975
2.
Shvayser A.D. Translation and linguistics.M.1973
3.
Levitskaya T.R. Fisherman A.M. the problem of translation on the material of the
contemporary English language.M.1974
4.
Nida E. Towards a science of translation. Lei den. 1964.
5.
Roger N. Bell. Translation and translating. (theory and practice). London, New
York. 1995
6.
Peter New mark. A textbook of translation. Singapore. 1993
7.
Peter New mark. Approaches to translation. G.B. 1993
KEY WORDS: Frequency- частота
Quantity- жийими
To maintain- себепши болыу
Divergence-хар кыйлы
LECTURE VIII
GRAMMATICAL TRANSLATION
Problems for discussions:
Plan
1.
Translation
2.
Replacement
3.
Grammatical equivalent
4.
Types of grammatical translations
Key words: replacement, transformation, replacement, substitution, experience, mark,
express, demand, torsion, hesitancy.
The translation experience shows that you can’t give a word-for word translation. There
are 4-5 grammatical translation:
1.
Transpositions
2.
Replacements
3.
Additions
4.
Omissions
Translations are connected with functional sentence perspectives. Transposition is a
change in the order of linguistic elements such as words clauses & is connected with
“functional sentence perspectives” which is the division of the messages into two main parts:
1.
The theme
2.
The rhyme
In Russian this division is expressed by the word order, what is already known is theme
which is placed at the beginning of the sentence where as what is new is ten rhyme.
In English where the theme is marked different by it is placed at the beginning & the
theme at the end.
Within a complex sentence a similar tendency is observed.
Replacement are the most common type of grammatical transposing & they effect all
types of linguistic units.
The subdivision of replacement:
1)
the replacement of the word forms struggles
2)
replacement of parks of speech is specially typical as to replacement of
English nouns derived from the verbs & denoting actions.
3)
Subject of the English sentence is often replaced in Russian by
corresponding secondary part such as object, adverbial modifier of time.
TYPES OF GRAMMATICAL TRANSFORMATIONS
In order to attain the fullest information from one language into another one is obliged to
resort numerous interlinguistic lexical and grammatical transformations. Grammatical
transformations are as follows:
1.
substitution;
2.
transposition;
3.
omission;
4.
supplementation
The cited types of elementary transformations as such are rarely used in the process of
translating. Usually they combine with cash other, assuming the nature of “complex”
interlinguistic translations.
1.
SUBSTITUTION
By substitution we understand the substitution of one part of speech by another or one,
form of a word by another. Consequently, there are two kinds of substitution constituting a
grammatical type of translations; substitution of parts of speech and the grammatical form of a
word. Transformation by substitution may be necessitated by several reasons: the absence of
one or an other grammatical form or construction in the target language; lack of coincidence in
the use of corresponding form and construction as well as lexical reasons-different
combinability and use of words, lack of a part of speech with the same meaning.
An example of the substitution of a word-form may be the interpretation of the meaning
of the grammatical category of posteriori of the English verb, which is presented in two
particular meaning: absolute posterity/ the says he will come/ and relative posterity/ he said he
would come/. Uzbek and Russian verbs do not possess word form of kind and communicate
their meaning with use of other grammatical means: Ол келетугыны айтты. Ол келемен
деди.
In Karakalpak the meaning of this category is expressed by a substantives participle
ending in- jack or by the infinitive ending in-(i)sly; in Russian the future tense form of a verb is
used.
There are two types of substitution of parts of speech; obligatory and non-obligatory. The
obligatory substitution is observed when in the target language there are no part of speech
corresponding to that used in the course language e.g. -the English articles and may be used for
emphasis. In cases of the kind it is necessary to substitute them with functionally-adequate
means of expression in Karakalpak and Russian.
E.g. When we were in Majorca, there was a Mrs. Leech there and she was telling us most
wonderful things about you. (A. Christie).
Кандай да бир Малоркада болганымызда, ол жерде миссис Лич болды.
In Karakalpak and Russian an indefinite pronoun is used for translating the indefinite
article.
Non obligatory substitution is a substitution undertaken by the needs or demands of the
context.
The climb had been cashier than he expected.
Кутилмеген халда котерилиу женил болды.
A noun in the English sentence is substituted by infinitives in the Uzbek and Russian
languages.
2.
TRANSPOSITION
“Transposition” (as a type of transformation used in translations) is understood to be the
change of position/order) of linguistic elements in the Target language in comparison with a
Source language.
Transposition (change in the structure of a sentence/ is necessitated by the difference in
the structure of the language (fixed or free order of words etc), in the semantic of a sentence,
and others. There are two types of transpositions; transposition (or substitution) of parts of a
sentence and transposition occasioned by the change of types of syntactic connection in
composite sentence. .
The first component of the English attributive word-combination “active defenders” is an
adverb while the second becomes the predicate when translated into Karakalpak. In Russian
the same word- combination is expressed by an adverbial word combination. The means used
to express the semantic cork of a statement by not be identical.
In English the indefinite article, the construction it is ..that (who) inversions of different
kinds are used for this purpose, while, the order of words is the most frequent.
I heard my mother go out & close the door.
The grammatical structure of language in an important part of its overall system. No less
important in fact then ire’s lexicon & vocabulary. The Clements of the grammatical structure
such as affixes, forms of inflexion & derivation, syntactic pattern, word order etc. The
rendering of such meaning in the process of translation is an important problem relating to the
general problem of translation equivalents which now must we considered at length.
Grammatical forms of different languages only very seldom coincide filly as to the scope
of their meaning & function, As a rule there is only partial equivalence that is the grammatical
meaning expressed by grammatical forms. Though seemingly identical of two different
languages coincide only in part of their meaning & duller in other parts. Thus for instance the
category of number of noun in English, Karakalpak & Russian seems to coincide & induced
does coincide in very many cases of their use.
Ex: table-tables
However. There are many instances were this in not the case in other words where an
English plural from is rendered through a Russian singular form & visa versa. This is
especially common among the so-called singular & plural from whose distribution is often
arbitrary & motivated only historically.
Ex: oats
Peas
onions
suburbs
Also the forms of number in languages often do not coincide when the noun is
accompanied by numeral.
Another good example is the category of thence. English, Karakalpak, Russian
distinguish such forms of predicate verbs as Present & Past, the general grammatical meanings
being.
Ex: He lives in Moscow
He lived in Moscow
However in certain cases the Tense forms of the two verbs English & Russian do not
coincide:
Ex: In English here exists such a grammar rule as sequence of Tenses excorticate verb in
subordinate abject clauses following.
The main clauses a parts form is used must with a few exceptions, also be used in past
form whereas in Russian this is not so & Tersest form is quite common in the same position.
Ex: He said he lived in Moscow.
The difference is even more striking categories whose semantic content & men’s of
expression in Karakalpak and Russian: words, communicating new information are not placed
at the beginning of the sentence:
A big scarce Rolls Royce had just stopped in front of the local post office.
(A. Chris tic)
Жергиликли почта болменин алдында Кызыл ренли Ролс Ройс автомашина
токтады.
In the English sentences the semantic is expressed by the indefinite article while in
Karakalpak and Russian it is assigned to the second and third places accordingly.
When translating English component sentences into Karakalpak and Russian, the
principal and subordinate clauses may be transposed. This is explained by the fact that the
order of words in compound sentence does not always coincide in the languages considered.
Compare:
A remarkable air of relic overspread her countenance as soon as she saw me.
(R.Stevenson).
Мени коргеннен онын жузинде ансатлык сезими пайда болды.
3.
OMISSION
4.
As a type of grammatical transformation-omission is necessitated by grammatical
redundancy of certain forms in two languages.
He raised his hand.
Ол колын котерди.
Addition, as a type of grammatical translation can be met with in cases of formal
inexpressiveness of grammatical or semantic compo cuts in the language of the original text.
Also, there was an awkward hesitancy at times, as he essayed the new words he had
learnt.
Гейде жакында ядлап алган созлерди айтыу ушын ол сойлей алмай калатугын еди.
The meaning of the verbal form is expressed in Russian by the words «только недавно»,
and in Karakalpak by the adverb «жакында гана».
It must be emphasized that the division into lexical and grammatical transformations is,
to a great extent, approximate and conditional. In some cases a transformation can be
interpreted as one pr another type of elementary transformation. In proactive the cited types of
lexical and grammatical transformations are seldom met with in “pure form”. Frequently they
combine to form complex transformations.
Faction varies to still greater extent. Take for instance much category as gender Russian
distinguishes 3 genders.
Masculine, feminine & mistral Whist, are formally expressed in the following ways.
By the inflexion forms of the noun itself.
By means of pronominal substitution.
In English the same 3 panders are also distinguished. However, the only formal way to
express the distinction through pronominal substitution there being no such things as
agreement in gender or dalliance in inflexion endings. In Karakalpak pronominal substitution
doesn’t exits.
The translation task is
1.
to find the correct meaning to this or that form
2.
to find an appropriate form in the Target language for this expression of the same
meaning. On the whole this choice of grammatical equivalent in the Target language
determined by the following factors:
1.
The meaning inherent in the grammatical form itself.
Ex: lives
Lived
2.
The lexical character of the word or word group used in this or that form
Ex: thus the use of the plural from is Russian is impossible with certain nouns while
possible with others.
Ex: workers of all industries
Other philosophies
3.
factors style
Ex: both English & Russian have the passive form of the verb.
Ex: At the station John was net by his brother
1.
frequency of use.
Replacement of parts of speech;
This transformation is especially typical as to replacement of English nouns derived from
the verbs & denoting actions.
Ex: It’s hope that…
Ex: The abandonment by line of glittering he had given her.
English by suffix “er”)
Ex: He is an curly riser
John is a sound sleeper
Fairly often English adjectives may by Russian & Uzbek nouns.
Ex: Australian property
English comparative forms of adjectives such as higher, lower, longer, shorter, better are
frequently replaced by Uzbek nouns derived from adjective stems which in their turn
verbalized. Ex: They demand higher wages & better living conditions.
Then comes the replacement of sentence.
Ex: English subject is replaced by corresponding secondary elements (object, modifiers).
Ex: He was met by his sister
He was given money
The new film is much spoken about
Last week saw the 500 meeting the shop standard & trade union officials.
4.
Replacement of sentence type: The replacement of the simple sentence by a
complex one. Thus while translating from English it often becomes necessary to render English
structure with nonfinite verbal forms by means of subordinate clause.
Ex: I want you to speak English
I heard my mother go out & close the door
The subject matter of theory of translation
The structure of theory of translation
The links of the translation with linguistic & non linguistic disciplines
Lexical problems of translation.
Types of lexical equivalent grammatical translation.
QUESTIONS:
1.
What are the main types of grammatical translations?
2.
What are the two main parts of the division of the messages in translation?
3.
What is translation understood?
4.
What is the difference between omission and addition?
5.
What is the translation task?
LITERATURE:
1.
P. New mark. “A textbook of translation”. Singapore. 1995
2.
New mark. “Approaches to translation”.London.1995
3.
Mildered L.Larson. “Meaning-based translation”. USA.1984
4.
Aznaurova E.S. And others. “Translation: theory and practice”. Tashkent.
1989.
LECTURE IX
TRANSLATION & THE PROBLEMS OF STYLE
Problems for discussions:
1.
The problem of functional style.
2.
The problem of translation of stylistic devices.
3.
Translation and analysis
4.
Pragmatic aspect of translation
5.
Simultaneous translation
Key words: terminological, synonymy, distensile, feature, simultaneous, translation
pragmatic meaning syntactic compression problem, communication, comparison, lexical,
semantically.
Effective translation may be subdivided in 2 major categories:
1.
The problem of functional style
Pertains to the specific features of texts of different jars in the S & T.L.s.
Text belonging the different functional styles such as official documents, scientific
papers, technical manuals, hares intents, fiction are characterized by a number of distinctive
features that vary from language to language. These variations affect the composition of the
text its semantic & syntactic & the choice of linguistic devices for cash type of a text. Official
documents are replace with set phrases for each there are usual standard equivalents in TL.
Ex: High contacting parties
Done in the city of Moscow
Their syntax is usually characterized by complex structure & their lexicons by the highest
degree of formality.
Ex: The assignations of the present agreement shall be responsible for ensuring the
observance their off.
Scientific & technical texts are characterized by the use of special terminology.
Equivalents for weigh should be selected at the appropriate style level.
Ex: in a medical texts pneumonia is translated.
In technical manual it’s euxenite in case of terminological synonymy to use the same
term for a given tem. Special attention should be paid to the so called technical phraseology.
Ex: to turn as for as it will go
To rotate clock wince
Russian & English newspaper texts are characterized by a number of common features &
abandons of neologisms & clichés, a wide stylistic range, preference for contrast structure etc.
Yet these texts dip lay several distinctive features. These features may be illustrated by the
English news item & Russian cocenterpart. The headline of a Russian news item is more
frequently based an noun phrases while an English headline famous verb plays
Ex: Didapper general escapes.
English headline use the present for the Past & Indefinite for the future while.
Ex: In Russian Future may be expressed lexically
Coal milers to strike.
English headlines are full of the so-called “head words” short words covering very wide
semantic area.
Ex: quit-abandon, withdrew, leave, resign
Bid-appeal, try, attempt, initiative
Rap-criticize, condemn, expose
Whose translation usually depends on the contest of the item itself
The knead should ideally answer 6 questions:
1.
who; 2. when; 3. where; 4. what; 5. why; 6 how; of course, not necessary all
of them.
The most typical sequence of elements in a Russian, lead is as following source message.
In English it’s usually message source.
The massage in English is typically presented in this order:
Event+place& time
Ex: The British Prime minister arrived for top level talk in Washington yesterday.
Time+place+event
Another problem involved in the translation of newspaper texts is that newspaper clashes
same of them have close parallels in TL.
Ex: the English trial balloon & Russian clashes tend to become polygenetic which may
affect their translation.
Thus “excommunication gob” may be rendered.
The problem S.D’s centers around the relative functional stylistic resources. In case, their
functional role is different in the S & I.L.s.a different SD. Should be employed in I,I to achieve
a comparable stylistic effects.
Ex: The swilling lied of working class apposition
Translation of pragmatic meaning. Pragmatic meaning is that meaning which denotes to
the states of the speaker.
Situation of communication
Individual characteristics of the speaker.
Different cultures have different vision of the world.
European architecture he sees the line Japanese sees poem.
-Receiving & sounding information happens at the same time he is isolated
psychologically difficult the equipment something happens to start translation-even if the
sentence is not finished you have to start. The first appeared 1945 at the process over.
Two schemes of simultaneous translation. The rarest scheme-direct scheme U.N. system
is used.
The second scheme-(conference in (innerve) is pilot
Translation which are used in simultaneous translation
When the speaker speaks too much you make compression syllable, words sentences.
From this point of view the compression of syllables.
Ex: necessary
What you can compress
It depends if it is theme or theme
Sun tactic compression
a)
more simple syntactical forms over estimating of what UN can
achieve
b)
to use abbreviations
Lexical compression
When you express the same idem with less number of words
Ex: manage economy
To implement to realize to apply
Semantic compression
Missing of repeating composing of the report
Sometimes the speaker speaks very slow, repeats the same phrase, you make expansion
adding something.
Note taking
-treaty
-many
-time
-remember very important
-man
-woman
-problem
-big problem
-building
-small problem
-international
-learn
-fortunately
-unfortunately
-budget
-future
-past
ex: my name is Christi Adams. I’m conference interpreter English. French, Spain…in
Cambridge. I’ll have to go Geneva.
-my name
-CA/CT/INT
-EFS
-Cambridge
Russian & Geneva
Ex” 1-10 (some ideas of the history of translation from English into Karakalpak.
QUESTIONS:
1.
What are the major categories in effective translation?
2.
What is the peculiarity of translation of newspaper texts?
3.
What is the pragmatic in translation?
4.
What is the problem of simultaneous translation?
5.
What is the situation of communication?
LITERATURE:
1.
P. New mark. “A textbook of translation”. Singapore.1995
2.
P. New mark. “Approaches to translation”. London.1995
3.
Mitered L. Larson. “Meaning-based “translation”. USA. 1984
4.
Aznaurova E.S. And others. “Translation: theory and practice”.
Tashkent.1989.