Common problems of non-equivalence

Билет 1

1)The concept of morpheme
In order to isolate elements of meaning in words and deal with them more effectively, some linguists have suggested the term morpheme to describe the minimal formal element of meaning in language, as distinct from word, which may or may not contain several elements of meaning. Thus, an important difference between morphemes and words is that a morpheme cannot contain more than one element of meaning and cannot be further analyzed.

To take an example from English, inconceivable is written as one word but consists of three morphemes: in, meaning ‘not’, conceive meaning ‘think of or imagine’, and able meaning ‘able to be, fit to be’. A suitable paraphrase for inconceivable would then be ‘cannot be conceived / imagined’. Some morphemes have grammatical functions such as marking plurality (cats), gender (tiger / tigress) and tense (is considering / considered, etc.). Others change the class of the word, for instance from verb to adjective (like => likeable), or add a specific element of meaning such as negation to it (unhappy). Some words consist of one morpheme: need, fast. Morphemes do not always have such clearly defined boundaries, however. We can identify two distinct morphemes in girls (girl + s), but we cannot do the same with men, where the two morphemes ‘man’ and ‘plural’ are, as it were, fused together. An orthographic word may therefore contain more than one formal element of meaning, but the boundaries of such elements are not always clearly marked on the surface.

It is important to keep the distinction between words and morphemes clearly in mind because it can be useful in translation, particularly in dealing with neologisms in the source language.

2) Strategies of translating idioms

The way in which an idiom or a fixed expression can be translated into another language depends on many factors. It is not only a question of whether an idiom with a similar meaning is available in the target language. Other factors include, for example, the significance of the specific lexical items, which constitute the idiom, that is whether they are manipulated elsewhere in the source text, whether verbally or visually, as well as the appropriateness or inappropriateness of using idiomatic language in a given register in the target language. The acceptability or non-acceptability of using any of the these strategies will therefore depend on the context in which a given idiom is translated. Questions of style, register and rhetorical effect must also be taken into consideration.

(a) Using an idiom of similar meaning and form

This strategy involves using an idiom in the target language which conveys roughly the same meaning as that of the source-language idiom and, in addition, consists of equivalent lexical items. This kind of match can only occasionally be achieved.

(b) Using an idiom of similar meaning but dissimilar form

It is often possible to find an idiom or fixed expression in the target language which has a meaning similar to that of the source idiom or expression, but which consists of different lexical items. For example, the English expression One good turn deserves another and the French expression (back translation: a handsome action deserves a handsome return) use different lexical items to express more or less the same idea.

(c) Borrowing the source language idiom

Just as the use of loan words is a common strategy in dealing with culture-specificitems, it is not unusual for idioms to be borrowed in their original form in some contexts

(d) Translation by paraphrase

This is by far the most common way of translating idioms when a match cannot be found in the target language or when it seems inappropriate to use idiomatic language in the target text because of differences in stylistic preferences of the source and target languages. You may or may not find the paraphrases accurate;

(e) Translation by omission of a play on idiom

This strategy involves rendering only the literal meaning of an idiom in a context that allows for a concrete reading of an otherwise playful use of language.

(f) Translation by omission of entire idiom

As with single words, an idiom may sometimes be omitted altogether in the target text. This may be because it has no close match in the target language, its meaning cannot be easily paraphrased, or for stylistic reasons.

(g) The strategy of compensation.

Briefly, this means that one may either omit or play down a feature such as idiomaticity at the point where it occurs in the source text and introduce it elsewhere in the target text. This strategy is not restricted to idiomaticity or fixed expressions and may be used to make up for any loss of meaning, emotional force or stylistic effect, which may not be possible to reproduce directly at a given point in the target text. It happens, because sometimes translators are unable to translate specific puns at the points at which they occurred in the text.

Using the typical phraseology of the target language – its natural collocations, its own fixed and semi-fixed expressions, the right level of idiomaticity, and so on – will greatly enhance the readability of your translations. Getting this level right means that you will avoid unintentionally producing a text that feels ‘foreign’. But naturalness and readability are also affected by other linguistic features as well.

Билет 2

1)Difficulties in translating idioms

Once an idiom or fixed expression has been recognized and interpreted correctly, the next step is to decide how to translate it into the target language. The difficulties involved in translating an idiom are totally different from those involved in interpreting it. Here, the question is not whether a given idiom is transparent, opaque or misleading. An opaque expression may be easier to translate than a transparent one. The main difficulties involved in translating idioms and fixed expressions may be summarized as follows:

(a) An idiom or fixed expression may have no equivalent in the target language. The way a language chooses to express, or not express, various meanings cannot be predicted and only occasionally matches the way another language chooses to express the same meanings. One language may express a given meaning by means of a single word, another may express it by means of a transparent fixed expression, a third may express it by means of an idiom and so on. It is therefore unrealistic to expect to find equivalent idioms and expressions in the target language as a matter of course.

Like single words, idioms and fixed expressions may be culture-specific. Formulae such as Merry Christmas and say when (meaning – People say this when pouring a drink as a way of telling youto tell them when there’s enough in your glass), which relate to specific social or religious occasions provide good examples. The expression say when is ‘directly linked to English social behavioural patterns’ and suggests that the translator putting the phrase into Russian, French or German has to contend with the problem of the non-existence of a similar convention in either TL culture. Less problematic, but to some extent also culture-specific, are the sort of fixed formulae that are used in formal correspondence, such as Yours faithfully and Yours sincerely in English. These, for instance, have no equivalents in Arabic formal correspondence.

Idioms and fixed expressions, which contain culture-specific items are not necessarily untranslatable. It is not the specific items an expression contains but rather the meaning it conveys and its association with culture-specific contexts, which can make it untranslatable or difficult to translate. For example, the English expression to carry coals to Newcastle, though culture-specific in the sense that it contains a reference to Newcastle coal and uses it as a measure of abundance, is nevertheless closely paralleled in Russian by в Тулу со своим самоваром. Both expressions convey the same meaning, namely: to supply something to someone who already has plenty of it.

(b) An idiom or fixed expression may have a similar counterpart in the target language, but its context of use may be different; the two expressions may have different connotations, for instance, or they may not be pragmatically transferable. If we compare to skate on thin ice (to act unwisely or court danger voluntarily) with a similar Serbian expression to pull someone onto the thin ice or Russian идти по тонкому льду (рисковать). The Serbian idiom differs from the English one in that it implies forcing someone into a dangerous position. The Russian idiom differs from the English only in manner of moving [skate (кататься) / идти]. Though similar in meaning, the contexts in which the three idioms can be used are obviously different.

(c) An idiom may be used in the source text in both its literal and idiomatic senses at the same time. Unless the target-language idiom corresponds to the source-language idiom both in form and in meaning, the play on idiom cannot be successfully reproduced in the target text.

It is also possible, and with more recent technological developments increasingly common, to produce plays on idiom by drawing on the visual and verbal channels simultaneously.

(d) The very convention of using idioms in written discourse, the contexts in which they can be used, and their frequency of use may be different in the source and target languages. English uses idioms in many types of text, even in serious, international magazines such as New Scientist, and especially frequently in advertisements, promotional material and the tabloid press.

Using idioms in English is thus very much a matter of style. Languages such as Arabic and Chinese, which draw a sharp distinction between written and spoken discourse and where the written mode is associated with a high level of formality, tend, on the whole, to avoid using idioms in written texts. Discussing the difference in rhetorical effect of using idioms in general and of using specific types of idiom in the source and target languages and it’s quite rightly to conclude that ‘translation is an exacting art. Idiom more than any other feature of language demands that the translator be not only accurate but highly sensitive to the rhetorical nuances of the language’.

2) The tension between accuracy and naturalness in translating collocations.

In rendering unmarked source-language collocations into his or her target language, a translator normally aims to produce a collocation which is typical in the target language while preserving the meaning associated with the source collocation. This cannot always be achieved. Translation often involves a tension – a difficult choice between what is typical and what is accurate.

The nearest acceptable collocation in the target language will often involve some change in meaning. This change in meaning may be minimal, or not particularly significant in a given context. On the other hand, it may be significant; for example, a good / bad law in English is typically a just / unjust law in Arabic. The significance of this difference in meaning depends on whether the issue of justice is in focus in a given text or whether the context favours avoiding explicit reference to justice. Simlarly, the nearest acceptable collocation which can replace hard drink in Arabic is alcoholic drink (любой алкогольный напиток). However, hard drink refers only to spirits (крепким алкогольным напиткам) in English, for example whisky, gin and brandy. It does not include other alcoholic drinks such as beer, lager or sherry. The Arabic collocation, however, refers to any alcoholic drink, including beer, lager, sherry, as well as spirits. The meanings of the two collocations therefore do not map completely. Whether the translator opts for the typical Arabic collocation or tries to translate the full meaning of hard drink, possibly by a circumlocution, will depend on whether the distinction between hard and soft alcoholic drinks is significant or relevant in a given context. A certain amount of loss, addition or skewing of meaning is often unavoidable in translation; language systems tend to be too different to produce exact replicas in most cases. The degree of acceptability or non-acceptability of a change in meaning depends on the significance of this change in a given context. Accuracy is no doubt an important aim in translation, but it is also important to bear in mind that the use of common target-language patterns, which are familiar to the target reader plays an important role in keeping the communication channels open. The use of established patterns of collocation also helps to distinguish a smooth translation that does not require readers to labor unproductively over irrelevant linguistic infelicities from a clumsy translation, which might leave readers with the impression that the translator is simply inexperienced or incompetent.

Билет 3

1)Misinterpreting the meaning of a source language collocation

A translator can easily misinterpret a collocation in the source text due to interference from his or her native language. This happens when a source-language collocation appears to be familiar because it corresponds in form to a common collocation in the target language. Many professional translators would normally work from a foreign language into their native language or language of habitual use. For example: “The industrialist had been struck by his appearance as someone with modest means. Mr. Anderson was therefore astonished by his sudden acquisition of a considerable fortune”.

Target text (Arabic, back translation): “The industrialist saw in him a person whose appearance suggests modesty and simplicity”.

The collocation modest means suggests lack of affluence in English. The equivalent of modest in Arabic can suggest a similar meaning in some collocations such as small income. However, both the adjective modest and the noun modesty used in connection with a person usually mean that he or she is unassuming. This interpretation is further reinforced by the addition of simplicity. The translator of the above extract seems to have confused the collocational patterns of English and Arabic, thus misinterpreting the source collocation and communicating the wrong meaning in the target text.

2 ) Translation problems arising from non-equivalence: differences in frequency and purpose of using specific forms; the use of loan words in the source text.

Differences in frequency and purpose of using specific forms

Even when a particular form does have a ready equivalent in the target language, there may be a difference in the frequency with which it is used or the purpose for which it is used. English, for instance, uses the continuous -ing form for binding clauses much more frequently than other languages which have equivalents for it, for example German and the Scandinavian languages. Consequently, rendering every -ing form in an English source text with an equivalent -ing form in a German, Danish, or Swedish target text would result in stilted, unnatural style.

 

The use of loan words in the source text

The use of loan words in the source text poses a special problem in translation. Quite apart from their respective prepositional meaning, loan words such as au fait, chic, and alfresco in English are often used for their prestige value, because they can add an air of sophistication to the text or its subject matter. This is often lost in translation because it is not always possible to find a loan word with the same meaning in the target language. Dilettante is a loan word in English, Russian, and Japanese; but Arabic has no equivalent loan word. This means that only the prepositional meaning of dilettante can be rendered into Arabic; its stylistic effect would almost certainly have to be sacrificed.

Loan words also pose another problem for the unwary translator, namely the problem of false friends. False friends are words or expressions, which have the same form in two or more languages but convey different meanings. They are often associated with historically or culturally related languages such as English, French, and German, but, in fact, false friends also abound among totally unrelated languages such as English, Japanese, and Russian.

Once a word or expression is borrowed into a language, we cannot predict or control its development or the additional meanings it might or might not take on. Some false friends are easy to spot because the difference in their meanings is so great that only a very inexperienced translator is likely to be unaware of it. (accurate – точный, а не аккуратный, satin – атлас, а не сатин, magazine – журнал, а не магазин).

 

Билет №4:

1. Types of word meaning

We can distinguish four main types of meaning in words and utterances (utterances being stretches of written or spoken text): prepositional meaning, expressive meaning, presupposed meaning, evoked meaning.

The prepositional meaning of a word or an utterance arises from the relation between it and what it refers to or describes in a real or imaginary world, as conceived by the speakers of the particular language to which the word or utterance belongs

Expressive meaning cannot be judged as true or false. This is because expressive meaning relates to the speaker’s feelings or attitude rather than to what words and utterances refer to.

Presupposed meaning arises from co-occurrence restrictions, i.e. restrictions on what other words or expressions we expect to see before or after a particular lexical unit.

Evoked meaning arises from dialect and register variation. A dialect is a variety of language which has currency within a specific community or group of speakers. It may be classified on one of the following bases: geographical, temporal, social.

 

Of all the types of lexical meaning explained above, the only one which relates to the truth or falsehood of an utterance and which can consequently be challenged by a reader or hearer is prepositional meaning. All other types of lexical meaning contribute to the overall meaning of an utterance or a text in subtle and complex ways and are often much more difficult to analyze.The very notion of ‘types of meaning’ is theoretically suspect.

2. The collocational range of an item.

 

Every word in a language can be said to have a range of items with which it is compatible, to a greater or lesser degree. Range here refers to the set of collo­cates, that is other words, which are typically associated with the word in question. Some words have a much broader collocational range than others. The English verb shrug, for instance, has a rather limited collocational range. It typically occurs with shoulders and does not have a particularly strong link with any other word in the language. Run, by contrast, has a vast collocational range, some of its typical collocates being company, business, show, car, stockings, tights, nose, wild, debt, bill, river, course, water and color, among others.

Two main factors can influence the collocational range of an item. The first is its level of specificity: the more general a word, the broader its collocational range; the more specific, the more restricted its colloca­tional range.. The verb bury is likely to have a much broader collocational range than any of its hyponyms, such as inter of entomb (погребать, предавать земле). Only people can be interred, but you can bury people, a treasure, your head, face, feelings and memories. The second factor, is the number of senses it has. Most words have several senses and tend to attract a different set of collo­cates for each sense. For example, in its sense of ‘ manage ’, the verb run collocates with words like company, institution and business. In its sense of ‘ operate or provide’, it collocates with words like service and course.

Unlike grammatical statements, statements about collocation are made in terms of what is typical or untypical rather than what is admissible or inadmissible. This means that there is no such thing as an impossible collocation.The reason for this is that collocational ranges are not fixed. Words attract new collocates all the time.

(Дальше там про Patterns of collocations это будет в 11 билете, если что).

 

 

Билет №5:

1. Types of restrictions on presupposed meaning.

Presupposed meaning

Presupposed meaning arises from co-occurrence restrictions, i.e. restrictions on what other words or expressions we expect to see before or after a particular lexical unit. These restrictions are of two types: Selectional restrictions: these are a function of the prepositional meaning of a word. We expect a human subject for the adjective studious and an inanimate (неодушевленный) one for geometrical. Selectional restrictions are deliberately (намеренно) violated in the case of figurative language but are otherwise strictly observed; Collocational restrictions: these are semantically arbitrary (произволные) restric­tions which do not follow logically from the propositional meaning of a word. For instance, laws are broken in English, but in Arabic they are contradicted. In English, teeth are brushed, but in German and Italian they are polished, in Polish they are washed, and in Russian they are cleaned. Because they are arbitrary, collocational restrictions tend to show more variation across languages than do selectional restrictions.

 

2.Translation problems arising from non-equivalence: culture-specific concepts; the source-language concept is not lexicalized in the target language; the source-language word is semantically complex.

 

Билет 8.

1.Prepositional and expressive meaning

 

The prepositional meaning of a word or an utterance arises from the relation between it and what it refers to or describes in a real or imaginary world, as conceived by the speakers of the particular language to which the word or utterance belongs. For instance, the prepositional meaning of ‘shirt’ is ‘ a piece of clothing worn on the upper part of the body ’. It would be inaccurate to use shirt, under normal circumstances, to refer to a piece of clothing worn on the foot, such as ‘ socks ’. When a translation is described as ‘inaccurate’, it is often the prepositional meaning that is being called into question.

Expressive meaning cannot be judged as true or false. This is because expressive meaning relates to the speaker’s feelings or attitude rather than to what words and utterances refer to. The difference between Don’t complain (не жалуйся) and Don’t whinge (не ной) does not lie in their prepositional meanings but in the expressiveness of whinge, which suggests that the speaker finds the action annoying.

The meaning of a word or lexical unit can be both propositional and expressive (whinge), propositional only (book), or expressive only (bloody) and various other swear words and emphasizers. Words which contribute solely to expressive meaning can be removed from an utterance without affecting its information content.

.

 

Билет 9.

Билет 10.

Presupposed meaning.

Presupposed meaning arises from co-occurrence restrictions, i.e. restrictions on what other words or expressions we expect to see before or after a particular lexical unit. These restrictions are of two types: Selectional restrictions: these are a function of the prepositional meaning of a word. We expect a human subject for the adjective studious and an inanimate one for geometrical; Collocational restrictions: these are semantically arbitrary restric­tions which do not follow logically from the propositional meaning of a word. In English, teeth are brushed, but in German and Italian they are polished, in Polish they are washed, and in Russian they are cleaned. Because they are arbitrary, collocational restrictions tend to show more variation across languages than do selectional restrictions.

There are many examples in translation when it is difficult to decide whether the awkwardness of the wording in translation is a result of violating selectional or collocational restrictions. The awkwardness of the wording can be explained in terms of selectional or collocational restrictions, depending on whether or not one sees the restriction involved as a function of the prepositional meaning of a word.

Билет №11

Collocational patterning.

Collocational patterning among languages are not just a question of using, say, a different verb with a given noun; they can involve totally different ways of portraying an event. Patterns of collo­cation reflect the preferences of specific language communities for certain modes of expression and certain linguistic configurations; they rarely reflect any inherent order in the world around us. There are many ways of saying things, many choices within language, that have little or nothing to do with the world outside. This is not to say that collocations do not often reflect the cultural setting in which they are embedded. Some collocations are in fact a direct reflection of the material, social or moral environment in which they occur. This explains why bread collocates with butter in English but not in Arabic. Buy a house is a frequent collocation in English, but in German it is rare because the practice of house-buying is very different in the two cultures.

Билет №12

Translation problems arising from non-equivalence: the source and target languages make different distinctions in meaning; the target language lacks(недостатки) a superordinate; the target language lacks hyponym.

· The source and target languages make different distinctions in meaning

The target language may make more or fewer distinctions in meaning than the source language. What one language regards as an important distinction in meaning another language may not perceive as rele­vant. For example, Indonesian makes a distinction between going out in the rain without the knowledge that it is raining (kehujanan) and going out in the rain with the knowledge that it is raining (hujan-hujanan). English does not make this distinction, with the result that if an English text referred to going out in the rain, the Indonesian translator may find it difficult to choose the right equivalent, unless the context makes it clear whether or not the person in question knew that it was raining.

· The target language lacks a superordinate

The target language may have specific words (hyponyms) but no general word (superordinate) to head the semantic field. Russian has no ready equivalent for facilities, meaning ‘ any equipment, building, services, etc. that are provided for a particular activity or purpose ’. It does, however, have several specific words and expressions which can be thought of as types of facilities, for example средства передвижения (‘ means of transport ’).

· The target language lacks a specific term (hyponym)

More commonly, languages tend to have general words (superordinates) but lack specific ones (hyponyms), since each language makes only those distinctions in meaning which seem relevant to its particu­lar environment. Under house, English has a variety of hyponyms, which have no equivalents in many languages, for example bungalow, cottage, croft, chalet, lodge, hut, mansion, manor, villa, and hall.

Билет №13

The concept of dialect.

A dialect is a variety of language which has currency within a specific com­munity or group of speakers. It may be classified on one of the following bases:

§ Geographical (e.g. American as opposed to British English: the difference between lift and elevator; pants and trousers);

§ Temporal (e.g. words and structures used by members of different age groups within a community, or words used at different periods in the history of a language: verily and really);

§ Social (words and structures used by members of different social classes: scent and perfume, napkin and serviette).

 

Вопрос 14.

 

1. The lexical meaning
   
   

Every word (lexical unit) has something that is individual, that makes it different from any other word. And it is just the lexical meaning which is the most outstanding individual property of the word.

The lexical meaning of a word or lexical unit may be thought of as the specific value it has in a particular linguistic system and the ‘personality’ it acquires through usage within that system. It is rarely possible to analyze a word, pattern, or structure into distinct com­ponents of meaning; the way in which language works is much too complex to allow that. Nevertheless, it is sometimes useful to play down the complexities of language temporarily in order both to appreciate them and to be able to handle them better in the long run.

 

1. Collocational meaning

Meaning was discussed almost as if it was a property that each word possesses in its own right. It is, however, disputable whether a word on its own can ‘mean’ anything. To give an account of the meaning of a word in isolation is to contextualize it in its most typical collocations rather than its rarer ones. Asked to explain what dry means, we are likely to think of collocations such as dry clothes, dry river and dry weather, which would prompt the definition ‘free from water’. As we move away from the most common collocations of dry, it becomes clear that the meaning of dry depends largely on its pattern of collocation and is not something that the word possesses in isolation.This suggests that what a word means often depends on its association with certain collocates. When the translation of a word or a stretch of language is criticized as being inaccurate or inappropriate in a given context, the criticism may refer to the translator’s inability to recognize a collocational pattern with a unique meaning different from or exceeding the sum of the meanings of its individual elements. Collocations that involve one or both items being used in other than their discrete dictionary meaning raise similar issues. Taking account of collocational meaning rather than substituting individual words with their dictionary equivalents is therefore crucial at the first stage of translation, that is when the trans­lator is interpreting the source text. even when there appears to be a close match between collocational patterns in two languages, they may not carry the same meaning.

 

Вопрос 15.

1. Notion of register.

Register is a variety of language that a language user considers appropriate to a specific situation. Register variation arises from variations in the following:

Field of discourse: This is an abstract term for ‘what is going on’ that is relevant to the speaker’s choice of linguistic items. Different linguistic choices are made by different speakers depending on what kind of action other than the immediate action of speaking they see themselves as participating in.

Tenor of discourse: An abstract term for the relationships between the people taking part in the discourse. Getting the tenor of discourse right in translation can be quite difficult. It depends on whether one sees a certain level of formality as ‘right’ from the perspective of the source culture or the target culture. What the translator opts for on any given occasion will of course depend on what s/he perceives to be the overall purpose of the translation.. For example, an American teenager may adopt a highly informal tenor with his / her parents by, among other things, using their first names instead of Mum / Mother and Dad / Father. This level of informality would be highly inappropriate in most other cultures. A translator has to choose between changing the tenor to suit the expectations of the target reader and transferring the informal tenor to give a flavour of the type of relationship that teenagers have with their parents in American society. What the translator opts for on any given occasion will of course depend on what s/he perceives to be the overall purpose of the translation.

Mode of discourse: An abstract term for the role that the language is playing (speech, essay, lecture, instructions) and for its medium of transmission (spoken, written). Linguistic choices are in­fluenced by these dimensions. For example, a word such as re- is perfectly appropriate in a business letter but is rarely, if ever, used in spoken English.

1. Strategies for dealing with non-equivalence.

(a) Translation by a more general word (superordinate)

This is one of the commonest strategies for dealing with many types of non-equivalence, particularly in the area of prepositional meaning. It works equally well in most, if not all, languages, since the hierarchical structure of semantic fields is not language-specific.

(b) Translation by a more neutral (less expressive) word

(c) Translation by cultural substitution

This strategy involves replacing a culture-specific item or expression with a target-language item, which does not have the same preposi­tional meaning but is likely to have a similar impact on the target reader. The main advantage of using this strategy is that it gives the reader a concept with which s/he can identify, something familiar and appealing.

On an individual level, the translator’s decision to use this strategy will largely depend on:

(a) how much license is given to him/ her by those who commission the translation and

(b) the purpose of the translation.

On a more general level, the decision will also reflect, to some extent, the norms of translation prevailing in a given community. Linguistic communities vary in the extent to which they tolerate strategies that involve significant departure from the prepositional meaning of the text.

(d) Translation using a loan word or loan word plus explanation

This strategy is particularly common in dealing with culture-specific items, modem concepts, and buzz words. Following the loan word with an explanation is very useful when the word in question is repeated several times in the text. Once explained, the loan word can then be used on its own; the reader can understand it and is not distracted by further lengthy explanations.

(e) Translation by paraphrase using a related word

This strategy tends to be used when the concept expressed by the source item is lexicalized in the target language but in a different form, and when the frequency with which a certain form is used in the source text is significantly higher than would be natural in the target language.

(f) Translation by paraphrase using unrelated words

If the concept expressed by the source item is not lexicalized at all in the target language, the paraphrase strategy can still be used in some contexts. Instead of a related word, the paraphrase may be based on modifying a superordinate or simply on unpacking the meaning of the source item, particularly if the item in question is semantically complex.

The main advantage of the paraphrase strategy is that it achieves a high level of precision in specifying propositional meaning. One of its disadvantages is that a paraphrase does not have the status of a lexical item and therefore cannot convey expressive, evoked, or any kind of associative meaning. Expressive and evoked meanings are associated only with stable lexical items which have a history of recurrence in specific contexts. A second disadvantage of using this strategy is that it is cumbersome and awkward to use because it involves filling a one-item slot with an explanation consisting of several items. In certain types of environment, such as subtitling and the translation of advertising and packaging material, there are often severe restrictions on space that preclude the use of any strategy that involves this type of expansion. Similarly, a paraphrase is not normally practicable to use in book or film titles, which need to be sharp and snappy.

(g) Translation by omission

This strategy may sound rather drastic, but in fact it does no harm to omit translating a word or expression in some contexts. If the meaning conveyed by a particular item or expression is not vital enough to the development of the text to justify distracting the reader with lengthy explanations, translators can and often do simply omit translating the word or expression in question.

(h) Translation by illustration

This is a useful option if the word, which lacks an equivalent in the target language, refers to a physical entity which can be illustrated, particularly if there are restrictions on space and if the text has to remain short, concise, and to the point.

 

 

Вопрос 16.

1. The concept of word.

The smallest unit which we would expect to possess individual meaning is the word. Defined loosely, the word is ‘the smallest unit of language that can be used by itself’. For our present purposes, we can define the written word with more precision as any sequence of letters with an orthographic space on either side.

Many of us think of the word as the basic meaningful element in a language. This is not strictly accurate. Meaning can be carried by units smaller than the word. More often, however, it is carried by units much more complex than the single word and by various structures and linguistic devices.

If you consider a word such as rebuild, you will note that there are two distinct elements of meaning in it: re- and -build, i.e. ‘to build again’. The same applies to disbelieve which may be paraphrased as ‘not to believe’. Elements of meaning which are represented by several orthographic words in one language, say English, may be represented by one orthographic word in another, and vice versa. This suggests that there is no one-to-one correspondence between orthographic words and elements of meaning within or across languages.

2. Evoked meaning.

Evoked meaning arises from dialect and register variation. A dialect is a variety of language which has currency within a specific com­munity or group of speakers. It may be classified on one of the following bases:

• Geographical (e.g. American as opposed to British English: the difference between lift and elevator; pants and trousers);
• Temporal (e.g. words and structures used by members of different age groups within a community, or words used at different periods in the history of a language: verily and really);
• Social (words and structures used by members of different social classes: scent and perfume, napkin and serviette).

 

 

Билет 1

1)The concept of morpheme
In order to isolate elements of meaning in words and deal with them more effectively, some linguists have suggested the term morpheme to describe the minimal formal element of meaning in language, as distinct from word, which may or may not contain several elements of meaning. Thus, an important difference between morphemes and words is that a morpheme cannot contain more than one element of meaning and cannot be further analyzed.

To take an example from English, inconceivable is written as one word but consists of three morphemes: in, meaning ‘not’, conceive meaning ‘think of or imagine’, and able meaning ‘able to be, fit to be’. A suitable paraphrase for inconceivable would then be ‘cannot be conceived / imagined’. Some morphemes have grammatical functions such as marking plurality (cats), gender (tiger / tigress) and tense (is considering / considered, etc.). Others change the class of the word, for instance from verb to adjective (like => likeable), or add a specific element of meaning such as negation to it (unhappy). Some words consist of one morpheme: need, fast. Morphemes do not always have such clearly defined boundaries, however. We can identify two distinct morphemes in girls (girl + s), but we cannot do the same with men, where the two morphemes ‘man’ and ‘plural’ are, as it were, fused together. An orthographic word may therefore contain more than one formal element of meaning, but the boundaries of such elements are not always clearly marked on the surface.

It is important to keep the distinction between words and morphemes clearly in mind because it can be useful in translation, particularly in dealing with neologisms in the source language.

2) Strategies of translating idioms

The way in which an idiom or a fixed expression can be translated into another language depends on many factors. It is not only a question of whether an idiom with a similar meaning is available in the target language. Other factors include, for example, the significance of the specific lexical items, which constitute the idiom, that is whether they are manipulated elsewhere in the source text, whether verbally or visually, as well as the appropriateness or inappropriateness of using idiomatic language in a given register in the target language. The acceptability or non-acceptability of using any of the these strategies will therefore depend on the context in which a given idiom is translated. Questions of style, register and rhetorical effect must also be taken into consideration.

(a) Using an idiom of similar meaning and form

This strategy involves using an idiom in the target language which conveys roughly the same meaning as that of the source-language idiom and, in addition, consists of equivalent lexical items. This kind of match can only occasionally be achieved.

(b) Using an idiom of similar meaning but dissimilar form

It is often possible to find an idiom or fixed expression in the target language which has a meaning similar to that of the source idiom or expression, but which consists of different lexical items. For example, the English expression One good turn deserves another and the French expression (back translation: a handsome action deserves a handsome return) use different lexical items to express more or less the same idea.

(c) Borrowing the source language idiom

Just as the use of loan words is a common strategy in dealing with culture-specificitems, it is not unusual for idioms to be borrowed in their original form in some contexts

(d) Translation by paraphrase

This is by far the most common way of translating idioms when a match cannot be found in the target language or when it seems inappropriate to use idiomatic language in the target text because of differences in stylistic preferences of the source and target languages. You may or may not find the paraphrases accurate;

(e) Translation by omission of a play on idiom

This strategy involves rendering only the literal meaning of an idiom in a context that allows for a concrete reading of an otherwise playful use of language.

(f) Translation by omission of entire idiom

As with single words, an idiom may sometimes be omitted altogether in the target text. This may be because it has no close match in the target language, its meaning cannot be easily paraphrased, or for stylistic reasons.

(g) The strategy of compensation.

Briefly, this means that one may either omit or play down a feature such as idiomaticity at the point where it occurs in the source text and introduce it elsewhere in the target text. This strategy is not restricted to idiomaticity or fixed expressions and may be used to make up for any loss of meaning, emotional force or stylistic effect, which may not be possible to reproduce directly at a given point in the target text. It happens, because sometimes translators are unable to translate specific puns at the points at which they occurred in the text.

Using the typical phraseology of the target language – its natural collocations, its own fixed and semi-fixed expressions, the right level of idiomaticity, and so on – will greatly enhance the readability of your translations. Getting this level right means that you will avoid unintentionally producing a text that feels ‘foreign’. But naturalness and readability are also affected by other linguistic features as well.

Билет 2

1)Difficulties in translating idioms

Once an idiom or fixed expression has been recognized and interpreted correctly, the next step is to decide how to translate it into the target language. The difficulties involved in translating an idiom are totally different from those involved in interpreting it. Here, the question is not whether a given idiom is transparent, opaque or misleading. An opaque expression may be easier to translate than a transparent one. The main difficulties involved in translating idioms and fixed expressions may be summarized as follows:

(a) An idiom or fixed expression may have no equivalent in the target language. The way a language chooses to express, or not express, various meanings cannot be predicted and only occasionally matches the way another language chooses to express the same meanings. One language may express a given meaning by means of a single word, another may express it by means of a transparent fixed expression, a third may express it by means of an idiom and so on. It is therefore unrealistic to expect to find equivalent idioms and expressions in the target language as a matter of course.

Like single words, idioms and fixed expressions may be culture-specific. Formulae such as Merry Christmas and say when (meaning – People say this when pouring a drink as a way of telling youto tell them when there’s enough in your glass), which relate to specific social or religious occasions provide good examples. The expression say when is ‘directly linked to English social behavioural patterns’ and suggests that the translator putting the phrase into Russian, French or German has to contend with the problem of the non-existence of a similar convention in either TL culture. Less problematic, but to some extent also culture-specific, are the sort of fixed formulae that are used in formal correspondence, such as Yours faithfully and Yours sincerely in English. These, for instance, have no equivalents in Arabic formal correspondence.

Idioms and fixed expressions, which contain culture-specific items are not necessarily untranslatable. It is not the specific items an expression contains but rather the meaning it conveys and its association with culture-specific contexts, which can make it untranslatable or difficult to translate. For example, the English expression to carry coals to Newcastle, though culture-specific in the sense that it contains a reference to Newcastle coal and uses it as a measure of abundance, is nevertheless closely paralleled in Russian by в Тулу со своим самоваром. Both expressions convey the same meaning, namely: to supply something to someone who already has plenty of it.

(b) An idiom or fixed expression may have a similar counterpart in the target language, but its context of use may be different; the two expressions may have different connotations, for instance, or they may not be pragmatically transferable. If we compare to skate on thin ice (to act unwisely or court danger voluntarily) with a similar Serbian expression to pull someone onto the thin ice or Russian идти по тонкому льду (рисковать). The Serbian idiom differs from the English one in that it implies forcing someone into a dangerous position. The Russian idiom differs from the English only in manner of moving [skate (кататься) / идти]. Though similar in meaning, the contexts in which the three idioms can be used are obviously different.

(c) An idiom may be used in the source text in both its literal and idiomatic senses at the same time. Unless the target-language idiom corresponds to the source-language idiom both in form and in meaning, the play on idiom cannot be successfully reproduced in the target text.

It is also possible, and with more recent technological developments increasingly common, to produce plays on idiom by drawing on the visual and verbal channels simultaneously.

(d) The very convention of using idioms in written discourse, the contexts in which they can be used, and their frequency of use may be different in the source and target languages. English uses idioms in many types of text, even in serious, international magazines such as New Scientist, and especially frequently in advertisements, promotional material and the tabloid press.

Using idioms in English is thus very much a matter of style. Languages such as Arabic and Chinese, which draw a sharp distinction between written and spoken discourse and where the written mode is associated with a high level of formality, tend, on the whole, to avoid using idioms in written texts. Discussing the difference in rhetorical effect of using idioms in general and of using specific types of idiom in the source and target languages and it’s quite rightly to conclude that ‘translation is an exacting art. Idiom more than any other feature of language demands that the translator be not only accurate but highly sensitive to the rhetorical nuances of the language’.

2) The tension between accuracy and naturalness in translating collocations.

In rendering unmarked source-language collocations into his or her target language, a translator normally aims to produce a collocation which is typical in the target language while preserving the meaning associated with the source collocation. This cannot always be achieved. Translation often involves a tension – a difficult choice between what is typical and what is accurate.

The nearest acceptable collocation in the target language will often involve some change in meaning. This change in meaning may be minimal, or not particularly significant in a given context. On the other hand, it may be significant; for example, a good / bad law in English is typically a just / unjust law in Arabic. The significance of this difference in meaning depends on whether the issue of justice is in focus in a given text or whether the context favours avoiding explicit reference to justice. Simlarly, the nearest acceptable collocation which can replace hard drink in Arabic is alcoholic drink (любой алкогольный напиток). However, hard drink refers only to spirits (крепким алкогольным напиткам) in English, for example whisky, gin and brandy. It does not include other alcoholic drinks such as beer, lager or sherry. The Arabic collocation, however, refers to any alcoholic drink, including beer, lager, sherry, as well as spirits. The meanings of the two collocations therefore do not map completely. Whether the translator opts for the typical Arabic collocation or tries to translate the full meaning of hard drink, possibly by a circumlocution, will depend on whether the distinction between hard and soft alcoholic drinks is significant or relevant in a given context. A certain amount of loss, addition or skewing of meaning is often unavoidable in translation; language systems tend to be too different to produce exact replicas in most cases. The degree of acceptability or non-acceptability of a change in meaning depends on the significance of this change in a given context. Accuracy is no doubt an important aim in translation, but it is also important to bear in mind that the use of common target-language patterns, which are familiar to the target reader plays an important role in keeping the communication channels open. The use of established patterns of collocation also helps to distinguish a smooth translation that does not require readers to labor unproductively over irrelevant linguistic infelicities from a clumsy translation, which might leave readers with the impression that the translator is simply inexperienced or incompetent.

Билет 3

1)Misinterpreting the meaning of a source language collocation

A translator can easily misinterpret a collocation in the source text due to interference from his or her native language. This happens when a source-language collocation appears to be familiar because it corresponds in form to a common collocation in the target language. Many professional translators would normally work from a foreign language into their native language or language of habitual use. For example: “The industrialist had been struck by his appearance as someone with modest means. Mr. Anderson was therefore astonished by his sudden acquisition of a considerable fortune”.

Target text (Arabic, back translation): “The industrialist saw in him a person whose appearance suggests modesty and simplicity”.

The collocation modest means suggests lack of affluence in English. The equivalent of modest in Arabic can suggest a similar meaning in some collocations such as small income. However, both the adjective modest and the noun modesty used in connection with a person usually mean that he or she is unassuming. This interpretation is further reinforced by the addition of simplicity. The translator of the above extract seems to have confused the collocational patterns of English and Arabic, thus misinterpreting the source collocation and communicating the wrong meaning in the target text.

2 ) Translation problems arising from non-equivalence: differences in frequency and purpose of using specific forms; the use of loan words in the source text.

Differences in frequency and purpose of using specific forms

Even when a particular form does have a ready equivalent in the target language, there may be a difference in the frequency with which it is used or the purpose for which it is used. English, for instance, uses the continuous -ing form for binding clauses much more frequently than other languages which have equivalents for it, for example German and the Scandinavian languages. Consequently, rendering every -ing form in an English source text with an equivalent -ing form in a German, Danish, or Swedish target text would result in stilted, unnatural style.

 

The use of loan words in the source text

The use of loan words in the source text poses a special problem in translation. Quite apart from their respective prepositional meaning, loan words such as au fait, chic, and alfresco in English are often used for their prestige value, because they can add an air of sophistication to the text or its subject matter. This is often lost in translation because it is not always possible to find a loan word with the same meaning in the target language. Dilettante is a loan word in English, Russian, and Japanese; but Arabic has no equivalent loan word. This means that only the prepositional meaning of dilettante can be rendered into Arabic; its stylistic effect would almost certainly have to be sacrificed.

Loan words also pose another problem for the unwary translator, namely the problem of false friends. False friends are words or expressions, which have the same form in two or more languages but convey different meanings. They are often associated with historically or culturally related languages such as English, French, and German, but, in fact, false friends also abound among totally unrelated languages such as English, Japanese, and Russian.

Once a word or expression is borrowed into a language, we cannot predict or control its development or the additional meanings it might or might not take on. Some false friends are easy to spot because the difference in their meanings is so great that only a very inexperienced translator is likely to be unaware of it. (accurate – точный, а не аккуратный, satin – атлас, а не сатин, magazine – журнал, а не магазин).

 

Билет №4:

1. Types of word meaning

We can distinguish four main types of meaning in words and utterances (utterances being stretches of written or spoken text): prepositional meaning, expressive meaning, presupposed meaning, evoked meaning.

The prepositional meaning of a word or an utterance arises from the relation between it and what it refers to or describes in a real or imaginary world, as conceived by the speakers of the particular language to which the word or utterance belongs

Expressive meaning cannot be judged as true or false. This is because expressive meaning relates to the speaker’s feelings or attitude rather than to what words and utterances refer to.

Presupposed meaning arises from co-occurrence restrictions, i.e. restrictions on what other words or expressions we expect to see before or after a particular lexical unit.

Evoked meaning arises from dialect and register variation. A dialect is a variety of language which has currency within a specific community or group of speakers. It may be classified on one of the following bases: geographical, temporal, social.

 

Of all the types of lexical meaning explained above, the only one which relates to the truth or falsehood of an utterance and which can consequently be challenged by a reader or hearer is prepositional meaning. All other types of lexical meaning contribute to the overall meaning of an utterance or a text in subtle and complex ways and are often much more difficult to analyze.The very notion of ‘types of meaning’ is theoretically suspect.

2. The collocational range of an item.

 

Every word in a language can be said to have a range of items with which it is compatible, to a greater or lesser degree. Range here refers to the set of collo­cates, that is other words, which are typically associated with the word in question. Some words have a much broader collocational range than others. The English verb shrug, for instance, has a rather limited collocational range. It typically occurs with shoulders and does not have a particularly strong link with any other word in the language. Run, by contrast, has a vast collocational range, some of its typical collocates being company, business, show, car, stockings, tights, nose, wild, debt, bill, river, course, water and color, among others.

Two main factors can influence the collocational range of an item. The first is its level of specificity: the more general a word, the broader its collocational range; the more specific, the more restricted its colloca­tional range.. The verb bury is likely to have a much broader collocational range than any of its hyponyms, such as inter of entomb (погребать, предавать земле). Only people can be interred, but you can bury people, a treasure, your head, face, feelings and memories. The second factor, is the number of senses it has. Most words have several senses and tend to attract a different set of collo­cates for each sense. For example, in its sense of ‘ manage ’, the verb run collocates with words like company, institution and business. In its sense of ‘ operate or provide’, it collocates with words like service and course.

Unlike grammatical statements, statements about collocation are made in terms of what is typical or untypical rather than what is admissible or inadmissible. This means that there is no such thing as an impossible collocation.The reason for this is that collocational ranges are not fixed. Words attract new collocates all the time.

(Дальше там про Patterns of collocations это будет в 11 билете, если что).

 

 

Билет №5:

1. Types of restrictions on presupposed meaning.

Presupposed meaning

Presupposed meaning arises from co-occurrence restrictions, i.e. restrictions on what other words or expressions we expect to see before or after a particular lexical unit. These restrictions are of two types: Selectional restrictions: these are a function of the prepositional meaning of a word. We expect a human subject for the adjective studious and an inanimate (неодушевленный) one for geometrical. Selectional restrictions are deliberately (намеренно) violated in the case of figurative language but are otherwise strictly observed; Collocational restrictions: these are semantically arbitrary (про