Transformational equivalence

TYPES OF EQUIVALENCE

Translation equivalence does not mean that source and target texts are identical. It is a degree of similarity between source and target texts, measured on a certain level.

Viewed from the semiotic angle, the source and target texts can be identical pragmatically, semantically and structurally.

Every text should be equivalent to the source text pragmatically, which means that the both texts should have one and the same communicative function. The target text should have the same impact upon the receptor as the source text has.

Semantic identity implies describing the same situation, using similar lexical meaning of the units, and similar grammatical meaning of the elements.

Structural similarity presupposes the closest possible formal correspondence between the source text and the target text.

EQUIVALENCE

PRAGMATIC SEMANTIC STRUCTURAL

(function) (content) (form)

situational lexical grammatical

According to V. Komissarov, one can distinguish five levels of equivalence: pragmatic, situational, lexical (semantic), grammatical, structural levels.42

PRAGMATIC LEVEL

First and foremost, the translation must retain the same communicative function as the source text.43 The description and enumeration of speech functions can be found in the work by R. Jakobson, who pointed out the following:

• informative function, i.e. conveying information: Лавры моего конкурента не дают мне спать. – I am green with envy because of the success of my competitor.

• emotive function, i.e. expressing the speaker’s emotions: На кой леший мне такой друг? – What on earth do I need such a friend for?

• conative function, i.e. expressing one’s will: Could you do me a favor, please? – Пожалуйста, окажите мне услугу.

• phatic function, i.e. making communicative contact: How do you do! – Здравствуйте!

• metalingual function, i.e. describing language features: Don’t trouble trouble until trouble troubles you. – На дворе трава – на траве дрова.

• poetic function, i.e. aesthetic impact:

Tiger Tiger, burning bright,

In the forests of the night;

What immortal hand or eye,

Could frame thy fearful symmetry? (W.Blake)

Тигр, Тигр, в лесу ночном

Мрачный взгляд горит огнем.

Чья бессмертная рука

Жизнь влила в твои бока? (Пер. К.Филатовой)

These sentences have only one thing in common: general intent of communication, communication aim, or function. At first glance, the source and target texts have no obvious logical connection; they usually designate different situations, have no common semes (i.e. smallest components of meaning), and have different grammar structures.

SITUATIONAL LEVEL

The source and the target texts can describe the same situation from different angles with different words and structures: I meant no harm. – Простите, я нечаянно.(the situation in the bus); Who shall I say is calling? – Кто его спрашивает? (the situation on the phone); Wet paint. – Осторожно: окрашено! (the situation in the park).

There are no parallel lexical or structural units in these counterparts. Therefore, their content is different, the word semes are different, grammar relations between the sentence components are different. Nevertheless, the utterances correspond to each other in their communicative functions and in the similarity of the described situation. Because of this identity, V. Komissarov calls this type of equivalence «identification of the situation»44.

Frequently one and the same situation is referred to in different languages. This is particularly true of set phrases: Fragile. – Осторожно: стекло! Beware of the dog! – Осторожно, злая собака! Push/Pull – От себя/К себе.

Some situations cannot be translated: for example, Приятного аппетита! has no corresponding phrase in English. In place of this lacuna, English people use the French idiom Bon appetit!. There is also no equivalent for the Russian С легким паром.

SEMANTIC PARAPHRASE

Dealing with the transformation of meaning implies a semantic variation, or semantic paraphrase of the source language utterance. For example, the sentence in the original can be translated as if the situation were viewed from a different angle: He was not unlike his mother. – Он довольно похож на свою мать. He is my son. – Я - мать этого мальчика. Or some words of the source language sentence are paraphrased in translation: After her illness, she became as skinny as a toothpick. – После болезни она стала худая, как щепка. Or the target sentence can verbalize the idea in more detail than the source language sentence: Сегодня Борису не до шуток. – Boris is in no mood for joking today.

On this level of equivalence, the source and the target sentences have the same function (aim), they describe the same situation, and their meanings are approximately identical, whereas their grammar structures are different. As is known, the meaning of each word consists of semes, the smallest sense component. The set of semes in the source and target sentences is the same, but they are grouped differently and, therefore, are verbalized in different ways and do not have the same syntactic structure.

V. Komissarov states that on this level the two sentences match because they have approximately the same method of the situation description.45

 

TRANSFORMATIONAL EQUIVALENCE

On this level, the target and the source language sentences manifest grammar transformations: the passive predicate can be translated by the active: The port can be entered by big ships only in tide. – Большие корабли могут заходить в порт только во время прилива. Likewise, part of speech can be changed in translation: We had a long walk. – Шли мы долго. Or the structure of the sentence can be modified: Jane was heard playing the piano. – Было слышно, как Джейн играла на пианино, where the sentence is translated by a complex one). Any other change of the grammar meaning within the sentence testifies to the equivalence on the transformational level, which is called by V. Komissarov the level of the invariant meaning of the syntactic structure.46

This level of equivalence presupposes retention of the utterance function, the description of the same situation, the same meaning of the source and target sentences, and a very close (but variable) grammatical meaning.

LEXICAL AND GRAMMATICAL EQUIVALENCE

On this level, the most possible semantic semilarity between the source and target sentences is found: Every mother loves her children. – Каждая мать любит своих детей. I will write you every week. – Я буду писать тебе каждую неделю. As a matter of fact, this is a word for word translation where each word and the whole structure retains its lexical and grammatical meaning, the situation designated by the sentences is identical, and the communicative function of the utterances is the same. Every form of the target sentence is equal, with no variations, to that of the source language sentence.47 Therefore, this level might be called the level of formal equivalence.

TRANSLATION PRAGMATICS

§1. CONCEPT OF PRAGMATICS

Semiotics as a sign study posits that each sign, including a language one, be viewed in three perspectives: syntactic, i.e. the relations of signs; semantic, i.e. the relation between a sign and a real situation; and pragmatic, i.e. the relations of the sign and its users.

Each utterance in a speech act is aimed at somebody. Combined together, words make up a syntactic scheme of the sentence. They refer to specific events, persons or objects, acquiring, thus, a sense.

There are two types of language sign users: an addresser (author) and an addressee (receptor). When speaking, an addresser has a communicative intention, or purpose of the speech act. An utterance has a communicative effect on the receptor: it can inform a receptor of something, or cause some feelings, etc. A communicative effect is virtual: e.g., an advertising text may persuade a receptor to buy something but the receptor may remain indifferent to the promotion. The potential effect of the utterance is its functional force. The communicative effect may override both literal sense and functional force and add further consequences depending on the situation. For example, Shut the door is imperative in a sense. Its communicative intention may be to carry the force of a request, but the communicative effect could be to annoy the receiver.198

Communicative intention does not always coincide with the communicative effect. A vulgar anecdote, told to make the audience laugh, may have a contrary effect of disgusting the listeners.

In terms of linguistic pragmatics, developed by J. Austen, the three types of relations are locution (reference and the utterance sense), illocution (communicative intention and functional force), and perlocution (communicative effect).199

The adequate translation is the one whose communicative effect is close to that of the source text; at best, its communicative effect coincides with the author’s communicative intention. Regarding this principle, P. Newmark introduced two types of translation – communicative translation, which attempts to produce on its receptors an effect as close as possible to that produced on the readers of the original, and semantic translation, which attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original.200 Taking these concepts into consideration, the sentence Beware of the dog! could be rendered as Осторожно, злая собака! (communicative translation) or Опасайтесь собаки! (semantic translation).

Close to translation adequacy is the concept of translation acceptability, developed by Israeli theorist of translation studies Gideon Toury.201A translation is considered acceptable when the end-product is admitted into the target system. In other words, an acceptable translation is the text with language use in the natural situation.

In summary, translation pragmatics is a multi-aspect approach. Its analysis requires discussing the role of each of the translation situation components.

TEXT PRAGMATICS

The communicative effect of the source and target text upon the receptor should be similar. A lot depends on the functional style (register), genre, language and speech norms. Neither of them can be changed in translation because, ultimately, they make up the functional force of the text, so important from the point of view of pragmatics.

Disregard of the style or register produces a strange impact upon the receptor. Imagine a person declaring love in a businesslike manner – he will not be esteemed in the proper way.

Very often genre requirements of the text are so strict that they cannot but be met in translation, or the target text may be spoiled. For instance, when translating patents, one should observe all the elements of the structure and the necessary formulas and set phrases.

Shifting a set of language units leads to changes in text perception. For example, a scientific text is characterized by impersonal constructions, such as passive voice and indefinite structures. If a text is abundant in personal pronouns, interjections and other expressive means, it will never be considered as belonging to the scientific register.

Incorrect choice of words may result in comic consequences contrary to the expectations of the text author. A. Chuzhakin in his practicum-book “Мир перевода-2” quotes a number of signs and notices discovered in different countries. They are funny because of the violation of speech and English language norms (incorrect meanings and collocations). A notice in a Bucharest hotel lobby: The lift is being fixed for the next day. During that time we regret that you will be unbearable. An ad in a Greek tailor shop: Order your summer suit. Because is big rush we execute customers in strict rotation.202

Thus, a translator should have a good command not only of the target language but also of the style and genre requirements, in particular of style and genre distinctive features in the two languages.

Sometimes the translator faces the contradiction between a text form and its function. In this case, the function predominates. It is the text function that should be kept in translation first and foremost, not the form. For example, the phatic function of formal greeting in English normally has the form of the interrogative sentence: How do you do? In Russian translation, the form is shifted by the imperative Здравствуйте to preserve the function.

In non-literal texts, it is necessary to distinguish between the functions of the source text and those of the translated texts. The reasons for commissioning or initiating a translation are independent of the reasons for the creation of any particular source text.203 This idea brought to life the so called Skopos theory developed in Germany in the late 1970s.204 The Greek word skopos is used as the technical term for the purpose of a translation. Hans Vermeer, the founder of the theory, postulates that it is the intended purpose of the target text that determines translation methods and strategies. The initiator’s, or client’s needs determine the skopos of the target text. The skopos of the target text should be specified before the translation process begins.205

Depending on the skopos, the translation can be full or partial (restricted). This classification, in terms of the extent of translation, belongs to J. Catford.206 In full translation, every part of the source text is replaced by the target language text material. In partial translation, some part or parts of the source language text are left untranslated.

According to the commissioner’s needs, translation can be adapted (that is, adjusted to the target language culture), free, literal or it can be a faithful imitation of the source text.

TRANSLATOR’S IMPACT

In the attempt to make a good translation, a translator, nevertheless bears the influence of cultural and literary trends typical of the time, which effect his/her outlook and have a certain impact on the translation. It brings us back to the history of translation. It is known that Vasily Zhukovsky, translating Byron, avoided all themes of rebellion from the poet’s works, as they were alien to the translator. On the other hand, he emphasized the religious motifs in Byron’s poems. He adjusted Byron’s poetry to himself, which allowed V. Belinsky to say that he was a poet rather than a translator.

Another example of ideological incursion in translation was Voltaire’s translation of Hamlet’s soliloquy, not as a meditation on death, but as a diatribe against religion.218

These days it is considered necessary for a translator to follow only the source language author, sometimes at the expense of his/her own artistic work.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the quality of translation is dependent on translator’s personal knowledge, intuitions and artistic competence.

10. TYPES OF TRANSLATION TECHNIQUES

To transfer a form from one language to another with different alphabets, the translator either copies the form by the letters of the target language or changes it by making transformations.

Mechanical copying, or transfer, of the source language words includes:

• Transcription, or copying the sound form of the source language word by means of the target language letters: eau de cologne – одеколон, hake - хек;

• transliteration or copying the letters of the source language by the target language letters of another system: London – Лондон, Washington - Вашингтон.

Some linguists (V. Komissarov, for one) consider calque (blueprint) translation as mechanical copying. Calque is translation by parts: extralinguistic – внеязыковой, carry-out – на вынос, старовер – Old Believer. Since the calqued word is not just a mechanical borrowing of the form but it undergoes some changes, this device is, to some extent, an actual translation, which includes form transformations.

Translation transformations are complete changes of the appearance of a translated word, phrase, or sentence. In foreign translation theory, transformations are known as shifts of translation. Translation transformations can be of three categories:

• grammatical transformations,

• lexical (semantic) transformations,

• complex (lexical and grammatical) transformations.

TRANSLATION TRANSCRIPTION

Transcription is a method of writing down speech sounds.

It is essential to differentiate between a phonetic transcription and a practical (or translation) transcription. In a phonetic transcription, sounds are depicted by special symbols on the basis of their articulatory and auditory identity. A phonetic transcription is an intralinguistic operation, that is, it deals with only one language: Anchorage [`xNkqrIG], Oakland [`qVklxnd].

A practical transcription is an interlinguistic operation as it deals with two languages: the sounds of the source language word are rendered by the letters of the target languge: Anchorage – Анкоридж, Oakland - Окленд. Because the English (Latin) and Russian (Cyrillic) alphabets and sounds do not coincide, there are special rules48 for representing English sounds by Russian letters and Russian sounds by English letters.

The most important rules are as follows:

1. Transcribing English sounds with Russian letters:

• Interdental [ D] correspond to the Russian Т: Thatcher – Тэтчер, Thackeray – Теккерей. Sometimes these sounds correspond to the Russian C, which is a bit outdated: Galsworthy – Голсуорси. In Greek words, the interdental sound is rendered by the Russian Ф: Athens – Афины, Themistocles – Фемистокл.

• The English [w] is transmitted by the letter У if followed by a vowel: William – Уильям, Wilder – Уайлдер. But when followed by the vowel [u], the consonant [w] is rendered by the letter В: Woolf – Вулф, Wodehouse – Вудхаус. However, there are some traditional cases of the sound [w] represented by the letter В: Washington – Вашингтон, Walter Scott – Вальтер Скотт. The same is true in reference to the borrowed (mostly German) names: Wagner – Вагнер, Wilhelm – Вильгельм.

• The English [h] can be represented in two ways: either by Х: Hailey – Хейли, or by Г: Hamilton – Гамильтон. Thus some words acquire two forms in Russian: Hoffman – Хофман, Гофман.

• [N] is transliterated by НГ: Jennings – Дженнингс.

• The vowel [з:] after the consonant corresponds to the Russian Ё: Burns – Бёрнс. In the beginning of the word, this sound is represented by the letter Э: Earl’s Court – Эрлз-Корт.

• [æ] is represented in Russian by Э/Е/А: Batman – Бэтмен, Jack – Джек, Glasgow – Глазго.

Russian sounds in English transcription are usually represented as follows:

• [j], represented in writing by the letter Й, corresponds to the English Y/I in the end of the word: Толстой – Tolstoy, Троцкий – Trotsky/ Trotski; to I in the beginning of the word: Йошкар-Ола – Ioshkar-Ola. If [j] makes part and parcel of a vowel letter (Е, Ё, Ю, Я) it is represented by Y or I: Енисей – Yenisei, Порфирьевич – Porfirievich, Югославия – Yugoslavia, Ялта – Yalta.

• The Russian [ж] is rendered by ZH: Житомир – Zhitomir.

• [х] corresponds to KH or, rarely, H: Находка – Nakhodka.

• [ц] is represented by TS: Целиноград – Tselinograd. Care should be taken, however, with foreign words: they usually have their native form: Цюрих – Zurich, Цейлон – Ceylon, Цзянси – Jiangxi.

• [ч] may correspond either to CH or to TCH: Чехов – Chekhov, Чайковский – Tchaikovsky.

• [щ] is represented by the cluster SHCH or SCH: Щелково – Shchelkovo.

• [ы] usually corresponds to Y: Куйбышев – Kuibyshev.

One should pay special attention to transcribing East Asian (Chinese, Japanese, and Korean) words into English and Russian, especially when doing tertiary translation of Asian words from English into Russian or vice versa.

It is neccessary to remember that because of the difference in phonetic systems, East Asian sounds are designated differently in English and Russian. Thus, in Japanese words, the sound symbolized by the English sh is somewhere between [s] and [S]; therefore, in Russian it is transcribed by the letter C: e.g., Hiroshima – Хиросима, shogun – сёгун. The letter L can indicate the sound quality between [l] and [r]. For example, the name of the Korean president Kim Il Sung corresponds in Russian to Ким Ир Сен.

TRANSLITERATION

Abroad, transliteration, defined as writing a word in a different alphabet,49 is often associated with transcription.However, strictly speaking, the notion of transliteration is based on representing written characters of one language by the characters of another language.

There are a number of different systems for transliterating the Cyrillic alphabet. Different languages have different equivalents for Russian letters. Thus, the Russian name Лапшин can be rendered in English as Lapshin or Lapšin, in French as Lapchine, in German as Lapschin, in Italian as Lapscin, in Polish as Lapszyn. Even in English there are several systems for transliteration of modern Russian, which range from the system suitable for works intended for the general reading public to those suitable for the needs of special in various fields.

The major systems for transliterating Russian words into English are the British Standards Institution (BSI), the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the Library of Congress (LC), and the Permanent Committee on Geographic Names (PCGN) systems.50 The chart in Appendix 1 will give the idea of the differences between these systems and will be helpful in practicing transliteration.

When transliterating, it is best to use the version which most closely approximates the source language word. Thus the forms ruble, kopek, tsar are preferable to the alternatives rouble, kopeck, czar.

The mute r is always transliterated in Russian: Morning Star – газета ’’Морнинг Стар” whereas the mute e is usually omitted: Fosse – Фосс.

Transliteration and transcription often compete, so that sometimes it is difficult to state how to render a word (especially a personal or place name) in the other language. But transliteration is preferred to transcription in bibliographical citations found in publications: Arakin, V. Sravnitelnaja tipologija anglijskogo i russkogo jazykov.

In the dispute between transcription and transliteration, some factors should be kept in mind:

• modern and outdated traditions: these days the English great physicist Newton is known in Russia as Ньютон (transcription), though in the 18th century M. Lomonosov wrote about Невтон (transliteration).

• national traditions: in the source language the form of a name can follow the spelling traditions of its original country. The target language form often follows the original pronunciation tradition: Mozart – Моцарт; Dvořak – Дворжак, Singer – Зингер.

Special attention should be given to transliterating Chinese words into Russian and English, especially in tertiary translation. There are two ways of transliterating Chinese syllables (and words) into English. In the English-speaking world since 1892 Chinese words have usually been transliterated according to a phonetic spelling system called Wade-Giles romanization, propounded by British Orientalists Sir Thomas Wade and Herbert Giles. Since 1958 another phonetic romanization known as Pinyin (spelling) has had official standing in the People's Republic of China, where it is used for telegrams, mass media and in education. Therefore a Chinese loan word can have two English scripts: e.g., Мао Цзэдун – Mao Zedong, Mao Tse-tung; Пекин – Beijing, Peking (in these words the difference in form is caused, beside the transliteration systems, by different dialect origins of borrowing). When translating words borrowed from Chinese, it is recommended to consult special charts of transliteration Chinese syllables (see Appendix 2).

The main principles of correspondence between English and Russian syllables in transliterating Chinese words are as follows:

• the English combination ng corresponds to the nonpalatalized Russian н, e.g. kung fu – кун-фу;

• the English n corresponds to the the Russian palatalized нь: fen – фэнь (фынь);

• the difference between voiced and voiceless consonants is phonologically irrelevant in Chinese; therefore, the Pinyin and Wade-Giles systems may differ: baihua, pai-hua – байхуа;

• in Pinyin, the vowel letter o before the non-palatalized ng corresponds to the Russian у; in the Wade-Giles it corresponds to u: e.g., Dong, Tung – Дун, Тун;

• the Russian Ж corresponds to the Pinyin R or Wade-Giles J (before front vowels): renminbi – женьминьби;

• care should be taken not to confuse the Pinyin palatalized J (Wade-Giles CH) corresponding to the Russian ЦЗ: Jiang (Chiang) – Цзян; in Japanese words the letter J before a front vowel corresponds to the Russian ДЖ / ДЗ’: jiu jitsu – джиу-джитсу, дзю-дзюцу;

• the nonpalatalized ЦЗ corresponds to the Pinyin Z or Wade-Giles TS: Zang, Tsang – Цзанг, Мао Цзэдун – Mao Zedong, Mao Tse-tung. The Japanese Z corresponds to the Russian ДЗ: Zen Buddhism – Дзэн Буддизм;

• the Pinyin palatalized X is equal to the Wade-Giles HS and corresponds to the Russian С: Xianggang, Hsiangkang – Сянган;

• the Pinyin palatalized Q (pronounced [t]) is equal to the Wade-Giles CH and corresponds to the Russian Ц: Qinghai – Цинхай;

• the Pinyin ZH, equal to the Wade-Giles CH, corresponds to the Russian ЧЖ: Zhejiang – Чжэцзян.

CАLQUE TRANSLATION

Blueprint translation is the translation of a word or a phrase by parts:

kitchen-ette – кух-онька, brainwashing – промывка мозгов, AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) – СПИД (синдром приобретенного иммунодефицита), Залив Золотой Рог - Golden Horn Bay.

There can occur half-calques in cases where half of the word is borrowed through transcription or transliteration and the other half is translated: South Korea – Южная Корея, Old Jolyon – Старый Джолион.

Calque translation can be very tricky as it may result in “translator’s false friends”, i.e. misleading translations: high school – средняя школа (not высшая школа); restroom – туалет (not комната отдыха); дом отдыха – resort (not rest home).

GRAMMAR TRANSFORMATIONS

Grammar transformations are morphological or syntactical changes in translated units. They are subdivided into the following types:

1. Grammar substitution, when a grammar category of the translated unit is changed. Thus a passive construction can be translated by an active voice verb form: Martin Heidegger is generally regarded as one of the most influential founders of existentialism. – Мартина Хайдеггера обычно считают одним из самых значительных основоположников экзистенциализма. The reason for this transformation is stylistic: in English the passive voice is used much more often in neutral speech, whereas in Russian this category is more typical of the formal style.

Or there may be substitution of the noun number category, the singular by the plural or vice versa: Her hair is fair and wavy. – У нее светлые волнистые волосы. This transformation is due to the structural difference between the English and Russian languages: in English the analyzed noun is Singularia Tantum, in Russian it is used in the plural.

Parts of speech, along with the parts of the sentence, can be changed: He is a poor swimmer. – Он плохо плавает, where the noun is substituted by the verb, the adjective by the adverb; simultaneously the predicative is substituted by the simple verb predicate. The reason for this transformation can be accounted for by language usage preferences: English tends to the nominal expression of the state, Russian can denote the general state by means of the verb.

2. Word order change. Usually the reason for this transformation is that English and Russian sentences have different information structures, or functional sentence perspective.* For example, A new press conference was held in Washington yesterday is naturally equivalent to Вчера в Вашингтоне состоялась новая пресс-конференция, where the adverbial modifiers, subject and predicate are positioned in a mirrorlike fashion.

3. Sentence partitioning is the replacement of a simple sentence in the source text with a complex sentence (with some clauses), or a complex sentence with several independent sentences in the target text for structural, semantic or stylistic reasons: I want you to undestand this transformation. – Я хочу, чтобы вы поняли эту трансформацию. Моя машина не завелась, поэтому я не смогла заехать за вами. – My car wouldn’t start. Therefore, I couldn’t pick you up.

4. Sentence integration is a contrary transformation. It takes place when we make one sentence out of two or more, or convert a complex sentence into a simple one: If one knows languages, one can come out on top. – Зная языки, можно далеко пойти. In ancient Rome, garlic was believed to make people courageous. Roman soldiers, therefore, ate large quantities of it before a battle. – Перед боем римские воины съедали большое количество чеснока, поскольку в Древнем Риме полагали, что чеснок делает людей мужественными.

5.Grammar compensation is a deliberate change of the grammar category by some other grammar means. Compensation takes place when a grammar category or form does not exist in the target laguage and, therefore, cannot produce the same impact upon the target text receptor. This can be illustrated by translating a sentence with a mistaken pronoun form from English into Russian. Since a similar mistake in using the pronoun is impossible in Russian, it is compensated by a mistaken preposition: ''Take some of the conceit out of him,'' he gurgled. ''Out of who?'' asked Barbara, knowing perfectly well that she should have said 'whom' '' - «Поубавь немного у него тщеславия,» - буркнул он. «С кого?» – спросила Барбара, хорошо зная, что ей следовало сказать ‘у кого’». As a result, the translator showed the character's illiteracy.

LEXICAL TRANSFORMATIONS

Lexical transformations change the semantic core of a translated word. They can be classified into the following groups:

1.Lexical substitution, or putting one word in place of another. It often results from the different semantic structures of the source language and target language words. Thus the word молодой is not always translated as young; rather, it depends on its word combinability: молодой картофель is equal to new potatoes. This translation equivalent is predetermined by the word combination it is used in. This type of translation can hardly be called substitution, since it is a regular equivalent for this phrase.

Deliberate substitution as a translation technique can be of several subtypes:

a) Specification, or substituting words with a wider meaning with words of a narrower meaning: Will you do the room? – Ты уберешься в комнате? I’ll get the papers on the way home. – Я куплю газеты по дороге домой. The underlined English words have larger scopes of meaning than their Russian counterparts and their particular semantics is recognized from the context.

b) Generalization, or substituting words of a narrower meaning with those of a wider meaning: People don’t like to be stared at. – Людям не нравится, когда на них смотрят. If we compare the semantic structure of the English and Russian verbs, we can see that the English stare specifies the action of seeing expressed by the Russian verb. The Russian смотреть can imply staring, facing, eyeing, etc. The specific meaning in the Russian sentence can be expressed by the adverb пристально. Another reason for generalization in translating can be that the particular meaning expressed by the source language word might be irrelevant for the translation receptor: She bought the Oolong tea on her way home. – По дороге домой она купила китайского чаю. Oolong is a sort of Chinese tea but for the receptor this information is not important; therefore, the translator can generalize.

c) Differentiation is a rather rare technique of substitution. It takes place when we substitute a word by another one with parallel meaning, denoting a similar species: bamboo curtain – железный занавес. Both bamboo and железо (iron) are materials known for their hard nature. They are used figuratively to denote the barriers between the Western and Communist countries (bamboo curtain in reference to China, железный занавес in reference to other Comecon (Council for Mutual Economic Aid) states. There are no hyponymic relations between the notions of bamboo and iron (though the referential area of железный занавес is of course much wider than that of bamboo curtain.)

d) Modulation is a logical development of the notion expressed by the word: But outside it was raining. -– Но на улице шел дождь. The primary equivalent of the word outside is снаружи. But it is impossible to say in Russian *Но снаружи шел дождь. By means of unsophisticated logical operation the translator finds another equivalent: на улице. Thus he takes into consideration a tradition of the word combination and acceptability of collocation. He is aided in this by the metonymical closeness of word meanings based on contiguity of the two notions.

2.Compensation is a deliberate introduction of some additional element in the target text to make up for the loss of a similar element in the source text. The main reason for this transformation is a vocabulary lacuna in the target language. For example, one of the Galsworthy’s characters was called a leopardess. But there is no one-word equivalent of the same stylistic coloring in Russian. Therefore, the translator compensated the word by using the word тигрица to characterize the lady.

3.Metaphoric transformations are based on transferring the meaning due to the similarity of notions. The target language can re-metaphorize a word or a phrase by using the same image (Don’t dirty your hands with that money! – Не марай рук этими деньгами!) or a different one (Он вернет нам деньги, когда рак свистнет. – He will pay us our money back when hell freezes over). The source language metaphor can be destroyed if there is no similar idiom in the target language: Весна уже на пороге. – Spring is coming very soon. Or, on the contrary, the target text is metaphorized either to compensate a stylistically marked word or phrase whose coloring was lost for some reason, or merely to express a source language lacuna: Он решил начать жить по-новому. – He decided to turn over a new life.

COMPLEX TRANSFORMATIONS

This type of transformations concerns both the lexical (semantic) and grammatical level, i.e. it touches upon structure and meaning. The following techniques can be associated with lexical and grammatical transformations:

1.Explicatory translation, that is, rewording the meaning into another structure so that the receptor will have a better understanding of the phrase. Sometimes this transformation is named as explicitation, defined as the technique of making explicit in the target text information that is imlicit in the source text.51 This transformation is often accompanied by the extension of the structure, the addition of new elements: I have a nine-to-five job. –Я работаю с 9 утра до 5 вечера. Leslie Mill’s play, which was also included in the FORUM, was taken up with children from grades 1-5. – Пьеса Лесли Милла, которая также была опубликована в журнале «Форум», была поставлена детьми 1-5 классов. The reason for which this transformation is made is that the target text receptor has different background knowledge. Sometimes this transformation is required because of the dissimilarity between the language structures, with the source language structure being incomplete for the target language, like gun licence is удостоверение на право ношения оружия.52

2.Reduction (omission, implicitation) is giving up redundant and communicatively irrelevant words: Elvis Presley denied being lewd and obscene. – Элвис Пресли отрицал свою непристойность. The reduction is a must if a source language expresses the notion by a phrase and the target language compresses the idea in one word: сторонники охраны окружающей среды – conservationists. There is a general tendency of the English language to laconic and compressed expressions as compared with Russian: внебюджетные источники финансирования – nonbudget sources; контроль за ходом проекта – the Project control.

3.Integral transformation is the replacement of a set phrase with another clichéd structure that has the same speech function: How do you do! – Здравствуйте!; Wet paint. – Осторожно, окрашено. Help yourself. – Угощайтесь.

4.Antonymic translation is describing the situation by the target language from the contrary angle.

It can be done through antonyms: the inferiority of friendly troops – превосходство сил противника. The reason for this transformation is the lack of a one-word translation equivalent to the word inferiority.

This transformation can also take place when we change the negation modality of the sentence: She is not unworthy of your attention. – Она вполне достойна вашего внимания. In the English sentence we deal with double negation, called understatement, which, according to logic rules, means the positive expressed in the Russian sentence. Through understatement, English-speaking people avoid expressing their ideas in too a categoric tone.

Shifting the negation is another manifestation of the antonymous translation: I don’t think I can do it. – Думаю, я не смогу сделать это., which is a result of linguistic tradition peculiar to this or that language.

5.Metonymical translation is the transferance of meaning and structure based on the contiguity of forms and meanings of the source and target languages: The last twenty years has seen many advances in our linguistic knowledge. – В последние 20 лет наблюдается значительный прогресс в лингвистике. In the English sentence, time is expressed by the subject of the sentence, whereas in Russian it is more typical to express it by the adverbial modifier. This causes grammar restructuring of the sentence.

6.Complex compensation is a deliberate change of the word or structure by another one because the exact equivalent of the target language word or phrase is unable to produce the same impact upon the receptor as does the source language word or phrase. For example, we often have to compensate on the lexical level the meaning of the Past Perfect in the Russian text translation, since there is no similar tense category in Russian: Their food, clothing and wages were less bad than they had been. – Теперь их еда, одежда и зарплата были не такими уж плохими, как когда-то. Puns, riddles, tongue-twisters are often compensated; for example, Don’t trouble trouble until trouble troubles you. – Во дворе трава на траве дрова. Compensation exercises the translator’s ingenuity; however, the effort it requires should not be wasted on textually unimportant features.53

11. § 6. UNIT OF TRANSLATION

Singling out and defining a unit of translation is a problem widely discussed in Translation Studies.

According to R. Bell, a unit of translation is the smallest segment of a source language text which can be translated, as a whole, in isolation from other segments (as small as possible and as large as is necessary).15 Should we consider a word as a translation unit? Though there exists the notion of a word-for-word translation, the word can hardly be taken for a translation unit. First of all, this is because word borders are not always clear, especially in English. Sometimes a compound word is written in one element, sometimes it is hyphenated, or the two stems are written separately as a phrase: e.g., moonlight, fire-light, candle light. On the other hand, in oral speech it is difficult to single out separate words because they tend to fuse with each other into inseparable complexes: [‘wud3э 'ko:lim?] – according to the stress, there should be two words, while in written speech we can see four words: Would you call him?

Furthermore, it is impossible to consider a phrase (word combination) as a translation unit, because its bounderies are also vague.

Thus, it is not a language unit that should be considered in translation, but a discourse (speech) unit. A translation unit is a group of words united in speech by their meaning, rhythm and melody, i.e. it is a syntagm, or rhythmic and notional segment of speech.

This definition of the unit of translation is process-oriented. If considered from a product-oriented point of view, it can be defined as the target-text unit that can be mapped onto a source-text unit.16

TRANSLATING PEOPLE’S NAMES

Anthroponyms are usually rendered through transcription or transliteration: Thomas Heywood – Томас Хейвуд, George Gordon Byron – Джордж Гордон Байрон. These days preference is given to transcription. (In the last century it was possible to see and hear Шакеспиаре – Shakespeare, Невтон – Newton.) In rendering names of living people, personal preferences should be taken into account. When Van Cliburn, the Tchaikovsky Contest first prize winner, came back to Moscow after a long absence, he was offended by the papers calling him Ван Клайберн, as he had become accustomed to being called in Russia Ван Клиберн.

Names of foreign origin, spelt in the Latin alphabet, are usually written in English in their original form: Beaumarchais, Aeschylus, Nietzsche, Dvořak. In Russian they are rendered mostly by their sound form, in transcription: Бомарше, Эсхил, Ницше, Дворжак. Some Renaissance and eighteenth-century figures adopted classical names which are then sometimes naturalized: Copernicus – Copernic – Коперник, Linnaeus – Linné – Линней.

Oriental names differ from English names in that the former given the family name first and then the person’s first name, whereas the latter normally use a person’s first name and only then the last (family) name. Thus the name of Mao Zedong (Мао Цзэдун) suggests that Mao is the family name and Zedong is the first name. Therefore, the courtesy title word ‘Mr/Ms’ should be added to the family name not to be mistaken with the first name. Most Chinese personal names use the official Chinese spelling system known as Pinyin.* The traditional spellings, however, are used for well-known deceased people such as Chou En-lai, Mao Tse-tung, Sun Yat-sen. Some Chinese have westernized their names, putting their given names or the initials for them first: P.Y. Chen, Jack Wang. In general it recommended following a preferred individual spelling.

As for Russian names, when the first name has a close phonetic equivalent in English, this equivalent is used in translating the name: Alexander Solzhenitsyn rather than Alexandr, the spelling that would result from a transliteration of the Russian letter into the English alphabet.150 For the last names, the English spelling that most closely approximates the pronunciation in Russian is used.

Some proper names are adapted to the translated language by adding or dropping female endings: Lizette – Лизетта; госпожа Иванова – Mrs. Ivanov. Feminine endings in Russian names are used only if the woman is not married or if she is known under that name (the ballerina Maya Plissetskaya). Otherwise, in the formal style the masculine forms are used: Raisa Gorbachev, not Raisa Gorbacheva.151 However, if an individual has a preference for a name with a feminine ending, the individual preference should be followed.

There are names, which when translated, sound bad in the target language (like the Russian family names of Факов, Вагина), it is desirable that the translator inform the person with such a name about possible negative associations and slightly change the name by adding or deleting a letter: e.g., Faikov, or Mrs. Waggin.

Russian names never end in -off, except for common mistranslations such as Rachmaninoff. Instead, the transliterations should end in -ov: Romanov.

The names of kings are of special interest, as they are traditional in form: King Charles – король Карл, King James – король Яков, King George – король Георг, King William – король Вильгельм, King Louis – король Людовик, King Henrie/Henry – король Генрих.

Of great help for a translator is Yermolovich’s dictionary of personal names, The English-Russian Who’s Who in Fact and Fiction.152

Transparent names (говорящие имена) pose a special problem. Peter Newmark, a well-known translation theorist, suggests the following procedure: “first to translate the word that underlies the source language proper name into the target language, and then to naturalize the translated word back into a new source language proper name – but normally only when the character’s name is not yet current amongst an educated target language readership.”153 For example, Michail Holman (1983) has done this effectively with characters from L. Tolstoy’s Resurrection: Nabatov → alarm → Alarmov; Toporov → axe → Hachitov; Khororshavka → pretty → Belle.

The same tactics can be employed in English to Russian translation. The names of E. Waugh’s and A. Huxley’s characters are translated into Russian: Miles Malpractice – Злопрактис, Mr. Chatterbox – г-н Таратор, Mr. Slum – г-н Хлам.

However, unfortunately, personal name connotations are often lost (remember Mr. Murdstone in Dickens’ David Copperfield – мистер Мердстоун). Tony Last in E. Waugh’s Vile Bodies is indeed the last honest and decent person, which is transparent in his surname. In transferring (Тони Ласт) this connotation is lost.

In case of such a loss, some translators tend to explain the loss in commentaries, but a number of critics consider commentaries to hinder text perception.

Another problem is with Russian second names. Unless particularly required by some documents, it is desirable to abbreviate patronymics to the first letter (Marina P. Ivanova), as it is difficult for foreigners to pronounce and is sometimes confused for a family name (especially Belorussian names like Pavlovich, Petrovich, etc.)

Besides patronymics, a proverbial problem for translators is Russian short first names that can have affectionate, patronizing or friendly overtones (Александр[а], Саша, Сашенька, Сашок, Сашка, Шура, Шурик, Шурочка, etc.) It is not recommended to retain the variations of the name referring to same character in the target language text.154

TRANSLATING ERGONYMS

When the name of an institution is identified, it is usually transferred with a word about its function and status: DalZavod (Far Eastern Dock), детский спортклуб “Юность”- Yunost, Children’s and Youth’s Sports Club, магазин “Океан” - the Ocean seafood store, Востоктрансфлот - VostokTransFlot shipping company.

Ergonyms comprising highly informative names are calque-translated: Дальневосточный центр поддержки бизнеса - The Far Eastern Business Support Center. Official administrative bodies are normally translated: Гоcударственный комитет РФ по рыболовству - The Russian Federal Committee on Fisheries, Краевой комитет по архитектуре и строительству - The Krai Committee for Architecture and Construction.

TRANSLATOR’S FALSE FRIENDS

The term ‘translator’s false friends’ (les faux amis) was introduced by the French theorists of translation M. Koessler and J. Derocquigny in 1928.160 This term means a word that has the same or similar form in the source and target languages but another meaning in the target language. Translators’ false friends result from transferring the sounds of a source language word literally into the target language. P. Newmark calls them deceptive cognates,161 as their meanings are different and they can easily confuse the target text receptor.

Misleading words are mostly international, or it is better to say that they are pseudointernational. They are loan words that can be borrowed from the source text but have developed their own meanings in the target texts. For example, interview = ‘a series of questions in a formal situation in order to obtain information about a person’; интервью = a journalist’s questioning some public figure in order to be published in mass media’. Or they can have the same origin of the third language (mainly Greek and Latin) and be borrowed both into the source and target languages: aspirant = ‘a person who has great ambition, desires strongly, strives toward an end, aims at’; аспирант = ‘a graduate student’. Sometimes the form similarity can be accidental: herb = ‘an aromatic plant used in medicine or as seasoning’; герб = ‘an object or representation that functions as a symbol’.

Reference to some ‘false friends’ can be found in some dictionaries, like a special dictionary of ‘false friends’162 or Cambridge International Dictionary of English.163

‘False friends’ could be called interlanguage synonyms, homonyms and paronyms.

Interlanguage synonyms are words that coincide in one or more meanings. However, beside similar meanings, they have some special meanings. For example, concert – концерт. Both words have the meaning of ‘a musical performance’, but the English word has the second meaning: ‘agreement in purpose, feeling, or action’. The Russian one has acquired a generic meaning of ‘any performance (reciting, drama extracts, etc.)’. Thus they can be equivalents in only the first meaning and somewhat erroneous in their second meaning.

Interlanguage homonyms are words that have no common meanings, like accord – аккорд. The English word means ‘agreement, harmony; a settlement or compromise of conflicting opinions; a settlement of points at issue between the nations. The Russian word is more specific, meaning ‘musical chord’.

Interlanguage paronyms are words with similar but not identical sound, and with different meanings. The case can be illustrated by example – экземпляр. The Russian word denotes ‘a copy’, whereas the English indicates ‘a representative of a group as a whole; a case serving as a model or precedent for another that is the same or similar’.

When compared in the source and target texts, translators’ false friends can differ semantically, syntactically, stylistically, and pragmatically.164

Semantic difference presupposes the following oppositions:165

• generic vs. specific meaning: actual (real, existing in fact) – актуальный (topical); моторист (air-fitter; machinist) – motorist (one who drives or travels in an automobile).

• monosemantic vs. polysemantic: галантный (couth) – gallant (1. Showy and gay in appearance, dress, or bearing a gallant feathered hat; 2. Stately, majestic; 3.high-spirited and courageous gallant soldiers; 4. Attentive to women, chivalrous, flirtatious.)

• different connotation (positive vs. negative): aggressive (determined to win or succeed) – агрессивный (inclined to act in a hostile fashion)

Structural difference leads to

• different word combinations: comfortable – комфортабельный have the same meaning ‘producing a feeling of physical relaxation’. But in English this word is combined with the noun income (comfortable income), and in Russian this combination is impossible – the English expression has the equivalent of хороший доход. Likewise, sympathetic – симпатичный, but sympathetic strike – забастовка солидарности.

• impossibility of calque translation: ходячая энциклопедия – walking library. In this case idiomatic meanings are expressed by different structures.

• multi-component phrase vs. one-word structure: аудитория читателей – readership, readers.

Stylistic difference results in stylistic overtone of the words:

• neutral vs. emotionally colored words: ambition (stylistically neutral) – амбиция (often negative); protection (neutral) – протекция (bookish)

• modern vs. archaic: depot – депо (in the meaning of ‘a building where supplies are kept’)

• common word vs. term: essence – эссенция (vinegar).

Pragmatic difference implies the different associations a word carries for various groups of people, nations, etc. For example, when saying “Моя мама родилась через два года после революции”, a Russian person will definitely mean the Russian Revolution of 1917. S/he might be misunderstood by an American for whom the word ‘revolution’ is associated with American Revolution. The same with the common Russian expression после войны: Он поступил в институт сразу после войны. Probably, it will take time and effort for an American to associate the event with World War II, since America also knew the Korean and Vietnam wars in this century.

WAYS OF TRANSLATING IDIOMS

In general, idioms are open to a variety of translation procedures. Among them are:

• Substitution with the analog: Don’t teach your grandmother to suck eggs. – Яйца курицу не учат. However, in oral translation a translator should sustain the image. Then a new (changed) figurative meaning may frustrate the translator. For example, the Soviet leader N. Khruschev, when speaking in the USA, used the idiom “всякий кулик свое болото хвалит”. And in some minutes continued, “Долго ли мы с вами будем торчать в этом болоте холодной войны?” Luckily, the translator did not use the analog in the first case, “Every cook praises his own broth.” The continuation of the metaphor would have caused an impossible phrase of the kind “broth of cold war”.171 When working with an analog, one should be sure to use the same style and retain the meaning of the idiom.

When substituting a figurative expression with its analog, a translator may generalize or specify some components of the idiom: They could not conceive of any greater joy in life; to work their own land, to keep what they produced by the sweat of their brow, for themselves and their children. - Они не могли представить себе большей радости в жизни, чем работать на своей земле и делать запасы того, что они производили в поте лица для себя и своих детей. The words brow – лицо are the example of generalization. On the other hand, specification can be seen in the following example: Richard drove back to East Hampton, Maria’s tirade still ringing in his head. - Ричард ехал назад в Ист-Хэмптон, а тирада Марии все еще звенела у него в ушах.

• Substitution with the simile. After getting married she is living in clover. – Выйдя замуж, она живет как сыр в масле. The simile also contains an image, so it is as expressive as the metaphor.

• Antonymous translation takes place when the translator uses a negative construction to translate an affirmative sentence: The situation was serious, but he kept his head. – Положение было серьезным, но он не терял присутствия духа.

• Literal, or calque translation. This technique can be employed even if there is an idiom analog. A word-for-word translation is used in translating sustained metaphors, phraseological synonyms, and puns. Literal translation usually leads to playing upon the figurative and literal sense of an idiom, that is, to enlivening an idiom. For example, the English expression as dead as a door nail figuratively means ‘lifeless’ and corresponds to the Russian бездыханный, без малейших признаков жизни. However, in the following extract from C. Dickens the idiom is used in its double meaning, literal and figurative, which made the translator calque it. Old Marley was as old as a door nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know of my own knowledge what there is particularly dead about a door nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of iron mongery in the trade. – Старый Марлей был мертв как дверной гвоздь. Заметьте, я не хочу сказать, что дверной гвоздь является чем-то особенно мертвым. Я сам скорее склонен считать гвоздь от гроба самым мертвым предметом из скобяных изделий.

Another argument in favor of literal translation is that the new metaphor in the target language will hold the interest of the reader.

Calque translation is not an incorrect and overfaithful translation that breaks the target language rules of semantic agreement and combinability and conflicts with the style of the text.

• Descriptive or explanatory translation. When an original metaphor appears to be a little obscure and not very important, it may be replaced with a descriptive expression. У него семь пятниц на неделе. – He is very confused. Это камешки в мой огород? – Was that aimed at me?

LEXICAL TRANSFORMATIONS

Lexical transformations change the semantic core of a translated word. They can be classified into the following groups:

1.Lexical substitution, or putting one word in place of another. It often results from the different semantic structures of the source language and target language words. Thus the word молодой is not always translated as young; rather, it depends on its word combinability: молодой картофель is equal to new potatoes. This translation equivalent is predetermined by the word combination it is used in. This type of translation can hardly be called substitution, since it is a regular equivalent for this phrase.

Deliberate substitution as a translation technique can be of several subtypes:

a) Specification, or substituting words with a wider meaning with words of a narrower meaning: Will you do the room? – Ты уберешься в комнате? I’ll get the papers on the way home. – Я куплю газеты по дороге домой. The underlined English words have larger scopes of meaning than their Russian counterparts and their particular semantics is recognized from the context.

b) Generalization, or substituting words of a narrower meaning with those of a wider meaning: People don’t like to be stared at. – Людям не нравится, когда на них смотрят. If we compare the semantic structure of the English and Russian verbs, we can see that the English stare specifies the action of seeing expressed by the Russian verb. The Russian смотреть can imply staring, facing, eyeing, etc. The specific meaning in the Russian sentence can be expressed by the adverb пристально. Another reason for generalization in translating can be that the particular meaning expressed by the source language word might be irrelevant for the translation receptor: She bought the Oolong tea on her way home. – По дороге домой она купила китайского чаю. Oolong is a sort of Chinese tea but for the receptor this information is not important; therefore, the tran