XI. Read the following Russian article about mistakes made by translators, analyze them and translate the article form Russian into English.

Ошибки переводчиков
поднимают мертвых из могил

На суд читателей предлагается коллекция наиболее парадоксальных ошибок, сделанных американскими компаниями из-за неточностей в переводах и непонимания реалий, существующих в других странах.

Известная компания General Motors потерпела фиаско, пытаясь вывести на рынки Латинской Америки свой новый автомобиль Chevrolet Nova. Как вскорости выяснилось, no va по-испански означает «не может двигаться».

В США при рекламе пива Coors использовался слоган Turn it loose! (примерное значение «Стань свободным!»). Буквальный перевод слогана на испанский привел к появлению шедевра «Страдай от поноса!»

Парфюмерная компания Clairol представила в Германии свои сухие дезодоранты, используя слоган Mist Stick (примерное значение «Туманный дезодорант»). В Германии выяснилось, что слово Mist («туман») на немецком сленге означает «навоз».

Компания Colgate-Palmolive вывела на французский рынок свою новую зубную пасту Cue. Чуть позже американцы узнали, что именно такое название носит популярный французский порножурнал.

Компания Pepsi дословно перевела на китайский язык свой главный рекламный девиз «Живи с поколением «Пепси»» Come alive with the pepsi generation. Китайцы были шокированы: слоган приобрел неожиданное звучание: ««Пепси» заставит ваших предков подняться из могил».

Компания Coca-Cola долгое время не могла подобрать свое название для продажи в Китае. Дело в том, что китайцы произносят название этого напитка как «Кекукела», что означает «Кусай воскового головастика». Компания была вынуждена перебрать 40 тыс. вариантов написания своей торговой марки, прежде чем было выбрано «Коку Коле», что означает «Счастье во рту».

Компания Frank Purdue, производящая курятину, в США использует слоган It takes a strong man to make a tender chicken (примерный перевод: «Чтобы приготовить нежного цыпленка требуется сильный мужчина»). В переводе на испанский эта фраза приобрела несколько иной смысл: «Нужен сексуально возбужденный мужчина, чтобы курица стала нежной».

Производитель канцелярских принадлежностей компания Parker также попыталась перевести свой слоган на испанский. Ее реклама ручки на английском звучит: It won’t leak in your pocket and embarrass you (примерный перевод: «Она никогда не протечет в вашем кармане и не причинит вам неудобств»). Переводчик ошибся и спутал два испанских слова. В результате рекламная кампания Parker в Мексике проходила под слоганом «Она никогда не протечет в вашем кармане и не сделает вас беременным».

Авиакомпания American Airlines установила в своих самолетах кожаные кресла и решила сообщить об этом мексиканским потребителям. На английском слоган звучал прекрасно: Fly in leather («Летай в коже!»). В буквальном переводе это выражение обрело иной смысл: «Летай голым!».

 

***

XII. The following articles are devoted to the problems of language development and changes the languages undergo within the time and under the influence of other factors. Point out the factors of the changes in the languages. Speak of the peculiarities of the languages.

THE FUTURE AND THE LANGUAGES

It has always been my hobby to thumb through grammar books and check the differences in declinations, conjunctions, syntactic forms and orthographies.

After all, I have been more of a botanist of grammars than an expert of languages. There is here, an obscure problem of mine which is related, in a certain way, to my poetic nature. That is, going through these grammars I often have the pleasure of coming across particular flowers, marvelous blooms that can be compared with one another in all languages, blooms that can also be dangerous. This historical period, with all its impending problems, will make the coexistence of languages all that more difficult. Simply consider English, which weaves in and out of other languages like interlace. Yet, another danger exists. America, and no longer England, is the matrix of this immense energy, where the middle-class has a passive indifference towards other languages, which happened in Europe in the 18^th century. A passivity that regards only the mass population because the upper-class has always been able to manage. In the meantime, differences in pronunciation, orthography and intonation are taking place within the various classes, ethnic groups and zones. Spanish and the Iberian languages are exerting a certain pressure. In fact, in some American states a form of Spanish-English bilingualism is becoming widespread. It is extremely dangerous for a country to use a single language and not be familiar with any other because it can create something similar to an implosive phenomenon, a tendency to constantly “reduce”. I recall an article by Anthony Burgess where he claimed, with his brilliant paradoxes, that to learn English one needed only to know how to whine using a few tricks such as cut off vocal sounds and various nuances. And those who know how to use on, off, out, etc. with the verb to get have already learnt half the language. This … by the humorous Burgess has some very serious truth to it. Let us not forget that in ancient times things were very different. For example, at the court of Augustus both Greek and Latin were spoken. Latin was the official language of the Roman Empire because it was considered of high cultural prestige. The elite, on the other hand, could not afford to ignore Greek. The Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, wrote his extraordinary philosophical book, TO HIMSELF, in Greek. It was nit intended for publication (though it expresses one of the peak moments of human thought). It is extremely significant that the language of higher learning remained connected to the Greek matrix. The Romans actually made a considerable contribution, but not at a level comparable to the Greeks. Today, at the court of Washington would a language be commonly spoken simply for its cultural prestige? Augustus was a conservative, even linguistically speaking. I have spoken at length about this topic in order to emphasize how important it is for the leaders, in particular, those of countries that have international responsibilities, to be deeply involved in languages of high cultural value that are different from their own. This would obviously make the reciprocal understanding of problems much easier. There have been numerous conflicts and diplomatic failures caused by errors in the interpretation of messages and meetings. (In 1919, at the conference of Versailles, V:E Orlando had serious difficulties making decisions due to his poor knowledge of French).

Moreover, the populations of ancient civilizations such as, the Chinese, Indians and others, with their immense political and cultural weight are once again rising. This is contributing to the present state of agitation in the world today and consequently, in the linguistic field. Difficult mediation is necessary to understand the complex backgrounds of these powerful giants. And what can be said of the Arab world, with its world ambitions and its problem of bilingualism between modern Arabic and the different dialects used across vast areas? For Italians, there is the urgent need to have good translation from English to Italian and vice versa. Otherwise, we would be left without a voice and echo because our language is not used outside of Italy. For instance, the distinguished magazine of physics, founded in Galileo’s time, conserves only its title in Italian; Il Nuovo Cimento, the text is in English. However, it is a well known fact that when dealing with common practical problems it is convenient to use a language understood by all. There is also the question of foreign words that are now part of our common language which are often unnecessary and rather grotesque. Not to mention that, in the long run, they could damage the identity of a language. Nevertheless, it is not feasible to use legal impositions such as the Toubon law passed in France to block this linguistic contamination. The defense against this should be established according to each case and language, on the basis of the historical differences of the various countries. (French supercentralism and Italian pulverization). In Italy’s case we must not forget that our national language developed alongside powerful dialectal structures, which are parallel languages, and Latin, an authoritative language used in the academic and scientific communities of Europe. Therefore, a “flexible” defense is the only one we can sustain in our case. Keeping in mind that both Latin and the dialects continue to nourish our national language. This, can also be said of other languages.

In these chaotic and magmatic times many oddities are taking place. At present, it is the television that lays down the rules. It imposes models and expression copied from “Americanoid” situations. The Italian spoken today is often incorrect. When the pronunciation is not heavily marked by regional accents, it is influenced by the Italian spoken by the cultural elite (actors, judges, etc.) of northern Italy. This causes a vacantly silly admixture, reminiscent of soap operas, which is the epitomy of bad taste. Just think of the first names, borrowed from English, that are given to children by “naive parents” who have been influenced by soaps such as, Beautiful and similar programmes. It is one thing to use commonly accepted foreign names as Sabrina, Samantha or Deborah, but to impose English versions of Italian names like Alex, Thomas, Christian or even Anthony is another. When these names are accompanied by surnames from the Veneto region, which often end with a consonant and then given an American accent. It would almost seem that the Morgan family (rather than Morgan) have proliferated in the Veneto thanks to the removal of an accent. As a final example there is the well known Benetton (Benetton in Rome) that has become the worldwide trademark, Benetton. This base habit of giving pointlessly foreign names obviously regards other semantic areas as well. Similar marvels can be often seen in the captions of business signs, in which, at times, the use of foreign words is justified by the type of business, but not when it produces minotaurs, even if amusing, such as SNACK BAR AL CANTON and many other similar examples. It is useful to have a universal language, but we must not forget the danger it poses to ethnic and linguistic identities. Taking Italy’s shaky situation as an example, we could venture to say that in two or three decades a new sort of linguistic proletariat will be created. In fact, those who will not know, at least, some form of broken English will be excluded from the management of all forms of power. Despite having been introduced to English at an early age, not many can afford the expensive trips necessary for a full immersion. Thus, they will be discriminated against, in the same way, as those who, just two or three decades ago, knew only the dialect of their region and barely spoke Italian. Then again, all these snags and terrors may be overcome, sooner than we think, by the omnipresent technology and its magical gadgets that instantly translate a conversation. This type of research has been in the works for years and sooner or later Sony, or some other company, will reach this goal. On the other hand, isn’t the Numen Internet, from which we can expect all kinds of surprises, already functioning?

***

HOW TO SPEAK SOUTHERN

(This book is dedicated to all Yankees in the hope
that it will teach them how to talk right)

Aig: A breakfast food that may be fried, scrambled, boiled or poached. “Which came first, the chicken or the aig?”

Ail: To be ill or afflicted by something. “That mule sure is actin’ strange. Wonder what ails him?”

Awf: The opposite of on. “Take your muddy feet awf the table.”

Awraht: Okay. “If you want to go back home to your mother, that’s awraht with me.”

Bub: A fragile glass object that converts electricity into illumination. “Ay think that light bub’s burnt out.”

Caint: Cannot. “Ah just caint understand why this checkbook won’t balance.”

Carry: To convey from one place to another, usually by automobile. “Can you carry me down to the store in yo’ car?”

Co-cola: The soft drink that started in Atlanta and conquered the world. “Ah hear they even sell Co-cola in Russia.”

Cut the fool: To behave in a silly or foolish manner. “Quit cuttin’ the fool and do your homework.”

Dinner: The meal Southerners eat while Northerners are eating lunch. When the Northerners are eating dinner, Southerners are eating supper. “We’re just havin’ butterbeans and biscuits for dinner, but we’ll have a big super.”

Drank: To consume a liquid. “You want a drank of this Co-cola?”

Eat up with: Excessively afflicted by. “That woman’s jest eat up with jealously.”

Goobers: Peanuts. “It’s fun to put goobers in a Co-cola and watch it foam.”

Go to: Intend. “You shouldn’t have whipped Jimmy for breakin’ that window. He didn’t go to do it.”

Jew: Did you. “Jew want to buy that comic book, son, or just stand there and read it here?”

Lectricity: What the power company won’t turn on without a deposit to make sure you pay your lectric bill. “That air conditioner sure uses a lot of lectricity.”

Moanin’: Between daybreak and noon. “Good moanin’ Suh.”

Plum: Completely. “Ah’m plum wore out.”

Saar: The opposite of sweat. “These pickles are too saar.”

Yankee: Anyone who is not from Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas and possibly Oklahoma and West-by-God-Virginia. A Yankee may become an honorary Southerner, but a Southerner cannot become a Yankee, assuming any Southerner wanted to. “Momma, can a Yankee go to heaven?” “Don’t ask foolish questions, son. Of course not.”

(Steve Mitchell,”How to speak Southern”)

***

HOW AMERICANS (MIS) COMMUNICATE

The book by Professor of Linguistics Deborah TANNEN “You Just Don’t Understand” became an American best seller. Her new book, “Conversation From 9 to 5”, about Americans’ communication during work hours (hence the title) will be published in October. Excerpts from the book, published in “The New York Times” magazine, have become a sensation in the United States. It turns out that men and women, superiors and subordinates, tragically fail to understand one another’s speech signals.

(Dmitry Radyshevsky, MN Bureau, New York)

Understatement is a Women’s Weapon

The main theses of Professor Tannens’ first book is that men and women (of the same nation and the same language) find it as difficult to understand one another because of the difference in their linguistic code as people of absolutely different cultures and languages.

“John is throwing a party. Do you want to go?” asks the wife. How should the husband take this: as a “direct” signal (the wife wants to know whether he wants to go) or as a “concealed” signal (the wife is informing her husband that she wants to go to the party)?

Professor Tannen polled her students. Seventy-three percent of the polled men understood the phrase as a direct signal, in its literal sense.

Another difference between women’s speech and that of men. Women are inclined more often to interrupt someone with exclamations of sympathy, of disagreement, remarks, corrections of analogies. This manner is for most women an encouraging factor denoting heightened friendly interest in what the interlocutor says, concern and sympathy. For most American men this manner is an irritating factor signifying militant incompetence and lack of culture on the part of the female.

Understatement Is the Right of the Strong

Straightforwardness lies at the basis of American character, writes the professor, and to most Americans straightforward talk is an indicator of honesty and authority, while hints are associated with dishonesty and lack of confidence.

Professor Tannen justly explains this by the Americans’ unfamiliarity with the cultures of other peoples. In Japan, for instance, a boss acting in a typical situation sets a task before his subordinates by simply describing the problem facing him.

American men who are accustomed to direct orders regard directions received in an indirect form as attempts to manipulate them. This way, if the subordinate makes a mistake, he or she could be blamed for interpreting the instruction incorrectly.

But the “indirect form, argues Professor Tannen, is no more “manipulating” than the way one calls someone to the phone. When we phone and ask, for instance, “Is Alexander at home?” we are sure that, if he is, he will be simply called to the phone. Only a child answers: “He is” and continues to hold the receiver.

The professor’s study of “indirect” orders shows that they are more often given by people who have authority and confidence than by weak-willed superiors. When the master enters a room and says: “It is cold here” the servant hastens to light up the stove. But if the servant makes this remark on entering the room, the master will receive it “directly”, as a statement that the temperature is low.

The conclusion is that lack of confidence is more often experienced (and deeply concealed) by superiors who give orders.

This is surprisingly confirmed by the practice employed in the U.S. Navy. Professor Tannen tells a story about a naval officer who taught radio operations to young, civilian students during World War II. This time the example with temperature in the room is not fiction. Having entered the class for the first lesson, the seaman remarked: “It is rather hot”. The students nodded their heads. The seaman repeated his remark. “Yes, it is hot indeed,” replied the students, fanning themselves with their copy-books. The seaman had to explain that the statement of fact by a superior in the Navy means not an invitation to discussion but an order. He said: “It is rather hot” for the third time, and the whole class rushed to open the window.

The Danger of the Understatement

On a cold January evening in 1982, a passenger plane which had just taken off from National Airport in Washington crashed before the eyes of pedestrians into a bridge over the Potomac. Seventy-four people drowned in ice-cold water. Only five persons were saved. The reasons for the tragedy, according to the “black box” or in-flight recorder, was the navigator’s manner of communication. He had great experience of flying in snowy weather and tried to warn the plane’s captain of the possibility of repeated icing on the plane’s wings after the pre-flight de-icing. But, as most subordinates do when they have to point out something to their superior, he spoke in a roundabout way. “Look how heavily iced their wings are,” he said pointing to other planes before take-off. “This is very dangerous. This de-icing before take-off is useless.” “Yes,” agreed the captain who, as most superiors do, preferred not to recognized criticism for his decision to fly in such weather.

After the crash it was decided to teach crews of American air companies to state their considerations and apprehensions to their superiors directly, but experiments showed that most successful actions in the air (in particular, in extreme situations) are performed by crews which use not orders but mixed “indirect” speech. Such evidence contradicts the sad experience of the crash.

Assistance came from Japanese linguist Kunihiko Harado. His work shows that success depends not on teaching subordinates to send direct signals to the superiors but on teaching the superiors to show greater attention and sensitivity to indirect statements by their subordinates.

In other words, the Potomac crash was caused not by the navigator’s “indirect words” but by the captain’s “deafness”.

A Creaky Wheel and a Protruding Nail

“A creaky wheel gets oiled,” goes an American proverb. This means that a person who expresses his claims out loud gets what he wants. “A protruding nail is driven deeper than the rest,” says a Japanese proverb. Its significance is much deeper than its superficial Russian interpretation “Don’t press to hard.” It is a symbol of Japanese ethics which values silence higher than speech and holds that thoughts are better conveyed to the interlocutor without their precise articulation. It is characteristic of a Japanese to leave a sentence uncompleted. Stating an idea before one knows exactly how it will be received is considered aggressive in Japan. Professor Tannen quotes another Japanese linguist: “Only an insensitive, uncouth person needs a direct, oral, complete indication.”

The Japanese have the notion of “sasshi,” or the expectation, presentiment of the interlocutor’s message through conjecture and penetration into his inner world, that is, intuitively. “Sasshi” is considered a sign of wisdom in Japan.

In view of the importance which the Americans attach to straightforwardness and openness (especially in business) one is bound to doubt that the notion of “sasshi” can be implanted in the United States. But the success of Japanese businessmen has shown, as Professor Tannen notes, that straightforward Yankees would do well by learning the art of understatement.

(Dmitry Radyshevsky, MN Bureau, New York)

***

DO AMERICANS NEED TO KNOW RUSSIAN

Guy Netscher asks a very logical question: If Russians need to know English before visiting the US as a part of an exchange program, do Americans need to know Russian before travelling there?

Based on my experience Russians do need to have a decent command of English in order to get the most out of visit to the US, while Americans can learn a respectable amount during a brief visit without knowing Russian. There are at least two reasons for this. First, very few Americans know Russian, while a substantial number of Russians know English. In other words, an American visitor in Moscow or Vladimir can find people to talk to, and there will be no shortage of interprets; while a Russian visitor – who doesn’t know English- generally cannot communicate with the people he or she meets in the US without an interpreter. Second, what the Russians need to learn about democracy and a free market is generally more complicated than what Americans can profitably learn about Russia during a short visit. The latter “lessons” include the fact that Russia is a culturally rich country with a very decent and hospitable people. In my experience, once Americans learn this firsthand, they are generally mush more willing to try to be of assistance. This includes hosting visiting Russians. (Staying with a host family is a very valuable experience).

For example, last April we arranged for a local high school basketball coach, Cal Habbard, and his wife, Vivian, a speech therapist, to visit Russia. More than 50 coaches attended a three day basketball clinic in Vladimir while Vivian visited schools. (They stayed with the family of one Russian teacher. The father and son are both avid basketball players). As a follow-up to this, we hope to have a Russian coach and senior player here this next June to attend Cal’s yearly clinic and a tournament. They are both studying English at the American Home in preparation foe this visit. They will stay with the Hubbards.

Because of the fact that the Russians need to comprehend relatively complex matters for their visits to be truly profitable, as I have argued in JRL – and the Moscow Times – they need to stay in the US for more than a few days. For the longer stays, English is simply a must. In this connection, I’ve been involved with law enforcement exchanges for a number of years. A new militia officer is scheduled to arrive next Saturday for a six month stay in our community. Without a decent knowledge of English, his visit simply wouldn’t be possible. None of the law enforcement people he will be dealing with knows Russian, and we don’t have the resources here to provide him with an interpreter day in and day out. Most important, he will be able to learn a good deal more – and communicate more from his perspective – because he knows English. (For the record, we provide him with a year of English lessons through the American Home in Vladimir).

Americans involved in long term stays in Russia also definitely need to know the local language. Unfortunately, some don’t bother to learn it, or at last don’t learn it very well. In my experience, this has included missionaries who have been in Vladimir for more that a year. Their failure to gain a decent command of Russia is both an insult to their hosts – why isn’t this rich language worth learning? – and a major barrier to their full understanding of Russian culture. This lack of cultural understanding, in turn, has, in my opinion, been a major contributor to the Russian’s frequent hostility toward foreign missionaries. It has also created other problems.

On the other hand, I am certain that my dealings with the Russian legal system in the wake of the embezzlement of a substantial amount by a former Russian employee would have been much more difficult, if not impossible to successfully pursue had I needed an interpreter.

On last point. Given the tremendous value of Russians learning English, it is surprising that neither the US government nor, to the best of my knowledge, any American foundations are promoting the teaching of English in Russia to any significant extent. Our English Program in Vladimir has been self supporting since 1992. We currently serve over 300 students a semester. With a modest amount of outside funding to supplement what the students can afford to pay, we could accomplish a great deal more. I’m sure there are other programs that are equally in need of modest support. It seems to me that a tremendous opportunity to communicate across the language and cultural divide is to a significant extent being missed.

(Ron Pope, President Serendipity-Russia
Associate Professor of Russian Politics
Illinois State University)

XIII. What problem is raised by this article? How serious is it for the Russian nation? Is there any way out of the situation? What do you think about the title of the article and how will you account for it?

ЯЗЫК С ХРЕНОМ

Помните анекдот про грузинскую школу? На уроке русского языка учитель говорит классу: «Дети! Русский язык –очень трудный язык. Напримэр, Настя – это дэвушка, а нэнастя –это плохая погода!» Похоже, скоро такие анекдоты начнут сочинять и про русские школы, потому что наш с вами «великий и могучий» стремительно становится все труднее для понимания.

Целлюлит на всю голову

Попробуйте прислушаться как мы говорим и как говорят с нами. «Мой писюк глючит» (компьютер плохо работает – перевод на русский) – это плаксиво кричит ваш сын (или начальник). «Супердисконт на мобильники» (очень дешевые телефоны) – это рекламная «шифровка» из ближайшего метро.

Новая лексика проникает в русский язык через несколько лазеек. Через экономическую сферу пролезли к нам всякие «бартеры-чартеры», «ипотеки» и «маркетинги». Через музыку и телевидение просочились «ток-шоу», «рейтинги», «саундтреки» и «диджеи». Интернет наградил целым букетом иностранных терминов вперемежку с жаргонным сленгом: «Открываете чат, называете ник и висите, пока не надоест!» Добавьте сюда молодежные заимствования «унисекс» и «рейнджер», товарно-оздоровительные нововведения типа «памперсы» и «секонд-хенд» – получите целлюлит на всю голову! В результате из 57 специально опрошенных школьников четвертая часть ответила, что «эмиссия» – это страшный ураган.

Чебурашки по бартеру

Если бы одни заимствования засоряли русский язык – невелика беда. Поговорим-побалуемся да и бросим-забу­дем, как ребенок надоевшую грушку. Но над русским языком нависли угрозы посерьезнее.

Ощутимо снизился уровень преподавания языка и ли­те­ратуры в школах.

Активно сокращается русскоязычное информпростра­н­­­ство в ближнем зарубежье.

Язык замусоривается жаргонизмами и матом. По свидетельству филологов, мы с вами живем в эпоху третьей волны жаргонизмов. Первая была в 10-20-е годы, вторая накрыла Россию в 40-50-е, и вот теперь, елы-палы, братаны, накатила очередная, связанная с повальной криминализацией общества.

Язык все растворит!

Филологи уверены: все, что происходит с языком, - естественный процесс. Например, его упрощение, появление лишних предлогов (вместо «анализ влажности» теперь можно сказать «анализ на влажность»). Или активное внедрение сленга – сначала тюремного, теперь компьютерного. «Русский язык имеет замечательное свойство – обогащаться за счет заимствований. Он, как губка, впитывает в себя иностранные слова, жаргон – они как бы растворяются в нем, - считает профессор МГУ Анатолий Поликарпов. – Взять слово «спонсор» Прижилось ведь! И произвело от себя глагол (спонсировать) и прилагательное (спонсорский). Так что вырождение русскому языку не грозит.

(Дмитрий Писаренко http://aif.ru/online/aif/1214/08/_01
«Аргументы и Факты»)

***

XIV. Here is the extract from the book by Larry King “How To Talk To Anyone, Anytime, Anywhere: The Secrets of Good Communication”. Read it, think over those pieces of advice, given by the author, try to use them in your own interview, interviewing one of your friends or group mates, or any celebrity (for example Larry King). Translate the text from Russian into English either in writing or orally in the form of asking and answering the questions.

ИСКУССТВО ОБЩЕНИЯ

Как говорить с любым человеком
в любое время и в любом месте
Ларри Кинг и Билл Джилберт

Я всегда мечтал стать радиокомментатором. И вот уже 40 лет, как я именно этим занимаюсь. Я считаю, что умение хорошо говорить – одна из величайших радостей жизни и приносит наибольшее удовлетворение.

Не хочу сказать, что это всегда легко. Огромное большинство людей скорее выпрыгнут из самолета без парашюта, чем будут сидеть на званом ужине рядом с незнакомым человеком.

Но чем больше вы работаете в этом направлении, тем становится легче. Я предлагаю вам шесть основных способов научиться говорить с кем угодно, когда угодно и где угодно.