In this book, based on the material of translations of fiction and socio-political literature from in English into Russian and from Russian to English author examines the translation process from a general linguistic point of view. The book contains: theoretical generalizations, so practical instructions and recommendations that can be used by novice translators in their practical activities. Recommended for linguists of all specialties, translators, teachers, graduate students and students philological universities, as well as everyone who is interested in translation problems. Publisher: "LKI" (2014) Format: 60x90/16, 240 pages. ISBN: 978-5-382-01524-8 On Ozone

Other books on similar topics:

Author	Book	Description	Year	Price	Book type
L. S. Barkhudarov		In this book, based on the material of translations of fiction and socio-political literature from English into Russian and from Russian into English, the author examines the translation process... - LKI, (format: 60x90/16, 240 pp.)	2014	590	paper book
Barkhudarov L.S.		In this book, based on the material of translations of fiction and socio-political literature from English into Russian and from Russian into English, the author examines the translation process... - URSS, (format: 60x90/16, 240 pp.) -	2019	757	paper book
Barkhudarov L.S.		In this book, based on the material of translations of fiction and socio-political literature from English into Russian and from Russian into English, the author examines the translation process... - URSS, (format: 60x90/16, 240 pp.)	2017	623	paper book

See also in other dictionaries:

The history of Russian literature, for the convenience of viewing the main phenomena of its development, can be divided into three periods: I from the first monuments to Tatar yoke; II until the end of the 17th century; III to our time. In reality, these periods are not sharply...

I Medicine Medicine system scientific knowledge and practical activities, the goals of which are to strengthen and preserve health, prolong the lives of people, prevent and treat human diseases. To accomplish these tasks, M. studies the structure and... ... Medical encyclopedia

JOHN PHILOPON- [Grammar; Greek ᾿Ιωάννης ὁ Θιλόπονος, ᾿Ιωάννης ὁ γραμματικός] (c. 490, Alexandria (?) c. 575), Alexandrian scientist, philosopher, theologian Monophysite. Life The information about I.F. preserved in history is fragmentary and contradictory. Besides... ... Orthodox Encyclopedia

AFON- [St. Mountain; Greek ̀ρδβλθυοτεΑθως, ̀λδβλθυοτεΑγιον ̀ρδβλθυοτεΟρος]. monasticism, located in Greece on the Aion Oros peninsula (St. Mountain, Athos peninsula). Is under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Polish Patriarchate.… … Orthodox Encyclopedia

The emergence of M.p.p. dates back to the second half of the 17th century, it is connected by the general rise medical science and practice. Until this time, work on various problems medicine published in scientific journals general profile. For example, “Journal des... ... Medical encyclopedia

The request for "Tacitus" is redirected here; for the Roman emperor, see Marcus Claudius Tacitus. Publius Cornelius Tacitus Publius or Gaius Cornelius T ... Wikipedia

GOSPEL. PART II- The Language of the Gospels The Problem of New Testament Greek Extant original texts The NT was written in ancient Greek. language (see Art. Greek); existing versions in other languages ​​these are translations from Greek (or from other translations; about translations... ... Orthodox Encyclopedia

- - son of Gabriel Ivanovich Ch., publicist and critic; genus. July 12, 1828 in Saratov. Gifted by nature with excellent abilities, the only son of his parents, N. G. was the subject of intense care and concern for the whole family. But… … Big biographical encyclopedia

- (USA) (United States of America, USA). I. General information USA state in North America. Area 9.4 million km2. Population 216 million people. (1976, assessment). The capital is Washington. IN administratively US territory...

I general review. Germany. France. Belgium. Holland. Switzerland. Austria and Hungary. England. Italy. Spain and Portugal. Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania. America. Australia. Japan. This name refers to all those... ... encyclopedic Dictionary F. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

RSFSR. I. General information The RSFSR was founded on October 25 (November 7), 1917. It borders on the north-west with Norway and Finland, on the west with Poland, on the south-east with China, the MPR and the DPRK, as well as union republics, part of the USSR: in Z. with ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

L.S. Barkhudarov

LANGUAGE AND TRANSLATION: ISSUES OF GENERAL AND SPECIAL THEORY OF TRANSLATION. Ed. 2nd. – M.: LKI Publishing House, 2008. – 240 p.

CHAPTER FIRST

ESSENCE OF TRANSLATION

1. Subject of translation theory

§ 1. The word “translation” has several different meanings. So, in " Explanatory dictionary Russian language" edited by D. N. Ushakov indicates that this word has five meanings, most of which, of course, are not related to the problem of interest to us (for example, "transfer of a manager to another position", "postal transfer", etc. ). But even when the word “translation” is used in the sense of “translation from one language to another,” it also has two different meanings:

“Translation as the result of a certain process,” that is, the designation of the translated text itself (for example, in sentences: “This is a very good translation novel by Dickens", "Recently published new translation Byron’s poem “Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage” into Russian”, “He read this author in translation”, etc.

“Translation as a process itself,” that is, as an action from the verb to translate, as a result of which the translation text appears in the first meaning. The term “translation” will be used primarily in this second meaning in what follows.

However, from the very beginning it is necessary to clarify the sense in which the term “process” should be understood in relation to translation. It is important to emphasize that we do not mean here the mental or mental activity of the translator, that is, the psychophysiological process that occurs in the translator’s brain while he is translating. Of course, the study of this process in psycholinguistic terms is of great interest, especially for the theory interpretation. However, not to mention the fact that at present we still have an extremely vague idea of ​​the nature of this process (in essence it can only be the subject of study in a complex psycho-physiological-linguistic sense), we are interested here, first of all, in consideration of the translation process in terms of linguistics, in abstraction from the physiological and psychological factors that determine its implementation.

This means that the term “process” in relation to translation is understood by us in a purely linguistic sense, that is, as certain type linguistic, or more precisely, interlingual transformation or transformation of text in one language into text in another language. Again, the term "transformation" cannot be taken literally - the original text or original text itself is not "transformed" in the sense that it does not itself change. This text, of course, itself remains unchanged, but along with it and on its basis another text is created in a different language, which we call “translation” in the first sense of the word (translation as the translated text itself). In other words, the term “transformation” (or “transformation”) can be used here only in the sense in which this term is used in the synchronic description of language in general: we're talking about about a certain relationship between two linguistic or speech units, of which one is the original, and the second is created on the basis of the first. IN in this case Having the source text a in language A, the translator, applying certain operations to it (“translation transformations”), creates text b in language B, which is in certain regular relationships with text a. Taken together, these linguistic (interlingual) operations constitute what we call the “translation process” in the linguistic sense. Thus, translation can be considered a certain type of transformation, namely, interlingual transformation.

To summarize, we can say that the subject of the linguistic theory of translation is scientific description the process of translation as interlingual transformation, that is, transforming a text in one language into an equivalent text in another language. In other words, the task linguistic theory translation is the modeling of the translation process in the above sense.

§ 2. So, the linguistic theory of translation sets as its task the construction of a certain model of the translation process, that is, some scientific scheme that more or less accurately reflects essential aspects this process. Since we are talking about theoretical modeling, insofar as translation theory includes everything that characterizes theoretical models in general. It is especially important to emphasize the following two points:

1) Translation theory, like any other theoretical model, does not reflect everything, but only the most essential features of the described phenomenon. As the famous writes Soviet philosopher B.M. Kedrov, “the model must necessarily be simpler than the process or object being modeled and must reflect as clearly as possible the aspect of it that interests us” [B. M. Kedrov. Lenin and the dialectics of natural science of the 20th century. M., “Science”, 1971, p. 175.]. This idea was once expressed even more sharply by the outstanding Soviet theoretical physicist Ya. I. Frenkel: “A good theory complex systems should represent only a good “caricature” of these systems, exaggerating those properties of them that are the most typical, and deliberately ignoring all other - unimportant - properties" [Cit. from: “Science and Life”, 1972, No. 4, p. 80.]. The theory of translation should not consider any relationship between texts in the original language and the target language, but only natural relationships, that is, typical, regularly repeated.

Along with them at comparative analysis the original text and the translation text are opened, as a rule, a large number of relations (correspondences) are single, irregular, established only for a given specific case. Since such single correspondences cannot be generalized, the linguistic theory of translation naturally cannot take them into account in its constructions, although it should be noted that it is precisely these “irregular” correspondences that pose the greatest difficulty for the practice of translation. The ability to find individual, singular, “not provided for” by the theory correspondences lies precisely in creative nature translation activities. On the other hand, as translation theory develops, many phenomena that initially seem individual and irregular gradually “fit” into the overall picture, are explained and included in the object of consideration of translation theory; in other words, as in any science, progress in the theory of translation lies, in particular, in the fact that behind the many apparent “exceptions” and “irregularities” a certain general pattern is gradually revealed that governs them and determines their character.

2) As in any other theoretical discipline, in the theory of translation it is possible - and indeed occurs - to build not just one, but a whole variety of models that differently reflect the modeled process and reflect its various properties. The complexity of the object being described and its versatility exclude the possibility of constructing one single “universal” model that would be able to immediately reflect all aspects of the phenomenon being studied in all their complex mutual connections and relationships. Due to this, in modern theory translation exists whole line so-called “translation models” [A description of the most important of these models can be found in the book by A. D. Schweitzer “Translation and Linguistics”, M., Military Publishing House, 1973, ch. 1, 2.], and each of these models reflects one or another aspect, one or another side of a really existing phenomenon - the process of translation as a certain type of interlingual transformation. It would be naive to ask the question: which of the currently existing translation models is “correct” or “true”? - they are all correct in their own way, since they model the same phenomenon (the translation process), although with different sides; and, of course, none of the existing models can claim absolute truth or universality. On the other hand, existing translation models (as well as those that may be created in the future) are by no means mutually exclusive - they largely coincide, partially overlap each other, and only in their totality give an idea of ​​the translation process in all its complexity and diversity .

^ 2. The essence of translation

§ 3. Thus, we defined the translation process as the transformation of a text in one language into a text in another language. When translating, therefore, there are always two texts (according to A.I. Smirnitsky,1 “speech works”) [See. A. I. Smirnitsky. Syntax of the English language. M: Publishing house LKI/URSS. 2007.C. 8-9; aka. The objectivity of the existence of language. M., Moscow State University Publishing House, 1954, p. 16-18], of which one is the original and is created independently of the second, and the second is created on the basis of the first through certain operations - interlingual transformations. The first text is called the original text (or simply “original”), the second is called the translation text or simply “translation”. The language in which the original text is spoken or written will be called the source language (abbreviated as FL; English source language-SL). The language into which the translation is carried out (the language of the translation text) will be called the translation language (abbreviated as TL; English target language -TL).

It remains for us to determine the most important thing: on what basis do we consider the translation text equivalent to the original text? For example, what gives us reason to say that Russian offer My brother lives in London is a translation English sentences My brother lives in London, while the Russian sentence I study at the university is not a translation of the above English sentence - in other words, not equivalent to it? Obviously, not every replacement of a text in one language with a text in another language is a translation.

The same idea can be expressed differently: the translation process or interlingual transformation is not carried out arbitrarily, but according to some certain rules, in some strictly within certain limits, beyond which we already lose the right to talk about translation. To have the right to be called a translation (in the first sense), the text in the TL must contain something that is also contained in the text in the FL. In other words, when replacing a text in a foreign language with a text in a TL, some specific invariant must be preserved; the measure of preservation of this invariant determines the measure of equivalence of the translation text to the original text. Therefore, it is necessary, first of all, to determine what exactly remains invariant in the translation process, that is, in the process of converting a text in a foreign language into a text in a TL.

When solving this problem, it is necessary to proceed from the following. The translation process directly depends on what is in the science of sign systems ah - semiotics - called bilateral nature sign. This means that any sign is characterized by the presence of two sides or, as they are also called, plans: the plane of expression or form and the plane of content or meaning. Language, as is known, is a specific sign system, therefore language units are also characterized by two-dimensionality, the presence of both form and meaning. Wherein decisive role For translation, the fact that different languages ​​contain units that differ in terms of expression, that is, in form, but coincide in terms of content, that is, in meaning, plays a role. For example, in the above sentences English word brother differs from the Russian word brother in terms of expression [The fact that there is a certain phonetic similarity between brother and brother is explained by etymology, that is, the origin of these words (from the same Indo-European root) and has absolutely no meaning for translation; father and father are phonetically absolutely dissimilar, semantically the same as brother and brother],1 but coincides with it in terms of content, that is, it has the same meaning. (For simplicity of presentation, we are now abstracting from the very important fact for the theory of translation that this coincidence of units of different languages ​​in terms of their content is, as a rule, not complete, but partial. So, for example, the English brother, in addition to the meaning “brother ", also has meanings expressed in Russian by the words "fellow", "countryman", "colleague", "buddy", etc., and Russian brother in combination cousin corresponds in English not to brother, but to cousin, which, for its part, means not only “cousin,” but also “cousin,” etc. This phenomenon, namely the incomplete coincidence of the meaning systems of units of different languages, although significantly complicates the translation process, does not change its essence.) On this basis we can say that if we replace the English brother with the Russian brother, then a translation process takes place here, since these words, which differ in terms of expression, that is, in form, coincide or equivalent in terms of content, that is, in meaning. Since the minimum text (speech work) is a sentence, the translation process is always carried out within at least one sentence [As an exception, sometimes there is a translation of isolated words, for example, terms in a certain type of technical documents (specifications, parts lists, inscriptions on drawings and diagrams); however, here one can also see the presence of peculiar “nominative” sentences] (more often - a whole group of sentences), and in the sentence, as a rule, the discrepancy between units of different languages ​​in terms of content, which was discussed above, is eliminated.

Returning to our example, we should note that when translating we do not simply replace the English word brother with the Russian brother or the English lives with the Russian lives, but we replace the entire English sentence My brother lives in London with the Russian sentence My brother lives in London, which is different from the original an English sentence in terms of expression, that is, in form, but equivalent to it in terms of content, that is, coinciding with it in meaning.

Based on this, we can now give the following refined definition of translation:

Translation is the process of transforming a speech work in one language into a speech work in another language while maintaining an unchanged content plan, that is, meaning.

At the same time, two extremely significant caveats must be made from the very beginning;

The term “plan of content” or “meaning” should be understood as broadly as possible, meaning all types of relationships in which a sign (in this case, linguistic) unit is located. It is inappropriate to reduce the concept of “meaning” only to what is often called “object-logical” or “denotative” meaning. Thus, a correct understanding of the essence of the translation process requires, first of all, a detailed development of the theory of linguistic meanings or semasiology.

One can speak of “maintaining an unchanged plan of content” only in a relative sense, but not in an absolute sense. During interlingual transformation (as with any other type of transformation), losses are inevitable, that is, there is an incomplete transfer of meanings expressed by the original text. Therefore, the translation text can never be a complete and absolute equivalent of the original text; The translator’s task is to make this equivalence as complete as possible, that is, to reduce losses to a minimum, but to demand a “one hundred percent” coincidence of the meanings expressed in the original text and the translation text would be absolutely unrealistic. This also means that one of the tasks of translation theory is to establish what can be called the order of priority for the transmission of meanings: given that there are Various types meanings, it is necessary to establish which of them take advantage of transmission during the translation process, and which can be “sacrificed” so that semantic losses during translation are minimal.

§ 4. In order to complete the consideration of the question of the essence of translation, it is necessary to answer one more question that arises in connection with the above definition of translation equivalence as based on the preservation of an unchanged plan of content, that is, meaning. It has already been noted that the very possibility of preserving the plan of content, that is, the immutability of meaning during translation (even if relative) presupposes that in different languages contains units that match in value. However, here it is legitimate to ask the question: how valid is this assumption? If the value is, as we assume (and as will be justified later), integral part sign and, therefore, units of language, then doesn’t this mean that each sign system, including each language, has its own specific meanings? And doesn’t it follow from this that when transforming a text in one language into a text in another language, that is, in the process of translation, not only linguistic forms, but also the meanings expressed by them must inevitably change? On what basis then do we say that the meaning must remain unchanged during the translation process?

The greatest difficulties in translation arise when the situation itself, described in a text in a foreign language, is absent in the experience of the linguistic community - a native speaker of the foreign language, in other words, when the so-called “realities” are described in the source text, that is, objects and phenomena specific to of a given people and countries. Nevertheless, even in these cases, the difficulty of solving a translation task does not at all mean that it is fundamentally impracticable. It must be borne in mind that any human language(unlike, apparently, all or almost all other sign systems) is designed in such a way that with its help it is possible to describe not only already known, but also completely new, never encountered situations, and an unlimited number of such new ones, previously unknown situations. And indeed, a language that would not be structured in this way, that is, one with the help of which it would be impossible to describe new, hitherto unknown situations, would not represent communicative value, since in this language it would be possible to say only what is already known , that is, what was already said once. Such a language, of course, could not be an instrument of knowledge and would make human progress simply impossible. Therefore, the ability to describe new, unfamiliar situations is an integral property of any language; and it is precisely this property that makes possible what we are talking about - the transfer by means of another language of situations that are specific to the life of a given people and a given country and have no analogues in the life of other peoples and other countries [See. O. K a d e. Kommunikationswisserischaftliche Probleme der Translation. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift “Fremdsprachen”, II. Leipzig, 1968, S. 10; V. N. Komissarov, A Word on Translation. M., “ International relationships", 1973, p. 89.].

Translation was defined above as the process of transforming a speech work in one language into a speech work in another language. Thus, the translator deals not with languages ​​as systems, but with speech works, that is, with texts. Those differences in the semantic side, that is, in the meanings in question, relate, first of all, to the systems of different languages; in speech, these discrepancies are very often neutralized, erased, reduced to nothing.

When, speaking about the divergence of systems of meanings in different languages, they try to substantiate the thesis about the impossibility of transmitting the meanings of a foreign language using PL, they usually give examples of semantic inconsistencies or individual words, either in best case scenario, isolated, taken out of context sentences. However, it should be borne in mind that what is essential for translation is the equivalence of the meanings not of individual words or even isolated sentences, but of the entire translated text (speech work) as a whole in relation to the entire translated text. Specific distribution of elementary units of meaning (“sem” or “semantic components”) among individual words, phrases and sentences of this text is determined by numerous and complex factors and, as a rule, does not coincide in a text in a foreign language and a text in a TL; but this again refers not to the level of content, but to the level of expression and in no way is a violation of the principle of semantic equivalence of the original and translated texts.

To confirm this, we will give only two examples. In the story of the famous English writer S. Maugham's "A Casual Affair" contains the following sentence: He"d always been so spruce and smart; he was shabby and unwashed and wild-eyed. In the Russian translation this passage is rendered as follows:

“Before he was so dapper, so elegant. And now he wandered the streets of Singapore, dirty, in rags, with a wild look” (translated by M. Litvinova). At first glance, the Russian text does not seem entirely equivalent to English: it contains such words as before, but now, wandering the streets of Singapore, which have no direct correspondence in the original text. In fact, there is semantic equivalence here, although there is, of course, no verbal equivalence. The fact is that Russian words before and now convey meanings here that are English text expressed not in words, but in grammatical forms: the opposition of the forms of the verb be - (ha)d been and was (in the terminology of A.I. Smirnitsky, “category of temporal reference” [See A.I. Smirnitsky. Morphology of the English language. M., Publishing House of Literature in Foreign Languages, 1959, pp. 289-316.]) expresses the precedence of the first event to the second, which in Russian is expressed lexically, using adverbs of time. The words wandered the streets of Singapore convey semantic information that is also contained in the original English text, but not in this sentence, but in one of the previous sentences (He didn’t keep the job in Sumatra long and he was back again in Singapore). Therefore, semantic equivalence here is ensured not between individual words or even between individual sentences, but between the entire text in the FL and the entire text in the TL as a whole.

Another example: in the story of the American writer Harper Lee “To Kill a Mockingbird” there is a sentence Mr Raymond sat up against the tree-trunk, which in the Russian translation is rendered as Mr Raymond sat down and leaned against the oak tree. (translated by N. Gal and R. Oblonskaya) Again, one might think that the Russian sentence, in terms of the meanings expressed in it, does not fully correspond to the original English: it contains the words and leaned, which are absent in the original; English adverb up in sat up indicates that the subject of the verb came to a sitting position from a lying position (cf. sat down), while in the Russian sentence this information is not contained; finally, the English tree-trunk does not mean oak, but a tree trunk. However, in fact, there is semantic equivalence here, only to establish it it is necessary, firstly, to take into account the lexical and grammatical transformations (“translation transformations”) that take place in the translation process, and, secondly, to go beyond this proposal into a wider context. Indeed, the Russian sat down and leaned against corresponds to the English sat up against insofar as one of the meanings of the preposition against is the meaning of contact with something or reliance on something; the information conveyed by the English up in sat up is, in the Russian translation, extracted from the subsequent sentence [Also in the English original; in other words, in this case English. up in sat up is semantically redundant from the point of view of the wider context] - Previously, he was lying on the grass; finally, the tree that Raymond leaned against is mentioned in the previous context, where it is indicated that it is an oak tree (cf. We chose the fattest live oak and we sat under it).

In this case, the semantic equivalence of texts in a foreign language and in a TL is established not at the level of individual words or even sentences, but at the level of the entire text as a whole.

So, semantic discrepancies between languages ​​cannot serve as an insurmountable obstacle to translation due to the fact that translation deals not with languages ​​as abstract systems, but with specific speech works (texts), within which a complex interweaving and interaction of qualitatively heterogeneous linguistic means, which are expressors of meanings - words, grammatical forms, syntactic and “suprasegmental” means, etc., in their totality conveying one or another semantic information. The semantic equivalence of the original and translation texts, which we consider a necessary condition implementation of the translation process, exists not between individual elements of these texts, but between texts as a whole, and within a given text, numerous regroupings, rearrangements and redistributions of individual semantic elements (“translation transformations”) are not only acceptable, but often simply inevitable. In translation, therefore, the strict rule is the principle of subordination of elements to the whole, of lower units to higher ones.

The above does not mean that in the process of translation there is always an absolutely complete (“one hundred percent”) transfer of all meanings expressed in the original text. We have already said that during translation, semantic losses are inevitable, and that we can only talk about the maximum possible completeness of the transfer of meanings expressed by the original text. Doubts about the possibility of preserving the meanings expressed in a text in a foreign language during translation are justified insofar as we are talking about the absolute identity of the expressed meanings. Since, however, we make a demand not for absolute, but for the maximum possible completeness of the transfer of meanings during translation in compliance with what we call the “order of priority for the transfer of meanings,” these doubts disappear.

^ 3. The place of translation theory among other disciplines

§ 6. In the previous presentation we used the term “linguistic theory of translation” several times. In this regard, there is a need to clarify, firstly, on what basis we consider translation theory to be a linguistic discipline; secondly, are there any other approaches to the problems of translation theory other than linguistic; thirdly, what place does the linguistic theory of translation occupy among other branches of the science of language.

The translation process involves converting a text in one language (FL) into a text in another language (TL) while maintaining an unchanged content plan, that is, the meaning or, more precisely, the set of meanings expressed in the source text. In order to fulfill its task, namely, to reflect the essential patterns of translation, translation theory must first of all establish similarities and divergences in the ways of expressing identical meanings in the FL and in the TL and, on this basis, identify the most typical ways to overcome these discrepancies (“translation techniques”). Such a task is essentially linguistic, and the theory of translation, which sets itself precisely such a task, cannot be anything other than a linguistic discipline.

To this, one could, at first glance, object that the task of establishing similarities and divergences in the ways of expressing meanings in different languages ​​falls within the purview of comparative linguistics, rather than translation theory. In fact, the theory of translation is closely connected with comparative linguistics, which serves as its direct theoretical basis; and yet the linguistic theory of translation is not identical to the comparative study of languages. Comparative linguistics, like linguistics in general, deals with systems of languages ​​- its functions include revealing the similarities and differences between the systems of two languages ​​in the field of their sound (phonological) structure, vocabulary and grammatical structure. Therefore, for comparative linguistics (as for linguistics in general), it is essential to distinguish between the levels of the language hierarchy, that is, to assign certain units of language (or two compared languages) to a certain aspect or level language system. Translation, as emphasized above, deals not with language systems, but with specific speech works, that is, texts. In speech, as is known, the stratification of the language system into levels or aspects (morphological, syntactic, lexical-semantic, etc.) is overcome; within the speech work is carried out complex interaction and synthesis of qualitatively heterogeneous means of expressing meanings. Therefore, for the theory of translation, the units in question belong to a certain level or aspect of the language system does not play a role at all; comparison linguistic units in translation theory is carried out only on the basis of the commonality of the content they express, that is, meaning, in other words, on the basis of the semantic commonality of these units, regardless of their belonging to one or the other different levels language hierarchy.

Let's explain what was said concrete example. Let's say we set ourselves the goal of a comparative study of the aspectual and tense forms of the verb in English and Russian. In this case comparative grammar of these two languages ​​should be limited to the study of similarities and differences specifically in aspectual and tense verb forms, that is, to remain within the morphological level in both English and Russian languages, without at all touching upon the question of what certain meanings can be in one of the compared languages ​​are expressed not by morphological or even grammatical means, but by lexical-semantic means. The theory of translation is a different matter. Here, in the case under consideration, it is precisely impossible to limit ourselves to establishing correspondences only within the system morphological forms; it is necessary to go beyond these limits and establish that certain meanings expressed grammatically in one language can be expressed in another using lexical means, as in the above example (§ 4) from the story by S. Maugham, where the meanings expressed in the source text using forms of temporal reference of the verb are conveyed lexically in the translation text - using the words before and now. In other words, the theory of translation is, in principle, indifferent to the linguistic status of the units being compared, to whether they belong to grammatical, lexical or any other means; for her, only their semantic identity is essential, that is, the unity of the content they express. Therefore, if for linguistics in general and for comparative linguistics in particular, the essential point is the distinction between the levels of the language system; for translation theory, on the contrary, the most important thing is to consider and compare linguistic phenomena in their connection, in the interaction into which they enter into speech, in the structure of a coherent text [See. L. Schweitzer. On the issue of analysis of grammatical phenomena during translation. "Translator's Notebooks", vol. 1, M., 1963].

In this regard, it should be noted that in modern linguistics there is generally a tendency to move from the study of language as an abstract system to the study of the functioning of language in speech. This trend is also manifested in increased interest in problems speech activity, studied in terms of psycholinguistics, and in the development of topics related to the so-called “actual syntax” and “communicative division of the sentence”, which is conceivable only when taking into account the functioning of the sentence in the structure of coherent speech, and, finally, in the emergence of a new branch of linguistics - “linguistics text" [See "Materials scientific conference“Text Linguistics”, Moscow State Pedagogical Institute named after. M. Toreza, M., 1974]. All these areas of language study are closely related to the theory of translation; one can even argue that the linguistic theory of translation is nothing more than “comparative linguistics of the text,” that is, the comparative study of semantically identical multilingual texts.

In this case, it is necessary to make the following clarification: strictly speaking, speech as such cannot be the subject of linguistics, because it is always individual, singular and unique, and any science can only study something general, natural, typical and regularly reproduced. Speech serves for linguistics only as a material from which it extracts its object of study, namely language [See. A. I. Smirnitsky. Objectivity of the existence of language, p. 19.]. If we say that in modern linguistics there is a tendency towards studying the use and functioning of language in speech, this only means a shift in the study of the same object - language, expressed in the emphasis not on the static, but on its dynamic side, not on the approach to language as an inventory of units, but on its learning in action, in real functioning. We can say that the main task of modern linguistics is to construct “ current model language" [See A. K-Zholkovsky, I. A. Melchuk. Towards the construction of a working model of the “meaning - text” language. "Machine translation and applied linguistics", vol. II, M., 1969, p. 5-6.], a model reflecting the dynamic aspect of language, considered, in Humboldt’s terms, as “energeia” (activity), and not as “ergon” [See. V. A. 3 V egintsev. History of linguistics of the 19th-20th centuries in essays and extracts. Part I. M., “Enlightenment”, 1964, p. 91.] (product of activity). This path is followed by one of the main directions of modern linguistics - the so-called generative linguistics (the school of N. Chomsky in the United States, in the Soviet Union we have applicative grammar and similar directions). The linguistic theory of translation is also unique dynamic model, which describes in linguistic terms the process of transition from a text in a foreign language to a text in a TL, that is, the process of interlingual transformation while maintaining invariant content. The patterns of this transition, that is, the “rules” of translation transformation, are the subject of study of the linguistic theory of translation.

§ 7. Having defined the theory of translation as linguistic discipline, it is necessary to establish its place among other branches of the science of language. Modern linguistics is divided into two main sections: microlinguistics and macrolinguistics [See. G. T r a g e r and H. Smith. An Outline of English Structure. Washington, 1957, pp. 81-82. Strictly speaking, macrolinguistics also includes microlinguistics as one of the sections; further, by “macrolinguistics” we will mean those areas that cannot be reduced to microlinguistics (according to Treyger and Smith, “metalinguistics”)]. The first of these sections includes linguistics in in the narrow sense words, that is, the study of language, in the words of F. de Saussure, “in itself and for itself” [F. de S o s y r. General linguistics course. M., KomKniga/ URSS, 2006, p. 207], in abstraction from extralinguistic facts, as an object relatively independent from other phenomena. This includes such classical disciplines of the linguistic cycle as phonetics and phonology, grammar, lexicology and semasiology [However, one can doubt whether this section belongs to an exclusively microlinguistic area, since the connection of linguistic semantics with extralinguistic factors is obvious (see Chapter 2).] considered in terms of both general and specific linguistics, both historically (in diachrony) and descriptively (in synchrony), as well as comparative historical and comparative typological study of languages.

To macrolinguistics, that is, to linguistics in in a broad sense, include those areas in linguistics that study language in its connection with extralinguistic phenomena, that is, with factors lying outside the language itself. These include such disciplines as psycholinguistics, which studies the psychophysiological mechanisms of speech activity; sociolinguistics, which studies the interaction of language and social factors; ethnolinguistics, which studies the relationship between language and cultural and ethnographic factors; linguistic geography, the subject of which is the influence of territorial-geographical factors on language; and some other areas in language learning.

In addition to the indicated division of linguistics into micro- and macrolinguistics, there is also a division of linguistic disciplines into theoretical and applied. The latter include those areas of language science that are directly related to practical use language in those and

BIBLIOGRAPHY

additional training of specialists

with qualification

"Translator in the field of professional communication"

1. Barkhudarov L.S. Language and translation. Questions of general and particular theory of translation. M., IMO, 1975.
2. Komissarov V.N. A word about translation. M., IMO, 1973.
3.Martemyanov Yu.S. Syntactic features of a word and syntactic analysis of a sentence. On Sat. Logic of situations. Text structure. Terminology of words. M., Languages ​​of Slavic culture, 2004.
4. Zholkovsky A.K., Leontyeva N.N., Martemyanov Yu.S. On the fundamental use of meaning in translation. On Sat. Logic of situations. ... M., YASK, 2004.
5. Revzin I.I., Rosenzweig V.Yu. Fundamentals of general and machine translation. M., Higher School, 1964.
6. Retsker Ya.I. Translation theory and translation practice. M., IMO, 1973.
7. Translator's Notebooks, ed. L.S. Barkhudarov. M., IMO, No. 1 – 11
8. Fedorov A.V. Basics general theory translation. M., Higher School, 1968.
9. Chernyakhovskaya L.A. Translation and semantic structure. M., IMO, 1976.
10. Chukovsky K.I. High art. On the principles of literary translation, M., 1964.
11. Chukovsky K I. High art. M., 1968.
12. Schweitzer A.D. Translation and linguistics. M., Voenizdat, 1968.
13. Etkind E.G. Poetry and translation. M.-L., 1963.
14. Etkind E.G. Literary translation: art and science. Questions of linguistics. M., 1970, No. 4.

15. Brandes M.P., Provorotov V.I. Pre-translation text analysis: a tutorial. - M., 1998. – pp. 11-14, 28-29, 30-110.

16. Komissarov V.N. A word about translation. – M., 1973. – P. 76-157.
17. Polyakova T.Yu. English for dialogue with a computer. - M., 1998.
18. Sapogova L.I. Translation practice: searches, doubts, finds. – Tula, 1998. – P. 5-56.
19. Sapogova L.I. English through translation. – Tula, 1998. – P.68-75, 100-132.

20. Terminology de la traduction. Translation Terminology. Terminology de la traducción. Terminologie der Übersetzung. Ed. by Jean Delisle, Hannelore Lee-Jahnke, Monique C.Cornier. – Amsterdam, 1999. – Pp.108-209.

21. Slavina N.M., Budarkevich N.M. Collection of exercises on translation from English into Russian. - M., 1974.

22. Retsker Ya.I. Translation theory and translation practice. - M., 1974.

Catford J.C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation.– London, 1965.
23. Russian Studies in Translatology: The Perspectives. Ed. Natalya Bushmanova and Cay Dollerup. - University of Copenhagen, 1998.
24. Sager J.C. A Practical Course in Terminology Processing.– Amsterdam, 1996.

25. Toury, Gideon. The Nature and Role of Norms in Literary Translation. – Leuven, 1976.

Barkhudarov L. S.

B 24 Language and translation (Issues of general and particular theory of translation). M., “International. relations", 1975.

Based on translations of fiction and socio-political literature from English into Russian and from Russian into English, the author examines the process of translation from general linguistic points of view. The book contains both theoretical generalizations and practical instructions and recommendations that can be used by beginning translators in their practical activities.

B 49-75

003(01)-75

c Publishing house"International Relations", 1975.

From the author

The proposed book is written on the basis of a course of lectures on the linguistic theory of translation, which the author read for a number of years at the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages. M. Thorez and in other universities. The author focuses on issues related to the general linguistic theory of translation; however, the material for illuminating them and for illustrating the general theoretical provisions put forward in the work are the translation correspondences established in terms of two specific languages- Russian and English (and translation is considered both from English into Russian and, to a lesser extent, from Russian into English). Hence the subtitle of the book - “Issues of general and particular theory of translation”; the general theory of translation is the subject of this work, the particular theory is its material. Since the construction of a theory of translation is unthinkable without the preliminary development of the corresponding problems within the competence of linguistics, when writing this work it turned out to be impossible to do without including issues that, strictly speaking, fall within the competence not of the theory of translation as such, but of the general and particular theory of language. First of all, this relates to problems of semantics: since within the framework of the approach to translation adopted by the author of this study, the presence of an adequate semantic theory is absolutely necessary, in this work it was necessary to devote a lot of space to explaining the author’s positions on semantic problems, especially since the point of view adopted in the work diverges from the prevailing one in modern linguistics (in any case, with the concept adopted in most works written here in the Soviet Union). The author is fully aware that this, in turn, led to a certain “shift of emphasis” from translation issues proper to issues related to problems of general and

comparative linguistics, which is apparently completely inevitable in the current state of linguistic theory of translation.

As a rule, published translations of works of fiction are taken as research material (the translator's name is indicated only at the first citation). Where there is no reference to the translator's name, the translation was carried out by the author himself (this applies almost exclusively to materials of the newspaper and journalistic genre). The main setting in this work is descriptive (analytical), and not normative; Therefore, the quoted translations should not be interpreted as “ideal” or “recommended”, they are considered only as possible.

Some sections of this work were published as articles in various scientific publications between 1962 and 1972; however, in this book they have undergone significant revision, and most of the materials in this study are published for the first time.

Chapter one essence of translation

1. Subject of translation theory

§ 1. The word "translation" has several meanings different meanings. Thus, in the “Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language,” edited by D. N. Ushakov, it is indicated that this word has five meanings, 1 most of which, of course, are not related to the problem of interest to us (for example, “transfer of a manager to another position,” "postal transfer", etc.). But even when the word “translation” is used in the sense of “translation from one language to another,” it also has two different meanings:

“Translation as the result of a certain process,” that is, the designation of the translated text itself (for example, in sentences: “This is a very good translation of Dickens’s novel,” “A new translation of Byron’s poem “Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage” into Russian has recently been published.” , “He read this author in translation,” etc.

“Translation as a process itself,” that is, as an action from a verb transfer, as a result of which the translation text appears in the first meaning. The term “translation” will be used primarily in this second meaning in what follows.

However, from the very beginning it is necessary to clarify the sense in which the term “process” should be understood in relation to translation. It is important to emphasize that we do not mean here the mental or mental activity of the translator, that is, the psychophysiological process that occurs in the translator’s brain while he is translating. Of course, studying this process in psycholinguistic terms is

1 In fact, there are more of them, since under the value 1 in the specified dictionary the meanings of the action from the verb are combined transfer, which in itself is ambiguous.

of great interest, especially for the theory of interpreting. However, “not to mention the fact that at present we still have an extremely vague idea of ​​​​the nature of this process (in essence it can only be the subject of study in a complex psycho-physiological-linguistic plan), we are interested here, first of all , consideration of the translation process in terms of linguistics, in abstraction from the physiological and psychological factors that determine its implementation.

This means that the term “process” in relation to translation is understood by us in a purely linguistic sense, that is, as a certain type of linguistic, or more precisely, interlingual transformation or transforming text in one language into text in another language. Again, the term "transformation" cannot be taken literally - the original text or original text itself is not "transformed" in the sense that it does not itself change. This text, of course, itself remains unchanged, but along with it and on its basis another text is created in a different language, which we call “translation” in the first sense of the word (translation as the translated text itself). In other words, the term “transformation” (or “transformation”) can be used here only in the sense in which this term is used in the synchronic description of language in general: we are talking about a certain relationship between two linguistic or speech units, of which one is the original, and the second is created based on the first. In this case, having the source text a in language A, the translator, applying certain operations to it (“translation transformations”, which will be discussed below), creates text b in language B, which is in certain natural relations with the text a. Taken together, these linguistic (interlingual) operations constitute what we call the “translation process” in the linguistic sense. Thus, translation can be considered a certain type of transformation, namely interlingualtransformation.

To summarize, we can say that the subject of the linguistic theory of translation is the scientific description of the translation process as interlingual transformation, that is, the transformation of a text in one language into an equivalent text in another language (what content is included in the term “equivalent” will be discussed below. ) In other words, the task of the linguistic theory of translation is to model the translation process in the above sense.

§ 2. So, the linguistic theory of translation sets as its task the construction of a certain model of the translation process, that is, some scientific scheme that more or less accurately reflects the essential aspects of this process. Since we are talking about theoretical modeling, translation theory includes everything that characterizes theoretical models in general. It is especially important to emphasize the following two points:

1) Translation theory, like any theoretical model, does not reflect everything, but only the most significant features of the phenomenon being described. As the famous Soviet philosopher B.M. writes. Kedrov, “the model must necessarily be simpler than the process or object being modeled and must reflect as clearly as possible the aspect of it that interests us.” 1 This idea was once expressed even more sharply by the outstanding Soviet theoretical physicist Ya. I. Frenkel: “ Good theory complex systems should represent only a good “caricature” of these systems, exaggerating those properties of them that are the most typical, and deliberately ignoring all other - unimportant - properties. 2 Translation theory should not consider any relationship between texts in the original language and the target language, but only the relationship natural, that is, typical, regularly repeated. Along with them, a comparative analysis of the original text and the translation text reveals, as a rule, a large number of single, irregular relationships (correspondences), established only for a given specific case. Since such single correspondences cannot be generalized, the linguistic theory of translation naturally cannot take them into account in its constructions, although it should be noted that it is precisely these “irregular” correspondences that pose the greatest difficulty for the practice of translation. The ability to find individual, singular, “not provided for” by the theory correspondences lies precisely in creative the nature of translation activity. On the other hand, as translation theory develops, many phenomena that initially seem individual and irregular gradually “fit” into the overall picture, receive an explanation and are included in the object of translation.

1 B. M. Kedrov. Lenin and the dialectics of natural science of the 20th century. M., “Science”, 1971, p. 175.

2 Quote. from: “Science and Life”, 1972, No. 4, p. 80.

considerations of translation theory; in other words, as in any science, progress in the theory of translation lies, in particular, in the fact that behind the many apparent “exceptions” and “irregularities” a certain general pattern is gradually revealed that governs them and determines their character.

2) As in any other theoretical discipline, in the theory of translation it is possible - and indeed takes place - to build not just one, but a whole many models, representing the simulated process in different ways and reflecting its various properties. The complexity of the object being described and its versatility exclude the possibility of constructing one single “universal” model that would be able to immediately reflect all aspects of the phenomenon being studied in all their complex mutual connections and relationships. Because of this, in modern translation theory there is a number of so-called “translation models”, 1 and each of these models reflects one or another aspect, one or another side of a really existing phenomenon - the process of translation as a certain type of interlingual transformation. It would be naive to ask the question: which of the currently existing translation models is “correct” or “true”? - they are all correct in their own way, since they model the same phenomenon (the translation process), albeit from different sides; and, of course, none of the existing models can claim absolute truth or universality. The same, of course, applies to the translation model that is presented in this work and which can be called the “semantic-semiotic model” (the motivation for this name will be outlined in Chapter 2). On the other hand, existing translation models (as well as those that may be created in the future) are by no means mutually exclusive - they largely coincide, partially overlap each other, and only in their totality give an idea of ​​the translation process in all its complexity and diversity .

Based on the material of translations of fiction and socio-political literature from English into Russian and from Russian into English, the author examines the translation process from a general linguistic point of view. The book contains both theoretical generalizations and practical instructions and recommendations that can be used by beginning translators in their practical activities.

Subject of translation theory.
The word "translation" has several different meanings. Thus, in the “Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language,” edited by D. N. Ushakov, it is indicated that this word has five meanings, most of which, of course, are not related to the problem of interest to us (for example, “transfer of a manager to another position,” postal transfer" etc.). But even when the word “translation” is used in the sense of ‘translation from one language to another’, it also has two different meanings:
1) “Translation as the result of a certain process,” that is, the designation of the translated text itself (for example, in sentences: “This is a very good translation of Dickens’s novel,” “A new translation of Byron’s poem “Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage” into Russian has recently been published language”, “He read this author in translation”, etc.
2) “Translation as a process itself,” that is, as an action from the verb to translate, as a result of which the translation text appears in the first meaning. The term “translation” will be used primarily in this second meaning in what follows.

However, from the very beginning it is necessary to clarify the sense in which the term “process” should be understood in relation to translation. It is important to emphasize that we do not mean here mental or mental activity translator, that is, the psychophysiological process that occurs in the translator’s brain while he is translating. Of course, the study of this process in psycholinguistic terms is of great interest, especially for the theory of oral translation. However, not to mention the fact that at present we still have an extremely vague idea of ​​​​the nature of this process (in essence, it can only be the subject of study in a complex psychophysiological-linguistic plan), we are interested here, first of all, in considering the translation process in terms of linguistics, in abstraction from the physiological and psychological factors that determine its implementation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
From the author
Chapter 1. The essence of translation
1. Subject of translation theory
2. The essence of translation
3. The place of translation theory among other disciplines
4.Types of translation
Chapter 2. Linguistic meanings and translation
1.Fundamentals of the theory of linguistic meanings
2.Language meanings and translation
Chapter 3. Semantic correspondences in translation
1. Transfer of reference values
2.Transfer of pragmatic meanings
3. Pragmatic aspect of translation
4.Transmission of intralinguistic meanings
5.Grammatical meanings in translation
6. Context and situation during translation
Chapter 4. Translation unit problem
Chapter 5. Translation transformations
1.Permutations
2.Replacements
a) Replacement of word forms
b) Replacement of parts of speech
c) Replacement of sentence members
d) Syntactic substitutions in a complex sentence
e) Lexical replacements
f)Antonymic translation
g) Compensation
3.Additions
4.Omissions
Conclusion
Bibliography.

Free download e-book in a convenient format, watch and read:
Download the book Language and Translation, Issues of General and Particular Theory of Translation, Barkhudarov L.S., 1975 - fileskachat.com, fast and free download.

Download djvu
Below you can buy this book at the best price with a discount with delivery throughout Russia.