Translation transformations according to Komissarova. Translation transformations as a path to creating a high-quality translation of a work of art

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

1.4 Classifications of non-equivalent vocabulary

Chapter 2. The problem of preserving the cultural and historical originality of the original

2.1 Classification of non-equivalent vocabulary in the novel by M.A. Sholokhov

2.2 Translation transformations and methods of translating non-equivalent vocabulary in the novel by M.A. Sholokhov

2.2.1 Transcription and transliteration

2.2.2 Translation commentary

2.2.3 Tracing and semi-tracing

2.2.4 Generalization of values

2.2.5 Semantic development

2.2.6 Explication

2.2.7 Omission of realities

Conclusion

List of used literature

Application

Introduction

When different cultures come into contact, a process of information exchange occurs at different levels of human activity, especially at the linguistic level. The study of the linguistic characteristics of a particular culture is a powerful social and cultural mechanism that provides familiarity with the worldview and attitude of speakers of other languages. When working with a literary text, the translator's task is not so much to accurately translate the source text into another language, but to create a work of art in another language. National color is an integral part of a literary work. Thus, the brighter this flavor is conveyed, the more opportunity we have to experience the culture of a particular language. Culturally marked vocabulary is an important aspect of the translation of a literary text. vocabulary translation transcription explication

When considering this topic, we took as a basis the theoretical studies of such outstanding scientists as V.N. Komissarov A.O. Ivanov, L.K. Latyshev, Ya.I. Retzker, S. Vlahov, S. Florin, V.S. Vinogradov L.S. Barkhudarov, and others.

The work is devoted to the problem of translating various classes of Russian-language non-equivalent vocabulary based on the material of the novel by M.A. Sholokhov “Quiet Don”.

The relevance of the study is due to: on the one hand, the significance of the problem of the relationship between language and culture; on the other hand, the undying interest of translation theorists in the problem of transmitting non-equivalent vocabulary and the numerous mistakes made when transmitting it into another language.

The purpose of the study is to identify translation transformations that are optimal for preserving the cultural and historical originality of the original.

The goal identified the following tasks:

1) consider the similarities and differences between the concepts of “equivalence” and “adequacy”, “reality” and “non-equivalent vocabulary”.

2) study the reasons for lexical non-equivalence.

3) study the classifications of non-equivalent vocabulary.

4) conduct a comparative analysis of the translation of Russian non-equivalent vocabulary.

5) determine the degree to which the cultural and historical originality of the novel is preserved when translated into English

The object of the study is various groups of non-equivalent vocabulary in the novel “Quiet Don”.

The subject of the study is translation transformations when translating non-equivalent vocabulary into English.

The research material is: the novel by M.A. Sholokhov’s “Quiet Don”, and its translation into English by Robert Daglish and Harry S. Stevenson “Tikhiy Don” 1978.

During the study, a corpus of examples was collected using a continuous sampling method, which amounted to 203 culturally marked units. To study the selected examples, comparative analysis and the method of mathematical calculations were used.

The theoretical basis of the study was made up of works in the field of theory and practice of translation by such researchers as Komissarov, A.O. Ivanov, L.K. Latyshev, T.A. Kazakova, Ya.I. Retzker, S. Vlahov, S. Florin, V.S. Vinogradov and others. The list of used literature includes 35 sources, of which 4 sources are in English, dictionaries and reference books.

In accordance with the set goal and objectives, the structure of the work was chosen, which consists of an introduction, two chapters (theoretical and research with conclusions), a conclusion, a list of references and an appendix.

Chapter 1. The problem of translating a work of fiction

1.1 The concepts of “equivalence” and “adequacy” in translation

Translation is generally considered from the point of view of fidelity, i.e. accuracy and completeness of the original. The original is aimed at a reader who speaks the language in which the original is written, while the translation is aimed at a recipient who does not speak the original language and needs the mediation of translation, through which he gets acquainted with the original. It is clear that it is impossible to achieve complete compliance of the translation with the original. When trying to preserve as much as possible from the original in translation, the text turns out to be unreasonably cumbersome and even incomprehensible (Tyulenev 2004: 132-133).

In translation studies, the concepts of equivalence and adequacy are often interpreted as synonyms, similar concepts, as, for example, by J. Catford, who defines translation equivalence as the adequacy of a translation (Catford 1965: 48). However, other scientists, such as, for example, V.N. Commissioners define equivalent and adequate translation as non-identical, although closely interrelated concepts. Adequate translation is considered by him more broadly and is considered as a synonym for “good” translation, providing the necessary completeness of interlingual communication in specific conditions, while equivalence is considered as a semantic community of units of language and speech equated to each other (Komissarov 2002: 116-117) . HELL. Schweitzer distinguishes different levels of equivalence, arguing that an adequate translation implies a certain level of equivalence, while an equivalent translation cannot always be considered adequate (Schweitzer 1988: 92-93).

According to V.S. Vinogradov, the equivalence of a translation to the original is always a conditional concept. And the level of this convention may be different. V.S. Vinogradov distinguishes between such concepts as “adequacy”, “equivalence” and “identity”. In broad terms, equivalence is considered as something equivalent, equivalent to something, adequacy as something completely equal, and identity as something that has complete coincidence, similarity with something. The concepts of adequacy, identity, usefulness and even analogy remain in the same semantic field as the term “equivalence” and are sometimes interchangeable. V. S. Vinogradov understands equivalence as preserving the relative equality of content, semantic, semantic, stylistic and functional-communicative information contained in the original and translation (Vinogradov 2006: 18-19).

In modern translation studies, there are different approaches to defining the concept of “equivalent”:

S. Vlahov believes that “equivalence is complete identity between the corresponding units of two languages in terms of content (semantics, connotation, background)” (Vlahov, Florin 2009: 47).

A.O. Ivanov understands equivalent as “a functional correspondence in the target language, conveying at a similar level of the expression plane (words, phrases) all components of the meaning or one of the variants of the meaning of the original unit of the source language within a given context” (Ivanov 2006: 187).

ME AND. Retzker defines equivalents as constant, “equivalent”, context-independent correspondences between units of the source language and the target language (Retzker 2007: 137). V.N. Komissarov also believes that the “equivalence” of a translation lies in the maximum identity of all levels of content of the original and translation texts, which, with an evaluative interpretation of the term “equivalence”, i.e. when only the actual “equivalent” translation is recognized as “good” or “correct,” the use of the term “adequacy” becomes completely unnecessary (Komissarov 2000: 75).

It is obvious that V.N. Komissarov’s concept of equivalence is considered more broadly than that of Retzker, and denotes the very purpose of translation, and not a separate type of relationship between units of the source and target languages.

In general, V.N. Komissarov identifies three approaches to defining the concept of “equivalence”:

The first approach to equivalence as identity, “preservation of an unchanged plan of content,” turns out to be not entirely correct, since the translation process always requires a certain change in the original. Most often, this manifests itself in the fact that the translator deliberately makes certain losses, and the translation inevitably loses some features of the original. (Komissarov 2000: 27).

The second approach is that a certain invariant part in the content of the original is highlighted. Preservation of this invariant part is a necessary and sufficient condition for ensuring the equivalence of the translation as a whole. Most often, the invariant part of the original is understood as either a function of the original text or a situation described in it. However, based on Komissarov, such a definition of the degree of translation equivalence does not reflect the entire diversity of translations that successfully ensure interlingual communication. (Komissarov 2000: 41)

The third approach to determining translation equivalence according to V.N. Komissarov empirical approach. With this approach, the scientist does not a priori assign equivalence to one or another type of similarity between the translation and the original. The conclusion suggests itself that equivalence can manifest itself at different levels in different texts at the level of preserving the purpose of communication, the level of the method of its description, the level of syntactic structures and lexical units and, finally, at the level of greatest closeness to the original, the level of literal translation (Komissarov 2000: 70- 71).

Thus, V.N. Komissarov argues that an equivalent is a constant equivalent correspondence, as a rule, independent of the context (Komissarov 2000: 55).

OK. Latyshev and A.L. Semenov emphasize that translation equivalence is not identical to communicative-functional equivalence, but reflects the optimal fulfillment of a number of conditions. Thus, a translation that has, in general, a potential impact on the addressee similar to that of the original, but containing unmotivated semantic-structural deviations from it, can be considered unequal. Conversely, a translation that does not have an impact sufficiently similar to the original can be considered generally equivalent if the lack of communicative-functional equivalence is due to objective reasons (Latyshev, Semenov 2003: 75).

But, in any case, the most important thing remains that at any level of equivalence the translation must ensure interlingual communication, which is very important for the translation of non-equivalent vocabulary.

1.2 The concept of “non-equivalent vocabulary”

The obvious fact is that in absolutely any language there are words that have no equivalent in another language. The rapid pace of changes in the vocabulary of languages was caused by the development of production, culture and science of a particular country. Many linguists working on various problems related to language and translation, such as L.S. Barkhudarov, S. Vlahov, S. Florin, Ya.I. Retzker, A.O. Ivanov, V.N. Komissarov, A.D. Schweitzer, the concept of “non-equivalent vocabulary” is often encountered, but it is interpreted differently by everyone. What is meant by this term?

If a lexical unit does not have a corresponding lexical equivalent in the target language, the translator is faced with the phenomenon of non-equivalence. It reflects the specific phenomena of the cultural identity of a particular country.

Let's consider some definitions of lexical non-equivalence in translation theory:

Based on the definition of the term “equivalence” according to Ya. I. Retzker, we can conclude that non-equivalence is a group of lexical or phraseological units that do not have a constant dictionary correspondence in the translating language and do not depend on the context. In addition, non-equivalent vocabulary is a designation of realities that are characteristic of the country of the source language and alien, unfamiliar to the culture of the target language. (Retzker 2007: 34).

A.D. Schweitzer refers to this category as “lexical units that serve to designate cultural realities that do not have exact correspondence in another culture” (Schweitzer 1988: 86).

V. N. Komissarov means by non-equivalent “units of the source language that do not have regular correspondence in the target language.” In addition, he gives a broader explanation of this phenomenon: “non-equivalent vocabulary is used to denote culture-specific phenomena that are the product of the cumulative function of language and can be considered as repositories of background knowledge, i.e. knowledge existing in the minds of speakers” (Komissarov 2002: 51).

Linguists S. Vlahov and S. Florin significantly narrow the boundaries of non-equivalence - “lexical units that do not have translation equivalents in the target language.” Moreover, they distinguish between the concepts of “non-equivalent vocabulary” and “realities”. The concept of “non-equivalence” for them has a wider range of content, in contrast to reality - a separate, independent circle of words (Vlahov Florin 2009: 48).

L.S. Barkhudarov provides a more concise definition: “words denoting objects, concepts and situations that do not exist in the practical experience of people speaking another language” (Barkhudarov 1975: 81).

The most accurate, complete, and comprehensive definition of the concept of non-equivalent vocabulary given by researcher A.O. Ivanov seems to be the most accurate, complete, and comprehensive. By this concept he means that the lexical units of the source language have no equivalents in the vocabulary of the target language. In other words, this means the absence in the target language of relevant components of meaning similar to the original language. Moreover, A.O. Ivanov makes a very important clarification regarding English non-equivalent vocabulary. He puts the following meaning into this concept: “this statement concerns the translation of English non-equivalent vocabulary into Russian” (Ivanov 2006: 71). It is necessary to understand that the phenomenon of non-equivalence exists within a certain language pair and is used in translation only in one direction. From this we can conclude that if a word is non-equivalent in one language, this does not mean that it will be such in another. Thus, A.O. Ivanov adds that it is impossible to associate non-equivalent vocabulary with something untranslatable. Only non-transferable meanings at a similar level are untranslatable, but not the lexical units themselves.

Consequently, non-equivalent vocabulary at the same time relates to both language and culture, that is, it simultaneously reflects the characteristics of a given language and the specifics of a given culture.

1.3 Reasons for lexical non-equivalence

As mentioned above, the non-equivalence of a lexical unit of the source language can only be understood as the fact that it does not have an analogue in the lexical system of the target language, that is, such a “ready-made” word or stable phrase that can be substituted in its place in the context of a specific translation.

According to A.O. Ivanov, the reasons for non-equivalence usually include:

1) the absence of an object, a phenomenon in the life of the people of the translating language (material non-equivalence);

2) the absence of an identical concept in the translating language (lexico-semantic non-equivalence);

3) difference in lexical-semantic characteristics (stylistic non-equivalence) (Ivanov 2006: 54).

OK. Latyshev believes that the first reason for lexical non-equivalence appears when a lexical unit of the source language denotes a phenomenon that is quite familiar to its speakers and is firmly included in the lexical system of the source language, but it is not known or very little known to speakers of the target language and therefore, naturally, not reflected in their lexical system (Latyshev 2000: 29). As a rule, these are so-called realities - phenomena characteristic of the material and spiritual life of only a given people, but absent from others.

The second reason for lexical non-equivalence, according to Latyshev, is a slightly different vision of the world by different cultural and ethnic communities. This is expressed, in particular, in the fact that the translating language does not always enshrine in the concepts and meanings of its lexical units what is already enshrined in the source language. What for the latter has already become a fact delimited by certain signs is not yet such for the former, and its isolation occurs as necessary with the help of “sporadic” speech means. It would seem that the simplest English word tea forms a huge variety of phrases, for which, due to the difference in national traditions, it is quite difficult to find convenient equivalents in the Russian language. For example, high tea, afternoon tea, meat tea are usually translated descriptively: “a hearty dinner with tea,” although there are significant differences between these three English phrases, reflecting social preferences (Latyshev 2000: 128-129).

Also, Latyshev, in his manual on translation technology, notes that the reasons for non-equivalence, and as a consequence, the reasons for translation transformations, are significant differences in the communicative competencies of native speakers of the source and native speakers of the target language in certain components and the need to “smooth out” them in order to achieve equivalence of the regulatory impact of outgoing and translating texts. The author explains that transformations are not always necessary. It is often possible to translate “word for word”, i.e. literally, and this, of course, must be used (Latyshev 2006: 38).

When we move on to reasoning about non-equivalence, it can no longer satisfy us, unlike the equivalent. Connecting the non-equivalence of the compared units of texts of the source and target languages with the discrepancies in meaning between them, we must clearly realize that in this case the meaning cannot be considered as a single whole, since not all its elements are equal in significance from the point of view of the target language and functions of the text generated during the translation process.

Since translation is carried out not at the level of language, but at the level of speech, the traditionally distinguished lexical and grammatical meanings turn out to be not entirely convenient for describing non-equivalence. A semiotic classification of meanings is more convenient for this purpose. As is known, it is based on the relationship of a sign to something lying outside it. According to the semiotic classification of A.O. Ivanov, all the meanings that we deal with in any utterance in any language are divided into three types:

1) Referential, expressing the relationship between a sign and its referent, when we are talking about the relationship to a concept, or denotative, when we are talking about the relationship to an object.

2. Pragmatic, expressing the relationship between the sign and the person or linguistic group using it (connotative, emotive).

3) Intralinguistic, expressing the relationship between a given sign and other signs or structural elements of the same sign system, in our case - language (Ivanov 2006: 83-85).

Since it is the difference in the meanings of the corresponding units of the source and target languages that constitutes the essence of non-equivalence and at the same time its cause, it is possible not to take into account the discrepancies in the intralingual meanings of the units of the source and target languages and consider non-equivalence as a discrepancy in the referential or pragmatic meaning of simple linguistic signs (Ivanov 2006: 83-85) .

Having studied the reasons for lexical non-equivalence, it is advisable to move on to the classification of non-equivalent vocabulary.

1.4 Classification of non-equivalent vocabulary

Scientists give different definitions to the term BEL and interpret it differently, therefore, linguists include various lexical units in their classifications, based on what they understand by this concept. Let's consider the classification of non-equivalent vocabulary proposed by L.S. Barkhudarov and A.O. Ivanov.

So, L.S. Barkhudarov divides non-equivalent vocabulary into three large groups: proper names, realia and random lacunae. Let's look at each group:

By realities, L. S. Barkhudarov understands words and phrases that denote objects, phenomena and situations that are characteristic only of the understanding and culture of people speaking the original language. These words usually include: components of the life of society, for example, the names of national dishes (toffee, haggis, muffin, butter-scotch, sundae, kvass, cabbage soup), types of national clothing (sarafan, bast shoes, kokoshnik), words describing political phenomena and authorities characteristic of the country of the source language (druzhinnik, lobbyist, caucus), names of trade and public institutions (culture and recreation park, grill-room, drive-in), etc. As with proper names, it can be very difficult to distinguish between realities and so-called occasional translation correspondences or equivalents. Thus, some English concepts were borrowed into the Russian language: House of Commons, Lord Privy Seal, etc. (Barkhudarov 2010: 94).

3) Random gaps

As noted earlier, L. S. Barkhudarov defined lacunarity as the absence of lexical correspondences in the vocabulary of one language in another language. For example, the meaning of the Russian word “day” can be conveyed into English in several ways: by indicating the number of hours (twenty-four hours) or by emphasizing the continuity of action (day and night) (Barkhudarov 2010: 94).

Ultimately, L. S. Barkhudarov notes that we can use the term “non-equivalent vocabulary” only if there is no correspondence between the lexical unit of the source language in the target language. As practice shows, any language can describe and express any concept and phenomenon, regardless of whether they have exact vocabulary matches in the target language or not.

Let's consider the classification of non-equivalent vocabulary proposed by A. O. Ivanov. When describing the concept of non-equivalence, the author relied on a semiotic classification of meanings, including referential, pragmatic and intralinguistic relations between signs, objects and structures. Non-equivalence can only be considered at the level of differences between referential and pragmatic meaning due to the fact that intralinguistic meaning cannot in any way be associated with this phenomenon (Ivanov, 2006: 46).

So, A. O. Ivanov distinguishes three types of non-equivalent vocabulary: referential non-equivalent, which includes terms, individual (author’s) neologisms, semantic gaps, words of broad semantics, complex words, pragmatic non-equivalent, which includes various deviations from the linguistic norm, foreign language inclusions, abbreviations, words with suffixes of subjective assessment, interjections, the phenomenon of onomatopoeia (onomatopoeia), associative gaps and alternative non-equivalent vocabulary containing proper names, addresses, phraseological units and realities (Ivanov, 2006: 46).

First of all, let's look at referential-non-equivalent vocabulary and its components. Often in translation practice there are cases of discrepancies between the referential meanings of lexical units of the source and target languages, despite the fact that in most cases of translation the referential meaning of words is fully conveyed. Such discrepancies can be caused by several reasons: the absence in the target language of a word that would have the same referential meaning as the original word and the incomplete coincidence of the referential meanings of the lexical units of the original and the target languages. Most often we are faced with the absence in the translating language of certain concepts of such types of non-equivalent vocabulary as: terms, author's neologisms and semantic gaps. Let us analyze each of these concepts (Ivanov, 2006: 87).

Terms mean words or phrases that refer to a special language characteristic of a particular scientific, political, economic and other spheres of activity and are created to designate special subjects and knowledge. Due to the gradual development of scientific and technical fields, these phenomena, for the most part, have received full equivalents and correspondences in other languages. In this case, only terms that reflect the meaning of a new and incomprehensible for the translating language can be considered non-equivalent. The most significant advantages of terms are their brevity and unambiguity. One of the leading methods of translation, in addition to tracing and description, is borrowing. For example: radar radar; overall emergency (marine term). Due to the preservation of the basic and main characteristics of the term, this translation method is prevalent (Ivanov 2006: 88).

Author's neologisms are understood as words and expressions that are created by the author to describe a new concept, object or phenomenon. How does the group of author's neologisms differ from the general group? First of all, it is important to understand that these neologisms are created by one author of one, special work and do not exist outside of it; moreover, they carry a certain semantic load in the work, influencing its artistic structure. Despite the fact that such neologisms are quite rare in nature, they cause particular difficulty for translators, since they are absolutely non-equivalent. An example is the words from L. Carroll’s work “Alice in Wonderland”: Humpty-Dumpty, jabberwocky (Ivanov 2006: 94).

Semantic gaps indicate the absence in the target language of a similar lexical unit of the source language to denote a specific concept. Moreover, the level of expression of this unit in the source language may not correspond to the level in the target language. Examples of this phenomenon are some English words that require a voluminous description to explain and reveal their meaning in Russian: bouncer is a person or large-sized speech, barber is steam over water on a frosty day, and, conversely, from Russian into English: coeval, name day, day, etc. In addition, I would like to note that the preferred way of translating such vocabulary is descriptive translation (Ivanov 2006: 96).

Pragmatically non-equivalent vocabulary. The phenomenon of divergence in the pragmatics of lexical units of the source and target languages is more frequent than the phenomenon of divergence in their referential meanings. The largest class of this vocabulary is represented by deviations from the general linguistic norm. These include various types of dialectisms, vulgarisms, localisms, slangisms and jargons, which are a general linguistic norm and do not have pragmatically adequate equivalents in the Russian language. For example: Big Apple is a big city (most often New York), nixy is not, etc. Also, this group includes free utterances (words, expressions) of oral speech. For example: in Russian these are words like svintus, razvlekukha, knizhentsia, in English: buttinsky a person who butts in everywhere (to butt in to butt in) (Ivanov 2006: 110).

Foreign language inclusions are words or expressions that are foreign to the translating language and are transmitted using graphic and phonetic means of the original language, i.e. without any morphological and syntactic changes. Often the author introduces similar words into the text to give it color, atmosphere, a touch of comedy or irony. If a foreign language inclusion is used to convey the flavor of the country or the national and cultural affiliation of the speaker, then in the translating language it will be displayed in its original form. For example: “Nein”, he roared down the phone to his colleague - “Nein” he screamed into the telephone receiver with a thunderous voice. It must be added that for a complete understanding of foreign language inclusions in the text, the translator uses all kinds of footnotes. (Ivanov 2006: 121).

Abbreviations, or abbreviations, are “a reduced reflection of the original lexical unit” and are associated with various areas of special scientific, technical, economic, and military vocabulary. Recently, they have increasingly begun to be used in colloquial everyday speech and penetrate the language of television, radio and fiction. In most cases, these words do not have their own conceptual meaning and have an additional pragmatic meaning. This means that they additionally belong to a certain functional style or register of speech. The difficulty in conveying the meaning of abbreviations lies in the translation of the pragmatic meaning, and not the very concept that stands behind this or that abbreviation. An example would be the following words: vet (veteran), specs (spectacles), glasses, gents (gentlemen), etc. It should be added that abbreviations should be translated only using compensation (Ivanov 2006: 123).

The phenomenon of onomatopoeia, or onomatopoeia, is based on the conditional imitation of the sounds of living and inanimate nature. Such words are non-equivalent and are translated descriptively. For example: clop the sound of hooves, plonk the sound of a slap (Ivanov 2006: 126).

Associative gaps are words or phrases that evoke in the minds of native speakers of a particular language clear associations associated with the peculiarities of national-cultural linguistic reality and thinking. For example: a Russian person perceives bird cherry or lilac as a symbol of spring, birch as a symbol and reflection of Russian nature, and cranes evoke associations with autumn and the approach of winter, but the English words bird-cherry, birch-tree or cranes will not evoke any associations (Ivanov 2006 : 127).

Let's consider alternative non-equivalent vocabulary. This group may include vocabulary, which, depending on the method of conveying meaning chosen by the translator, can be referential-non-equivalent or pragmatic-non-equivalent. Here we can include proper names, realia, phraseological units and appeals. The group of proper names includes first names, last names, patronymics, nicknames of people, names of companies, organizations, firms, machines, equipment, geographical objects and locations, magazines, newspapers, films, books, etc. For example: Adair, Alaric, James 1 is translated as Jacob 1, not James 1, Dordogne is translated as Dordogne, not Dordogne, the title of the book “The Hiding of Black Bill” should be translated (“How the Black Bill was hidden”), and “The Enchanted Profile" as ("Magic profile") (Ivanov 2006: 147).

Along with proper names, “addresses” are non-equivalent. Basically, all proper names in the function and role of address have equivalents in the target language. However, there are exceptions, including, for example, the husband's job title used when addressing his wife. Yes, Mrs. Professor Johnson Mrs. Johnson, Mrs. Colonel Smith Mrs. Smith. Colloquial informal addresses are also non-equivalent. They are translated by more common addresses, or are omitted altogether (Ivanov 2006: 149).

Realities are words or phrases denoting objects of cultural heritage, everyday life, social and historical development of a particular people. Due to the fact that these words are a reflection of the national and spiritual flavor of a particular country, they do not have exact equivalents in the target language. For example: a coroner, an investigator in cases involving violent deaths, fat cats, donors to a presidential campaign, invited to dinner with a presidential candidate (Ivanov 2006: 152).

Phraseologisms are stable combinations of words characteristic of a language, the meaning of which is not determined by the meaning of the words included in them, taken individually. This clearly constructed harmonious system of words loses its true meaning with the loss of one or another lexical unit. It can be considered logical that the phraseological units of the source language are transmitted by similar phraseological units of the target language. However, there are often cases when the original phraseological expression does not have an exact or approximate equivalent, and sometimes it is absent altogether. In such cases, the translator must resort to searching for descriptive non-phraseological means in order to correctly convey the meaning. For example: A bolt out of the blue like a bolt from the blue (is a complete equivalent); don"t count your chickens before they are hatched; chickens are counted in the fall (is a partial equivalent) (Ivanov 2006: 166).

There are several classifications of non-equivalent vocabulary, but in our research we rely on the classification proposed by A.O. Ivanov, since it is the most complete to date and includes the entire layer of non-equivalent vocabulary.

1.5 Translation transformations when translating non-equivalent vocabulary

Before moving on to the classification of translation transformations, let us define this translation technique.

Translation transformations are usually called “techniques of logical thinking, with the help of which we reveal the meaning of a foreign language word in context and find its Russian correspondence, which does not coincide with the dictionary one.” Consequently, in semantic terms, “the essence of transformations lies in replacing the translated lexical unit with a word or phrase of a different internal form that actualizes the seme that is to be implemented in a given context.” (Retzker 2007: 63)

The use of translation transformations makes it possible to achieve maximum translation adequacy when transmitting “units with non-standard dependence” that require a special approach in translation and arise due to significant differences in their structure, function in two languages, as well as in socio-cultural traditions. (Kazakova 2008: 50)

Translation transformations were considered in the works of Ya.I. Retsker, V.N. Komissarov, L.S. Barkhudarov, T.A. Kazakov, who proposed various classifications. For our study, the classification of Ya.I. Retzker seems to us the most accurate. The scientist identifies seven types of translation transformations:

1. differentiation of values

2. specification of meanings

3. generalization of meanings

4. semantic development

5. antonymic translation

6. holistic transformation

7. compensation for losses during the translation process

(Retzker 2007: 45)

1. Differentiation of values

As mentioned earlier, in the English language there are words with broad semantics that do not have a correspondence in the Russian language. Often, a bilingual dictionary provides a range of variant matches that, taken together, do not reveal the semantics of the original word. Consider the following example. Somerset Maugham writes: “Affection is the best substitute of love.” It should be noted that none of the dictionary matches (affection, affection, love) satisfies the basic meaning and meaning of the word affection. If the author wanted to express affection, he would most likely choose the word “attachment”. Again, the word “affect” has a rather vague meaning. It can be translated both as “mental inclination” and as “mental disposition”. This example illustrated to us the possibility of using differentiation, without a shade of specification. (Retzker 2007: 48)

2. Specification

This technique is always accompanied by differentiation and is not possible without it. It is well known that the specificity of Russian vocabulary is much higher than that of other languages. Consider, for example, the English word "meal". The bilingual dictionary gives the following meaning: food, eating. But when translating the phrase “Have you got a meal”? none of these interpretations will correspond to the semantic meaning of the original phrase. Depending on the situation, environment and time of day, we can translate this sentence as “Have you had breakfast yet? Have you had lunch? Have you had dinner? The technique of concretization is used when we are dealing with polysemantic English verbs to have, take, get, give, which have a general meaning of “accept, give” and in translation their meaning is conveyed using specific verbs. The choice of such a verb depends on the correct semantic contextual agreement. (Retzker 2007: 49)

3. Generalization

The generalization technique is directly opposite to the two previously described techniques of specification and differentiation. This phenomenon is characterized by an expansion of the scope of the concept and the replacement of the particular by the general, and the specific by the generic. In other words, the translator selects a more generalized meaning of a word in the target language in relation to a specific word in the source language. Thus, the existing stylistic and normative discrepancies between the two languages can be restored by using the technique of generalization. Consider the following examples:

She was five feet five inches tall. - She was above average height.

He has gained weight lately and now it reaches one hundred and sixty pounds. He had recently gained weight and was now quite obese. (Retzker 2007: 50)

Using these sentences as an example, we see that the norms of the English language allow us to describe a person’s appearance and indicate his height and weight in digital parameters. This feature is not inherent in the Russian language, so the translator needs to use the technique of generalization.

Generalization is often used to avoid distortion of the desired meaning. For example, for a long time the English Parliament discussed a bill to abolish the death penalty. The American press called it the "No Hanging Bill". If the translator had conveyed this phrase as “Bill on the abolition of hanging”, then most likely it would have been misunderstood, i.e. the translator would not convey the necessary and accurate meaning of the statement. The public might interpret this bill as replacing the death penalty with another form of punishment. Agree that this is not the semantic block that needs to be emphasized. The correct translation is: “Bill to abolish the death penalty” (Retzker 2007: 50).

4. Semantic development (modulation)

This type of transformation is based on replacing dictionary correspondence with contextual ones that are logically close to it. This category includes metaphorical and metonymic substitutions, which are based on the category of crossing. Often, to convey the same content by means of another language, it does not matter at all in what form it will be expressed. That is, the process can be replaced by an object, the object by its sign, etc. Let's give an example from a newspaper article: “The Liverpool by-election was an acid test for the Labor candidate.” In this case, it would be completely incorrect and illogical to translate “acid test” as “acidity test”. In this case, the translator must apply the technique of semantic development and replace the process with an attribute. Consequently, we get a “litmus test” that corresponds to the norms of the Russian language. The process itself takes place within the category of crossing. Logically, based on chemical knowledge, one can assume that the litmus test is not a complete and complete test for acidity, and the test itself cannot monitor the full capabilities of litmus. As already mentioned, this transformation is closely intertwined with the stylistic device - metonymy. Let's define this trope. So, metonymy is a stylistic device that is characterized by replacing the name of one object with the name of another, which has a contiguity relationship with it. (Retzker 2007: 51)

The method of semantic development can also be based on metaphorical relations of similarity and analogy. Metaphorical replacements, like metonymic ones, have a small classification. In this case, the translation uses the techniques of metaphorization, remetaphorization and demetaphorization (Retzker 2007: 53).

The technique of metaphorization is to replace a non-metaphorical expression with a metaphorical one. This process is accompanied by the transformation of the original unit into a phraseological one. For example, Don't be scared. You aren't worse than the rest of us. -Don’t be timid, we are all birds of a feather here (Retzker 2007: 53).

The process of remetaphorization is also based on phraseology. Only in this case the original phraseological unit is replaced by another in the target language. For example, I "m not the man to stand in my girl"s light. I am not the kind of person to stand in the way of my daughter (Retzker 2007: 53).

The modulation process can also occur through demetaphorization. Its meaning is to replace a metaphorical unit in the source language with a non-metaphorical unit in the target language. The main reason for using this type of transformation is the complete lack of equivalents for the original expression. For example: She stared out of the window, a world away. She looked out the window, thinking about her own things (Retzker 2007: 54).

5. Antonymous translation

This type of translation is based on the formal-logical category of contradiction, or contradiction, and represents the replacement of a concept in the source language with an opposite concept in the target language, followed by a change in the structure of the statement in order to preserve its original meaning. Often, when translating into Russian, antonymy comes down to replacing the negative meaning of the original construction with a positive one and vice versa. For example: She didn’t look too happy. In a literal translation, this sentence would look like this: She didn’t look too happy; In an adequate translation, she looked rather unhappy (Retzker 2007: 55).

6. Holistic transformation

This technique is a type of semantic development and has greater autonomy than antonymic translation. Moreover, it expresses to a lesser extent the logical connection between the constructions of the source and target languages. This type of transformation can extend both to a separate phrase and to the entire sentence, while transforming it not partially, but comprehensively and holistically. For example: “Careful, the doors are closing.” The literal translation of the phrase, observing all grammatical norms of the English language, will sound like this: “Be careful, the doors are being closed.” However, the translator needs to be aware of the accepted norms that exist in both languages. Here are a few more parallels in Russian and English: Do not walk on lawns. - Keep to the path or keep off the grass. Be careful, it is freshly painted. - Caution. Wet painted. Entry to outsiders is prohibited. For staff only (Retzker 2007: 59).

The method of holistic transformation is a synthesis of meaning without direct connection with analysis. The most important point is to maintain equivalence of content, while there may be no semantic connection between elements at all. For example: Help yourself, please. - Help yourself. For your health! - Here's to you! Nothing, don't worry, don't pay attention. - Never mind etc (Retzker 2007: 59).

7. Translation compensation or loss compensation

What is the essence of accepting compensation? In translation practice, there are quite often cases when some element of the original is not reproduced at all or is replaced by a formally suitable phrase or word. Accordingly, the use of such techniques causes significant harm to integrity, since it is the totality of linguistic elements that gives meaning to the statement. This creates the ground for the emergence of various types of replacements and compensations within the system. Here is an example of a phrase from the US political sphere: Selling candidates like soap. Its literal translation is: Selling candidates like soap. In order to adequately convey the meaning, the translator needs to study the realities and political situation in the country. Thus, the correct translation would be: “Recommending political candidates as a hot commodity.”

It should be noted that compensation is stylistic and semantic in nature. First of all, let's look at the concept of stylistic compensation. This technique is based on the discrepancy between forms in two languages and is characterized by a search for variants and analogues of the original form that exist in the target language. Consider the following example: “He was ashamed of his parents. They said “she don"t, I does” and stuff like that.” In this case, a literal translation is simply impossible. This is explained by the individual grammatical non-normativity of languages. Therefore, the correct, adequate translation will sound like this: “He was ashamed of his parents; he was offended , when they said “they want to laugh, polta, lay down.”

The technique of semantic compensation is often used to fill gaps caused by so-called “non-equivalent” vocabulary. First of all, this refers to the designation of realities that are characteristic of the country of the source language and completely alien to the perception, reality and culture of the translating language.

Unlike Ya.I. Retzker, who offers various translation transformations, T.A. Kazakova identifies lexical methods for transmitting non-equivalent vocabulary and believes that such translation methods are applicable when a non-standard language unit at the word level is found in the source text, for example, any proper name inherent in the source text. linguistic? culture and what is missing in the target language; term in toi? or others? professional? regions; words denoting objects, phenomena and concepts characteristic of the original? culture or for the traditional naming of elements third? cultures, but absent or having a different structural and functional order in the translating ones? culture. Such words occupy a very important place in the translation process. The most common methods of translating non-standard lexical elements of the source text are (Kazakova 2008: 63):

1. Transliteration (proper name, toponym, names of companies or periodicals, terms, etc.).

2. Tracing (cultural and historical realities, naming events, household items, terms, etc.).

3. Analogue (culturally and semantically different, but similar in type naming objects, phraseological units, etc.).

4. Description (cultural and historical realities, names of objects unfamiliar or unusual for the translating culture in conditions of undesirability of transliteration or in parallel with it).

5. Commentary or extra-textual explanation of the meaning (if an extended description is necessary, subject to maintaining the integrity of the text).

In addition, an important role in translating non-equivalent vocabulary is played by such translation transformation as explication, i.e. descriptive translation found in T.A. Kazakova, V.N. Komissarova, Ya.I. Retzker.

Thus, given the existence of a large number of methods for conveying non-equivalent vocabulary, it is necessary to think carefully about all translation options in order to choose the most suitable one that would accurately convey the meaning of a culturally marked unit, without losing its flavor.

In this study, we highlight the following translation transformations, based on the classification of Ya. I. Retzker: generalization of meanings, semantic development and explication. But, taking into account the specifics of non-equivalent vocabulary, i.e. words without a dictionary correspondence in the target language, we also highlight translation methods such as transcription or transliteration, tracing and translation commentary, proposed by T. A Kazakova. These translation methods are quite common and occur when translating non-equivalent vocabulary.

Conclusions to the first chapter

1) In modern translation studies, there are different approaches to defining the concepts of “equivalence” and “adequacy”. In this study, we rely on the definition of A.O. Ivanova. An equivalent is understood as a functional correspondence in the target language, conveying at a similar level of the expression plane (words, phrases) all components of meaning that are relevant within a given context.

2) By non-equivalent vocabulary we understand words that serve to express concepts that are absent in another culture and in another language, words related to private cultural elements, i.e. to cultural elements that are characteristic only of a culture, but also absent in the culture, as well as words that have no translation into another language, in a word, have no equivalents outside the language to which they belong.

3) A characteristic feature of non-equivalent words is their untranslatability into other languages using constant correspondence, their inconsistency with some word of another language. But this does not mean that they are completely untranslatable.

4) In this study, we rely on the classification of non-equivalent vocabulary proposed by A.O. Ivanov. Ivanov divides all non-equivalent vocabulary into three large groups: referential-non-equivalent, which includes terms, author’s neologisms, semantic lacunae; pragmatically non-equivalent, combining deviations from the general language norm, foreign language inclusions, abbreviations (abbreviations), interjections, onomatopoeia; and on alternative non-equivalent vocabulary, including proper names, addresses, realities and phraseological units.

5) In the future, based on all the studied translation transformations, we propose to highlight the following translation transformations when translating non-equivalent vocabulary, based on the classification of Ya. I. Retzker: generalization of meanings, semantic development and explication. But, taking into account the specifics of non-equivalent vocabulary, i.e. words without a dictionary match in the target language, one should also take into account such methods of translation according to T.A. Kazakova, such as transcription or transliteration, tracing and translation commentary, since these translation methods are encountered quite often when translating non-equivalent vocabulary.

...

1. Translation transformations: concept, main groups. (according to V.N. Komissarov)

Transformations with the help of which one can make the transition from original units to translation units in the specified sense are called translation (interlingual) transformations. When describing the translation process, translation transformations are considered as translation methods that a translator can use when translating various originals in cases where there is no dictionary correspondence or cannot be used due to the conditions of the context. Depending on the nature of the units of the source language, translation transformations are divided into lexical and grammatical. In addition, there are also comprehensive lexico-grammatical transformations, where transformations either affect both lexical and grammatical units of the original, or are cross-level, i.e. make the transition from lexical units to grammatical units and vice versa.

Lexical transformations, used in the translation process involving various foreign languages and translation languages, include the following translation techniques:

Translation transcription and transliteration;

Tracing and lexical-semantic replacements (specification, generalization, modulation).

Lexico-grammatical transformations include:

Antonymic translation;

Explication (descriptive translation);

Compensation.

Grammatical transformations include:

Syntactic assimilation (literal translation);

Sentence division;

Combining offers;

Grammatical substitutions (forms of a word, part of speech or part of a sentence).

2. Lexical translation techniques.

Transcription Andtransliteration - these are methods of translating a lexical unit of the original by recreating its form using the letters of the target language. When transcribing, the sound form of a foreign word is reproduced, and when transliterating it, the graphic form (letter composition) is reproduced. The main methods in modern translation practice are transcription while preserving some elements of transliteration. Since the phonetic and graphic systems of languages differ significantly from each other, the transfer of the form of a word in a foreign language into the target language is always somewhat conditional and approximate: absurdist - absurdist(author of a work of absurdity); kleptoctacy - kleptocracy(thieves' elite); skateboarding - skateboarding(skating on a roller board). For each pair of languages, rules for transmitting the sound composition of a word in a foreign language are developed, cases of preservation of transliteration elements and traditional exceptions to the currently accepted rules are indicated. In English-Russian translations, the most frequently encountered transliteration elements during transcription are mainly the transliteration of some unpronounceable consonants and reduced vowels Dorset - Dorset; Campbell - Campbell, the transmission of double consonants between vowels and at the end of words after vowels boss - boss and preserving some features of the spelling of the word, which makes it possible to bring the sound of the word in translation closer to already known examples Hercules missile - Hercules missile; deescalation - de-escalation; Columbia - Colombia. Traditional exceptions concern mainly translations of the names of historical figures and some geographical names: Charles I - Charles I; William III - William III; Edinborough - Edinburgh).

Tracing - This is a method of translating a lexical unit of the original by replacing its constituent parts - morphemes or words (in the case of set phrases) - with their lexical equivalents in the target language. The essence of tracing is the creation of a new word or stable combination in the target language, copying the structure of the original lexical unit. This is exactly what a translator does when translating superpower How superpower; mass culture How Mass culture; green revolution How green revolution. In some cases, the use of tracing techniques is accompanied by a change in the order of tracing elements: land-based missile - ground-based missile; Rapid Deployment Force - rapid deployment forces. Often, in the translation process, transcription and tracing are used simultaneously: transnational - transnational; petrodollar - petrodollar; miniskirt - miniskirt.

Lexico-semantic replacements is a method of translating lexical units of the original by using units of the target language, the meaning of which does not coincide with the meanings of the source units, but can be derived from them using a certain type of logical transformations. The main types of such replacements are specification, generalization and modulation (semantic development) of the meaning of the original unit.

Concretization is called the replacement of a word or phrase of the source language with a broader subject-logical meaning, a word or phrase of the target language with a narrower meaning. As a result of applying this transformation, the created correspondence and the source lexical unit find themselves in a logical relationship of inclusion: the source language unit expresses a generic concept, and the target language unit expresses the specific concept included in it:

Dinny waited in a corridor which smelled of disinfectant. - Dinny was waiting in the corridor, which smelled of carbolic acid.

He was at the ceremony. - He was present at the ceremony.

In some cases, the use of specification is due to the fact that the target language does not have a word with such a broad meaning. So, English noun thing has a very abstract meaning (“an entity of any kind”) and is always translated into Russian by specification: thing, subject, matter, fact, case, being etc. Sometimes the generic name in the target language cannot be used due to divergence in the connotative components of the meaning. English meal widely used in various styles of speech, and Russian meal not used outside of special vocabulary. Therefore, as a rule, when translating meal is replaced by a more specific one breakfast lunch dinner and etc.:

At seven o"clock an excellent meal was served in the dining-room. -IN seven hours V dining room was submitted great dinner.

It is clear that the choice of a more specific name is entirely determined by the context and, in other conditions, dinner could have been served at seven o’clock (in the evening).

Specification is often used when the target language has a word with an equally broad meaning and corresponding connotation, since such words may have different degrees of usage in the source language and the target language. The high frequency of words with a broad meaning in English has already been noted above. When translating such words, specification is a very common method of translation. In Charles Dickens's novel "David Copperfield," the behavior of the hero's mother, frightened by the sudden appearance of the formidable Miss Betsy, is described as follows:

My mother had left her chair in her agitation, and gone behind it in the corner.

English verbs with general meaning to leave And to go cannot be translated here using the corresponding Russian verbs leave And go. Unacceptability of translation – Mother left her chair and went to the corner behind him– there is no doubt, in Russian it does not describe such a specific emotional situation in this way. The best way to ensure equivalence of the Russian translation is to specify the specified verbs:

The excited mother jumped up from her chair and hid in the corner behind him.

Another sentence from the same novel should be translated in a similar way:

My old dear bedroom was changed, and I was to lie a long way off.

Arriving home after a long absence, the boy sees that everything in the house has changed and has become alien to him. Using direct matches would make the translation of this English sentence unclear. Why should anyone lie away from the bedroom? The context shows that lie means here sleep, A in the distance indicates just another part of the house. This is exactly how it should be said in Russian:

My sweet old bedroom was gone and I had to sleep at the other end of the house.

Concretization of English "speaking" verbs is widespread. to say And to tell, which can be translated into Russian not only as speak or say, but also more specific say, repeat, notice, assert, inform, ask, object, command and so on.:

“So what?” I said. - So what? - I asked.

He told me I should always obey my father. - He advised me to always obey my father.

The boss told me to come at once. - The owner told me to come right away.

Generalization is called the replacement of a unit of the source language, which has a narrower meaning, with a unit of the target language with a broader meaning, i.e. transformation inverse to instantiation. The created correspondence expresses a generic concept that includes the original specific one:

He visits me almost every week-end. - He comes to see me almost every week.

Using a word with a more general meaning eliminates the need for the translator to clarify whether the author means Saturday or Sunday when talking about “weekend.”

Sometimes the specific name of an object does not say anything to the translation receptor or is irrelevant in the context of a given context:

Jane used to drive to market with her mother in their La Sane convertible. -Jane went with his mother on market V their car.

He showed us his old beat-up Navaho blanket. - He showed us his tattered Indian blanket.

A more general designation may also be preferable for stylistic reasons. In works of art in Russian, it is not customary to indicate with punctual accuracy the height and weight of characters, unless this is related to sporting considerations, and a combination a young man of 6 feet 2 inches in the English original will be replaced in the Russian translation by tall young man.

Sometimes the translator has the opportunity to choose between a more specific and a more general translation option and prefers the latter:

Then this girl gets killed, because she"s always speeding. - And then this girl dies, because she always breaks the rules.(Compare the more “technical” version: She's always speeding.)

"Who won the game?" I said."It's only the half." “Who won?” I ask. “It’s not over yet.”(Compare “more sporty”: This is only the first half.)

Using the generalization method, regular correspondences to units of a foreign language can be created: foot - leg; wrist watch - wristwatch etc.

Modulation, orsemantic development is the replacement of a word or phrase in the source language with a unit of the target language, the meaning of which is logically derived from the meaning of the source unit. Most often, the meanings of related words in the original and translation turn out to be connected by cause-and-effect relationships: I don"t blame them. - I understand them. (Cause is replaced by effect: I don’t blame them because I understand them). He's dead now. - He died. (He died, therefore he is dead now.) He always made you say everything twice. -He Always asked again. (You were forced to repeat what was said because he asked you again.) When using the modulation method, cause-and-effect relationships are often broader in nature, but the logical connection between the two names is always preserved:

Manson slung his bag up and climbed into the battered gig behind a tall, angular black horse.(A. Cronin) - Manson put down his suitcase and climbed into a rickety gig drawn by a large, bony black horse.

Contextual replacement is clearly necessary here, especially when translating the combination behind a horse, because in Russian you cannot say: “ He got into the cart behind the horse.". Translation - slung his bag up How put down my suitcase, behind a horse How horse-drawn And angular How bony- carried out using modulation, although it is difficult to determine exactly what the connection is between the corresponding concepts in the original and the translation.

In the following example, this connection is more explicit, but here too it is not “because”, but “since, insofar as”:

He would cheer up somehow, begin to laugh again and draw skeletons all over his slate, before his eyes were dry. - He cheered up again, began to laugh and drew various figures on his slate board, although his eyes were still full of tears.

Written translation

Well

Semester

Compiled by O.V. Murduskina

Summary table of translation transformations

ME AND. Retzker	L.S. Barkhudarov	V.N. Commissioners	R.K. Minyar-Beloruchev	J.-P. Wiene, K. Darbelne
	I. Permutations	I. Lexical transformations:	Translation techniques:	Directions of translation:
1.Differentiation	P. Substitutions:	a) Formal:	Descriptive translation	Direct (literal) translation:
2. Specification	a) Grammatical substitutions:	1. Transcription/transliteration	Concretization of concepts	a) Borrowings: - transcription - transliteration
3. Generalization	1.Replacing word forms	2. Tracing	Generalization of concepts	b) tracing;
4. Semantic development	2. Parts of speech substitutions	b) Lexico-semantic replacements:	Logical development of concepts	c) literal translation
5. Antonymous translation	3. Replacement of sentence members	1.Specification	Antonymic translation	Indirect translation:
6. Holistic transformation	4. Syntactic substitutions in a complex sentence	2. Generalization		Modulation: Semantic replacements
7. Compensation for losses during the translation process	b) Lexical substitutions	3. Modulation (semantic development)		1. Abstract/concrete; general/specific (generalization/specification)
	1.Specification	II. Grammatical transformations:		2. From cause to effect
1.Full	2. Generalization	a) Literal translation (zero transformation)		3. Means and result

2. Partial	3. Replacing the effect with a cause	b) Division of sentences	4. Part and whole
	c) Antonymous translation	c) Combination of proposals	5. One part instead of another
	d) Compensation	d) Grammatical substitutions:	6. Opposite view of the situation
	III. Additions	1. Grammatical category	7. Difference between delimitation and intervals
	IV. Omissions	2. Parts of speech	8. Difference in sensory perception
		3. Member of the sentence	9. Difference in form, type of use
		4. Offers of a certain type	10. Difference in definition through geographical name
		III. Lexico-grammatical transformations:	11. Image difference
		a) Antonymic translation	Transposition
		b) Descriptive translation	Chasse-croiset
		c) Compensation	Adaptation
			Equivalence
			Compensation

TYPES OF TRANSLATION TRANSFORMATIONS

The different structure of languages is the reason for the use of transformations in translation. Transformational translation is a translation using one of the translation transformations. There are many classifications of transformations, but this study will be based on the classification of V.N. Komissarov. He identifies the following types of transformations:

1. Transcription And transliteration – these are ways of translating a lexical unit of the original by recreating its form using the letters PL. When transcribing, the sound form of a foreign language word is reproduced, and when transliterating its graphic form (letter composition). When transcribing, the sound form of a foreign language word is reproduced, and when transliterating its graphic form (letter composition). The leading method in modern translation practice is transcription while preserving some elements of transliteration. Since the phonetic and graphic systems of languages differ significantly from each other, the transfer of the form of a foreign language word in the target language is always somewhat conditional and approximate:

2. Tracing – This is a way of translating a lexical unit of the original by replacing its constituent parts - morphemes or words (in the case of set phrases) with their lexical equivalents in the TL. The essence of tracing is the creation of a new word or stable combination in the TL, copying the structure of the original lexical unit.

For example: superpower - superpower, mass culture - mass culture, green revolution - green revolution

3. Lexico-semantic replacements – This is a method of translating original lexical units by using TL units in translation, the meaning of which does not coincide with the values of the source units, but can be derived from them using a certain type of logical transformations. The main types of such replacements are specification, generalization and modulation (semantic development) of the meaning of the original unit.

a) Specification is called the replacement of a FL word or phrase with a broader subject-logical meaning with a TL word and phrase with a narrower meaning. As a result of applying this transformation, the created correspondence and the original lexical unit find themselves in a logical relationship of inclusion: the FL unit expresses a generic concept, and the TL unit expresses the specific concept included in it.

For example: Wasn't at the ceremony. – He was present at the ceremony.

Specification is often used when there is a word in the TL with an equally broad meaning and corresponding connotation, since such words may have different degrees of usage in the SL and TL

b) Generalization is called the replacement of a FL unit, which has a narrower meaning, with a TL unit with a broader meaning, i.e. transformation is the inverse of instantiation. The created correspondence expresses a generic concept that includes the original specific one.

For example: Don't visit me almost every week-end. – He comes to see me almost every week.

c) Modulation or semantic development is the replacement of a word or phrase in a foreign language with a TL unit, the meaning of which is logically derived from the meaning of the original unit.

For example: I don't blame them. - I understand them.

When using the modulation method, cause-and-effect relationships are often broader in nature, but the logical connection between the two names is always preserved:

Manson slung his bag up and climbed into the battered gig behind a tall, angular black horse. - Manson put down his suitcase and climbed into a rickety gig drawn by a large, bony black horse.

4. Differentiation of values. The prevalence of the differentiation technique when translating from English into Russian is explained by the abundance in English of words with broad semantics, which have no direct correspondence in Russian. For example: …and ordered a drink – He ordered whiskey.

Acceptance of lexical additions. In some cases, in order to more correctly and clearly convey the meaning of the source material, the translator may need to enter a few additional words. This happens both when translating from English into Russian and vice versa. The reasons lie in differences in syntax, grammar, lack of clear lexical-semantic equivalents in the target language, and sometimes in purely stylistic considerations. English sentences are usually shorter and require adding missing units when translating them.

For example: Wherever you go – I follow. “Wherever you go, I will follow you.”

The case with attributive phrases is also interesting - while in Russian case management plays a special role, in English it is widespread to use combinations of two or more words with a united common meaning without changing them. Sometimes both languages have an equivalent version of such combinations - earthquake - earthquake. With a literal translation, we will still be forced to use case management - Gun license- weapons license - however, this option is still incorrect, you must use the lexical addition - certificate of the right to carry weapons.

Sometimes such combinations can consist of entire sentences, the words in which are connected only by the “–” sign.

Girl-next-door – a girl living in the next house

In all cases of using lexical addition, the translator needs to be more knowledgeable about the topic of the source text. It is necessary to understand “what” the author wanted to say and “why” he did it that way, because knowing this, you can translate the text as adequately and understandably as possible for the end reader.

6. Reception of lexical deletions. The technique of lexical omission involves ignoring during the translation process some semantically redundant words that do not carry an important semantic load, and their meaning is often comprehensively restored in translation. Omission is the exact opposite of adding. The most traditional example of semantic redundancy is the use of the so-called. "paired synonyms", often manifested in all styles of English writing. However, such a manifestation does not occur in Russian, and when translating it, one of the synonyms is not repeated, and two words are replaced by one. This is how omission is used.

For example: brave and fearless - brave

just and equitable treatment - fair treatment.

As a result, the use of omission allows the translator to make some reduction in the total volume of the work, which is called “text compression”.

7. Syntactic assimilation (literal translation) – This is a translation method in which the syntactic structure of the original is transformed into a similar structure of the TL. This type of “zero” transformation is used in cases where parallel syntactic structures exist in the FL and TL. Syntactic assimilation can lead to complete correspondence of the number of linguistic units and the order of their arrangement in the original and translation.

For example: I always remember his words - I always remember his words.

However, the use of syntactic assimilation is accompanied by some changes in structural components. When translating from English into Russian, for example, articles, linking verbs, and other auxiliary elements may be omitted, as well as changes in morphological forms and some lexical units. All these changes do not affect the basic structure of the sentence, which is conveyed using a similar Russian structure while maintaining the same set of sentence members and the sequence of their arrangement in the text. The change in sentence structure during translation is explained, as a rule, by the impossibility of ensuring translation equivalence through literal translation.

8. Sentence division is a method of translation in which the syntactic structure of a sentence in the original is transformed into two or more predicative structures of the TL. The transformation of division leads either to the transformation of a simple FL sentence into a complex TL sentence, or to the transformation of a simple or complex FL sentence into two or more independent sentences in the TL.

For example: The annual surveys of the Labor Government were not discussed with the workers at any stage, but only with the employers. – The Labor Government's annual reviews were not discussed among workers at any stage. They were discussed only with entrepreneurs.

9. Combining offers – This is a method of translation in which the syntactic structure in the “original” is transformed by combining two simple sentences into one complex one.

For example: That was a long time ago. It seemed like fifty years ago. “It was a long time ago—it seemed like fifty years had passed.”

Often, the use of a union transformation is associated with the redistribution of predicative syntagmas between neighboring sentences, i.e. there is a simultaneous use of combination and division - one sentence is divided into two parts, and one of its parts is combined with another sentence.

10. Grammatical substitutions – This is a translation method in which a grammatical unit in the original is transformed into a TL unit with a different grammatical meaning. A grammatical unit of a foreign language at any level can be replaced: a word form, a part of speech, a member of a sentence, a sentence of a certain type. Grammatical replacement as a special method of translation implies not just the use of TL forms in translation, but the refusal to use TL forms similar to the original ones, the replacement of such forms with others that differ from them in the expressed content (grammatical meaning). For example, replacing a number:

We are searching for talent everywhere. – We are looking for talent everywhere

11. Antonymic translation is a lexical-grammatical transformation in which the replacement of an affirmative form in the original with a negative form in translation or, conversely, a negative with an affirmative one is accompanied by the replacement of a lexical unit of a foreign language with a unit of the TL with the opposite meaning.

For example: Nothing changed in my home town. – Everything remains the same in my hometown

12. Explication or descriptive translation – this is lexical - grammatical transformation, in which a lexical unit of a foreign language is replaced by a phrase that explains its meaning, i.e. giving a more or less complete explanation or definition of this meaning in PL. Using explication, you can convey the meaning of any non-equivalent word in the original.

For example: Car owners from the midway towns ran a shuttle service for parents visiting the children injured in the accident. “Car owners from towns between these two points continuously brought and dropped off parents who visited their children injured in the crash.

13. Compensation is a method of translation in which elements of meaning lost during the translation of a language unit in the original are transmitted in the translation text by some other means, and not necessarily in the same place in the text as in the original.

For example: “I"m nothing to you, not so much as them slippers.” – “Those slippers.” – “I’m nothing to you, worse than these shoes” – “Shoes.”

Compensation is used especially often where it is necessary to convey purely intralinguistic meanings that characterize certain linguistic features of the original - dialectal coloring, irregularities or individual characteristics of speech, puns, wordplay, as well as when conveying pragmatic meanings, when it is not always possible to find a direct correspondence FL unit in the PYa.14 system. Holistic transformation. The method of holistic transformation is a certain type of semantic development, during which the internal form of any segment of the speech chain is transformed - from a single word, mostly complex, to a syntagm, and sometimes an entire sentence, and is transformed not by elements, but holistically, so that the connection there is no longer any trace between the internal form of the FL and PL units. The logical-semantic basis of this technique is the attribution of the original and transformed translation units to the same segment of reality. If it is not always possible to trace to the end the entire course of substitution of semes in the process of holistic transformation, then the equivalence of the plan of content and the adequacy of the texts of the expression each time should indicate the regularity of the application of this method of transformation. The tradition of language contacts used a number of holistic transformations of frequency lexical units and consolidated their results as dictionary correspondences - constant and variant. The specifics of living spoken speech most often require a holistic transformation during translation. For example: What do you do? - Hello Thus, equivalence in translation is achieved with the help of certain lexical and grammatical transformations, which can also be applied when translating the headlines of newspaper articles on socio-political topics.

Based on this, it can be argued that there are 3 main reasons for translation transformations:

1. Differences in the systems of the source and target languages, which may be as follows:

b) within the same category the divisions are different.

c) comparable linguistic categories do not completely coincide in terms of meaning.

2. Differences in the norms of the source and target languages. We encounter a violation of the norm in cases where the meaning of the phrase is clear, but evokes the idea of incorrect speech (normative deviations)

3. The discrepancy between the usage that operates among native speakers of the source and target languages. (Uzus is the rules for the situational use of language. It reflects the speech habits and traditions of a given language community.) [Latyshev, p. 189].

However, according to A.F. Arkhipov, there are 8 eight motives for using transformations in order to achieve a higher degree of equivalence:

1. The desire to avoid violating the norms of compatibility of units in the target language, so-called literalisms.

2. The desire to idiomatize the translation, i.e. use expressions and constructions that are most commonly used in the target language.

3. The need to overcome interlingual differences in the design of homogeneous members of a sentence.

4. The desire to avoid word-formation models that are alien to the translating language.

5. The desire to avoid unnaturalness, unaestheticness of some repetitions, cumbersome, unclear and illogical expression.

6. The desire for a more compact version of the translation.

7. The desire to convey important background information to the receptor or remove redundant information.

8. The desire to recreate difficult to convey wordplay and imagery [Arkhipov, 1991, 86].

Transformations as a method of translation

Lecture 10

Plan:

Transformation concept
Review of classifications of translation transformations
Lexical transformations
Grammatical transformations
Complex transformations

Despite the relatively young age of translation theory or translation studies as a science, there are currently many works devoted to translation transformations. And this is not surprising, since this aspect is one of the central ones, and knowledge of its theoretical foundations is extremely important in the work of any translator.

However, it should be noted that experts in the field of translation theory have still not come to a common opinion regarding the very essence of the concept of transformation. This explains the large number of classifications proposed by scientists that differ from each other.

The problem of defining this concept comes down to two main questions: 1) Are transformations interlingual or occur within one language? and 2) Transformation is a method of translation or a characteristic of the relationship between the source unit and its correspondence in the text?

There are definitions proposed by L. S. Barkhudarov, R. K. Minyar-Beloruchev, Ya. I. Retzker, A. D. Schweitzer, V. E. Shchetinkin, L. K. Latyshev, V. N. Komisarov, V. G. Gak and others. However, the definition of L. S. Barkhudarov is considered fundamental, since it most accurately reflects the essence of the issue.

L. S. Barkhudarov: Translation transformations are those numerous and qualitatively diverse interlingual transformations that are carried out to achieve translation equivalence (“translation adequacy”) despite the differences in the formal and semantic systems of the two languages. In his works, L. S. Barkhudarov notes that: 1) the term “transformation” cannot be understood literally, since the original text is not “transformed” in the sense that it does not change on its own; 2) the original remains unchanged, but on its basis, with the help of certain translation transformations, a text in another language is created; 3) translation is an interlingual transformation.

R. K. Minyar-Beloruchev: Transformation consists in changing the formal (lexical and grammatical transformations) or semantic (semantic transformations) components of the source text while maintaining their formation intended for transmission.

Ya. I. Retzker: Transformations- techniques of logical thinking, with the help of which the translator reveals the meaning of a foreign word in the context and finds a Russian correspondence for it that does not coincide with the dictionary (lexical transformations) and transformation of the sentence structure in the translation process in accordance with the norms of the translating language (grammatical transformations).

A. D. Schweitzer: Term "transformation" used in translation studies in a metaphorical sense. In fact, in his opinion, we are talking about the relationship between the original and final linguistic expressions, about the replacement in the process of translation of one form of expression by another, a replacement that we figuratively call transformation or transformation. Translation transformations are essentially interlingual operations of “re-expression” of meaning.

L. K. Latyshev: Translation transformations- a special type of paraphrasing, i.e. interlingual paraphrasing.

V. N. Komissarov : Translation (interlingual) transformations are transformations that can be used to make the transition from original units to translation units. Translation transformations, in his opinion, are of a formal semantic nature, transforming both the form and the meaning of the original units. That is, according to V.N. Komissarov, translation transformations are translation methods that a translator can use when translating various originals in cases where there is no dictionary correspondence or cannot be used due to the conditions of the context.

V. G. Gak: Translation transformations- this is “a departure from the use of isomorphic means available in both languages.”

As can be seen, many authors emphasize dynamic the nature of transformations (R.K. Minyar-Beloruchev, V.N. Komissarov, L.K. Latyshev). However, Ya. I. Retzker connects transformations with types of logical relations between concepts, which characterizes rather static aspect of the relationship between units of two languages.

In general, based on the definitions, we conclude that translation transformations – translation techniques/methods along with substitutions, consisting in the refusal to use isomorphic TL units at different levels, in order to preserve the pragmatic potential of the original and have a natural character, i.e. carried out on a logical/rational basis.

Review of classifications of translation transformations

The classification of translation transformations can be carried out on various grounds. It should be noted that there are a huge variety of classification options. All of them are hypothetical in nature and sometimes, taken together, cannot describe some translation solutions that do not fit into any of the schemes proposed by scientists.

Schweitzer A. D. , suggests dividing transformations into four groups.

Transformations at the component level of semantic valence imply the use various types of substitutions. For example, replacing morphological means with lexical, other morphological, syntactic or phraseological means, and others.
Transformations at the pragmatic level consist of the following techniques: translation compensation, replacement certain stylistic means with others, replacing allusions (realities) with similar ones, as well as interpretative, explanatory translation and translation compensation.
Transformations taking place at the referential level are specification(or hyponymic transformation), generalization(hyperonymic transformation), replacement of realities(interhyponymous transformation), as well as translation using remetaphorization(synecdochic transformation), metonymic transformation, remetaphorization (replacing one metaphor with another), demetaphorization(replacing metaphor with its antipode - non-metaphor). This also includes one or another combination of these transformations and complex transformations (for example, conversion).
Transformations at the stylistic level – compression And extension. Compression means ellipsis, semantic contraction, omission of redundant elements and lexical folding.

A.D. Schweitzer is talking not about types, but about levels that make it possible to use transformation techniques. At the same time, he believes that at the stylistic level both grammatical and lexical transformations can take place. That is, different types of transformations can take place at the same level.

Retsker Ya. I. , on the contrary, he names only two types of transformations. This linguist talks about such techniques for their implementation as:

Grammatical transformations in the form replacements parts of speech or parts of a sentence.
Lexical transformations consist of specification, generalization, differentiation of meanings, antonymic translation, compensation losses arising during the translation process, as well as in semantic development And holistic transformation.

An analysis of these linguistic views allows us to draw the following conclusion: each of the named scientists (both practitioners and theorists) has their own point of view on the issue of transformations. However, all researchers demonstrate the same set of techniques for implementing translation transformations. Thus, various substitutions - grammatical, realia, etc., generalization and compensation are found in all works. If we follow this with specific examples, it becomes obvious that Ya. I. Retzker classifies the methods of specification and generalization as a lexical variety of transformations. A.D. Schweitzer gives concepts other names - hyponymic and hyperonymic transformations - and indicates that their level is referential. We believe that these are phenomena of lexical transformation.

Ya. I. Retzker refers the method of compensation to the lexical variety, and A. D. Schweitzer - to the pragmatic level.

The technique of grammatical replacement is a grammatical type of transformation (according to Ya. I. Retzker), however, A. D. Schweitzer calls in this case the component level.

The above-mentioned discrepancies are adjacent to the obvious similarities of all the listed concepts. Thus, all linguists declare that the division of transformations into types and species is a convention. This is due to the fact that some transformations practically never occur outside of combination with other transformations, that is, not in their pure form. It is this point that makes these classifications similar.

But there are other points of view. For example, the concept Komissarova V.N. comes down to such types of transformations as lexical and grammatical, as well as complex. Speaking about lexical transformations, he calls transliteration, translation transcription, tracing, some lexical-semantic replacements. For example, modulation, specification And generalization. The grammatical transformations are literal translation(or syntactic assimilation), grammatical substitutions(replacing sentence members, word forms, parts of speech) and sentence division. Complex transformations can also be called lexico-grammatical. This includes explication(differently, descriptive translation), antonymic translation And compensation. This classification is based on the nature of the foreign language units, which are considered as initial ones in the transformation operation. This classification is the most common at the present stage.

Barkhudarov L. S. named four types of transformations that take place during the work on translation. These are permutations, substitutions, deletions and additions.

The techniques used in rearrangement are changing the order of the components of a complex sentence, as well as changing the place of words and phrases. Among the methods of replacement L. S. Barkhudarov included compensation, syntactic substitutions in the structure of a complex sentence, replacing parts of speech, sentence components and word forms, specification And generalization, division and combination of sentences, replacing cause with effect (and vice versa), antonymic translation. Omissions And additions have corresponding types of transformations - omission and addition.

It is also necessary to emphasize that in L. S. Barkhudarov’s system, the transformations of generalization and specification that occur at the lexical level refer to replacements, since this involves replacing an element of the language of the source text. And in V.N. Komisarov these same transformations relate to lexical transformations. Replacements, according to L. S. Barkhudarov, include such transformations as combining and, conversely, dividing sentences, replacing parts of speech and members of a sentence. V. N. Komissarov classifies such techniques as a type of grammatical transformations.

L. K. Latyshev identifies six types of translation transformations:

Lexical transformations. The scientist considers this type to be the replacement of lexemes with synonyms that depend on the context.
Stylistic transformations. In this case, there is a transformation of the stylistic coloring of the word being translated.
Morphological transformations. This includes transforming one part of speech into another or replacing it with several parts of speech.
Syntactic transformations. The researcher includes the transformation of syntactic structures (words, phrases and sentences), changes in the type of subordinate clauses, changes in the type of syntactic connection, transformation of sentences into phrases and rearrangement of subordinate clauses in complex and complex sentences.
Semantic transformations. In textbooks and monographs on translation theory, this phenomenon is also referred to as “semantic development.” In this column Latyshev L.K. enters replacements of feature parts.
Mixed type transformations are converse transformation and antonymic translation.

Summing up the results of our analysis of various classifications of translation transformations by Soviet and Russian researchers, we can conclude that there is no single classification of types of translation transformations in modern linguistic science. It should also be noted that the creation of a unified classification is complicated by the fact that different linguists identify different numbers of translation transformation techniques.

Regarding the division of transformations into types, there are many different points of view, but most linguists share the opinion that all translation transformations are divided into lexical, grammatical and mixed (or complex).

Translation transformations according to Komissarova. Translation transformations as a path to creating a high-quality translation of a work of art

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

1. Translation transformations: concept, main groups. (according to V.N. Komissarov)

2. Lexical translation techniques.