Omission as a Translation Problem

This transformation is rarely obligatory within a structure, as it is usually caused by stylistic considerations and deals with redundancy as a traditional norm of SL, but not acceptable in TL. A typical example of such redundancy is the use of synonymic pairs, i.e. the words with the same or close referential meaning, in English: “…their only stay and support…” (Mark Twain) – both words mean “підтримка”, “опора”. There is no need to translate them both, it is sufficient to leave one of them:”їхня єдина підтримка” or, according to the context requirements “єдине, що рятувало їх від голоду”.

This phenomenon is peculiar of English judicial documents and is often met in written language: just and equitable treatment — справедливе ставлення.

The use of synonymic pairs is characteristic, actually, of all styles of written English. Very often saving this pair of identical words in translation would be perceived as pleonasm, which is redundant even in translations of official documents requiring utmost precision, e.g.:

The Treaty was declared null and void.

Договір був анульований (оголошений недійсним).

Condemned by almost all members of the United Nations, and regarded as an outcast and criminal system by the vast majority of mankind, it (apartheid) is able to exist and defy censure solely because of the aid and support given to it by theWesteren imperialist countries. (W. Pomeroy)

Апартеїд було засуджено майже всіма членами ООН, і більшість людства вважає цю систему злочинною. Апартеїд існує, абсолютно не зважаючи на загальний осуд, тільки завдяки допомозітапідтримціімперіалістичних країн Заходу.

In this example two synonymic pairs: outcast and criminal, aid and support are used. In the first case the word “злочинний” completely embraces the meaning of both synonyms. Lexical meaning of the adjective “outcast — вигнанець, знедолений” is not right in this context either due to the norms of combinatory power or collocability or due to its meaning. The second pair of synonyms may be preserved without any great reserve — допомога та підтримка. Participle “given” is omitted as its meaning is rendered by the case endings.

The phenomenon of omission is met in the materials of publicistic genre:

The bold and courageous struggle for freedom.

Мужня боротьба за свободу.

Under regular and normal conditions – за нормальних умов

It is a unique session — happily and fortunately led by a unique President.

Це особлива сесія, якою, на щастя, керує знаменитий Голова.

The use of synonymic pairs does not always appear to be a stylistic device. Sometimes it is imposed by other reasons. Foe example, in scientific-technical style стилі these synonyms serve as a means of explaining a technical term:

Burning or combustion is the process of uniting a fuel or combustible with the oxygen in the air.

Згорання — це процес поєднання палива з киснем, що міститься в повітрі.

In this sentence special technical terms combustion, combustible, which may be unknown to a reader without special knowledge, are explained by the words in general use burning, fuel. Ukrainian words згорання іпаливо are understood by everybody and do not need explanation, therefore in translation of this sentence into Ukrainian redundancy is removed by way of omission.

Omissions are often caused by the fact that one or word combination, or even subordinate sentence appear redundant from the view point of their meaning:

Her hands rested side by side on her lap (J. Steinbeck).

Її руки спокійно лежали на колінах = Вона спокійно тримала руки на колінах = Вона спокійно поклала руки на коліна.

It clear that we should not translate adverbial modifier of manner “side by side” as it is redundant, and this position of hands does not require any specification.

The storm was terrible while it lasted.

Буря була жахлива.

Subordinate clause of time in this function looks like a cliché and has no correspondence in Ukrainian. The following example from the W. Collins novel “Moon Stone” is quite interesting:

There, on the threshold of her bed-room door, stood Miss Rachel, almost as white in the face as the white dressing-gown that clothed her. There also stood the two doors of the Indian cabinet wide open.

Там, на порозі спальні, стояла міс Рейчел. Обличчя її було біліше за її білий пеньюар. Дверцята індійської шафки були широко розчинені.

The verb “to stand” is used twice: in its loose and bound meanings. Repetition is underlined by the use of adverb “also”. Preserving the repetition based on different usage plans of the verb “stood”, in Ukrainian is excluded, therefore the adverb is removed in translation and lexical replacement “були розчинені” was made. Subordinate sentence “that clothed her” is also omitted and rendered by a possessive pronoun “її”.

But not always omission is explained by willingness to eliminate speech verboseness. It may have other reasons. Characteristic of English is a tendency to maximal concreteness, which is expressed in using numerals, measurement units where it is motivated by semantic factors. This tendency requires using omission:

About a gallon of water was dripping down my neck, getting all over my collar and tie... (Catcher in the Rye)

Вода з голови лилася за комір, вся краватка змокла, весь комір...

Desemantisized words are omitted, too:

What are those black things in the field? Що це там чорніє в полі?

One of two words is removed in translation, too: Red Indian — індієць, concert pianist — піаніст, woman teacher — вчителька, raw material — сировина.

Sometimes modal verbs are omitted:

He was short-sighted and could not recognize his friends, when he passed them by in the street.

Він був таким короткозорим, що не впізнавав знайомих на вулиці.

But can it be true?

Невже це правда?

The phenomenon of omission can be observed in translating syntactical complexes with object-predicative member, where the verbs are omitted: I am glad to hear you say so. Я рада чути це.

Specificity of syntactical connections in English sometimes requires using the verbs, which express feelings, perception, etc., and which are omitted in translation:

I regret to say that I miss your point. На жаль, я не розумію, на що ви натякаєте.

Much greater economic tasks were seen to lie ahead. Попереду значно важливіші економічні завдання.

I am sorry to tell you that he has changed his opinion of you.

Мені прикро, що він змінив думку про тебе.

I regret to inform you that your application has not been successful. Мені шкода, що твою заяву не прийняли.

Sometimes it is recommended to omit semantically empty “tags” of declarative and interrogative sentences: “British to the backbone, that’s what I am” (S.Maugham) – “Англієць до самих кісток!”, “I can’t leave the room and send myself to you at the same time, can I?” (G.B.Shaw) – “Не можу ж я піти з кімнати і в той самий час прислати самого себе до вас!” It is also recommended to remove logical redundancies and repetitions to achieve what is called “text compression”. However it must be remembered that logical redundancy of speech and various repetitions are used by writers to characterize the personage’s individual manner of speaking, his way of thinking, etc. In such cases omissions are not allowed.