Lexical transformations
Lexical transformations change the semantic core of a translated word. They can be classified into the following groups:
1.Lexical substitution, or putting one word in place of another. It often results from the different semantic structures of the source language and target language words. Thus the word молодой is not always translated as young; rather, it depends on its word combinability: молодой картофель is equal to new potatoes. This translation equivalent is predetermined by the word combination it is used in. This type of translation can hardly be called substitution, since it is a regular equivalent for this phrase.
Deliberate substitution as a translation technique can be of several subtypes:
a) Specification, or substituting words with a wider meaning with words of a narrower meaning: Will you do the room? – Ты уберешься в комнате? I’ll get the papers on the way home. – Я куплю газеты по дороге домой. The underlined English words have larger scopes of meaning than their Russian counterparts and their particular semantics is recognized from the context.
b) Generalization, or substituting words of a narrower meaning with those of a wider meaning: People don’t like to be stared at. – Людям не нравится, когда на них смотрят. If we compare the semantic structure of the English and Russian verbs, we can see that the English stare specifies the action of seeing expressed by the Russian verb. The Russian смотреть can imply staring, facing, eyeing, etc. The specific meaning in the Russian sentence can be expressed by the adverb пристально. Another reason for generalization in translating can be that the particular meaning expressed by the source language word might be irrelevant for the translation receptor: She bought the Oolong tea on her way home. – По дороге домой она купила китайского чаю. Oolong is a sort of Chinese tea but for the receptor this information is not important; therefore, the translator can generalize.
c) Differentiation is a rather rare technique of substitution. It takes place when we substitute a word by another one with parallel meaning, denoting a similar species: bamboo curtain – железный занавес. Both bamboo and железо (iron) are materials known for their hard nature. They are used figuratively to denote the barriers between the Western and Communist countries (bamboo curtain in reference to China, железный занавес in reference to other Comecon (Council for Mutual Economic Aid) states. There are no hyponymic relations between the notions of bamboo and iron (though the referential area of железный занавес is of course much wider than that of bamboo curtain.)
d) Modulation is a logical development of the notion expressed by the word: But outside it was raining. -– Но на улице шел дождь. The primary equivalent of the word outside is снаружи. But it is impossible to say in Russian *Но снаружи шел дождь. By means of unsophisticated logical operation the translator finds another equivalent: на улице. Thus he takes into consideration a tradition of the word combination and acceptability of collocation. He is aided in this by the metonymical closeness of word meanings based on contiguity of the two notions.
2.Compensation is a deliberate introduction of some additional element in the target text to make up for the loss of a similar element in the source text. The main reason for this transformation is a vocabulary lacuna in the target language. For example, one of the Galsworthy’s characters was called a leopardess. But there is no one-word equivalent of the same stylistic coloring in Russian. Therefore, the translator compensated the word by using the word тигрица to characterize the lady.
3.Metaphoric transformations are based on transferring the meaning due to the similarity of notions. The target language can re-metaphorize a word or a phrase by using the same image (Don’t dirty your hands with that money! – Не марай рук этими деньгами!) or a different one (Он вернет нам деньги, когда рак свистнет. – He will pay us our money back when hell freezes over). The source language metaphor can be destroyed if there is no similar idiom in the target language: Весна уже на пороге. – Spring is coming very soon. Or, on the contrary, the target text is metaphorized either to compensate a stylistically marked word or phrase whose coloring was lost for some reason, or merely to express a source language lacuna: Он решил начать жить по-новому. – He decided to turn over a new life.
PART V. PRAGMATIC PROBLEMS OF TRANSLATION
Chapter 1. TRANSLATION PRAGMATICS
CONCEPT OF PRAGMATICS
Semiotics as a sign study posits that each sign, including a language one, be viewed in three perspectives: syntactic, i.e. the relations of signs; semantic, i.e. the relation between a sign and a real situation; and pragmatic, i.e. the relations of the sign and its users.
Each utterance in a speech act is aimed at somebody. Combined together, words make up a syntactic scheme of the sentence. They refer to specific events, persons or objects, acquiring, thus, a sense.
There are two types of language sign users: an addresser (author) and an addressee (receptor). When speaking, an addresser has a communicative intention, or purpose of the speech act. An utterance has a communicative effect on the receptor: it can inform a receptor of something, or cause some feelings, etc. A communicative effect is virtual: e.g., an advertising text may persuade a receptor to buy something but the receptor may remain indifferent to the promotion. The potential effect of the utterance is its functional force. The communicative effect may override both literal sense and functional force and add further consequences depending on the situation. For example, Shut the door is imperative in a sense. Its communicative intention may be to carry the force of a request, but the communicative effect could be to annoy the receiver.198
Communicative intention does not always coincide with the communicative effect. A vulgar anecdote, told to make the audience laugh, may have a contrary effect of disgusting the listeners.
In terms of linguistic pragmatics, developed by J. Austen, the three types of relations are locution (reference and the utterance sense), illocution (communicative intention and functional force), and perlocution (communicative effect).199
The adequate translation is the one whose communicative effect is close to that of the source text; at best, its communicative effect coincides with the author’s communicative intention. Regarding this principle, P. Newmark introduced two types of translation – communicative translation, which attempts to produce on its receptors an effect as close as possible to that produced on the readers of the original, and semantic translation, which attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original.200 Taking these concepts into consideration, the sentence Beware of the dog! could be rendered as Осторожно, злая собака! (communicative translation) or Опасайтесь собаки! (semantic translation).
Close to translation adequacy is the concept of translation acceptability, developed by Israeli theorist of translation studies Gideon Toury.201A translation is considered acceptable when the end-product is admitted into the target system. In other words, an acceptable translation is the text with language use in the natural situation.
In summary, translation pragmatics is a multi-aspect approach. Its analysis requires discussing the role of each of the translation situation components.
TEXT PRAGMATICS
The communicative effect of the source and target text upon the receptor should be similar. A lot depends on the functional style (register), genre, language and speech norms. Neither of them can be changed in translation because, ultimately, they make up the functional force of the text, so important from the point of view of pragmatics.
Disregard of the style or register produces a strange impact upon the receptor. Imagine a person declaring love in a businesslike manner – he will not be esteemed in the proper way.
Very often genre requirements of the text are so strict that they cannot but be met in translation, or the target text may be spoiled. For instance, when translating patents, one should observe all the elements of the structure and the necessary formulas and set phrases.
Shifting a set of language units leads to changes in text perception. For example, a scientific text is characterized by impersonal constructions, such as passive voice and indefinite structures. If a text is abundant in personal pronouns, interjections and other expressive means, it will never be considered as belonging to the scientific register.
Incorrect choice of words may result in comic consequences contrary to the expectations of the text author. A. Chuzhakin in his practicum-book “Мир перевода-2” quotes a number of signs and notices discovered in different countries. They are funny because of the violation of speech and English language norms (incorrect meanings and collocations). A notice in a Bucharest hotel lobby: The lift is being fixed for the next day. During that time we regret that you will be unbearable. An ad in a Greek tailor shop: Order your summer suit. Because is big rush we execute customers in strict rotation.202
Thus, a translator should have a good command not only of the target language but also of the style and genre requirements, in particular of style and genre distinctive features in the two languages.
Sometimes the translator faces the contradiction between a text form and its function. In this case, the function predominates. It is the text function that should be kept in translation first and foremost, not the form. For example, the phatic function of formal greeting in English normally has the form of the interrogative sentence: How do you do? In Russian translation, the form is shifted by the imperative Здравствуйте to preserve the function.
In non-literal texts, it is necessary to distinguish between the functions of the source text and those of the translated texts. The reasons for commissioning or initiating a translation are independent of the reasons for the creation of any particular source text.203 This idea brought to life the so called Skopos theory developed in Germany in the late 1970s.204 The Greek word skopos is used as the technical term for the purpose of a translation. Hans Vermeer, the founder of the theory, postulates that it is the intended purpose of the target text that determines translation methods and strategies. The initiator’s, or client’s needs determine the skopos of the target text. The skopos of the target text should be specified before the translation process begins.205
Depending on the skopos, the translation can be full or partial (restricted). This classification, in terms of the extent of translation, belongs to J. Catford.206 In full translation, every part of the source text is replaced by the target language text material. In partial translation, some part or parts of the source language text are left untranslated.
According to the commissioner’s needs, translation can be adapted (that is, adjusted to the target language culture), free, literal or it can be a faithful imitation of the source text
Гутовская ответы.