Suggested Topics for Discussion 2 страница

The use of the identical notions in the two texts means that the basic structure of the messages they convey remains intact. If in the previous types of equivalence the translation gave the information of "what the origi-nal message is for" and "what it is about", here it also indicates "what is said in the original", i.e. what aspect of the described situation is mentioned in the communication.

We can now say that the third type of equivalence exemplified by the translations of the third group, implies retention in the translation of the three parts of the original contents which we have conventionally designated as the purport of communication, the identification of the situation andthe method of its description.

The fourth group of translations can be illustrated by the following samples:

He was never tired of old songs.

Старые песни ему никогда не надоедали. I don't see that I need to convince you. He вижу надобности доказывать это вам. Не was standing with his arms crossed and his bare head bent. Он стоял, сложив руки на груди и опустив непокрытую голову.

In this group the semantic similarity of the previous types of equivalence is reinforced by the invariant meaning of the syntactic structures in the original and the translation. In such translations the syntactic structures can be regarded as derived from those in the original through direct or backward transformations. This includes cases when the translation makes use of similar or parallel structures.

An important feature of this and the subsequent type of equivalence is that they imply the retention of the linguistic meaning, i.e. the information fixed in the substantial or structural elements of language as their plane of content. We can say that here the translation conveys not only the "what for", the "what about" and the "what*' of the original but also something of the "how-it-is-said in the original". The meaning of language units is an important part of the overall contents of the text and the translator strives to preserve it in his translation as best he can.

Thus, the fourth type of equivalence presupposes retention in the translation of the four meaningful components of the original: the purport of communication, the identification of the situation, the method of its description, and the invariant meaning of the syntactic structures.

Last but not least, comes the fifth group of translations that can be discovered when we analyse their relationships with the respective originals. Here we find the maximum possible semantic similarity between texts in different languages. These translations try to retain the meaning of all the words used in the original text. The examples cited below illustrate this considerable semantic proximity of the correlated words in the two sentences:

I saw him at the theatre.

Я видел его в театре.

The house was sold for 10 thousand dollars.

Дом был продан за десять тысяч долларов.

The Organisation is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

Организация основана на принципе суверенного равенства всех ее членов.

Here we can observe the equivalence of semes which make up the meaning of correlated words in the original text and the translation; paral-14

lelism of syntactic structures implying the maximum invariance of their meanings; the similarity of the notional categories which determine the method of describing the situation; the identity of the situations; the identical functional aim of the utterance or the purport of communication. The relative identity of the contents of the two texts depends in this case on the extent to which various components of the word meaning can be rendered in translation without detriment to the retention of the rest of the information contained in the original.

Now we can sum up our findings. We have discovered that there are five different types of semantic relationships between equivalent phrases (texts) in two languages. Thus all translations can be classified into five types of equivalence which differ as to the volume and character of the information retained in each. Each subsequent type of equivalence retains the part of the original contents which includes the information preserved in the previous types.

Every translation can be regarded as belonging to a certain type of equivalence. Since each subsequent type implies a higher degree of semantic similarity we can say that every translation is made at a certain level of equivalence.

Each level of equivalence is characterized by the part of information the retention of which distinguishes it from the previous level. The list of levels, therefore, includes: 1) the level of the purport of communication; 2) the level of (the identification of) the situation; 3) the level of the method of description (of the situation); 4) the level of syntactic meanings; 5) the level of word semantics.

It is worth noting that the information characterizing different levels is inherent to any unit of speech. Indeed, a unit of speech always has some communicative intent, denotes a certain situation, possesses a certain notional structure, and is produced as a syntactically patterned string of words.

Thus, a translation event is accomplished at a definite level of equivalence. It should be emphasized that the level hierarchy does not imply the idea of approbation or disapprobation. A translation can be good at any level of equivalence.

Suggested Topics for Discussion

1. What is translation equivalence? Is every translation equally close semantically to its ST? How can different types of equivalence be singled out? In what way does one type of equivalence differ from the other?

2. What is the minimum semantic similarity between ST and TT? How can the first type of translation equivalence be defined? What is the purport of communication? Should the purport of communication be always preserved in translation?

3. How can the second type of equivalence be characterized? In what way does it differ from the first type? How can a situation be described in the text? Do the methods used to describe the situation in ST and TT remain the same in the second type of equivalence? What is situational equivalence?

4. What parts of the ST contents are retained in the third type of equivalence? How can the identity of the methods of describing the situation be demonstrated in such cases? What semantic variations can be observed in translations of this type?

5. What is the role of the meaning of the language units which make up the text? What is the fourth type of equivalence? In what way can the meaning of the ST syntactical structures be preserved in translation?

6. How can the fifth type of equivalence be defined? What are the main components of the word semantics? Is the whole meaning of the word actualized when the word is used in the text? Can words of different languages be identical in their meaning?

7. What levels of equivalence can be distinguished in translation? How do the equivalence levels mirror the essential features of speech units?

8. What level of equivalence can the translator reach in the translating process? Is it always necessary or possible to translate at the same level of equivalence? What factors does the choice depend on?

Text

CONSERVATION AND POLITICIANS

(1) Conservation and ecology are suddenly fashionable. (2) Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic are seizing on 'the environment' as a topical political ussue. (3) It seems, however, that they are in danger of missing the point. (4) Protecting our environment cannot be achieved simply by some magic new technology; nor by tinkering with our present system. (5) Saving the environment raises profound questions about some of fundamental assumptions of any society. (6) It is doubtful whether some of the politicians now climbing on the conservation bandwagon fully realise this point, or whether they would be so enthusiastic if they did. (7) Serious environmental conservation means that governments will have to set pollution standards, despite cries from the offending industries that their foreign competitors will benefit. (8) Politicians will have to face up to some extremely awkward decisions: for instance, whether to ban cars without anti-pollution devices. (9) There will have to be international agreements in which short-term national interests have to be sacrificed. (10) It means, in short, a more responsible view of man's relationship to his habitat.

Text Analysis

(1) What is environment? What is environmental conservation (protection)? Is there anything in common between a conservative and a conservationist? What do they want to conserve?

(2) What is a politician? Is this word positive or derogatory? What continents lie on both sides of the Atlantic? How can one "seize on the environment"? Does that phrase imply disapprobation?

(3) What is the difference between "to be in danger" and "to be in danger of doing smth."? What is "to miss the poinf'? What is "the point" in this case?

(4) Why do people think of new technology as "magic"? What does "tinker" mean? What connotation has it got in the sentence?

(5) How can the expression "to raise a question" be used? Does it mean here the same as "to call in question" or "to raise doubts"? What is an assumption? How is it used in politics? in philosophy? in everyday life?

(6) What is "to climb (or to get) on the bandwagon"? Is it a deserving or an undeserving action? What is meant here by "conservation bandwagon"?

(7) What does the modal verb "to have to" imply? What are pollution standards? Does the word "cries" here mean "shouts", "protests" or "complaints"? Why are industries referred to as "offending"?

(8) What is "to face up to smth."? Does it imply a pleasant or an unpleasant experience? What is an "awkward decision" for a politician? What is an "anti-pollution device"? Why should cars be provided with such devices? Will cars with such devices be cheaper or more expensive to make?

(9) Why are national interests referred to here as "short-term"? In what way may they be sacrificed in protecting the environment?

(10) What is "habitat"? How can the words "a responsible view of man's relationship to his habitat" be paraphrased?

Problem-Solving Exercises

A. Levels of Equivalence

I. Compare the following translations with the respective sentences in the text. State at what level of equivalence each of them is rendered into Russian.

1. Кажется, однако, что им грозит опасность упустить суть дела (3). 2. Окружающую нас среду нельзя уберечь с помощью какой-то новой техники, способной творить чудеса ... (4). 3. Охрана окружающей среды поднимает серьезные вопросы относительно основополагающих принципов любого общества (5). 4, Сомнительно, чтобы некоторые из политических деятелей, спешащих примкнуть к дви-

жению за охрану окружающей среды, полностью осознавали этот факт... (6).

II. At what level of equivalence would you translate sentence (2)? or sen-

tence (8)?

III. Which of the following translations of sentence (1) is made at a higher level of equivalence?

a) Все вдруг заговорили об экологии и охране окружающей среды.

b) Экология и охрана окружающей среды стали вдруг модными темами.

IV. Compare the following translations of sentence (7). Which of them would you prefer (if either)? Give your reasons.

a) Серьезное сохранение окружающей среды означает, что правительства должны будут установить нормы загрязнения...

b) Если серьезно заниматься охраной окружающей среды, то правительствам придется принять принудительные меры против ее загрязнения...

V. Raise the level of equivalence of the following translation of sentence

(9):

Краткосрочные национальные интересы будут принесены в жертву будущим международным соглашениям.

VI. Translate sentence (10) at the 4th level of equivalence.

VII. What arguments can you find to prove that sentence (4) should not be translated at the 5th level of equivalence?

VIII. What makes a word-for-word translation of sentence (2) impossible?

IX. What errors, if any, do you see in the following translation of sentence (8)?

Политиканам придется столкнуться лицом к лицу с крайне неудобными решениями, например, запретом на автомобили, не снабженные специальными устройствами, предотвращающими загрязнение атмосферы.

X. Translate the text. State what level of equivalence is achieved in each sentence.

B. Other Translation Problems

XI. What Russian equivalents can be suggested to translate the term "environment" in this text?

XII. Which of the following Russian word should be used as an equivalent

to the word "conservation": охрана, сохранение, защита, сбережение (окружающей среды)? Would you use one equivalent throughout TT or some variations?

XIII. How do you translate the term "conservationist"?

XIV. Which is the suitable equivalent here for "politicians": политики, политические деятели, политиканы? Why?

XV. What is the difference between the Russian substitutes for "the Atlantic": Атлантика, Атлантический океан?

XVI. Should the phrase "on both sides of the Atlantic" be rendered into Russian as по обеим сторонам Атлантики or as как в Европе, так и в Америке? Give your reasons.

XVII. What can be suggested as the Russian substitute for "topical" in sentence (2)?

ХУШ. Can the Russian ухватились за окружающую среду be used for "seizing the environment" in sentence (2) or would you prefer some other substitute? If so, why?

XIX. What would you choose for "the point" in sentence (3): суть дела, самое главное, существо проблемы or something else? And for the same word in sentence (6)?

XX. Would you prefer магическая техника (технология) for "magic technology" or техника, способная творить чудеса? Or can you think of some better Russian wording?

XXI. Suggest a Russian equivalent to the word "tinkering" in sentence (4).

XXII. Make your choice between the following Russian equivalents to the word "assumptions" in sentence (5): предположения, принципы, установки. Or can you suggest something else?

ХХП1. Can the figurative expression "to climb on the bandwagon" in sentence (6) be translated by some Russian idiom? If not, why?

XXTV. Suggest some translation variants for the following phrase: "He is very enthusiastic about your plan".

XXV. What is the accepted Russian equivalent to the term "pollution standards"? How should it be translated in sentence (7)?

XXVI. Which of the following Russian equivalents would you use to translate the words "offending industries" in sentence (7)? нарушающие отрасли промышленности; виновные отрасли

промышленности; отрасли, виновные в загрязнении среды; предприниматели, виновные в загрязнении среды

XXVII. What is the difference between the Russian трудное решение, неприятное решение, невыгодное решение? Cf. the English "awkward decisions" in sentence (8).

XXVIII. Would you translate "to face up to" in sentence (8) as столкнуться лицом к лицу с? If not, why?

XXIX. While translating sentence (9) would you use a blue-print substitute краткосрочные национальные интересы or would you prefer насущные национальные интересы, национальные интересы сегодняшнего дня or something else? Justify your preference.

XXX. Your dictionary gives two Russian translations of the word "habitat": 1. родина, место распространения (растения, животного); 2. естественная среда. Does either of them fit your translation of sentence (10)?

CHAPTER 3. TYPES OF EQUIVALENTS* Basic Assumptions

The structural similarity of ST and TT implies that relationships of equivalence are established between correlated units in the two texts. TL units in TT that are used to render the meaning of the respective SL units in ST can be said to substitute for the latter as their functional equivalents (or correspondences). Since language units are often used in their accepted meanings many SL units have regular equivalents in TL which are used in numerous TT as substitutes to those units.

Some of the SL units have permanent equivalents in TL, that is to say, there is a one-to-one correspondence between such units and their equivalents. Thus "London" is always rendered into Russian as «Лондон», "a machine-gun" as «пулемет» and "hydrogen" as «водород». As a rule this type of correspondence is found with words of specific character, such as scientific and technical terms, proper or geographical names and similar words whose meaning is more or less independent of the particular contextual situation.

Other SL units may have several equivalents each. Such one-to-many correspondence between SL and TL units is characteristic of most regular equivalents. The existence of a number of non-permanent (or variable) equivalents to a SL units implies the necessity of selecting one of them in each particular case, taking into account the way the unit is used in ST and the points of difference between the semantics of its equivalents in TL.

Depending on the type of the language units involved regular equivalents can be classified as lexical,phraseological or grammatical.

Coordinated words in two languages may correspond to each other in

See "Theory of Translation", Ch. VI. 20

one or several components of their semantic structures, while not fully identical in their semantics. The choice of the equivalent will depend on the relative importance of a particular semantic element in the act of communication. For instance, the English word "ambitious" may denote either praiseworthy or inordinate desires. Its translation will depend on which of these aspects comes to the fore. Thus "the ambitious plans of the would-be world conquerors" will be translated as «честолюбивые планы претендентов на роль завоевателей всего мира», while "the ambitious goals set by the United Nations" will give «грандиозные цели, поставленные ООН» in the Russian translation.

A variety of equivalents may also result from a more detailed description of the same object in TL. The English word "attitude", for instance, is translated as «отношение, позиция, политика» depending on the variant the Russian language prefers in a particular situation. Here the choice between equivalents is determined by TL factors.

Even if a SL unit has a regular equivalent in TL, this equivalent cannot be used in TT whenever the unit is found in ST. An equivalent is but a potential substitute, for the translator's choice is, to a large extent, dependent on the context in which the SL unit is placed in ST. There are two types of context: linguistic and situational. The linguistic context is made up by the other SL units in ST while the situational context includes the temporal, spacial and other circumstances under which ST was produced as well as all facts which the receptor is expected to know so that he could adequately interpret the message.

It is only by assessing the meanings of SL units in ST against the linguistic and situational contexts that the translator can discover what they mean in the particular case and what equivalents should be chosen as their substitutes. Thus in the following sentences the linguistic context will enable the translator to make a correct choice among the Russian equivalents to the English noun "attitude":

(1) I don't like your attitude to your work.

(2) There is no sign of any change in the attitudes of the two sides.

(3) He stood there in a threatening attitude.

It is obvious that in the first sentence it should be the Russian «отношение (к работе)», in the second sentence — «позиции (обеих сторон)», and in the third sentence - «поза (угрожающая)».

As often as not the correct substitute cannot be chosen unless the situational context is brought into play. If somebody is referred to in ST as "an abolitionist" the choice of the substitute will depend on the period described. In different historical periods abolitionists were people who sought the abolition of slavery, prohibition laws or death penalty.

Accordingly, in the Russian translation the person will be described as «аболиционист», «сторонник отмены «сухого закона», или «сторонник отмены смертной казни».

The fact that a SL unit has a number of regular equivalents does not necessarily mean that one of them will be used in each particular translation. True, in many cases the translator's skill is well demonstrated in his ability to make a good choice among such equivalents. But not infrequently the context does not allow the translator to employ any of the regular equivalents to the given SL unit. Then the translator has to look for an ad hoc way of translation which will successfully render the meaning of the unit in this particular case. Such an exceptional translation of a SL unit which suits a particular context can be described as an occasional equivalent or a contextual substitute. It is clear, for instance, that none of the above-mentioned regular equivalents to the English "attitude" can be used in the translation of the following sentence:

He has a friendly attitude towards all.

An occasional equivalent may be found through a change of the part of speech:

Он ко всем относится по-дружески.

The particular contextual situation may force the translator to give up even a permanent equivalent. Geographical names have such equivalents which are formed by imitation of the foreign name in TL. And the name of the American town of New Haven (Conn.) is invariably rendered into Russian as «Нью-Хейвен». But the sentence "I graduated from New Haven in 1915" will be hardly translated in the regular way since the Russian reader may not know that New Haven is famous for its Yale university. The translator will rather opt for the occasional equivalent: «Я окончил Йель-ский университет в 1915 году».

The regular equivalents are by no means mechanical substitutes and their use or replacement by occasional equivalents calls for a high level of the translator's skill and taste.

The same goes for phraseological equivalents. Phraseological units or idioms may also have permanent or variable equivalents. Such English idioms as "the game is not worth the candle" or "to pull chestnuts out of the fire for smb." are usually translated by the Russian idioms «игра не стоит свеч» and «таскать каштаны из огня для кого-л.», respectively. These equivalents reproduce all the aspects of the English idioms semantics and can be used in most contexts. Other permanent equivalents, though identical in their figurative meaning, are based on different images, that is, they have different literal meaning. Cf. "to get up on the wrong side of the

bed" —«встать с левой нога», "make hay while the sun shines" —«куй железо, пока горячо». Now an English idiom may have several Russian equivalents among which the translator has to make his choice in each particular case. For instance, the meaning of the English "Do in Rome as the Romans do" may be rendered in some contexts as «С волками жить - по-волчьи выть», and in other contexts as «В чужой монастырь со своим уставом не ходят». But here, again, the translator may not infrequently prefer an occasional equivalent which can be formed by a word-for-word reproduction of the original unit: «В Риме поступай так, как римляне».

The choice of grammatical units in TT largely depends on the semantics and combinability of its lexical elements. Therefore there are practically no permanent grammatical equivalents. The variable equivalents in the field of grammar may be analogous forms in TL or different forms with a similar meaning. As often as not such equivalents are interchangeable and the translator has a free choice between them. In the following English sentence "He was a guest of honour at a reception given by the Soviet government" both the Russian participle «устроенном» and the attributive* clause «который был устроен» can be substituted for the English participle "given". And the use of occasional equivalents is here more common than in the case of the lexical or phraseological units. We have seen that in the first three types of equivalence no equivalents to the grammatical units are deliberately selected in TL.

Semantic dissimilarity of analogous structures in SL and TL also result in SL structures having several equivalents in TL. For instance, attributive groups are common both in English and in Russian: "a green tree"—«зеленое дерево». But the semantic relationships between the numbers of the group are broader in English, which often precludes a blue-print translation of the group into Russian. As often as not the English attributive group is used to convey various adverbial ideas of location, purpose, cause, etc. Consider such groups as "Madrid trial" (location), "profits drive" (purpose), "war suffering" (cause). Such groups may also express various action-object relationships. Cf. labour movement" (movement by the workers), "labour raids" (raids against the workers), and "labour spies" (spies among the workers).

A word within an attributive group may sometimes alter its meaning. So, "war rehabilitation" is, in fact, rehabilitation of economy after the war, that is, "post-war rehabilitation" and "Communist trials in USA" are "trials of Communists" or "anti-Communist trials".

As a result, many attributive groups are polysemantic and are translated in a different way in different contexts. "War prosperity" may mean

"prosperity during the war" or "prosperity in the post-war period caused by the war". 'The Berlin proposals" may imply "proposals made in Berlin" (say, at an international conference), "proposals made by Berlin" (i.e. by the GDR), "proposal on Berlin" (of political, economic or other nature).*

No small number of SL units have no regular equivalents in TL. Equivalent-lacking words are often found among SL names of specific national phenomena, such as the English words "coroner, condominium, impeachment, baby-sitter" and the like. However, there are quite a number of "ordinary" words for which TL may have no equivalent lexical units: "fluid, bidder, qualifier, conservationist", etc. Some grammar forms and categories may also be equivalent-lacking. (Cf. the English gerund, article or absolute participle construction which have no counterparts in Russian.)

The absence of regular equivalents does not imply that the meaning of an equivalent-lacking SL unit cannot be rendered in translation or that its translation must be less accurate. We have seen that words with regular equivalents are not infrequently translated with the help of contextual substitutes. Similarly, the translator, coming across an equivalent-lacking word, resorts to occasional equivalents which can be created in one of the following ways:

1. Using loan-words imitating in TL the form of the SL word or word combination, e.g. tribalism — трайбализм, impeachment — импичмент, backbencher — заднескамеечник, brain-drain — утечка мозгов. As often as not such occasional formations are adopted by the members of the TL community and get the status of regular equivalents.

2. Using approximate substitutes, that is TL words with similar meaning which is extended to convey additional information (if necessary, with the help of foot-notes), e.g. drugstore — аптека, witchhunter — мракобес, afternoon — вечер. The Russian «аптека» is not exactly a drugstore where they also sell such items as magazines, soft drinks, ice-cream, etc., but in some cases this approximate equivalent can well be used.

3. Using all kinds of lexical (semantic) transformations (see Part I, Ch. 4) modifying the meaning of the SL word, e.g. "He died of exposure" may be rendered into Russian as «Он умер от простуды» or «Он погиб от солнечного удара».

4. Using an explanation to convey the meaning of the SL unit, e.g. landslide-победа на выборах подавляющим большинством голосов, brinkmanship — искусство проведения политики на грани войны, etc.

This method is sometimes used in conjunction with the first one when the introduction of a loan-word is followed by a foot-note explaining the

For a more detailed discussion of the problems involved in the translation of English attributive groups see Part II, Ch. 2 (2.1).