Theory of translation

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

     We can sum up. We have discovered that there are five different types of semantic relationships between equivalent phrases (texts) in two languages, differing as to the volume and character of the information retained in each.

     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.

     A translation can be good at any level of equivalence.  

3.    TYPES OF EQUIVALENTS  

     The structural similarity of ST and TT implies that relationships of equivalence are established between correlated units in the two texts.

     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” in Russian is «Лондон», “a machine-gun” as «пулемет» and “hydrogen” is always rendered 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.

     The choice of the equivalent will depend on the relative importance of a particular semantic element in the act of communication.

     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.

     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)».

     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.

     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 окончилЙельский университет в 1915 году».

     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 длякого-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 левойнога», “make hay while the sun shines” —«куй железо, покагорячо». 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 монастырьсо 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 поступайтак, 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. 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 , Russian and Romanian: “a green tree“—«зеленое дерево/ copac verde». 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”.

     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 FRG), “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.

     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 modifying the meaning of the SL word, e.g. “He died of exposure” may be rendered into Russian as «Он умер от простуды» or «Онпогиб 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 meaning of the equivalent-lacking word in ST.

     There are also quite a number of equivalent-lacking idioms. Such English phraseological units as “You cannot eat your cake and have it”, “to dine with Duke Humphrey”, “to send smb. to Coventry” and many others have no regular equivalents in Russian. They are translated either by reproducing their form in TL through a word-for-word translation or by explaining the figurative meaning of the idiom, e.g.:People who live in glass should not throw stones. — Люди,живущие в стеклянных домах, не должны бросать камни; to see eye-to-eye with srnb. - придерживаться одних взглядов.

     Equivalent-lacking grammatical forms give less trouble to the translator. Here occasional substitutes can be classified under three main headings, namely:

     1. Zero translations when the meaning of the grammatical unit is not rendered in the translation since it is practically identical to the meaning of some other unit and can be safely left out. In the sentence “By that time he had already left Britain” — К тому времени онуже уехал из Англии the idea of priority expressed by the Past Perfect Tense needn’t be separately reproduced in TT as it is made superfluous by the presence of “by that time” and “already”.

     2. Approximate translations when the translator makes use of a TL form partially equivalent to the equivalent-lacking SL unit, e.g.: I saw him enter the room — Я видел, как он вошел в комнату.  The Russian/ Romanian languages have no comple6x objects of this type but the meaning of the object clause is a sufficient approximation.

     3. Transformational translation when the translator resorts to one of the grammatical transformations e.g.: Your presence at the meeting is not obligatory. Nor is it desirable — Ваше присутствие на собрании необязательно и даже нежелательно (the syntactical integration).

     As has been emphasized, equivalents are not mechanical substitutes for SL units but they may come handy as a starting point in search of adequate translation. The translator will much profit if he knows many permanent equivalents, is good at selecting among variable equivalents and resourceful at creating occasional equivalents, taking into account all contextual factors.    
 
 

     4. ASPECTS OF TRANSLATING PROCESS  

     Description of the translating process is one of the major tasks of the translation theory. Here we deal with the dynamic aspects of translation trying to understand how the translator performs the transfer operation from ST to TT.

     Psychologically viewed, the translating process must need to include two mental processes - understanding and verbalization. First, the translator understands the contents of ST, that is, reduces the information it contains to his own mental program, and then he develops this program into TT. The problem is that these mental processes are not directly observable and we do not know much of what that program is and how the reduction and development operations are performed. That is why the translating process has to be described in some indirect way. The translation theory achieves this aim by postulating a number of translation models.

     A model may describe the translating process either in a general form or by listing a number of specific operations (or transformations) through which the process can, in part, be realized. Translation models can be oriented either toward the situation reflected in the ST contents or toward the meaningful components of the ST contents.

     The existing models of the translating process are, in fact, based on the situational (or referential) model and the semantic-transformational model. These models are supposed to explain the dynamic aspects of translation. In other words, it is presumed that the translator actually makes a mental travel from the original to some interlingual level of equivalence and then further on to the text of translation.

     In the situational model this intermediate level is extralinguistic. It is the described reality, the facts of life that are represented by the verbal description. The process of translating presumably consists in the translator getting beyond the original text to the actual situation described in it. This is the first step of the process, i.e. the break-through to the situation. The second step is for the translator to describe this situation in the target language. Thus the process goes from the text in one language through the extralinguistic situation to the text in another language. The translator first understands what the original is about and then says “the same things” in TL.

     For instance, the translator reads in A. Cronin’s “Citadel”  the description of the main character coming by train to a new place of work: “Manson walked quickly down the platform, searching eagerly for some signs of welcome“. He tries to understand what reality lies behind the words “searching eagerly for some signs of welcome”. The man was alone in a strange place and couldn’t expect any welcome committee or deputation. Obviously, he just wanted to see whether anyone was there to meet him. So, the translator describes the situation in Russian in the following way: «Мэнсон быстро прошел поперрону, оглядываясь, не встречает ли его кто-нибудь».

     A different approach was used by E. Nida who suggested that the translating process may be described as a series of transformations. The transformational model postulates that in any two languages there is a number of nuclear structures which are fully equivalent to each other. Each language has an area of equivalence in respect to the other language. It is presumed that the translator does the translating in three transformational stages.

     First — the stage of analysis — he transforms the original structures into the nuclear structures, i.e. he performs transformation within SL.

     Second —the stage of translation proper —he replaces the SL nuclear structures with the equivalent nuclear structures in TL. And third —the stage of synthesis — he develops the latter into the terminal structures in the text of translation.

     Thus if the English sentence “It is very strange this domination of our intellect by our digestive organs” (J.K. Jerome) is translated into Russian as «Странно, до какой степени пищеварительныеорганы властвуют над нашим рассудком» we presume that the structures “domination of our intellect” and “domination by our digestive organs” were first reduced to the nuclear structures “organs dominate” and “they dominate intellect”, respectively. Then they were replaced by the equivalent Russian structures «органы властвуют/ organele domină» and «они властвуют над рассудком/ ele domină asupra raţiunii», after which the nuclear structures were transformed into the final Russian/Romanian variant.

     A similar approach can be used to describe the translation of semantic units. The semantic model postulates the existence of the “deep”  semantic categories common to SL and TL. It is presumed that the translator first reduces the semantic units of the original to these basic semantic categories and then expresses the appropriate notions by the semantic units of TL.

     Thus if he comes across the sentence “John is the proud owner of a new car“, he is first to realize that it actually means that “John has a new car” and that “he is proud because of that’. After transferring these basic ideas to Russian/Romanian and converting them to the semantically acceptable phrases he will get the translation «У Джона(есть) новая машина, которой он очень гордится / John are o maşină cu care el se mîndreşte».

     Training translators we may teach them to use these models as practical tools. Coming across a specific problem in ST the translator should classify it as situational, structural or semantic and try to solve it by resorting to the appropriate procedure. If, for instance, in the sentence “He is a poor sleeper” the translator sees that the attributive group cannot be directly transferred into Russian/ Romanian, he can find that the transformational model will do the trick for him here and transform the attributive group into a verb-adverb phrase: «Он плохоспит / El doarme rău/ El are insomnie».

     Another approach to the description of the process of translating consists in the identification of different types of operations performed by the translator. The type of operation is identified by comparing the initial and the final texts.