3.2. Problem of Non-translation

The possibility to impart meanings by means of another language for long was questioned and impeached by some theorists in the 60s. There had been a prejudice, that there were languages which are “highly developed and civilized” and languages “undeveloped, primitive, backward”, which due to their primitiveness are incapable of expressing all the meanings. This theory is absolutely wrong. Even the exotic languages of the aborigines of Africa and Australia are typically characterized by sufficiently developed grammatical system and the rich vocabulary. Under this theory the English language is also primitive, as here some grammatical categories are absent.

Vocabulary fixes the data of human experience, reality, which is reflected in consciousness. Indisputably, in the languages of nations, which are found on different stages of social and cultural development, such layers or vocabulary notions, as political, technical, scientific terms or abstract philosophical notions are absent or extraordinarily poor represented, because the corresponding objects and notions are absent at all in their practical experience. Every vocabulary is an open system, which is capable to continuously replenish and enrich itself. Grammar is comparatively closed system.

Long ago in the Ukrainian the words telephone, TV, cosmonaut, computer, etc., were absent, however nobody will dare assure, that the language of T. G. Shevchenko, was less developed and civilized, than the contemporary Ukrainian. However bad we treat Karl Marx now, but his expression “Reality determines consciousness” is still valid and holds good. Existence, our vital encirclement, influences our consciousness, and, consequently, our vocabulary. Reality, in the first turn, influences our every day vocabulary — the most developed and homogeneous, similar layer of vocabulary in all nations. Nations of the North have more than forty words to designate states and shadows of snow, for it is their permanent environment, and nations of the South do not use this notion at all, as it is absent in their everyday vocabulary.

Two language systems resemble each other and differ from each other phonographically, in vocabulary and in grammatical constructions. The translation theory is based on the theory of language units, but not all the translational phenomena can be explained by it. The comparative grammar of any two languages will not help us to translate because it limits itself by studying similarities and distinctions of temporal verbal forms, remaining within the framework of morphological level in Ukrainian and English. But the most important thing is that in one of the languages compared, the meaning can be expressed not morphologically and even not grammatically, but through lexical-semantic means. The translation theory is quite a different thing. Here it is impossible to limit oneself within establishing correlation only in the system of morphological forms. It is necessary to exceed, overstep them and to understand, that certain meanings, expressed in one of the languages by grammatical means, in another can be expressed through lexical ones, as in the example mentioned above, where meanings in the source text are expressed by temporal verb forms, and in the target text — by lexical means — by the words „раніш“ and „тепер“.

In other words, the theory of translation, in general, is indifferent to the status of language units, which are compared, it is indifferent to whether they belong to grammatical, lexical or other means; their semantic identity is of the utmost importance for it.