
- •Table of Contents
- •Preface
- •Translation theory Chapter 1. Historical overview of translation
- •1.1. The notion of translation theory
- •1.2. Trends in the development of translation theory
- •1.3. Branches in translation studies
- •The map of translation
- •1.4. The object of investigation, aims and tasks of linguistic translation theory. Methods of analysis
- •Chapter 2. Contrastive linguistics and translation studies
- •2.1. Interconnection of contrastive linguistics and translation studies
- •2.2. Major points of difference between contrastive linguistics and translation studies
- •2.3. Levels of comparative translation studies
- •Chapter 3. Theoretical models of translation
- •3.1. Models based on componential analysis
- •3.2. Sense-text model of translation
- •3.3. Situational models of translation
- •3.4. Pragmatic models of translation
- •3.5. Cultural-semiotic and cognitive models of translation
- •Chapter 4. Basic notions and categories of linguistic translation theory
- •4.1. The notion of translation
- •4.2. Typology of translation
- •4.3. The problem of the unit of translation
- •Chapter 5. Equivalence and adequacy of translation
- •5.1. Equivalence and adequacy of translation: points of difference
- •5.2. The problem of translatability
- •5.3. Adequate translation and the role of context
- •Chapter 6. Transformations in Translation
- •6.1. Translation transformations: definition, causes, classification
- •6.2. Levels of translation transformations, operations and techniques of translation
- •6.3. Classification of translation transformations according to techniques of translation
- •Chapter 7. Translation theory and lexis
- •7.1. Main types of semantic correlation of English and Russian words
- •7.2. The notion of lexical correspondences. The theory of regular correspondences by Ya.I.Retsker
- •7.2.1. Equivalent correspondences: definition, classification, types of equivalents
- •7.2.2. Variant correspondences: definition and the difference between variant correspondences and partial equivalents
- •7.2.3. Contextual correspondences: definition and types of contextual correspondences
- •7.3. Analogues as a special type of lexical correspondences. Drawbacks of translation analogues
- •Chapter 8. Translation studies and lexis (cont.)
- •8.1. Lexical problems of translation at word level
- •8.2. Translation of words having no equivalents in tl
- •8.3. Problems of translating neologisms
- •Chapter 9. Translation studies and lexis (cont.)
- •9.1. Ways of rendering proper names
- •9.2. International and pseudo-international words in translation
- •9.3. Translation of terms
- •Chapter 10. Translation studies and lexis (cont.)
- •10.1. Lexical problems of translation at word-group level
- •10.2. Problems of translating phraseological units
- •10.3. Modality in translation
- •Chapter 11. Translation studies and grammar
- •11.1. Two levels of grammatical problems of translation
- •11.2. Grammatical divergences of English and Russian
- •11.3. Translation problems at textual level
- •Chapter 12. Translation studies and grammar (cont.)
- •12.1. Passive voice forms in translation
- •12.2. Problems of rendering word order in translation
- •12.3. Ways of rendering tense-aspect forms
- •Chapter 13. Translation studies and grammar (cont.)
- •13.1. Ways of rendering the English article(s) in Russian translation
- •13.2. Problems of translating English absolute nominative constructions into Russian
- •13.3. Rendering Russian verbal adverb phrases in English
- •Chapter 14. Translation studies and style
- •14.1. Rendering newspaper headlines
- •14.2. Grammatical peculiarities of translating newspaper articles
- •Who?- (did) what? (how?) where? when?-why?
- •14.3. Lexico-phraseological and stylistic peculiarities of translating newspaper articles
- •Part II. Workshop in translation Unit # 1. Basic notions of translation studies Points for discussion
- •1. Read and compare the following Russian and English texts: analyse the units of translation chosen on different levels
- •Unit # 2. Translation correspondences Points for discussion
- •1. Translate the following text into Russian. Find and write out units of translation which have been translated by different types of lexical correspondences.
- •3. Translate the following sentences into English using appropriate correspondences
- •Unit # 3. Transformations in translation Points for discussion
- •I. Compare the following slt and tlt, state the types of all transformations made in translation
- •II.Translate into Russian making the necessary changes
- •III. Translate into English making use of appropriate transformations
- •Unit # 4. Lexical problems of translation Points for discussion
- •I. Suggest, where possible, different ways of translating the following proper names into Russian
- •II. Translate the following sentences into English. Explain the ways of translating words and word-groups having no correspondences in tl.
- •III. Translate the following sentences from English into Russian, analyse the ways of translating neologisms.
- •IV. Translate different kinds of shortened names:
- •V. Translate the following groups of “cultural words” and phrases:
- •Unit # 5. Lexical problems of translation (cont.) Points for discussion
- •I. Think of the ways of translating into English nationally specific Russian phraseological units:
- •II. Offer variants of translating the following terms:
- •III. Translate the text from English into Russian; qualify the underlined terms as international words proper and pseudointernational words:
- •IV. Translate into Russian the English headlines paying attention to premodified noun phrases:
- •V. Discuss different ways of rendering in Russian the imagery component of the following English phraseological units:
- •VI. Think of the ways of translating nationally specific Russian phraseological unis:
- •Unit # 6. Grammatical problems of translation (cont.)
- •1. Compare the following slt and tlt, find cases of different grammatical divergences and analyse the ways of their rendering
- •II. Compare the Russian slTs and English tlTs. Discuss levels of eguivalence achieved in various cases:
- •III. State the type and genre of the following texts, translate them into Russian/English, discuss translation problems at textual level
- •Please have your boarding pass ready
- •In return we offer varied interesting work which includes dealing with
- •33 Cambridge Gardens Hastings East Sussex
- •Unit # 7. Grammatical problems of translation (cont.) Points for discussion
- •I. Translate the following sentences into Russian paying attention to Absolute Nominative constructions
- •II. Translate the following sentences into English, identify the means of compensating for Russian verbal adverb phrases
- •III. Translate the sentences into Russian using various means available in tl to make up for the English articles
- •IV. Translate specific English structures into Russian
- •Unit # 8. Grammatical problems of translation (cont.) Points for discussion
- •1. Translate the following texts into Russian paying attention to Passive voice structures:
- •II. Translate the following sentences into English /Russian, explain the ways of rendering tense-aspect forms:
- •III. Translate the following into English/Russian, state the ways of dealing with modality:
- •Unit # 9. Problems of style in translation
- •I. Suggest ways of translating English headlines:
- •IV. Compare the variants and choose the better of the two:
- •V.Translate into Russian the following abbreviations, state the types of tl correspondences
- •Unit # 10. Stylistic devices and expressive means in translation Points for discussion
- •I. Identify expressive means and stylistic devices in slTs and render them in English/Russian
- •II. Render the text in English, discuss transformations made to compensate for its stylistic features
- •III. Translate into English rendering properly imagery components of Russian lexical units:
- •IV. Compare the ways of rendering connotational properties of the English zoonames in Russian. Which of them do you find the most appropriate? Give your reasons.
- •V. Translate into English retaining the emotional effect of the means of creating emphasis in slTs
- •Part III sample tests test # 1: Lexical problems of translation
- •I. Translate into English. Explain the ways of translating phraseological units:
- •III. Translate the text into Russian. Find 3 examples of international words and 3 examples of pseudointernational words. Illustrate the differences in the latter case.
- •Test # 2: Lexical problems of translation
- •III. Translate the text into Russian. Find 3 examples of international words and 3 examples of pseudointernational words. Illustrate the differences in the latter case:
- •IV. Translate the following sentences into English/Russain. State the ways of translating terms:
- •V. Translate into Russian using and stating the types of transformations:
- •VII. Translate the text into Russian, write out examples of different types of tl correspondences:
- •Test # 3: Grammatical problems of translation
- •I. Translate the following text into Russian, state the types of grammatical transformations used and explain their causes
- •II. Render the following sentences in English paying attention to compensatory means to make up for grammatical divergences:
- •III. Translate the sentences into Russian choosing means available in tl instead of the English article(s).
- •IV. Translate the text into Russian focusing on English attributive groups.
- •V. Render the sentences in Russian paying attention to English adverbial verbs
- •VI. Translate the following sentences into Russian using various compensatory means for Passive voice structures
- •Test # 4: Final Revision Test
- •I. Translate the text into Russian, analyse ways of translating terms
- •II. Translate into Russian the newspaper article, state different types of transformations used in translation
- •III. Render the following sentences in English, discuss the ways of rendering cultural words
- •IV. Translate the text into Russian, analyse the ways of rendering grammatical lacoonae
- •Test # 5: Final Revision Test
- •I. Render the following Russian/English headlines in English/ Russian, discuss transformations made in translation
- •II. Translate “cultural” terms into Russian, analyse the ways of their compensation
- •III. Translate into English paying attention to new Russsian coinages
- •IV. Translate the text into Russian, write out examples of different kinds of lexical correspondences
- •VI. Translate the follwing sentences into English/Russian, state the ways of translating terms
- •VII. Translate into English. Explain the ways of translating phraseological units
- •Appendix I
- •I. Study the scheme of translation analysis of a tlt, discuss the main requirements set for evaluating the quality of a translation text: scheme of translation analysis of a tlt
- •II. Compare the following English/Russian texts and their translations, make the translation analysis of the tlTs applying the scheme given above
- •1. Balance sheet layout
- •III. Translate the following texts from Russian /English into English/Russian. Make the translation analysis of the tlTs according to the points of the scheme relevant for the texts.
- •Compare the following definitions of translation offered by Russian and foreign scholars. Choose the one(s) that you like best giving your reasons
- •Requisites for Professional Translators
- •Competence in translation: a complex skill, how to study and how to teach it
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Lexicographic sources
- •List of fiction
4.2. Typology of translation
The analysis of various manuals on translation testifies to a great variety of conceptions and models of translation which focus on the study of different types of translation. In modern translatology of text scholars distinguish between artistic and special text translation, interpretative translation and translation-transcoding, language and culture oriented translation, free and literal translation, etc. Like any other scientific classification, the description of different kinds of translation is based on some underlying principle.
The category of the agent of translation is the basis of distinguishing between human and machine translation; the time correlation between perception of an original text and its translation underlies the division of oral translation into simultaneous and consecutive; the conditions under which an original text is perceived and translation is made serve as a basis for distinguishing between four kinds of translation: written – written, oral – oral, written – oral, oral - written, and other principles of classification.
Traditionally, main types of translation are singled out on the basis of two criteria: predominant communicative function of the SL text and the form of speech involved in translation [Komissarov, Koralova 1990]. According to the first criterion all translations are divided into literary and informative. Literary translation involves literary texts (prose, poetry, drama) the main function of which is to make an emotional or aesthetic impression upon the reader. Informative translation deals with such texts which have for their primary concern to convey some information to the reader. To non-literary texts in the specified sense we refer scientific, technical texts, diplomatic, newspaper materials, official and business papers, public speeches. True, the line of demarcation between literary and non-literary texts is not very rigid as both the types combine in various proportions some elements of rational (technical) and emotional language that should be properly rendered in translation.
In keeping with the second criterion – the form of speech involved - translations are divided into written and oral with a further subdivision of both into several groups which are singled out on the basis of several combined criteria. So we can speak about full written translation of technical texts and their abridged versions – synopsis, précis, express-information translation. Within oral translation it is possible to speak about consecutive, simultaneous, whispered translation, sight translation, escort and some others.
Besides the two criteria mentioned above there are a number of others. Of great theoretical and practical value is the classification of types of translation elaborated by the late professor L.S. Barkhudarov who used the criterion of the degree of adequacy of a TLT to a SLT [Бархударов 1974]. Accordingly, the author singles out three types of translation: adequate, literal and free. It is believed that literal and free translations should be described as faulty, though for different reasons. Literal translation retains not only the spirit, but also the letter of the original text often to the detriment of the content and the norms of TL. Free translation was most favoured in the so-called corrective translation period since translators were more interested in perfecting the original text than its adequate rendering, hence there was more of a translator’s personality than that of the author in a translation text. True, it should be admitted that even today there is no unanimity of opinion concerning this division of types of translation especially with regard to the so-called literal translation. Since scholars now shift their attention to a particular status of the language of translation texts they justify a translator’s desire to retain in translation semantic and structural components of a SL text in order to achieve certain communicative tasks (see articles in [Проблемы обучения… 2005]).
Adequate translation is regarded as the best in dealing with any type of text, literary or informative, written or oral. However, the question of criteria set for adequate transaltion is still not solved. The advocates of microlinguistic theories of translation mention such criteria of adequacy as correct and full reproduction of the content of a SLT, retaining functional and stylistic uses of its formal features, identity of information conveyed by both texts, etc. Communicative theories of translation emphasize precise correlation of the two texts in their communicative value, similar effect upon the addressee of both texts. Th. Savory compiled a list of criteria set for adequate translation by various authors and showed that most of them are mutually exclusive. Ezra Pound claimed that a translator should stick to the principle ‘more sense and less grammar’.
E. Nida discriminated between ‘formal’ and ‘dynamic’ equivalence equating the latter with the so-called ‘equivalent effect’. According to him, formal (or ‘linguistic) equivalence of translation (qualified by the author as gloss translation) implies reproduction by a traslator of the form and content of the SL text as close to the original as possible. In this type of translation a message against the cultural background of a TL is constantly contrasted with a message against the cultural background of a SL and thus necessitates a lot of explanatory notes and comments. ‘Dynamic’ (or, to be more precise, pragmatic) equivalence permits greater freedom in the choice of language means used in translation provided they create an effect upon the TLT recipient comparable to that of the SLT upon the original text reader. In other words, a TL recipient is not expected to understand the Tl cultural context.
In modern translation theories accent is laid on the correlation not only between SLT and TLT, but also on the correlation between mental structures of speakers of the two languages (cognitive approach), the criterion of TLT acceptability in the new ethnocultural environment.
For the practical purposes it is possible to sum up the most important criteria that apply to evaluate the adequacy of translation:
(1) it fully and correctly renders the sense of an original text,
(2) it follows the rules and norms of TL,
(3) it retains stylistic peculiarities of a SLT, the functions of expressive means and stylistic devices used in it, peculiarities of the author’s individual language and style,
(4) it conveys the author’s message and intent,
(5) it arouses a reaction on the part of a TLT reader similar to that of a SLT reader.
The last criterion was introduced by E.Nida who claims that the dynamic equivalence suggests the so-called “equivalent effect” of the two texts that presupposes the choice of natural means of verbal expression in TL, while the recipient of the TLT is expected to display a pattern of behaviour relevant to the context of his own culture.
It should be noted, however, that the last demand of adequate translation is not universally accepted as unlike the other four requirements its validity is difficult or even impossible to check practically.
Prof. R.K. Minyar-Beloruchev believes that an exhaustive classification of kinds of translation should be founded on five mental mechanisms which govern translator’s activity (connected with perception of an original text, its retention in memory, transfer from one language to another, choice of the form of translation, temporal distribution of translation operations). These mental mechanisms are in their turn linked to diverse conditions that characterize different kinds of translations. For example, conditions of perception of an original text can be connected with either auditory or visual channels, single or repeated perception of a text; conditions of retention in memory of a text depend on its size and so on. The scholar tries to verify the validity of this approach on the basis of the most popular kinds of translation: written, simultaneous, sight, consecutive, paragraph-phrasal, two-way translation [Миньяр-Белоручев 1980]. Each of these kinds of translation is described in terms of mental mechanisms involved in them and concrete conditions of bilingual intercourse.
It seems that the above mentioned approach provides a solid foundation for describing different kinds of translation, but firstly, it lays stress on a psychological basis leaving linguistic aspect in the shade; secondly, it brings together a variety of different kinds of translation which differ greatly in their nature (cf. two-way and sight translation); thirdly, it contrasts kinds of translation which share their basic features (cf. consecutive and paragraph-phrasal translation).
For practical purposes it is convenient to use, with some amendments, the typology of classification advanced by prof. P.G. Chebotarev that brings together a number of classificatory criteria: content, form, and genre [Чеботарев 2006]. The author uses the terms: types, kinds and genres of translation.
Types of translation are singled out on the basis of the character of relationship between the SLT and TLT and the volume of information retained in translation. Accordingly, it is possible to distinguish the following 4 types:
full translation,
abridged translation,
enlarged translation,
modified translation.
The first one retains the full volume of information expressed in SLT, the second selects some passages for translation or reduces the information retained in a TLT only to the most important points and leaving out less important, the third type includes various comments, explanations, etc by a translator which contribute to a better understanding of an original text and the fourth type refers to synopsis and precis translation. In our opinion, this classification into types needs some clarification as it is not quite clear how to distinguish between abridged and modified translation. Modified translation including in the given approach both synopsis and precis translation should be looked upon as a variety of abridged translation.
Kinds of translation take into account the form of the language that is involved in the translation process. Hence, this criterion underlies the division of translation into the following kinds:
oral (simultaneous, consecutive, sight, escort interpreting, whispered interpreting, conference interpreting, etc),
written,
combined oral-written (written translation of a lecture, tape-recording, abridged sight translation, etc).
In the above classification of kinds of translation it might be useful to single out two subvarieties within the third group: combined oral-written and written-oral.
Besides, in actual conditions of international communication in various spheres it seems to be more appropriate to speak about a new type of translation – the so-called multi-medium translation. It is widely used today in translating films (subtitling and dubbing), translation for the theatre and advertising, song lyric translation, on-line multi-lingual programmes and some other kinds of intercourse.
Genres of translation include the following varieties:
translation of political and publicistic texts,
technical (scientific, speciality) translation,
military translation,
fiction translation,
legal translation,
commercial translation,
translation of religious texts, etc.
* * *
New principles of classifying types of translation were recently elaborated in translation theories which view translating as inseparable from the concept of culture. The semiotic interpretation of translation in R. Jacobson’s tripartite theory linked translation studies and cultural semiotics because “the general notion of culture might be described as the process of total translation” [Torop 2002: 593]. In keeping with a broad interpretation of culture as operating largely through translational activity P. Torop singles out 4 translation types on the basis of the model of a universal translation process [Тороп 1995] which include: 1) textual translation or ordinary translation; 2) metatextual translation or description in the form of criticism, advertising, etc; 3) intextual and intertextual translation or transmitting or introducing a foreign word into a text; 4) extratextual translation or translating out of a text (e.g. adapting literature to a film, etc). These types of translation are based on viewing culture as a mechanism of translation and viewing translation as a working mechanism of culture.