7.2. The notion of lexical correspondences. The theory of regular correspondences by Ya.I.Retsker

The notion of lexical correspondences can be treated in a narrow and a broad sense: in a narrow sense it refers to correspondences registered as ready dictionary correspondences in bi-lingual dictionaries, while in a broad sense it is used in regard to any means of textual translation of a given unit that doesn’t coincide with a dictionary correspondence, cf. on the one hand, in one’s teens – в подростковом возрасте and on the other hand, events of the country in its teens – события в стране в начале нынешнего столетия.

The theory of regular correspondences elaborated by Ya.I. Retsker (the first version was described in the article that came out in 1950 signaling the emergence of the linguistic theory of translation in this country) is based on the narrow interpretation of the term correspondence though in actual practice it often exceeds its limits and relies greatly upon a broad approach to correspondences. This inconsistency was explicitly stressed in prof. V.N. Komissarov’s theory of the levels of equivalence. In 1974 Ya.I. Retsker published his monograph “Teoriya perevoda i perevodcheskaya praktica” in which he modified his initial version changing the classes and the terminology used. The final version of the theory of regular correspondences establishes three types:

• equivalent correspondences

• variant and contextual correspondences

• correspondences resulting from translation transformations [Рецкер 2004].

According to the author, equivalent correspondences belong to the sphere of language, while the 2-nd and the 3-rd groups refer to speech. Such a conclusion is not supported by other scholars, for example, by prof. V.N.Komissarov who claims that there are several mute points here:

firstly, it is not quite clear what is actually meant in such cases, that is whether we take into account ways of establishing correspondences (when we view them as elements of a SL and a TL systems or establish as a result of comparing a SLT and a TLT) or the fact of their being registered in a bilingual dictionary;

secondly, variant correspondences cannot be contrasted to equivalents on this ground because they are also registered in parallel dictionaries and thus should be qualified as language elements, but not speech units;

thirdly, many correspondences which result from textual transformations later become established as dictionary correspondences [Комиссаров 2004].

7.2.1. Equivalent correspondences: definition, classification, types of equivalents

Equivalent correspondences are defined as constant regular dictionary correspondences which are used in translation irrespective of a context and are interchangeable with each other in all their uses. It is argued that equivalents are usually found among compound words and word-combinations and are very rare among simple words, e.g. dog-collar – ошейник, to take the floor – взять слово. To equivalents the author refers proper and geographic names, terms and some common nouns.

Equivalents can be further divided into groups if we take into account denotational and connotational components of lexical meaning: when only denotational component of correspondences is compared it is possible to speak about full and partial equivalents. Full equivalents are such equivalents which coincide fully in their denotational meaning, cf. mass media – средства массовой информации, gossip column – светская хроника. Partial equivalents are such equivalents which coincide in some of their meanings, and differ in others and so they are interchangeable only in some of their contexts. Usually partial equivalents are found among polysemantic words, cf. the word – group silver plate can be translated as 1) серебряная пластинка, 2) серебряное блюдо, 3) столовое серебро. All these three correspondences should be treated as partial equivalents as they are used to translate different meanings of this polysemantic word.

When not only denotational, but also connotational component of lexical meaning is taken into account equivalents are classified into absolute and relative. Absolute equivalents coincide fully both in their denotational and connotational meanings, e.g. hydrocarbons – углеводороды, nitrogen dioxide – двуокись азота (terms in English and in Russian); to kick the bucket (sl) – окочуриться (сл., вульг.). Relative equivalents coincide in English and Russian in their denotational meaning, but differ in connotational component, e.g. гэбист (разг.) – KGBer (neutral); клубничка (сл.) – erotic entertainment (neutral).

There are several points connected with equivalent correspondences that have been criticized by some scholars. The first restriction concerns the use of the term equivalent which should not be understood as complete identity of content (H. Bellock, E. Nida, В. С. Виноградов, В.Н. Манакин). Even proper names and terms are liable to have some nuances of meaning which are often culturally relevant. These nuances of meaning are often revealed in derivatives and combinatorial capacity [Чанышева 2004], cf. the English name Canterbury enters the phrase to tell Canterbury tales which acquires a metaphorical sense associated with the knowledge of the respective narrative. The Russian correspondence рассказывать нескончаемые скучные истории retains only part of the connotations, while very important connotation implied in the English phrase ‘these stories are especially famous for bawdy humour, i.e. about sex told in a rude and funny way’ (LDELC) is not conveyed. Besides, the contention that equivalents do not depend on a context gives rise to doubts since it may be true only of full equivalents the number of which is obviously very insignificant, but it does not hold good in regard to partial equivalents used by definition when translating polysemantic words which are contextually dependent [Швейцер 1988].