7.3. Analogues as a special type of lexical correspondences. Drawbacks of translation analogues

The first version of the theory of regular correspondences established analogues as a variety of correspondences alongside equivalents and adequate substitutions. In the later versions this class is not included because the theory has been greatly changed by the author both in the types of correspondences established, their number and naturally the terms used.

In the modern LTT the term analogue is used in a different sense. Ya.I. Retsker used it in connection with several TL correspondences for a given unit of translation when a translator has to make a proper choice on analogy with the choice of synonyms for a given context. Other scholars understand the term differently. A.V.Fyodorov defines analogues as means of rendering nationally specific concepts of SL which have no ready correspondences in TL and are thus translated approximately by words and phrases which denote in TL something similar [Фёдоров 1968:181].

Prof. L.S.Barkhudarov qualifies analogues as approximate equivalents which means that he considers them alongside other correspondences [Бархударов 1975:101]. To illustrate analogues he gives the following examples: техникум – junior college, горсовет – municipal council, путёвка (в санаторий, дом отдыха) – a voucher. Though according to L.S.Barkhudarov, such analogues are quite useful in dealing with nationally specific notions a translator must be aware of their approximate character, cf. the comment from an American film “Food is awful in drugstores” might not make sense in Russian translation «В аптеках ужасно кормят» because the words drugstore and аптека are only analogues, but not true equivalents, so in this case it is reasonable to translate it by the word закусочная. From L.S. Barkhudarov’s definition it is clear that he regards analogues in a broader sense than A.V. Fyodorov, as he refers to them names of such notions that are similar in the two languages in some features and differ in others.

A.V.Fyodorov who treats analogues in a more narrow sense confines them only to nationally specific concepts and phraseological units. At the same time he points out drawbacks of unrestricted use of analogues:

1) they may weaken in translation the national specificity, cultural relevance and local colouring that is created by such words in the original text. In Russian a lot of perestroika terms were first translated by approximate English words, which proved that they failed to render properly all implications, so that the analogues had to be replaced by borrowed translation, cf. гласность – openness, publicity, frankness / glasnost which was supplied by a comment: a system introduced in the mid-1980s in Russia which allowed people and the media to express views in opposition to the official position, diametrically opposed to the closed-society concept; государственные краткосрочные облигации (ГКО) – treasury bills /government short-term bonds (obligations). Examples of this kind are discussed in more detail in [Чанышева 2006; Чанышева, Дьяконова 2007].

2) they may result in the unintended effect of bringing in certain connotations connected with a given concept in a TL linguacultural community. Such connotations which are aroused by TLT may seem to be strange, out-of-place and improper for a situation described. For example, the English word peddler (торговец-разносчик) could hardly be translated by the Russian word коробейник which is proper to use only against the background of the Russia of the Nekrasov times.

It should be borne in mind that some bilingual dictionary compilers choose wrong analogues in translation which may bring to intercultural misunderstanding, e.g. career woman – работающая женщина, особ. имеющая специальность.

The study of translation activity as an act of intercultural communication stresses the importance of taking into account differences in cultural connotations of correlated words in any two languages on various content levels.