1. From Greek mythology:

A labour of Sisyphus	Сізіфова праця (важка але марна праця)
Cassandra’s warning	Застереження Каландри (правдиві застереження, яким не вірять)
Pandora’s Box	Скринька Пандори або Пандорина скринька (джерело бід)

2. From ancient history or literature:

The golden age	Золотий вік
The die is cast	Жереб кинуто
To cross the Rubicon	Перейти Рубікон (приймати важливе рішення)
I came, I saw, I conquered	Прийшов, побачив, переміг

3. From the Bible or based on biblical plot:

A lost sheep	Заблудла вівця
Ten commandments	Десять заповідей
The thirty pieces of silver	Тридцять срібняків

4. From the contemporary literary or historical source relating to different languages (mainly to French, Spanish, Danish, German, Italian, Arabic):

French	After us the deluge	Після нас хоч потоп
	One’s place in the sun	Місце під сонцем
	The game is worth the candle	Гра варта свічок
Spanish	Blue blood	Блакитна кров
	The fifth column	П’ята колона

5. From the works of prominent English and American authors:

To bury a hatchet	Закопати томагавк/укласти мир (F.Cooper)
Cowards die many times before their deaths	Боягузи вмирають багато разів (W. Shakespeare)
To reign in Hell is better than to serve in Heaven	Краще панувати в пеклі, ніж слугувати в раю (J. Milton)

2. Translation by Choosing Near Equivalents:

The meaning of a considerable number of the Phraseological units originating in both languages from a common source may sometimes have, unlike absolute equivalents, one or even most of their components different, than in the target language.

In broad daylight	Серед білого дня
As pale as paper	Блідий мов стіна
One’s own flesh and bone	Рідна кровинка
Baker’s/printer’s dozen	Чортова дюжина
As short as a dog’s tail	Короткий, як осінній день
Measure twice, cut once	Сім раз відміряй, один раз відріж
To make a long story short	Коротко кажучи

3. Translation by Choosing Genuine idiomatic Analogies:

The Phraseological units are in most cases easily given corresponding analogies in the target language. As a matter of fact the Phraseological units are usual­ly very close in their connotative meaning in English and Ukrainian languages. These common and similar traits of the Phraseological units serve a proof of their be­ing genuine analogies.

To have the ready tongue	За словом у кишеню не лізти
Like mistress, like maid	Яблуко від яблуні недалеко падає
To keep body and soul together	Ледь зводити кінці з кінцями
There is no use crying over spilt milk	Що з воза впало, те пропало

The choice of an analogy is translator’s decision and is predetermined by the style of a text.

Not for time or money	Ні за що в світі / ні за які гроші
Don’t cross the bridge before you come to it	Не кажи «гоп», доки не перестрибнеш
He that lies down with dogs must rise up with fleas	З ким поведешся, від того й наберешся

4. Translation by Choosing Approximate analogies:

The meaning of the Phraseological units can be expressed by means of only approximate analogies, i.e. in a descriptive way.

To lose one’s breath	Кидати слова на вітер
King words butter no parsnips	Годувати байками солов’я
To make a cat’s paw of something	Чужими руками жар вигрібати

5. Descriptive translation of idiomatic and set expressions:

The meaning of a considerable number of the Phraseological units can be conveyed through explication only i.e. in a descriptive way. Depending on the complexity of the meaning contained in the source language unit, it can be conveyed in the target language as follows:

By a single word	Red blood	Мужність, відвага, хоробрість
	To set a limit to smth	Обмежувати, стримувати
	Out of a clear blue of the sky	Раптом, зненацька
By a free combination of words	Short odds	Майже рівні шанси
	To sell someone short	Недооцінювати когось
	To shoot Niagara	Вдаватися до ризикованих дій
By a sentence or a longer explanation	To cut off with a shilling	Залишити без спадщини

Thus, the aim of translating of the Phraseological expressions is to fully con­vey their lexical meaning in the target language and where possible, to convey the structural peculiarities, the figurativeness, the expressiveness, and the connotative meaning of the source language Phraseological units.

Besides, it is necessary to take into account that modern linguistics is formed as anthropological science, which includes research of the linguistic phenomena and language processes in indissoluble connection with the necessities of human communicative activity that is accompanied by the realization of cognitive processes.

In accordance with positions of cognitive science, a man must be studied as a system of processing information, and person’s behaviour should be depicted and explained in the terms of the internal states, which are physically shown, or are found under observation and are interpreted as getting, processing, storing and mobilization of information for the rational decision of language tasks.

The system of senses that falls into the sphere of individual knowledge or beliefs is formed as a result of cognitive activity. Knowledge, which is got in practice directly, are re-interpreted on the basis of the available empirical experience, that influence upon displaying information by one language user and perception it by the other one.

National and cultural components of the lexical meanings of words can represent the way of life, culture peculiarities, traditions, and beliefs etc. of language users and is the cause of different associations they have.

The Phraseological units are formed on the basis of such a figurative presentation of reality that represents daily empirical, historical or mental experience of language group that is certainly related to its culture and traditions, as the subject of nomination and linguistic activity is always the subject of national culture.

Thus, when analyzing the features of cultural connotation, it is necessary to take into account that the system of images fixed in the Phraseological structure of language serves for accumulation of world views and is definitely related to the material, social or mental culture of the given language association and therefore testifies to its cultural and national traditions.

The figurative basis serves the way of embodying the cultural and national specificity of the Phraseological units, while interpretation of the figurative basis in sign, cultural and national «space» of the given language group serves the way of pointing at that specificity.

Such way of interpretation makes cultural and natural connotation.

Thus the basis of cognitive foundation for translating the Phraseological units is made up by the semantics that stipulates understanding of specific devices connected with using language and those means by which they interact with the other aspects of functioning the thought.

A very important role is given up to the emotional position of a language user. This emotional position serves as a sort of communicative intention.

The cognitive sphere of the meaning includes stylistic one, which is linked with the communicative situation fixed in a language speaker or listener’s memory. The expressive effect the Phraseological unit has stipulates knowledge that the denotant of a given expression takes place in the world and acts as internal and external base for subject of cognition. This knowledge serves as a premise of the whole cognitive process. The expressive function of a language is a means of setting relations between intentions of language subject and his knowledge of the real events that happens in the world, of language coding rules and stylistic usage of language devices.

Thus, the expressiveness of the Phraseological units is a category that relates to the cognitive aspect of language as its base includes cognitive intentions with the aggregate of user’s relations to the denotation. The basic intention for the Phraseological units’ expressiveness can cover feeling of encouraging or discouraging, agreeing or disagreeing, honesty or dishonesty etc. For example, the meaning of a lexeme «black» means «bad», «terrible»:

Devil is not so black as he is painted	Не такий страшний чорт, як його малюють
To depict in black colours	Представляти в поганому світлі
To look black	Мати незадоволений, похмурий, злий вигляд
Black conscience	Чорна, нечиста совість

The lexeme «white» can be used for denoting cowardice and at the same time for designating purity and innocence, as in the given examples:

A white liver	Малодушність, боягузтво
A white feather	Боягузтво
To show the white feather	Злякатися, виявити малодушність
A white man	Порядна, добре вихована людина
A white lie	Невинна брехня, брехня заради порятунку
To put on a white sheet	Каятися, визнавати прилюдно свої помилки

The expressiveness the Phraseological units is oriented at the cognitive plan of the language and mental activity as the latter one indicates signals about intentions of a language subject which include evaluating and emotive attitude to the denotation. This relation is subjective in a listener’s language consciousness dependently on his ability to «reproduce» mental structures that are identical to communicative intent.

The specifics of using language devices and conformities of their functioning as well as their influence on people’s behaviour are considered by the pragmatics. The analysis of the pragmatic aspect of any utterance must take into account the following positions:

1. Terms of communication.

2. Purpose of communication.

3. Communicative intentions.

The pragmatic analysis includes operating by such notions as:

1. A sender of language message and receiver.

2. Pragmatic situation that is defined as complex of external terms of intercourse which are presented in a speaker’s consciousness from the moment of realizing the linguistic act and to the result of pragmatic effect.

3. Illocutive act that represents executing a certain action (request, question, gratitude etc.).

4. Perlocutive act that defines influence the receiver get in the situation of communication.

The illocutive intent, which can be attained in a communicative act, is considerably determined by the semantics of words that are chosen for using by a language user.

The Phraseological units are one of the most productive devices of forming second denominations that have such an important feature as to «impose» a particular understanding of the world.

Synthesizing the character of processes of creation of the secondary meanings is connected with purposeful activity of its subject.

This activity is oriented not only on filling the nominative and conceptual effects, but also on filling up pragmatic influencing, that is caused by the Phraseological unit in the mind of a recipient. Evaluating events that take place in the world is indispensable attribute of human activity.

Thus, the meaning of the Phraseological unit must include evaluation as the process of their forming is accompanied by defining the denoting subject.

In the act of interlingual communication, a bilingual-mediator takes part except the Source and Receptor. A translator’s task is to form the target language text that will become the identical replacement of the source language text.

Therefore, the specifics of pragmatic relations in the process of translation is linked either with the necessity to reproduce the pragmatics of the source language text in the target language text or with the special pragmatic position of a translator. In the process of translation, the special attitude to a text is formed in the translator’s mind. A translator tries to get and pass information of the source language text objectively and faithfully.

The pragmatics of the source language text is the most important part of its content, that’s why its reproduction is an obligatory condition of achieving faithfulness of translation.

A translator’s aim is to «neutralize» his personal attitude to the events described and to provide the most objective evaluation of the source language text pragmatics from the position of neutral Receptor. A translator consciously tries to mark off an influence from personal attitudes and emotions and to reproduce the pragmatic factors of the source language text as a cognitive operation.

However, it does not mean that personality of a translator (his ethics, professional views etc.) have no any relationship to his practical activity. On the contrary, all these factors are very important and define translator’s successful work. This peculiar pragmatic attitude to the text translated, is fully oriented to its complete reproduction and makes the most important aspect of its pragmatics. In the process of translation, the personality of a translator, his professional interests to the work and satisfaction by its results are determined by the semantics and source language text pragmatics as well as his ability to decide tasks of translation properly. For example, a translator can feel positive emotions when he successfully reproduced the author’s thoughts and feelings even if his attitude to the author is negative.

Thus, the pragmatic orientation on the source language text is the most important but not the single aspect of the pragmatics of translation. In many cases, the orientation of a translator on the participants of communicative act (Source and Receptor of translation) influences on its process and result, when he appears as the full fledged participant of an act of intercourse and solves his personal pragmatic orientation.

There is a list of the widely spread Phraseological units in English and Ukrainian languages below:

Much ado about nothing To be in accord On no account To settle accounts Extremes meets Actions speak louder that words As blind as a bat In cold blood A seamy side A hot potato What can’t be cured must be endured A bird in the hand is worth two іn the bush / Half a loaf is better than no bread A walking encyclopedia The end justifies the means Of two evils choose the best With a naked eye Dry facts Facts are stubborn things A fault confessed is half redressed In full feather As fit as a fiddle If you dance you must pay the fiddler Butterfingers To one’s fingers end’s Between two fires To go through fire and water No flying from fate Second wind As white as a ghost All is well that ends well The wear and tear of time In the soup No sooner said that done A slip of a pen A slip of a tongue That’s where the shoe pinches Make hay while the sun shines / Strike the iron while it is hot Out of the frying-pan into the fire A frog in the throat An apple-pie order Easy come, easy go Hercules’ labour Safe and sound Neither rhyme no reason Lies have short legs Between the cup and the lip a morsel may slip The devil isn’t so black as he is painted To be in the same boat A hard nut to crack To ask for trouble Like father, like son Not to know chalk from cheese A man can die but once Haste makes waste A sound mind in a sound body A labour of Sisyphus Cassandra’s warning I came, I saw, I conquered One’s place in the sun To reign in Hell better than to serve in Heaven Caesar’s wife must be beyond suspicion To have the ready tongue A crooked stick throws a crooked shadow Every man has a fool in his sleeve Every man has his faults To make a cat’s paw of smth To be finger and thumb What’s Hecuba to me Does your mother know you are out The belly is not filled with fair words To walk on air The road to Hell is paved with good intentions As you make your bed so you must lie on it A little bird told me To get cold feet To come clean Тo put on a white sheet To face the music To be the last straw Blank verse Play fast and loose Not worth a red cent A new broom The sword of Damocles To cross the Rubicon To win the wooden spoon Hobson’s choice To talk nineteen to the dozen Dutch courage Let’s call a spade a spade To cry for the moon Once in a blue moon To smell a rat To leave smb in the lurch The lion’s share To grasp the nettle To be born with a silver spoon in the mouth To give the sack to smb. Let sleeping dogs lie As cool as a cucumber To be in full swing A nice kettle of fish Under the nose At sixes and sevens To be in two minds To make a mountain of a molehill Тo see through blue glasses Тo see through rose-coloured glasses Bag and baggage To catch smb red-handed An apple of discord By hook or by crook To square the circle A storm in the tea-cup Dog days Тo act as a red rag acts upon a bull It’s no use crying over the spilt milk A peeping Tom Do you see any green in my eye? In a nutshell A mare’s nest Neck or nothing Donkey’s years Mark my words! Red in the face To be in the dark Let’s call it a day Every day is not Sunday Birds of a feather To show the white feather Vanity of vanities To err is human Never is a long day When pigs fly Don’t beat about the bush With flying colours A prodigal son To paint the town red All his geese are swans He can’t say «boo» to the goose That cat won’t jump As the tree so the fruit To bark up the wrong tree To buy a pig in a poke Let the cat out of the bag I’ll eat my hat Rain or shine As light as a feather To fish for compliments To keep a low profile To sow the seeds of discord Never put off till tomorrow what you can do today It never rains but it pours One swallow doesn’t make a summer To be on the safe side Тo be yellow about the gills To feel like a fish out of the water As the crow flies Іn the nick of time To get butterflies in one’s stomach As poor as a church mouse All cats are grey in the dark Not to see a step beyond one’s nose Not for love or money Either win the saddle or lose the horse Many hands make work light To cast pearls before swine To be born under a lucky star To cherish a viper in one’s bosom Neither fish nor flesh To cross the Styx Pandora’s box After us the deluge Black ingratitude Тo make the air blue Better a witty fool than a foolish wit As short as a dog’s tail Measure twice, cut once To make a long story short You cannot catch an old bird with chaff Тrue blue will never stain He that mischief hatches mischief catches To keep body and soul together There is no use crying over spilt milk Don’t cross the bridges before you come to them He that lies down with dogs must rise up with fleas Аs green as a gooseberry King words butter no parsnips Тo beat the air А fly in the ointment To lose one’s breath More power to your elbow To cut off with a shilling Аs gray as a bat’s wing А round peg in a square hole Тo blush like a black dog Green-eyed monster To cut to the quick Тo give smb. hell As mad as a March hare

Багато шуму з нічого Мати однакові смаки Ні в якому випадку Зводити рахунки Протилежності притягуються Вчинки говорять самі за себе Зовсім сліпий Холоднокровно Темний (непривабливий) бік Неприємна тема Те, чого не можна подолати, треба перетерпіти Краще синиця в руках, ніж журавель у небі / На безриб’ї і рак риба Ходяча енциклопедія Мета виправдовує засоби З поміж двох зол обирай найменше Неозброєним оком Голі факти Факти річ вперта За зізнання – половина покарання При повному параді В гарному настрої Той, хто платить, заказує музику Діряві руки З голови до ніг Між двох вогнів Ускочити в халепу Від долі не втечеш Друге дихання Білий як полотно Добре те, що добре закінчується Життєві труднощі В скрутному становищі / в біді Сказано – зроблено Описка Обмовка Знати в чому суть справи / знати де собака зарита Коси коса, доки роса / Куй залізо, доки гаряче З вогню у полум’я Хрипота Зразковий (повний) порядок Як нажите, так і прожите Геркулесова праця Цілий і неушкоджений Ні складу, ні ладу На брехні далеко не уїдеш Не радій передчасно / Не кажи «гоп», доки не перестрибнеш Не такий страшний чорт, як його малюють Бути в однаковому становищі Міцний горішок Напрошуватись на неприємності Який батько, такий і син Ні бе, ні ме, ні кукуріку Двом смертям не бути, а однієї не оминути Поспішиш – людей насмішиш В здоровому тілі здоровий дух Сізіфова праця Застереження Касандри Прийшов, побачив, переміг Місце під сонцем Краще панувати в пеклі, ніж прислуговувати в раю Дружина Цезаря поза підозрою За словом в кишеню не лізти Який Сава, така й слава І на сонці бувають плями Людини без вад не буває Чужими руками жар вигрібати Водою не розлити Моя хата скраю Ще не доріс / Молоко на губах не висохло Одними словами ситий не будеш Ніг під собою не відчувати Дорога в пекло вимощена добрими намірами Що посієш, те й пожнеш Чутками світ повниться Злякатися Зізнатися Каятися, визнавати свої помилки Без вагань зустрічати труднощі Бути останньою краплею Білий вірш Вести нечесну (подвійну) гру Ламаного гроша не вартий Нова мітла Дамоклів меч Перетнути Рубікон Зайняти останнє місце Відсутність вибору Говорити без упину Море по коліно Називати речі своїми іменами Вимагати (бажати) неможливого Рідко / раз на рік Відчувати недобре Кинути напризволяще Левина доля Рішуче братися за складну справу Народитись у сорочці Звільнити Не буди лихо, доки тихо Незворушний / спокійний У повному розпалі Оце так історія! Таємно Безладно / догори дном Знаходитися в нерішучості Робити з мухи слона Песимістично дивитися на речі Омтимістично дивитися на речі З усіма пожитками Зловити на гарячому Яблуко розбрату Всіма правдами й неправдами Намагатись зробити неможливе Буря в стакані води Спекотні дні у червні Сильно дратувати, виводити з себе Зробленого (втраченого) не повернеш Надмірно цікава людина Невже я здаюся таким легковірним? Коротенько / в двох словах Ілюзія /омана Або пан, або пропав Ціла вічність Запам’ятай мої слова Багровий від гніву Перебувати в невідомості На сьогодні досить! Не кожен день свято Одного поля ягода Проявити малодушність Суєта суєт Людині властиво помилятися Так вже й ніколи! Після дощику в четвер Кажи прямо Переможно Блудний син Влаштувати пиятику / загуляти Він (завжди) перебільшує Він і мухи не образить Цей номер не пройде Яблуко від яблуні недалеко падає Звертатися «не за адресою» Покупати кота в мішку Проговоритися Клянусь! / Присягаюсь! За будь-якої погоди Легкий як пір’їнка Напрошуватись на компліменти Триматись у тіні Сіяти ворожнечу (розбрат) Ніколи не відкладай на завтра те, що можна зробити сьогодні Біда не приходить одна Одна ластівка погоди не робить Про всяк випадок Мати нездоровий вигляд Почуватися не в своїй тарілці По прямій / навпростець Саме вчасно! Нервуватися Бідний як церковна миша Вночі що сіре, те й вовк Далі свого носа нічого не бачити Ні за які гроші / ні за що в світі Або перемогу здобути, або дома не бути Гуртом і батька легше бити Кидати перла перед свинями Народитися під щасливою зіркою Пригріти гадюку в пазусі Ні риба ні м’ясо Канути в Лету; піти в небуття Скринька Пандори Після нас хоч потоп Чорна невдячність Лаяти на всі заставки Краще дотепний дурень, ніж дурний дотепник Короткий, як осінній день Сім раз одміряй, один раз одріж Коротко кажучи Старого горобця на полові не зловиш Порядна людина не підведе Хто іншим лиха бажає, сам лихо має Ледь зводити кінці з кінцями Що з воза впало, те пропало Не поспішай поперед батька в пекло З ким поведешся, від того й наберешся Молодий / зелений Годувати байками солов’я Товкти воду в ступі Ложка дьогтю в бочці з медом Кидати слова на вітер Ні пуху, ні луски Залишити без спадщини Сірий, як миша Людина не на своєму місці Бути безсоромним Заздрість Зачепити за живе Розпекти до червоного жару Божевільний / не при своєму розумі

XI. Translation equivalence and equivalents

The task of any translation is to pass the content of the source language text by the devices of the target language exactly and faithfully with saving its stylistic and expressive features. Translation must pass not only what is expressed by the original text, but also, as it is shown in it. This requirement is related to both all translation of the given text and its separate parts. The notions of equivalence and adequacy were introduced for the determination of the extent of content integrity or semantic closeness. The notion of equivalence exposes the major feature of translation and is one of the central notions of the modern science of translation.

The equivalent is a permanent correspondence of the same meaning to the word or word-combination in the target language that does not depend on the context in most of cases.

In modern science of translation the different approaches to determination of equivalence exist. However, the most widespread is the theory of levels of equivalence according to which the relations of equivalence between the corresponding levels of the source language text and the target one are set in the process of translation. The units of the original text and its translation can be equivalent to each other at all the existent levels or only at some of them. The final goal of translation intends establishment of maximal extent of equivalence at every level.

The study of levels of equivalence is very important not only for the theory of translation, but for practice of translation as well, as it allows to define, what extent of closeness to the source language text a translator can attain in every concrete case.

The specific character of translation, that distinguishes it from all the other types of linguistic mediation, supposes that it is intended for competent replacement of the source language text and that the receptors of translation consider it fully identical to the original text. At the same time, it is obviously that the absolute identity of translation to the source language text is unattainable and that it does not prevent from realizing the interlinguistic communication. The point does not only concern the inevitable losses at the transmission of features of the poetic form, cultural and historical associations, specific nationally biased lexicon and the other nuances of the literary exposition, but the lack of coincidence of separate elements of sense in the translations of the most elementary utterances.

As a result of the absence of identity of the relation between content of the source language text and its translation a term «equivalence» that defines the integrity of the content or the semantic closeness of the original text and the target language one was introduced.

As the importance of maximal coincidence between these texts appears to be obvious, the equivalence is usually considered as a basic sign and condition of existence of translation.

The consequence of it is the following:

1) The condition of equivalence must be included in the determination of translation.

Thus, the translation can be defined as the replacement of the text material in one language by the equivalent text material in the other one. Translation supposes the creation of «the nearest natural equivalent» to the source language text in the target language.

2) The notion «equivalence» acquires evaluative character when the equivalent translation is acknowledged to be the «good» or «correct» one.

3) As the equivalence is the condition of translation, its task supposes to define this condition with indicating what the translating equivalence consists in or what must be necessarily stored in translation.

There are three basic approaches to the determination of the notion «equivalent».

Till recently in the science of translation the leading place belonged to the linguistic theories of translation, where the traditional conceptions prevailed. These conceptions suppose that the languages play the main role in the process of translation. At such approach the tasks of a translator are reduced to maximally exact transmission of the source language text by the language of translation in its complete volume. Some definitions of translation actually substitute the equivalence by the identity, asserting, that translation must fully save the content of the source language text.

When the term «full value» replaces the term «equivalence» it is supposed that this «full value» includes the exhaustive transmission of the semantic content of the original text. However, this assertion does not find confirmation. It is possible to speak about invariability in relative sense only as the losses are inevitable in the process of translation that means that the incomplete transmission of the meanings expressed by the source language text takes place. The text of translation never can be the complete and absolute equivalent of the source language text.

Such approach to translation gave the grounds for appearing the so-called theory of untranslatability according to which translation is impossible generally. Undoubtedly, the uniqueness of dictionary composition and grammatical system of each language, not to mention the distinction of cultures, allows asserting that the complete identity of texts of the original and its translation is impossible in principle. However, the assertion that the translation itself is impossible is very disputable.

The second approach to the decision of the problem of translating equivalence supposes the attempt to find out some invariant part saving of which is necessary and enough for achievement of equivalence of translation in content of the source language text. The most frequently the function of the source language text or the situation described in this text is offered at the role of such invariant. In other words, if translation can accomplish the same function or describes the same reality, it is an equivalent. However, whatever part of the content of the source language text was chosen as a basis for achievement of equivalence, the great number translations that were really accomplished and provide the interlingual communication or where the given part of initial information is not stored is always found.

And, vice versa, there are a lot translations, where the equivalence is stored, however, they are not able to accomplish their function as the equivalent to the source language text. In such cases a translator faces the difficult choice: either to deny a translation as such or to admit that the invariance of the given part of the content is not the obligatory sign of translation.

The third approach to determination of translating equivalence can be called empiric one. The essence of it supposes not to try to decide, what the commonness of the source language text and the target language one must consist in, but to compare the great number of translations really accomplished with the original texts in order to find out what their equivalence is based on. The extent of the semantic closeness to the source language text at different translations is different, and their equivalence is based on saving the various parts of the content of the original text.

The description of the equivalence of the source language text and translation at the different level of content implies:

1) Translation is intended for competent replacement of the source language text. Actually the absolute identity of translation to the original text is not attainable and even undesirable.

For example:

The boy is skating

Хлопчик катається на ковзанах

If the word-for-word translation is used then the word «катається» can be translated as «кататися або катати себе» as «to roll oneself», but the translation «The boy is rolling himself on the skates» is wrong.

2) The equivalence of purpose of communication intends that the closeness of translation and original text is minimum, but a verbal function is stored. Several speech functions were distinguished in the practice of translation:

1. The emotive function that expresses feelings and emotions of a talker.

1. The consultative function that intends the orientation on the content of report.

2. The actual function has an aim to check the presence of a contact.

3. The metalinguistic function concerns the organization of a language properly.

4. The poetic function supposes the setting on the aesthetic effect of a report.

For example:

That’s a pretty thing to say!

Посоромився б!

The emotive function is kept in this example.

3) The equivalence at the level of description of a situation supposes that there are no correspondences in the vocabulary and grammar of the source language text but the same situation is described. Describing a situation, people never name all its signs but name some of them only. Situation can be described variously by choosing different signs.

For example:

The telephone rang and he answered it

Задзвонив телефон, і він зняв слухавку

There are situations that are always described by one and the same method in the given language. These situations intend using standard speech formulas, preventive inscriptions, and generally accepted wishes.

For example:

Wet paint	Обережно, пофарбовано
Fragile	Обережно, скло

There are a lot of cases when a situation is described in one language but is omitted in the other one.

4) The equivalence at the level of report means that not only the description of a situation is kept, but a method of its description as well, in spite of the different types of semantic variation at which the different things are:

a) The extent of working out description in detail as the English utterances are often more implicit than the Ukrainian ones.

b) The method of uniting the described signs or situation in the utterance. It is connected with the different possibilities of compatibility of the signs in the different languages.

For example:

He climbed into the gig behind the horse

Він сів в коляску позаду кучера

But if to say this sentence in Ukrainian the utterance will be thus:

Він сів в коляску позаду коня

Therefore, it will turn out that a horse also sat in a gig.

c) The change of direction of relations between signs. The situation can be described from the different points of view.

For example:

They had their backs to the sunshine now

Тепер сонце світило їм в спину

But the sentence will be too high-flown if it sounds in such a way:

Тепер їх спини були звернені до сонця

5) The equivalence at the level of utterance supposes that an aspiration to keep the part of meaning of the syntactic structures of the source language text along with a verbal function or communicative purpose, pointing on the same situation and method of its description.

For example:

The house was sold for eighty thousand dollars

Дім був проданий за 80 тисяч доларів

If the complete parallelism is not always is attainable, then the synonymous varying is possible.

For example:

The boy entered the room

Хлопчик увійшов в кімнату (або: В кімнату увійшов хлопчик)

In English the order of words is fixed but in Ukrainian it changes depending on the thematic relations.

6) The equivalence at the level of the linguistic signs supposes that closeness to the source language text will be the most one, as a translator aspires to reproduce the meaning of words of the source language text by word-for-word translation as completely as possible.

For example:

I saw him at the theatre

Я бачив його у театрі

The achievement of equivalence at the level of semantics of words is limited by the lack of coincidence of the meaning of words in the different languages.

1. The lack of coincidence of the denotative meanings or the difference in the volume of meanings.

For example:

Swim, sail, float, drift	Плавати
Мeal	Сніданок, обід, вечеря

2) The lack of coincidence of the connotative or stylistic meanings.

For example:

Earlier the word «businessman» had the negative connotation in Ukrainian, that’s why it was translated as «представник ділового кола».

For example:

The words «sleep» (the neutral one) and «slumber» (the poetical one) can be translated as «сон», but then the stylistic meaning will be lost.

3) The lack of coincidence of the interlinguistic meanings.

For example:

The translation of the sentence «Не said he was a page. Go long, you ain’t more than a paragraph» can be a pun as the word «page» has two meanings such as «сторінка» and «паж». So the sentence can be wrong translated as «Він сказав, що він паж. Який же ти паж, ти один рядок з твору».

There are five substantial levels in the content of the source language text and the target language one:

II.The level of purpose of communication.

III.The level of description of a situation.

IV.The level of an utterance.

V.The level of a report.

VI.The level of the linguistic signs.

The equivalence of translation consists in the maximal identity of all the levels of content of the source language text and its translation.

The units of the original text and its translation can be equivalent to each other at all five levels or at some of them only. Fully or partly equivalent units and potentially equivalent utterances objectively exist in the source language and in the language of translation, however their correct estimation, a selection and use rely on knowledge, abilities and creative capabilities of a translator, his ability to take into account and compare all the aggregate of linguistic and extralinguistic factors. In the process of translation a translator decides the difficult problem of finding and correct using of the necessary elements of the system of equivalent units, on the base of which the utterances equivalent communicatively in two languages are created.

The potentially attainable equivalence are distinguished that means the maximal commonness of the content of two different language texts, assumed by the distinctions of two languages which these texts are created in, and the translating equivalence that is the real semantic closeness of the original text and its translation achieved by a translator in the process of translation. The maximally possible linguistic extent of saving the content of the source language text during translation is the limit of the translating equivalence, but in every separate translation a semantic closeness to the original text in a different extent and in a number of different ways approaches to the maximal one.

The differences in the systems of the initial language and the language of translation and features of creation of texts in each of these languages in a different extent can limit possibility of the complete saving the content of the source language text in translation. Therefore, the translating equivalence can be based on saving (and accordingly on losing) the different elements of sense that are contained in the source language text. Depending on what part of the content is passed in translation for providing its equivalence, the different levels or types of equivalence are distinguished, but the main is that translation can provide interlingual communication at any level of equivalence.

Any text accomplishes some communicative function such as reports some facts, expresses emotions, sets the contact between interlocutors, requires some reaction or actions from the listeners etc. A presence of a similar purpose determines the general character of the passed reports and their linguistic registration in the process of communication.

The equivalence of translations of the first type consists in saving only that part of content of the source language text, which indicates the general speech function of the text in the act of communication and is the purpose of communication.

The relations between the source language text and the target language one is characterized by:

1. Uncompareness of lexical composition and syntactic organization.

2. Impossibility to link a vocabulary and structure of the source language text and its translation by the relations of the semantic rephrasing or syntactic transformation.

3. Absence of the real or direct logical connections between the reports in the source language text and its translation, which would allow to assert that the same is reported in both cases.

4. The least commonness of the source language text and its translation in comparison with all the other translations acknowledged equivalent.

At such level of equivalence translations are accomplished when the more detailed reproduction of the content is impossible and also when such reproduction will lead a receptor of translation to the wrong conclusions, will cause quite the other associations than at the receptor of the original text, and, thus, will prevent the correct transmission of the purpose of communication.

In the second type of equivalence the general part of the content of the source language text and its translation does not only pass the identical purpose of communication but also reflect one and the same extralinguistic situation, i.e. the aggregate of objects and connections between objects described in the utterance. Any text contains information about something and is correlated with some real or imaginary situation. The communicative function of the text cannot be carried out differently as by means of the situation oriented to the report.

The more complete reproduction of the content of the source language text does not mean the transmission of all the semantic elements of the original text. Saving the pointing on the identical situation is accompanied by considerable structural and semantic divergences with the source language text in translations of this type. One and the same situation can be described through different combinations of features peculiar to it. The possibility and necessity of identification of the situations described from different sides is the result of this. The sets of utterances, which are perceived by the native language speakers as synonymous ones, appear in a language, in spite of the complete lack of coincidence of their language devices. People are able to realize the identity of the situations described in different ways completely.

For the second type of equivalence the identification in the original text and its translation of one and the same situation at the change of method of its description is typical. The universal character of relations between a language and extralinguistic reality serves the basis of semantic identification of different language texts. The second type of equivalence is presented by translations the semantic closeness of which to the source language text is not also based on the commonness of meanings of the used language devices. In similar utterances the most of words and syntactic structures of the original text do not find the direct correspondences in the text of translation.

Thus, the relations between the source language text and the target language one is characterized by:

1. Uncompareness of lexical composition and syntactic organization.

2. Impossibility to link a vocabulary and structure of the source language text and its translation by the relations of the semantic rephrasing or syntactic transformation.

3. Saving the purpose of communication in translation.

4. Saving the pointing on the same situation in translation.

The comparison of the source language text and its translation of this type is characterized by the following features:

1. The absence of parallelism of lexical composition and syntactic structure.

2. The impossibility to link the structure of the source language text and the target language one by the relations of syntactic transformation.

3. Saving the purpose of communication and identification of the situation in translation that is the same in the source language text.

4. Saving the common notions by which the description of situation in the source language text is accomplished in translation.

The last position is proved by the possibility of semantic rephrasing of the report of the source language text in the report of translation that exposes the commonness of the basic semes. Saving the method of description of situation implies pointing on the same situation, and identification of the described situations supposes that the purpose of communication of the original text is achieved by this.

The commonness of the basic concepts means saving the structure of a report, when one and the same signs are chosen for description of the situation in the source language text and the target language one. If in the previous types of equivalence the information related to what the content of the source language text is reported for and what is reported about in translation, then what is reported in the source language text is passed, i.e. what side of the described situation makes the object of communication.

In the fourth type of equivalence in the rank with three components of the content, which are saved in the third type, the considerable part of the meanings of the syntactic structures of the original text is reproduced in translation. The structural organization of the source language text gives the definite information included in the common content of the text translated. The syntactic structure of the utterance conditions the possibility of using the words of definite type in a definite sequence in it and with definite connections between separate words, and also greatly determines that part of the content, which comes forward on the first place in the act of communication. Therefore, the maximally possible saving of the syntactic organization of the source language text during translation promotes more complete reproduction of the content of the original text. Moreover, the syntactic parallelism of the source language text and its translation gives a basis for correlation of the separate elements of these texts. The use of the analogous syntactic structures provides the invariance of syntactic meanings of the source language text and the target language one in translation.

Thus, the relations between the source language text and its translations of the fourth type of equivalence are characterized by the following features:

1) Considerable and incomplete parallelism of lexical composition for the most words of the original text when it is possible to find the proper words with close content in translation.

2) The use of syntactic structures similar to the structures of the original text related to them by the relations of the syntactic varying that provides the maximally possible transmission of the meaning of the syntactic structures of the source language text in translation.

3) Saving the purpose of communication, pointing on a situation and method of its description in translation.

The less extent of invariance of the syntactic meanings is achieved by the use of the structures related to the analogous structure by the relations of the syntactic varying in translation at impossibility to save syntactic parallelism completely. Three basic types of such varying are marked out in the fourth type of equivalence:

1) The use of synonymous structures linked by the relations of the direct or reverse transformation.

2) The use of analogous structures with the change of order of words.

3) The use of analogous structures with the change of type of connection between them.

In the last, the fifth type of equivalence the maximal extent of closeness of the content of the source language text and the target language one, which can exist between texts in the different languages, is achieved. The relations between the original text and its translation of this type is characterized by the following features:

1. The high extent of parallelism in the structural organization of the text.

2. The maximal interrelationship of the lexical composition when the correspondences to all the words of the source language text can be found in translation.

3. Saving all the basic parts of the content of the source language text in translation.

The maximally possible commonness of separate semes that are the part of the meaning of the corresponded words in the source language text and the target language one is added to four parts of content of the source language text saved in the previous type of equivalence. The extent of such commonness is determined by the possibility of reproducing the separate components of meaning of words of the source language text in translation that, in the same turn, depends on how one or the other component in the words of the initial language and language of translation is expressed and how the necessity to pass the other parts of content of the original text influences the choice of words in translation in every case.

Thus, speaking about translating equivalence, it is foremost spoken about possibility to pass a source language text into the target language one in a maximally complete volume.

However, the linguistic originality of any text, orientation of its content to the definite audience who possesses background knowledge, cultural and historical features that are peculiar to it, cannot be recreated in the other language with absolute plenitude. It is the reason why translation does not suppose creation of the identical text and absence of identity cannot serve an evidence of impossibility of translation. The loss of some elements of the text translated during translation does not mean that this text is «untranslatable» as such loss is usually revealed when it is already translated and the target language text is compared with the original one. The impossibility to reproduce some features of the source language text in translation is the private display of the general principle of no identity of the content of two texts in the different languages. The absence of identity does not prevent translation with accomplishing its communicative functions for carrying out of which the source language text was created.

The specific feature of translation, that distinguishes it from all the other types of linguistic mediation, supposes that it targets at the competent replacement of the original text and that the receptors of translation consider it fully identical to the source language text.

The features of translation and types of equivalent relations between the source language text and the target language one considered above are conditioned by the specificity of translation as the linguistic phenomenon that takes place within the framework of interlingual communication. The general description of translation, that determines translation as the correlated functioning of two linguistic systems, and conclusions that arise from this determination spread on any act of translation.

The real translating activity is carried out by translators under various conditions; the texts translated are various by their subjects, language and genre belonging; translations are accomplished in a written or oral form; the different requirements are set to the translators in regard to the exactness and plenitude of translation etc. The separate types of translation require the special knowledge and abilities from a translator.

All these distinctions, whatever considerable they are, do not change the essence of the process of translation, its general linguistic basis. First and foremost, any type of translation remains translation with all its features determined by correlation of the used languages.