5. The notion and kinds of context. The meaning of the word in context.

The notion of an equivalent is closely related to the notion of linguistic and situational context, which determines the choice of this or that equivalent in translation or the necessity to reject the well-known equivalents and find a different way of translation. LINGUISTIC CONTEXT is the linguistic surrounding, in which this or that unit is used in the text. The context of the word is the sum of words, grammatical forms and constructions, in the environment of which the word is used. There is microcontext and macrocontext. Microcontext is the context of a word combination or a sentence, i.e. the language units that form the environment of the given unit in a sentence. The macrocontext is the linguistic environment that exceeds the sentence limits; it is the textual context. It is impossible to point out the definite limits of the microcontext – it may be the context of a group of sentences, a paragraph, chapter or even the whole literary work. Microcontext may be divided into syntactic and lexical. Syntactic context is the syntactic construction in which the given word, word combination or the clause is used. Lexical context is the body of lexical units, words and set expressions in the environment of which the given unit is used.

Situational (extralinguistic) context includes the situation, time and place to which the utterance is referred, as well as any facts of reality, the knowledge of which helps the Receptor (and the translator) to make a correct interpretation of the meaning of the linguistic units in the utterance.

Usage of translation equivalents always suggests consideration of the context in which the original units are used. Equivalents are the TL units that are similar in meaning to the SL units, and therefore in the first place it is necessary to define what meaning the original unit has in the ST. Most of the language units are polysemantic, but in the context they normally have only one of their potential meanings. Juxtaposition of the potential meanings of the language units that are used together makes it possible to define the meaning in which each of them is used in the given utterance. Usually it is possible to do that in the microcontext.

The striking unions have won concessions despite bitter opposition of the employers.

to strike «бить, ударять, найти, натолкнуться, поражать, сражать, пускать корни, бастовать»

union «союз, объединение, соединение, профсоюз, работный дом, брачный союз»

to win - «выиграть, победить, добиться, получить, добывать, убедить»

concession - «уступка, концессия»

bitter - «горький, мучительный, резкий, ожесточенный»

opposition - «контраст, противоположность, сопротивление, оппозиция»

employer - «предприниматель, работодатель, наниматель»

Juxtaposing these meanings in the context of our utterance, it is easy to see that they are compatible only if word 1 has the meaning of «бастовать», 2 - «профсоюз», 3 - «добиться», 4 - «уступка», 5 - «ожесточенный», 6 - «сопротивление». The word employer «предприниматель» immediately determined the sphere of life that was described in this case, and to define the meanings of other words it was enough to have the corresponding word combinations: striking unions, win concessions, bitter opposition.

In other cases we have to use microcontext to determine the meaning of the word. Next example is from the article by Foster about the 1929 crisis. The microcontext preserves the polysemantic nature of the word “apparent”: The period of apparent prosperity may be said to have ended in 1928. Its meanings may be: 1. очевидный, явный; 2. кажущийся, мнимый. Neither the word combination apparent prosperity, nor the meanings of the other words in the utterance rule out any of the two meanings. However, the whole contents of the article and the critical attitude of the author make certain that the word is used in its second meaning “пресловутое «процветание»” (1924 -1928).