Учебное пособие 1802

Series «Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches» Issue № 3 (14), 2016

I would do it, if I could.

Können brings no meaning of an occasional event in German. On the one side, the verb is used in its direct meaning, though it is not actually intended to emphasize Hugo’s thinking abilities; on the other side, German allows to use it without a logical bridge to the connected sentence, thus depriving it of a full-scaled verbal status.

Larisa Naydich and Anna Pavlova give many examples of untypical usage of modal verbs in German, due to what they are not always adequately comprehended by Russian speakers:

Ich will hier auf dich warten. – Я здесь тебя подожду.

Ich will hier auf dich warten. – I’ll be waiting for you here.

Er lernte die Schauspielerin, die später seine Frau werden sollte, in Frankreich kennen. –

Он познакомился с женщиной, которая впоследствии стала его женой, во Франции. Er lernte die Schauspielerin, die später seine Frau werden sollte, in Frankreich kennen. – He had first met the woman, who became his wife later, in France.

The modal verb refers to an action of short duration in the future (absolute or relative). In Russian, the perfect verbal aspect renders this meaning. Modal verbs are used in German in colloquial questions, for which in Russian just infinitives are sufficient (thus, shall I come? may be asked in Russian like *me to come?); they are often used in polite requests or strict orders to smoothen or strengthen the effect, while in Russian they are normally omitted in these structures:

Kann ich das Fenster aufmachen? Du sollst ihn nicht verwöhnen!

A next example with können confirms the latter’s peculiarities:

Aus dem Fenster konnte er das rote Auto von Marianne ausmachen. – Из окна он разглядел красный автомобиль Марианны.

Aus dem Fenster konnte er das rote Auto von Marianne ausmachen. – From the window he made out Marianne’s red car.

In Russian, usage of a modal verb in the perfect aspect would not be a bad grammatical or logical error, but still it cannot be used, not because of the above mentioned sentences interconnections, but because of the accent placed on some typical features of the situation and not on the character’s abilities [13, p. 278]. In Russian, the perfect aspect of the main verb is sufficient to describe it.

In our example the verb can is quite on the right place because the character is in a hard physical state. But in German the verb is used in the Present tense, which is impossible for Russian at any conditions. That is why our natural decision to preserve dynamic narration was to use the perfect aspect. Locative verbs, however, did not allow this aspect and could be only used in imperfective one (stood, there was, etc.; anyhow it is difficult to show the aspect difference in English). To prevent using too much imperfective verbs which would disturb the dynamic picture we used a verbless structure (in Russian, two last sentences, in the English translation hard to show because of the necessity of copula in the very last sentence).

This example clearly shows that the grammatical transformation was caused by language factors. We also see that the transformation, even in this passage, is often not purely grammatical, but lexical-grammatical. If the decision to perform a grammatical transformation is taken, there is a possibility rather to fulfil it and not a necessity, because a grammatical transformation on the whole text can hardly be accomplished. Omitting a locative verb to use a verbless struc-

114

Series «Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches» Issue № 3 (14), 2016

ture is still a part of this transformation, but, replacement of some verbs by their prefixed or lexical synonyms is a lexical-grammatical transformation already.

The translated fragment consisted of 324 sentences, a transformation of the Present tense was crucial only in 56. It means that the decision to perform a grammatical transformation was realized by far not everywhere (Table 1).

Table 1

Sentences with a performed grammatical transformation and without it in the translation of the fragment of Herrndorf’s novel “Tschick”

Is it true that this grammatical transformation belongs to the whole-text-level and not to that of each sentence and word? This question can be answered in the affirmative and in the negative, too. The decision to avoid Present and to use Past with the perfect aspect is taken for the whole text, of course, but, even the passage above shows that such decision is constantly checked up and taken for each verb. In each case, the Present remains if possible; if not, various means are used. Transformations are not performed globally, on the whole text, but in each certain case. A transformation is an operation concerning each translation unit, and this translation unit is not the whole text. It does not contradict the fact that each transformation of a translation unit works in the perspective of the whole text. There is no need to argue that translation units are not autonomic and build a whole text altogether.

To define the translation unit more precisely we can say that all of existing approaches have right. Minyar-Beloruchev supposed it to be any unit on which a translational decision is taken, i.e. he was thinking functionally [7, p. 100]. Other scholars searched for a translation unit within language units. Really, a translational decision can be taken on each language unit (cf. this paper a proposal for equivalents which can be phrases, sentences, groups of sentences, whole texts, etc.). On the other side, each language unit can be a translation unit. It may concern not only a word as an integrity, but also its grammatical or other form separately: e.g. sometimes the word semantics stays untouched, but the word grammar changes, and vice-versa (see about distinguishing between interlinear and transformational translation methods, first defined by Barkhudarov and Minyar-Beloruchev, according to which a translation can be lexically interlinear but grammatically transformational and vice-versa [11, p. 260]). Ergo, in one indivisible unit, e.g. a word, there can be two translation units.

Furthermore, a grammatical transformation on one unit depends not only on linguistic features of this unit, but also on similar units in neighboring sentences as well as at other text places. The binary technological model of translation, according to which a decision is always taken on the base of two entities, works here as well: first, a possibility of using a lexical unit in the same grammatical form as in the original is checked up (a binary choice between interlinear and transformational method is made), if impossible, this form is replaced by another one, but then it is compared to other sentences and is respectively altered or left. A translator’s thought fulfils at each moment (a fraction of a second) binary movements comparing a unit of the target language to that of the source language from the point of view of the language system, norm, and usage, of the whole text, of the culture, etc. A great number of decisions is taken, as already said, at the stage of comparing two languages (system, and, to a lesser extent, norm and usage) and then, of comparing a unit and the text. All the people are mostly the same, in their cross-cultural contacts with translation they use the same cultural values; language systems seem to differ more than cultures. That is why translational operations depending on language prevail, which is also, among all, reflected in description of renominations in comparative studies [see e.g. 14]

115

Series «Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches» Issue № 3 (14), 2016

The binary technological translation model was described in Chikov M., Khramova Y. Zum binären Translationsmodell. International Conference; Meaning in Translation: Illusion of Precision, MTIP2016, 11-13 May 2016, Riga, Latvia, but, its main features are also outlined here.

The model was worked out and checked up at Angela Merkel’s speech which was researched to find translational difficulties and classify respective translational solutions [3*]. The whole speech of 10 pages (18 000 characters) contained more than 100 difficulties, except for 2 all of them were exactly difficulties but not problems (in Ch. Nord’s terminology [2, p. 208 – 210]), i.e. phenomena caused by language system reasons but not by cultural differences. Of course, we did not encounter any cases to perform a purely grammatical transformation. Overwhelming difficulties but not problems can certainly be explained by the genre: a political speech addressed to the whole world should be understood by everybody and consequently exclude any national flavor. But such speeches are often subject to translation, and, moreover, translators should first of all be trained in overcoming language difficulties, that is why any studies and didactics based on such material seem fruitful.

As once Retsker did, we classified not transformations but exactly difficulties. Comparing German and Russian, the latter task appears quite obviously performable. See Table 2 below for numbers of difficulties according to their types.

Approximately 15 of 100 difficulties need equivalents or variants as solutions. We repeatedly argue that the translational correspondences of this kind do not concern well known Bank – bank etc., but frequent equivalents and variants of the political discourse which could be recommended to translators for placing in their base and for every-day application. Unberechenbar or unkalkulierbar can be normally rendered as непредсказуемый “unpredictable”, zentral as главный “main, most important” (for Russian not центральный “central” rather, though it is sometimes also the case, in Russian it is untypical to say *central goal, task, problem, difficulty, etc.),

Entwicklungen as тенденции “trends”, ehrgeizig as амбициозный “ambitious”, auf etw. setzen as делать ставку на что-либо “stake on smth.”, vorankommen or etw. voranbringen as до-

стичь, добиться успеха “be a success”.

The variant correspondences which we accounted relevant for studies and recommendations to memorize and to use in practice while translating political speeches are for example as follows: Vorgaben – цели / задачи “objectives/tasks”, sich behaupten – укрепить своё поло-

жение / найти своё место “strengthen one’s position/find one’s place”, Verflechtung – со-

трудничество / связи “cooperation/interconnections”. As we see, a plausible variant to such words cannot be found “at first sight”: Vorgaben – no variant (?); Verflechtung – *texture, tissue

(?).

Antonymic translation was encountered in several cases, we mention it immediately after equivalents and variants by the cause of its closeness to them. Above we mentioned Latyshev’s observation on two units involved in antonymic translation. Such, in wir können etwas nichts ungeschehen machen the translator first singles out a lexical predicate “happen”, then the double negation which works according to the principal “minus times minus results in plus” and gives something like what should have happened really happened. Otherwise, he lives the negation seme and renders the sense of the sentence by a frequent expression like we can change nothing, thus using an equivalent or a variant. Approximately the same we observe in wir lassen nichts unversucht – we do everything possible: the double negation becomes a “plus”, and the sense is rendered by an existing expression.

One of most typical difficulties in German – Russian pair is prepositional structures: they often do not coincide, as known. Here we should think of transformations rather, though a translator can elaborate a set of variants and equivalents for such cases. Anyhow, he works with two units: basing on a substantive he finds a respective preposition to it. We repeat that prepositional structures of German do not correspond to those of Russian may be more than to those of English, that is why we cannot show the whole spectrum of translation difficulties. Single cases like:

116

Series «Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches» Issue № 3 (14), 2016

Impulse für unser… Miteinander – дальнейшие импульсы на благо/в пользу нашего сотрудничества/сосуществования, Bemühen um Wettbewerbsfähigkeit – усилия на благо/для целей повышения конкурентоспособности

Impulse für unser… Miteinander – further impetus to (in Russian rather: for the well-being of) our cooperation/coexistence, Bemühen um Wettbewerbsfähigkeit – efforts for the wellbeing/for the aims of competitiveness

neighbor with really frequent structures as e.g. with mit preposition seeming to bring most difficulties into German – Russian translation and normally needing a more considerable transformation. Such, mit Australien haben wir einen Partner (in Russian such structures with an animate subject are usually rendered by the equivalent in the person of) can be translated with a change of the sentence perspective as Australia is our partner. Also compare:

mit internationaler Kraftanstrengung – объединяя усилия в международном масштабе, мы… / мы объединяем усилия в международном масштабе с тем, чтобы…

mit internationaler Kraftanstrengung – uniting our efforts in international caliber, we … / we unite our efforts in international caliber to…

Rendering a prepositional structure by a Russian adverbial participle (something like English gerund) is a well-known translational operation. We can only add that also a verbal structure can be used here and that this operation confirms the binary model. Beside two language units a translator’s thought wanders between two grammatical-semantical units, object (in logical, not in grammatical sense) and characteristic. Objects are rendered in languages by substantives, characteristics by verbs and adjectives. The translator in our case replaces a substantive structure by a verbal one. From the whole difficulties (100) the number of prepositional structures came to 15.

Another difficulty is caused by impossibility to use certain adjective with a certain substantive and was encountered in 20 cases of 100 (altogether the above difficulties make 50%). In this case, addition of a substantive is a solution, as it respectively was adding an adjective or a verb in the previous case.

außenund sicherheitspolitische Fragen – вопросы внешней политики и политики безопасности;

zunehmende wirtschaftliche Verflechtung – развитие экономического сотрудничества;

stimmen wir uns miteinander … eng ab – мы в тесном сотрудничестве согласуем между собой;

steigender Meeresspiegel – подъём уровня Мирового океана.

außenund sicherheitspolitische Fragen – items of inner and security policy;

zunehmende wirtschaftliche Verflechtung – development of economic cooperation; stimmen wir uns miteinander … eng ab – we coordinate with each other in close cooperation;

steigender Meeresspiegel – World Ocean level rise.

More complex cases: dauerhaft erfolgreich machen – achieve long-time/long-term success

(the adverb becomes – at least in Russian, in our meta-English it is not quite clear – an adjective, the adjective a substantive); a well-known usage of an untypical adverb in German which can be solved with the help of a substantive is Was machst du beruflich? – What are you by profession?

117

Series «Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches» Issue № 3 (14), 2016

Further 10 difficulties are represented by verbs with wide meaning which often suppose a change of the syntactic perspective in translation:

Wie konnte es vor 100 Jahren zwischen den Völkern und Nationen so weit kommen?

– Как это могло случиться?; Как народы и нации могли допустить это?;

alle Seiten sehe ich dazu aufgerufen – я считаю, что все стороны должны… / я

призываю все стороны…;

immer mehr Länder sehen sich vor gleiche Herausforderungen gestellt – всё больше стран сталкиваются с теми же задачами, проблемами / встают перед теми же задачами, проблемами…

Wie konnte es vor 100 Jahren zwischen den Völkern und Nationen so weit kommen?

– How could it happen? (without a subject); How could nations allow it? (with a subject);

alle Seiten sehe ich dazu aufgerufen – I think that all the parties must … / I appeal to all the parties to…;

immer mehr Länder sehen sich vor gleiche Herausforderungen gestellt – more and more countries come across these challenges …

To return to rendering of German passive voice by Russian active or reflexive voice, we can remark that no such cases were encountered in studying this speech. They may be thus untypical for certain discourses. Other than the above mentioned artificial example The workers build a house – The house is built by the workers the passive voice with the verb sehen is a typical feature of Merkel’s speech and, may be, not only of her.

40 cases left are phrases of two units one of which is a base the translator leaves unchanged, as a rule, the other one being searched for ad found in compliance with the former. Sometimes an interchange between two units takes place. In German a crisis comes into another one nahtlos. In the Russian translation the verb stays and the adverb with such a concrete special meaning, first embarrassing the translator, changes. Latyshev points out such a frequent translational operation as demetaphorization [5, p. 116]. Metaphor is a denotation of an abstract phenomenon by a concrete one, i.e. demetaphorization is a rejection of concrete denotation. We would say that one of the universal rules of translational intuition bases on two phenomena, generalization and demetaphorization. In all-day-life we call it “rendering just the sense”. If there is no similar metaphor in the target language (which appears quite often), or if a concrete object we do not know the name for in the target language is mentioned in the original, the translator uses a more common denotation. Rejecting the metaphor with the concrete spatial base of the German adverb in the described case, we can denote a transition from one phenomenon to another as quick, imperceptible, etc. Another case is kleine und große Partner; the first translational intention here is to preserve the base, partners. All the Russian translators know that big and small are not just simply rendered into Russian official discourse because of the style, there are some synonyms for them to be chosen according to the respective context. Nevertheless, none of these adjectives comes together with animate like e.g. partners. That is why to preserve these adjectives partners can be replaced by countries what the Chancellor really means. This is an example of how two units mutually determine each other.

A more complex example would show that there are no complex transformations, a term existing in the translation studies. A transformation is still performed unit by unit. Wettbewerbsneutrale Gleichbehandlung consists of two units each of which consists in its turn of two more. The units easily to be rendered are competition and equal, they will be the bases to search two other units matching them. For English which is closer to German than Russian it may be solved sooner as e.g. equal treating without competition; for Russian it is a little bit more com-

118

Series «Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches» Issue № 3 (14), 2016

plicated because it lacks the verb to treat. Meaning equal partnership relations it would be something like (literally) equal rights relations without competition/excluding competition etc. Anyhow, a two words unit is fragmented in smaller units with respective correspondences found to all of them subsequently. As to the adjective wettbewerbsneutral, English lacks it, too, but, as the negation seme is of importance here, that leads us to a phrase as shown.

We do not intend to argue that the translation is always performed like this, unit-for-unit. In stressful conditions of simultaneous or consecutive interpreting with the lack of time the interpreter may just omit many of these units to render the sense of the whole sentence. He may also have ready equivalents, some political phrases, for some expressions of the source language. However, an equivalent should be exact and omitting too much information is what translators and their trainers always fight against. In translators training reaching the most possible exactness makes sense first of all, only then followed by training in required compression.

We have shown that purely grammatical transformations are rare. This is true for German – Russian, but, we could hardly imagine a language in which changing the grammar would not be followed by changing the lexis.

Above we described only the transformational translation method. There is also the interlinear one which is simpler per se. We only remark that the latter is not just a sign-for-sign translation from our point of view. It is based on simpler units, i.e. equivalents and variants, but, they can be as mentioned above units of all the language levels. If a translator has ready units in his stock which correspond to units of the original and meet the needs of a communicative function, he can undoubtedly use them, such is the normal way of acting in real working conditions.

The binary model first responds to the simple question if an interlinear or a transformational translation is to be performed. If the former is chosen, it entitles to using equivalents or variant, according to Retsker, or replacements, according to Latyshev. If the latter is chosen, the question is again solved according to the binary scheme to alter either lexis or lexis and grammar. The reason for this or that is also determined by a binary scheme: according to the relation of two language systems or of the unit and a text, cultural and pragmatic factors, etc.

In translators training, especially under modern conditions of multilevel education coming up in Russia nowadays, we will more and more encounter the problem of the translation between the languages, knowledge of first and foreign language. Now the main criticism from the professionals on newcomers concerns lacking competence of the first language (in our case Russian). One the one side, it is connected with the notorious paradigm change, digital transformation and total orientation of the school education on tests but not creative tasks for the pupils to pass the unified school-leaving exam. On the other side, it does not have much to do with new paradigms.

119

Series «Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches» Issue № 3 (14), 2016

Lack of the first language is often connected not with the first language competence itself, but with the lack of translational competence which is suppressed by failing to understand the foreign text and by language interference. Translators training should be organized in compliance with these principles: knowledge of a foreign language, full comprehension of the foreign text, and competence in translational operations, may they base on using equivalents and variants which are already formulated in the first language or on transformations which mainly depend on the language as we have shown.

Chomsky’s generative grammar, Bierwisch’s structural semantics model based on it, Text – Sense model, Russian functional grammar (Bondarko et al.) and many other theories basing on language categories and fields describe nothing else but semantic categories. As practice shows, the categories and fields approach is mostly valuable for studying a foreign language and translation. Transformations are also made according to categories. The founder of the Russian theory of regular correspondences, Yakov Retsker, saw it and built his own transformation theory according to categories, though arbitrarily set up.

All the scholars in translation studies felt and used this category basis anyhow, seeing that it unites languages, communicative situations, even cultures, and, last not least, all the transformational approaches. Practice shows that we do not fully use this category basis in translators training. Any category system paves the way to the binary opposition system, and any transformation, as we see it, is performed according to the binary scheme. We do not argue that nobody has seen this binary scheme before, a thought of it was expressed in various works, but, we consider it important to declare it more clearly. Testing the binary model including its place and efficiency in practice of translators training is a challenge of the near future.

Bibliographic list

1.Reiß K., Vermeer H. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie / K. Reiß, H. Vermeer. – Tübingen, 1984. – 253 S.

2.Nord Ch. Einführung in das funktionale Übersetzen / Ch. Nord. – Tübingen und Basel: Francke, 1993. – 315 S.

3.Sdobnikov V.V. Perevod i kommunikativnaja situatsija / V.V. Sdobnikov. – Moskva: Flinta. – Nauka, 2015. – 464 s.

4.Retsker Y.I. Teoriya perevoda i perevodcheskaya praktika / Y.I. Retsker. – Moskva: MezhdunarodnYe otnosheniya, 1974. – 216 s.

5.Barchudarov L.S. Yazyk i perevod / L.S. Barchudarov. – Moskva: MezhdunarodnYe otnosheniya, 1975. – 240 s.

6.Latyshev L.K. Perevod: Problemy teoriyi, praktiki i metodiki prepodavaniya / L.K. Latyshev. – Moskva: Prosveščenie, 1988. – 160 s.

7.Shveytser, A.D. Perevod i lingvistika / A.D. Shveytser. – Moskva: Voenizdat, 1973. –

280 s.

8.Minyar-Beloruchev R.K. – Obščaya teoriya perevoda i ustnyi perevod / R.K. MinyarBeloruchev. – Moskva: Voenizdat, 1980. – 237 s.

9.Catford J.C. A linguistic theory of translation: An essay in applied linguistics / J. Catford. – Oxford University Press, 1978.

10.Sdobnikov V.V., Petrova O.V. Teoriya perevoda / V.V. Sdobnikov, O.V. Petrova. – Moskva: Vostok-Zapad, 2006. – 448 s.

11.Tabanakova V.D. S chego nachinaetsya perevod termina v spetsialnom tekste? / V.D. Tabanakova // Nauchnyi vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo architekturno-stroitelnogo universiteta. Seriya: SovremennYe lingvisticheskiYe i metodiko-didakticheskiYe issledovaniya.

–Voronezh: Voronezhskiy gosudarstvennyi arkhitekturno-stroitelnyi universitet, 2014. – Tom 4.

–Nomer 4 (24). – S. 163 – 173.

120

Series «Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches» Issue № 3 (14), 2016

12.Gayduk I.V. TransformatsionnYe sootvetstviya kak sredstvo dostizheniya ekvivalentnosti perevoda yuridicheskogo teksta / I.V. Gayduk // Nauchnyi vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo architekturno-stroitelnogo universiteta. – Seriya: SovremennYe lingvisticheskiYe i metodiko-didakticheskiYe issledovaniya. – Voronezh: Voronezhskiy gosudarstvennyi arkhitekturno-stroitelnyi universitet, 2015. – Nomer 2 (26). – S. 147 – 158.

13.Naydič L.E., Pavlova A.V. Trubochist ili lord? / L.E. Naydič, A.V. Pavlova. – Moskva: Zlatoust, 2015. – 408 s.

14.Strukova O.V., Fomina Z.Ye. Jetnokul'turnaja specifika renominacij nemeckih toponimov v raznyh arealah Rossii (na materiale nemeckih toponimov Samarskoj, Leningradskoj i Permskoj oblastej) / O.V. Strukova, Z. Ye. Fomina // Nauchnyj vestnik Vo-ronezh. gos. arh.-stroit. un-ta. SovremennYe lingvisticheskie i metodiko-didakticheskie issledovanija. – 2014. – vyp. 1 (21). – S. 116-129.

Analyzed sources

1*. http://www.rowohlt.de/download/file2/row_upload/3275878/LP_978-3-499-25635- 6.pdf (vremya obraščeniya – 12.09.2016)

2*. http://www.europedirect.lu/europa/europe/827/ (vremya obraščeniya – 08.08.2016) 3*. Rede von Bundeskanzlerin Merkel am Lowy Institut für Internationale Politik am 17.

November 2014. https://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Rede/2014/11/2014-11-17- merkel-lowy-institut.html (vremya obraščeniya – 15.07.2016).

121

Series «Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches» Issue № 3 (14), 2016

UDC 81’25

Nizhnevartovsk State University Senior Lecturer

Department of Linguistics and Translation Studies Irina Rimovna Ziyazova e-mail: irina_cloud@mail.ru

I.R. Ziyazova

NON-VERBAL DEVICES OF STRUCTURAL COHESION

(A CASE STUDY OF RUSSIAN AND ENGLISH SUBTITLES TO THE FILM

“SALMON FISHING IN THE YEMEN”)

The paper studies processes of interrelation of subtitles with other signifying components of a filmic text. It is stated that subtitles become fixed in a film’s semiotic composition by means of intersemiotic cohesion. It is non-verbal devices of intersemiotic cohesion that are analysed. The following main non-verbal devices are distinguished: font and colour choices, use of graphic signs, use of punctuation marks. The main conclusion drawn is that non-verbal signs have a function to refer across modes to acoustic or visual elements within a filmic shot, which endues them with a text-forming function. The comparative analysis shows that non-verbal devices in practices of English and Russian subtitling are predominantly analogous, there are cases when they considerably diverge from each other due to morphological and stylistic language norms.

Key words: intersemiotic cohesion, subtitling, non-verbal intercohesive devices, graphic signs, punctuation signs.

Current research trends in Audiovisual Translation largely aim to explore practical techniques and develop theoretical norms that will help to raise the quality of an audiovisual product. The aims are rather alike in the sphere of subtitling where poorly created subtitles may distort meanings in a film and affect its artistic merits as well. Academic interests in subtitling mainly revolve around matters of text rendering under technical constraints. However, few scholars have undertaken research to examine the problem how subtitles enter the semiotic structure of a film and are linked with other semiotic elements. The importance of the research lies in in the fact that it will lead to a better understanding of text-forming mechanisms in a subtitled text, whereas comparative analyses will allow to establish theoretical statements and practical rules to improve quality of subtitling.

The purpose of the present research paper is, first of all, to study non-verbal devices of structural cohesion that contribute to text-forming of a subtitled filmic text and, second of all, to define similarities and variations in the use of these non-verbal devices in Russian and English subtitling practices. The paper will examine particular non-verbal devices of structural cohesion, which is one of the key factors in text-building of a subtitled filmic text. The theoretical and comparative analyses will be exemplified with case study Russian and English subtitles to the feature film Salmon Fishing in the Yemen.

_____________________

© Ziyazova I.R., 2016

122

Series «Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches» Issue № 3 (14), 2016

The notion of 'cohesion' is unique to define any kind of text and its texture. In the light of on-going globalisation and digitalisation, there are more new text forms to be observed, among which a filmic text undoubtedly stands out. A filmic text is an audiovisual product, which possesses specific properties of its own kind. The property that is of paramount interest and importance here is the immanent property of connectedness, which holds the constituent parts of a filmic text together. This connectedness or cohesion is sui generis to that of traditional linguistic cohesion. The cohesion found in multisemiotic texts we characterize as intersemiotic cohesion, since it establishes dynamic interrelations and ties together elements that belong to different semiotic systems and this way shapes the structure of a translated filmic text.

Intersemiotic cohesion is not an absolutely new research topic. There are scientific works dedicated to semiotically complex texts and multimodal discourse, which also concern intersemiotic cohesion. However, it is mainly studied by Western scholars. Thus, regarding the intersemiotic interaction of the verbal and visual codes in media texts retrieved from the Economist, T.D. Royce introduced the concept of intersemiotic complementarity [1, p.63]. The author proposes that the verbal and visual codes within a single text ‘complement each other in the ways that they project meaning and that this intersemiotic complementarity is realized through various linguistic and visual means peculiar to the respective modes’ [ibid.]. At the same time, intersemiotic nature in semantic relations between image and text was also studied by Y. Liu and

K.L. O’Halloran. The scholars examine print media and by means of a discourse-based model they analyse such intercohesive devices as intersemiotic parallelism, intersemiotic polysemy and logical relations [2]. Thus, due to the novel nature of the research subject there is lack of consistency in the descriptions. What is also worthy of mentioning is that the research phenomenon may be called by different, but synonymic terms. For instance, a very good account of cohesion in films can be found in works by T. van Leeuwen, but the author operated with the term multimodal cohesion. He also suggests that there are four main sources of multimodal cohesion for multimodal texts which are – rhythm, composition, information linking, and dialogue [3, p.179]. As we can see, there are various interpretations of cohesion and classifications of its devices depending on chosen models and approaches. Apart from that, the diversity in theoretical conceptions can also be explained by the interest in this or that aspect of the research problem. For instance, in line with T. van Leeuwen, J. A. Bateman and K.-H. Schmidt exploit the concept as well, but discuss the nature of multimodal cohesion directing attention to its synergetic aspect:

An important feature of multimodal cohesion is that relations may be constructed freely across very different kinds of units, e.g., between image and sound, which offers important resources for understanding multimodal synergies of the kinds commonly found in film [4, p.196].

As for subtitles respectively, the prominent theorists in subtitling J. Diaz Cintas and A. Remael interpret intersemiotic cohesion as the way ‘it connects language directly to the soundtrack and to images on screen, making use of the information they supply to create a coherent lin- guistic-visual whole’ [5, p.171].

It is necessary to note that subtitles contain both verbal and non-verbal constituents. So, it is quite logic to conclude that cohesive devices in a subtitled filmic text appear to be verbal and non-verbal as well. However, within the present research paper there are only non-verbal devices that will be analysed. Our orientation towards non-verbal devices is determined by the fact that they have not gained an exhaustive, systemic evaluation so far. Keeping temporal and spatial considerations in mind, subtitlers have to activate their creativity and apply non-verbal linguocreative devices. The non-verbal devices that are further analysed do not only serve to rationalize space and time of subtitles in a dynamic and self-organizing filmic text – they also serve text-building and meaning-making functions. Our practical analysis is based on the study of English and Russian subtitles for a 2011 feature film Salmon Fishing in the Yemen. The total number of the research material equals 1356 English subtitles and 1527 Russian subtitles, and 92 subtitles that were selected for linguistic and comparative analysis.

123