perevod

Наталья Александровна Матвеева

Lecture 1

1. The nature of translation

2. Translation as an object of scholarly research

3. various approaches to the problem of translation

TT – translation theory (theory of translation)

SL – source language

TL – target language

ST – source text

TgT – target text

SC – source culture

TC – target culture

CS – communicative situation

TT as a branch of linguistic science is linguistic science is approximately 50 years old although as human activity it dates back to times immemorial.

1. the creation of international organisations (UN – 1945, UNESCO – 1946);

2. globalisation as the growth and enactment of world cultures and transnational corporations that needed interpreters to work effectively on new markets and to localize their products and working force;

3. with the appearance of electronic computers scientists started experiments in machine translation (Georgetown, 1954 – the first translated text).

TT was aimed at describing translating process to enable interpreter's training and machine translation and to increase the quality and quantity of T. The object of the TT is translating process which is an interdisciplinary one. TT is further subdivided into:

• general theory of T (deals with the general characteristic of T, regardless of its type). The subject is the process of translation as a whole, including its results and all factors that influence it.

• applied theories of T (work with definite pairs of languages, i.e. Rus-Eng: “theoretical grammar for translation”, etc)

• special theories of T (work with the theoretical description and analysis of various types of translation, i.e. Translation of poetry, of law documents)

Each special branch deepens and specifies the general theory to reflect what is common to all types and varieties of T. and it is mainly concerned with specifics of each genre.

T is a kind of human activity with a complex structure and we can single out the following peculiarities as a kind of human activity:

1. The translator's motivations are always rooted to the socio-cultural context in which the act of T takes place. There always has to be a need for T.

2. T is only one kind of linguistic mediation. There are a lot of other kinds: rendering, reported speech, adaptation, précis, abstracting, periphrasis, etc. Translation proper is aimed at being similar to monolingual communication. The translator must do his best to be invisible. T – a general term, and in some cases it may stand for oral interpretation and written interpretation.

Interpretation – oral translation.

Rendition – written translation or oral interpretation.

3. T process may be described as a succession of T problem solutions that may be solved either logically or intuitively: “The walls of the vessel appeared too thin to withstand such pressure.” Стенки сосуда/емкости/корабля...

Translation as a process.

T is a complex dichotomous and cumulative process, it involves a number of activities from other disciplines related to language, writing, linguistic and culture. This multi-disciplinary process suggests that three major activities run together:

1. transfer of data from the source language to the target language;

2. synchroanalysis of text and translation and translation and research of subject-matter;

3. continuous self-development and learning.

In the process of T language and culture undergo certain changes and they can be represented as translator's concept lens.

Lexis Lexis

Grammar Grammar

Stylistic Stylistics

Culture Culture

T as communication

Motive is the reason of communication and a desire to achieve smth. But we can't be motivated without purpose (aim or goal when one wants to influence smb and one wants them to react in this or that way). It's not only a communicative purpose. Purpose is both communicative and beyond communication. Point of view can be of 2 types:

• foreshortening (is predetermined by space and time of communication, it's physical – spacial and temporal);

• point of view as opinion. Objective and subjective, with or without emotional colouring.

Mode of speech:

• description. We describe things to share the impact that we got from the things. Description is static (objects occupy certain place in space);

• narration. It's meant to convey the impact actions and processes have produced upon us. It usually means a succession of events or actions. Narration is dynamic;

• exposition/explanation. We use exposition to convey the necessary information about this or that notion or some concept in case that the interlocutor or the reader doesn't have any idea what the notion is about;

• argumentation. The motive is to ruin the idea that a person has about some notion (viewpoint), to give argumentation, why you consider this idea to be wrong and supply your own point of view on the subject.

Communication in different life situations.

Any type of communication is not abstract.

Factors that divide CS into 2 groups:

1. the conditions of communication. Time can be seen as minutes and seconds during which the translator is supposed to transmit the information. Immediacy of communication: oral interpretation represents face to face C, possessing a number of qualities that might help or hinder the communication.

Formal vs. informal C: the translator has to observe socially imposed rules that show the attitudes to people participating in conferences, negotiations, etc., occupying different social positions. This means choosing a special kind of words and structures.

2. the characteristics of the participants and their social status. It predetermines the choice of words and phrases when you address people occupying a higher rank. Participant's attitude to each other. The attitudes might be altogether different. All the attitudes should be reflected in translation.

The attitude to the subject varies from the absolute indifferent to the key interest. The participants may be of different temperament.

Text linguistics is useful for the analysis of the translation process and the transfer of meaning from one language to another.

De Beaugrande and Dressler in 1981 defined the text as a communicative occurrence which meets 7 standards of textuality and these standards are the following:

1. cohesion

2. coherence

3. intentionality

4. exceptebility

5. informativity

6. situationality

7. intertextuality

Translator decide whether to maintain or not cohesion and …

and they are guided by three main factors:

1. the target-language audience

2. the purpose of translation

3. pragmatic equivalents

Cohesion is a network of lexical, grammatical and other relations which provide links between various parts of the text. They organise and to some extend create the text. Cohesion is a surface relation. It connects actual words, sentences, paragraphs and other expressions that we can see or hear.

5 main cohesive devices:

1. reference – is the relationship which holds between a word and what it points to in the real world. In Holliday's and Hassan's model of cohesion reference is used in a similar but a more restricted way. Instead of denoting a direct relationship between words and objects reference is limited to the relationship of identity which holds between two linguistic expressions. e.g. – Mrs. Thatcher has resigned. She announced her decision this morning. – Mrs. Thatcher has resigned. This delighted her opponents.

2. Substitution

3. ellipsis

4. conjunction

5. lexical cohesion

Unlike reference substitution and ellipsis are grammatical rather than semantic. In substitution an item is replaced by another item. e.g. I like movies. – And I do.” e.g. You think John already knows? – I think everybody does.

Ellipsis involves the omission of the item. Ellipsis is the way of leaving smth unsaid which still can be understood. It includes some grammatical structures in which the structure itself can fill the slot.

e.g. Have you been swimming? – Yes, I have.

The boundaries between the three devices are not clear-cut:

e.g. The question “Does Helen sing in a bath?” may elicit 3 answers: – No, but I do. (Substitution) – Yes, she does. (ellipsis) – Yes, she does it to annoy us, I think. (reference)

Cohesion usually ensures coherence.

Intentionality: every text should possess a communicative intention. How you intend to influence your interlocutor and what mode of speech you're going to use.

Acceptability – the pragmatic function of the text which helps the listener achieve some extralinguistic purposes.

Informativity: the text should contain information. Sometimes a translator may give all the facts as the basis for new information to be built on.

Situationality: every text should be located in time and space.

Intertextuality. If we deal with a technical or scientific text some ideas are being quoted. Those quotations are intertextual.

Widdowson (1979) – a text cannot be an occurrence since it has no mechanism of its own, but can only be achieved by a human agency.

Hatim defines a text as a stretch of linguistic material which maps on the surface a set of mutually relevant communicative intentions.

The nature of translation

SL – text analysis	TL – text restructing
transfer
The interpreter the translator
Translation proper takes place

T may be viewed as an interlingual communicative act in which at least 3 participants take place. The 1st is the sender or source (the author of the source language message). Analysis is made by the 2nd participant – the translator who acts in dual capacity – as the receptor of the 1st language text and then as the sender of the equivalent target language message. The 3rd participant is the receptor of the TL message. If the original was not intended for a foreign language receptor there is one more participant and it is the source language receptor from whom the language was originally produced.

When translator produces an equivalent message in the target language and redirects it to the target language receptor he changes its plane of expression (that is linguistic form) while its plane of content (meaning) should remain unchanged. In fact an equivalent T message should match the original in the plane of content. It should evoke practically the same response in the TL receptor ...

whatever is implied should be equally understood by both sides. It is the translator's duty to make available to the target language receptor the maximum amount of information carried by linguistic sing including the denotational or referential meaning and the emotive stylistic connotation.

Linguistic and extralinguistic aspects of T.

the information conveyed by linguistic signs alone that is meanings overtly expressed in the text would not be sufficient for adequate translation (T). Some linguists distinguish between what they call T based only on the meanings expressed by linguistic signs and interpretation involving extralinguistic explanation. In most cases effective translation is impossible without adequate knowledge of the speech act situation and the situation described in the text.

e.g. two on the aisle.

Knowledge of the subject is one of the pre-conditions of an adequate translation.

Lecture 2.

• Translatability and untranslatability

• T as a culture-bound phenomenon

• types of T. different classifications.

• No two languages having the same phonology. It's impossible to recreate the sounds of a work composed in one language into another language.

• No two languages having the same syntactic structure. It's impossible to recreate the syntax of a work composed in one language into another language.

• No two languages having the same vocabulary. It's impossible to recreate the vocabulary of a work composed in one language into another language.

• No two languages having the same literary history. It's impossible to recreate the language and literary culture of a work composed in one language into another language.

• No two languages having the same literary prosody. It's impossible to recreate the prosody of a work composed in one language into another language.

The basic principal upon which the theory of T should rest is the principal of T-ability. It is the following dogma:

ANYTHING THAT CAN BE SAID IN ONE LANGUAGE CAN BE SAID IN ANOTHER.

There are 2 considerations that account for the necessity of U-ability.

the 1st one is “approve by contradiction” and it sounds the following way: “if we introduce the notion of U-ability we have to define it and to find some objective criteria to measure it”. The introduction of this term will cause the translator's arbitrary treatment of the original. Such permissiveness will lend authority to liberal translation.

In spite of the fact that the number of adherence of T-ability is constantly increasing there are some prominent scholars who are very mush against it. They even write books like “Непереводимое в переводе”.

All the arguments against the principal of T-ability boil down to the following list:

• it is a well-known fact that different cultures, i.e. different speech communities, segment extralinguistic reality in their own way. Specific semantic structure in one language in some cases prevents adequate translation. Differences in categorisation bring about a great number of culture-bounds units such as: culture specific elements, lexical lacunas and other kinds of equivalent lacking vocabulary.

• The extralinguistic context (затекстовый выход) of some text is so wide that it is not possible to compensate for the lack in the background knowledge of the recipient. Some texts can only be perceived when the recipient is aware of associations which can emerge from its previous textual experience. Thus the texts that contain a lot of allusions are untranslatable. For the same reason parodies are untranslatable.

• When formal properties of the language code are brought to the foreground and are made to possess particular significance, to become part of the meaning, translation proper is impossible. It happens in poetry, advertising, political slogans that rely on alliteration and rhyme and they are either untranslatable or use the principle of losses and compensation. e.g. ads: give me a break, give me a break, break me off a piece of that Kit Kat bar. May be she's born with it. May be it's Maybelline. God made Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve – Anti-gay slogan used by Christians who oppose homosexuality on religious grounds.

Categorisation and equivalent lacking vocabulary.

The phenomenon of different semantic segmentation of categorisation acquires special significance when the translator faces the problem of conveying into another language a message which contains mentioning of smth that is unknown to the speakers of that second language, that is outside their experience.

e.g. how can people who have never seen snow understand the expression “white as snow”?

White hair

white tie

white lie

white man

white slave

white elephant

white feather

white Christmas

stand in a white sheet

These examples don't deny the principle of translatability. Things are translated with the help of the principle of loses and compensations. John Catford suggests that what we have here is smth that can not be translated because of the cultural discrepancy. For this he introduces the term “cultural untranslatability” which is of course conventional because “all cognitive experience and its classification is conveyable in any existing language”.

Another phenomenon resulting from cultural and consequently semantic non-identity in different languages is that each language is particularly rich in vocabulary for its own area of cultural focus.

In the new-born literary language of the Nothern Siberian Chukchees:

screw - “rotating nail”

steel - “hard iron”

tin - “thin iron”

chalk - “writing soap”

watch - “hammering heart”

The translator himself must find the way to compensate for the deficiency.

Adequacy and precision in translation.

Precise T = accurate.

The translator disregards the target culture and peculiarities of the target language and conforms them to the law of the source language.

e.g. he had 3 daughters.

Adequate doesn't mean precise but it is precise semantically. Adequate T implies that the source and the target languages are very different.

John Dryden:

Metaphrase – the type of translation which renders exactly every single word of the original, tries to preserve the structure of the original, disregarding the laws and the cultural peculiarities of the target language and culture.

Paraphrase seeks to overcome the irrationalities of the source language, but only in a mechanical way. The mathematical value of (a+b)2 is the same as a2+2ab+ b2

Imitation submits to the irrationality of languages. It presupposes that practically no phrase, sentence, word of art can be produced in another language.

no individual part of the text can correspond to the individual parts of the TL text and there remains nothing else for the translator as to resort to the imitation. It means that a whole is composed of parts noticeably different from the original ones and yet the whole preserves the imagery, the spirit and the national colouring of the original but it never distorts the language of the target culture.

Adoption – a case of translation used to bring the text very close to the TLC

A doesn't care about cultural and language peculiarities of the SLC and gives you another vision of the text from the perspective of the TLC.

Retelling – used when translating prose and poetry. You retell the content of the text. When we speak about retelling we never think of preserving the structure or the wording. Content is the main value.

Interpretation – not only some explanation provided by the translator for the want of a linguistic or cultural equivalents, but also the translator's ideas about what he'she s translating his attitudes to it, which may be given in the footnotes or right in the text, and may be structured as sentences, or paraphrases, or may be shown in the choice of words.

Kazakova's Classification

1. complete T (=all but retelling) word-for-word T is necessary when dealing with scientific texts, texts of legal documents, in fiction. It doesn't distort the TL, it doesn't sound as idiomatic as it should. Semantic T – complete, based on rendering the contextual meaning of the text: Дам я ему денег... а) пусть не беспокоится б) как же! Communicative T – to produce an adequate impression upon the reader. It's like functional, but unlike functional it retains the whole text. But some parts of this text are restructured or rearranged to make the idea more vivid and the imagery more impressive. It's very far from the original but produces the same impression.

2. abridged T (+selective or searching T)

AT – preserving the essence of the text disregarding the parts that are considered to be of little importance. It presupposes compression of the text. AT to a certain extend violates the main rule any translator has to observe and it is fidelity to the original. It follows another rule – fidelity to the ???. one of the examples of AT is functional T. its task is to rearrange the parts of the source text in such a way that the info that is valid for the recipient comes first. In any case you simplify the text to make it clear for the reader.

Komissarov:

1. Literary types – literary texts, i.e. works of fiction or poetry whose main function is to make an emotional or aesthetic impression upon the reader.

Informative types – rendering into the TL non-literary texts, the main purpose of which is to convey a certain amount of ideas, to inform the reader.

2. Based on the form of speech, comprises written and oral (simultaneous, consecutive sight) types of T.

The problems of equivalence and adequacy in T.

E and A are used when we try to render the same meaning (factual and emotional) in another language. If we can't find equivalence we produce an adequate text which fulfils the same function. E of the source and TL items may be found on the level of morpheme, word, phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph and the whole text as a linguistic entity.

Functionally-oriented approach to the theory of equivalence.

Equivalence can be said to exist only between factors equally present in the source text and in the TL text. Those TL factors that are not contained in the SL can hardly be said to be equivalent because there's no textual basis of comparison. It doesn't make much sense to speak of equivalence in this cases. Here adequacy is better term. According to the theory of equivalence some scholars subdivided T into 3 groups:

1. equivalents (don't depend upon context) e.g. ill

2. analogues (adequate but not equivalent)

3. adequate substitutions (choose words or phrases that relate the same notions, but you have either to generalize or to specify the notion that exists in the SL) e.g. father-in-law, sibling

Levels of equivalents

Formal equivalents (forms coincide): The sun disappeared behind a cloud – Солнце скрылось за тучей.

Semantic equivalents (meanings coincide): Troops were airlifted to the battlefield – Войска были переброшены по воздуху на поле боя. We use addition but we render semantic meaning. The sum of semantic components is the same.

Situational equivalents is based between the utterances that differ both in linguistic devices used and in the semantic components expressed, but nevertheless, describe the same extralinguistic situation.

“to let someone pass” – уступить дорогу

Formal equivalence alone is insufficient. In fact the example given above represent two types of semantic equivalence.

Pragmatic equivalence – a close fit between communicative intent and the receptor's response, is required at all levels of equivalence. It may sometimes appear alone, without formal or semantic equivalence, as in this case.

e.g. С днем рождения – “Many happy returns of the day”

Is present in all types of T on all levels.

Adequate, literal and free translations.

Adequate T may be defined as determined by semantic and pragmatic equivalence between the original and TL text.

Cases of formal equivalence without semantic or pragmatic equivalence are usually described as literal translation.

Композитор – compositor («наборщик»)

Черри Орчард (Cherry Orchard) – «Вишневый сад»

God bless my soul – “Боже, благослови мою душу» вместо «Господи, помилуй»

Free T consists in pragmatically unmotivated additions and omissions of semantic information.

“She burst out crying” – слезы показались на глазах прелестной малютки.

Adequate T is guided by the principle of losses and their compensation. Some marginal elements of information may be lost in T some of them may be compensated for by the use of different devices, techniques and methods on different levels, sometimes in a different portion of a message. This principle is the main when you translate poetry.

e.g. но Ваше дело рисковое – you job is damn risky

подкинуть идейку – to sell the idea

Lecture 4.

The problems of lexical equivalence and lexical transformations.

Three types of lexical meaning that should be rendered in T:

1. Referential – is also call denotative or logical. It has direct reference to things or phenomena of objective reality, naming abstract notions and processes as well. It is also necessary to distinguish between primary and secondary referential meaning.

2. Emotive – has reference not directly to things or phenomena but to the feelings and emotions, associated with them. It is a connotative meaning created by connotations raised in the mind of the speaker and reader, it is inherent in a definite group of words even when they are taken out of context.

3. Stylistic – is based on stylistic stratification of the English vocabulary and is formed by stylistic connotations. Stylistic and emotive meaninigs are closely connected, as a rule, stylistically coloured words, i.e. words belonging to certain stylistic strata, except the neutral, possess a considerable element of emotive meaning.

e.g. The slang-words “mug”, “phiz” vs. “face”

Rendering referential meaning in T

1. Different vision of objects of reality by different languages and different usage:

Hot milk with skin on it – молоко с пенкой School-leavers – выпускники школы

2. Divergences in the Semantic Structure e.g. “gloomy” – 1. темный, мрачный; 2. мрачный, унылый

3. Different valency of collocability. Different valency is the ability of the word to appear in various combinations. Lexical valency of correlated words in different languages is not identical. Words habitually collocated tend to constitute a cliché (big mistake, high hopes, heavy sea, heavy rain, a fly stands on the ceiling, trains run). T of monosemantic words.

Monosemantic words are comparatively few in number. Monosomy is typical of numerals, names of months, day of the week and so on.

4 main groups:

1. Rendering of Antroponyms. Transliteration and transcription. e.g. Mary – Мэри, Jack – Джек Some “telling names” in fiction are translated:

Slap-Dash – Тяпкин-Ляпкин Humpty-Dumpty

2. Rendering of Geographical names. Render according to the usage of earlier days. Texas – Техас, Hull – Гулль in some cases they are transcribed: Virginia – is now Вирджиния, not Виргиния extended names – often translated: The Cape of Good Hope – Мыс Доброй Надежды

3. Names of institutions, Periodicals, Hotels, Streets, etc. Usually transcribed. “Telling names” of old inns and names of streets in historical novels and translated: The Red Lion – гостиница «Красный Лев» “Tailors lived in Threadneedle street” – портные жили на улице «Иголка с ниткой»

4. Terms. Calorie – калория, equator – экватор different meanings: e.g. line: 1. конвейер, поточная линия, 2. трубопровод

Words of terminological nature (names of animals, plants, birds):

Translation of pseudo-international words.

When we speak about international words they have more or less similar phonetic form and carry the same meaning.

e.g. algebra, electronics.

Pseudo-international words differ in meaning from language to language either completely (complexion, commutator) or partially (elevator).

Rendering contextual meaning

A contextual meaning arises in the context. It should not be regarded as part of semantic structure of the word. Every word possesses an enormous potentiality for generating new contextual meanings and a contextual meaning possible in one language is impossible in another. e.g. In an atomic was women and children will be the first hostage – первыми жертвами в атомной войне будут женщины и дети.

Difference in the transfer of info between languages.

Words may have secondary meanings which are dependent on the context. Second language will practically always have the equivalent of the primary meaning but the translator should be very careful as far as matching the secondary meaning.

e.g. Родители – is the interaction of the words “parents” and “ancestors”. It's the case of metonomy which appears in many languages but not every language will have exact equivalent in the other.

The kettle is boiling (but it's the water!) – чайник кипит

плавать на экзамене – to get lost at the exam

Lexical items may also reflect attitudes, emotions in attitudes to purely factual info:

inquisitive vs. curious (любопытный; любознательный)

Each word has different collocational possibilities and a collocational range of equivalent words between languages will not be identical especially in secondary meaning.

e.g. tailor, dressmaker, seamstress. Handsome man but beautiful woman.

A pack of wolves, a school of fish, a flack of birds.

Sometimes a preposition may change the meaning of the whole structure.

Anxious about, anxious for.

It's not enough for the translator to learn isolated words and phrases. We should know words in contexts and collocations. Only 4% of language units are phraseological. Collocations challenges are far greater in number. So, the translator should learn the most frequently used patterns.

Colour+ emotion: red with anger, blue with cold.

But when we speak about collocations we should assume that they don't coincide in different languages:

слабые успехи – poor progress, правильные черты лица – regular features.

Collocations in different languages use different prepositions

Confident of himself, jump with joy, meet somebody.

Sometimes a shade of meaning may represent a certain difficulty.

e.g. We should do our best do prevent a riot. e.g. I should do my best to prevent my sister from dating this man.

Sometimes every shade of meaning may have a collocation of its own.

Started smoking. Started to smoke. He is a free man. He is free of money.

I'm mad about the movie. I'm mad of his tone.

The translation of non-equivalents.

The so-called non-equivalents are the words from the SL which either have no equivalent in the TL or no equivalent denotator in the TC. They may be divided into 2 main groups:

1. realia – words denoting things, objects, features of national life, customs, habits and so on. e.g. The House of Commons Fain Cricket

2. words, which for some linguistic reason have no equivalent in the TL (conservationist).

T of non-equivalents

by direct borrowing (transliteration or transcription)

impeachment, thane, mayor, know-how

by translation loans – House of Commons, brain-drain, backbencher

by descriptive or interpreting translation

landslide, a stringer, wishful thinking

Lexical transformations

1. Concretization – the most frequent device in T from E into R. there's a large group of E words of wide semantic volume and these words belong to different parts of speech. e.g. the nouns (thing, stuff), verbs (go, come, move), etc. As the meaning of such words is relatively vague, they can be used in absolutely different contexts and their valency is therefore extremely broad. A context (microcontext) is necessary to determine their meaning.

e.g. he came in sigh of the lodge, a long, frowning thing of red brick. e.g. The rain came in torrents. e.g. two of the shipwrecked seamen died of exposure. Not infrequently concretization is resorted to as correlated generalizing words in R and in E have different usage. e.g. “child” has a wider usage in E than in R.

2. Generalization – the device reverse to concretization. There's a tendency in E for differentiation while R uses a more general word. e.g. “рука” - hand and arm. In some cases although there's an equivalent in the TL at the same level of abstraction generalization may be necessary for purely stylistic reasons. e.g. Since the shooting of Robert Kennedy five days ago about 90 Americans have been shot dead. G is sometimes used in rendering non-equivalents: summary court is translated as дисциплинарный суд.

3. Antonymic T – both lexical and grammatical transformation which substitutes an affirmative construction by a negative or VS. it is usually accompanied with some lexical change usually substituting the antonym for the original word. e.g. keep the child out of the sun – не оставляйте ребенка на солнце. It's the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

4. Metonymic T – lexical transformation based on the substitution of contiguous concepts. e.g. the advantages of sound have nowhere been better understood or utilized than on the Third Programme. (преимущество радио) e.g. London in July with the sun for once continually shining had become a mad place, stiffing, enclosed, dry. (сухим)

5. Paraphrasing – rendering of the meaning of some idiomatic phrase in the SL by a phrase in the TL consisting of non-correlating lexical units. e.g. good riddance – скатертью дорога e.g. in for a penny, in for a pound – назвался груздем...

Lecture 5.

Grammatical equivalence.

The elements of the grammatical structure such as affixes, forms of inflexions and derivation, syntactic patterns, word order, functional words and so on serve to carry meanings which are usually referred to as grammatical (structural) as different from lexical meanings. Grammatical forms of different languages only very seldom coincide fully as to the scope of their meaning and function. As a rule there's only partial equivalence, it means that a meaning of a grammatical form, though seemingly identical in different languages coincide only in 1 part of their meaning and differ in other parts. e.g. the category of noun in E and R. number – coincide partially (exception – pluralium and singularium tantum). The category of gender. R – 3 genders. R genders are formally expressed in the following way: 1. through agreement.

2. by the inflectional forms of the noun itself.

3. By means of pronominal substitution.

In R a choice between 2 genders is necessary.

In all all languages there exist the so-called grammatical universals that is categories without which no language can function as a means of communication. They are so-called deep grammatical categories. They usually express process, quality, relation, doer of the action, goal, instrument, cause-fact relations an so on. Forms in which they are manifested differ. The translator's task here is:

1. to assign the correct meaning of the category

2. find an appropriate form in the TL to express the same meaning there taking into account various factors.

a) The meaning inherent in the grammatical form itself: стол (sg, m) — table. b) The lexical character of the word or word-group used in this or that form: workers of all industries (рабочие всех отраслей промышленности).

с) the factor of style. e.g. at the station John was met by his brother – на вокзале Джона встретил брат.

500. frequency of use – more or less automatic matching.

Grammatical transformations.

1. Transpositions – is a change in the order of linguistic elements such as words, phrases, clauses and sentences. We resort to it because typical word order in R and E differ. We use it to preserve theme-rheme relations in both languages. In R this division of the sentence is usually expressed by the word-order. What is new is placed at the end of the sentence, theme – at the beginning. In the E we may on the one hand through the word order, but in this case what in new will come at the beginning of the sentence. In E theme and rheme relations are also expressed with the help of articles. A boy came in – вошел мальчик. The boy came – мальчик вошел. Within a complex sentence a similar tendency is observed. In R the first place in occupied by that part of the sentence (main or subordinate clause) which must logically proceed the second. In E the position of both clauses though not quite fixed is in most cases governed by purely syntactical rules and namely in most cases the main clause precedes the subordinate one. He trembled as he looked up - взглянув наверх, он задрожал

2. Replacements – are the most common type of grammatical transformation. They effect practically all types of linguistic units. a) replacement of word form: a novel about the lives of all common people – роман о жизни простых людей. b) replacement of parts of speech: it's our hope that... мы надеемся, что... с) replacement of sentence elements – it is sometimes referred to as syntactic restructuring of the sentence in the process of translation. It consists of changing the syntactic functions of words in a sentence, a process very close to transpositions. He was met by his sister – его встретила сестра. d) replacement of sentence types – very common transformation of a simple sentence by a complex one and vs. thus, while translating into R it often becomes necessary to render E structures with non-finite verbal forms by means of subordinate clauses, thus turning a simple sentence into a complex one. e.g. I want you to speak E – я хочу, чтобы ты говорил по-английски. Unification – when one or more sentences are combined into one complex or compound.

Division – splitting a compound sentence into two or more simple ones. e) replacement of types of syntactic relations. Both E and R have such types of syntactic relation as coordination and subordination. However, subordination is more characteristic of spoken R and it's often necessary or desirable to replace subordination by coordination while translating from E into R. e.g. he had a new father whose picture was enclosed.

3. Additions

– are necessitated by what we may call lexical incompleteness of certain word groups in the SL. In E in many cases words are omitted but they can be easily restored from the context while in R their actual presence in the word is necessary. e.g. gun license – удостоверение на право ношения оружия.

Sometimes additions are required to compensate for the lack of grammatical forms in the TL. e.g. workers of all industries.

4. Omissions – reversed to additions, are used to ensure a greater degree of compression and to ….

e.g. summer rains in Florida may be violent, while they last.

Direct Translation techniques:

borrowing

loan translation (calque)

Literal T

Oblique:

transpositions

modulation (sense development)

reformulation of equivalence

adaptation

compensation