Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Английский язык. Практика перевода (английский–русский). Часть 1. «Лексические приемы перевода». Учебное пособие
.pdf
опущения в процессе перевода позволяет тот факт, что система любого
языка в целом и конкретные речевые произведения обладают высокой
степенью избыточности.
Одним из примеров избыточности является свойственное
некоторым стилям английского языка употребление так называемых
«парных синонимов», объединенных обычно союзом “and”. (Это
явление характерно для языка английских текстов юридического
характера, в публицистике, научно-технических текстах).
Например: The proposal was rejected and repudiated. – Договор был
аннулирован. (или: признан недействительным)
This session of our Assembly is regular and normal. –
Это обычная сессия (нашей) Ассамблеи.
Кроме «парных синонимов» в английском предложении
семантически избыточными могут быть обстоятельства времени:
A little while later, I still had it with me when I and Brossard and
Ackley got on the buss.
Я все еще держал его в руках, когда мы с Броссаром и Экли сели в
автобус. (J.Salinger)
Устранение семантически избыточных элементов исходного текста
дает переводчику возможность осуществлять так называемую
«компрессию текста», т.е. сокращение его общего объема. Этот прием
бывает необходим, если в процессе перевода переводчик допускает
многочисленные добавления и объяснительные фразы.
Задания для самостоятельной работы
1. Дополнительно изучите теоретический материал по теме:
“ Лексико-семантические модификации”
2. Подготовьтесь к беседе по следующим вопросам:
Что такое переводческие модификации? Назовите их.
В каких случаях прибегают к подобным переводческим
преобразованиям?
61
Назовите правила применения рассмотренных лексико-
семантических трансформаций.
3. Выполните тренировочные упражнения 1-14, стр.114-126.
(Литература: Казакова Т.А. Практические основы перевода. ‒
СПб: Изд-во «Союз», 2002, стр.103-113)
62
Приложение 1
Texts for oral and written translation
WHO ARE ENGLISH?
by J. H. B. Peel
Who are English? They are the descendants of Celts, Romans, Saxons,
Jutes, Angles, Vikings, Normans; that being more or less the sequence of
invaders who left their indelible mark upon the roads, fields, buildings,
dialects, and place-names of England. Why were these hybrid people called
English? The answer to that question is complex because the word England is
a corruption of Engle-land, the land of the Engle or Angles. Why then did
these Engle give their name to their new home? Nobody knows. The Engle
themselves came from Slesvig in Germany. They were neither more
numerous nor more gifted than any other of the permanent settlers. And yet,
for reasons unknown to us, the land was named after them. As early as the
year 897 the word Englisc was used both of the people and of their language.
Mourning the decay of scholarship in a country harried by warfare, King
Alfred reported that few men south of Lincolnshire could translate a Latin
letter into English (of Laedene on Englisc).
Even today an Englishman is surprised and overseas visitors bewildered
by the variety of English dialects; but in Chaucer’s time a Kentish man
would have sounded almost unintelligible to a Cumbrian, and each would
have failed to understand a Devonian. Nor was this Babel based solely on
differences in pronunciation; many of the commonest words varied with the
regions. Cornwall, indeed, spoke its own Celtic language, and continued to
speak it until the eighteenth century.
Both Scotland and Wales had their regionalism, but it was simple and
clear-cut, being between the north and the south of those two countries.
Moreover the regionalism was curbed by the need to unite against England.
The English, by contrast, had no such permanent stimulus, at any rate after
the Norman conquest.
63
WHAT EVERY FRESHMAN SHOULD KNOW
by E. S. Morgan
The world does not much like curiosity. The world says that curiosity
killed the cat. The world dismisses curiosity by calling it idle, or mere idle,
curiosity even though curious persons are seldom idle. Parents do their best
to extinguish curiosity in their children, because it makes life difficult to be
faced every day with a string of unanswerable questions about what makes
fire hot or why grass grows, or to have to halt junior’s investigations before
they end in explosion and sudden death. Children whose curiosity survives
parental discipline and who manage to grow up before they blow up are
invited to join the Yale faculty. Within the university they go on asking
questions and trying to find the answers. In the eyes of a scholar, that is
mainly what a university is for. It is a place where the world’s hostility to
curiosity can be defied.
Some of the questions that scholars ask seem to the world to be scarcely
worth asking, let alone answering. They ask about the behavior of protons,
the dating of a Roman coin, the structure of a poem. They ask questions too
minute and specialized for you and me to understand without years of
explanation.
If the world inquires of one of them why he wants to know the answer
to a particular question, he may say, especially if he is a scientist, that the
answer will in some obscure way make possible a new machine or weapon or
gadget. He talks that way because he knows that the world understands and
respects utility and that it does not understand much else. But to his
colleagues and to you he will probably not speak this language. You
are now part of the University, and he will expect you to understand
that he wants to know the answer simply because he does not know it, the
way a mountain climber wants to climb a mountain simply because it is
there.
64
WE CANNOT KNOW TOO MUCH.
by S. Potter
We cannot know too much about the language we speak every day of our
lives. Most of us, it is true, can get along fairly well without knowing very
much about our language and without ever taking the trouble to open a
volume of “The Oxford English Dictionary”. But knowledge is power. The
power of rightly chosen words is very great, whether those words are
intended to inform, to entertain, or to move. English is rapidly becoming a
cosmopolitan means of communication and it is now being studied by
numerous well-trained investigators on both sides of the Atlantic. It is highly
exhilarating to contemplate the progress made in the study of English since
the opening years of this century, when Henry Bradley of Oxford and Otto
Jespersen of Copenhagen were writing those admirable introductions which
have become classics of their kind: “The Making of English” and “Growth
and Structure of the English Language”. To men like Bradley and Jespersen
we all owe much, both for their tangible contributions to learning and for that
new spirit of enterprise and adventure with which they have imbued English
studies. That assertion, too often repeated, that Englishmen are not really
interested in their own language, is no longer valid. At last we English are
showing an awakened interest in our mother tongue as something living and
changing and amenable to our corporate will. This we see in many differing
spheres: in national and local government, in business and journalism, in film
and radio, in school and university.
...From Indo-European to Modern English by way of Common
Germanic, West Germanic, Anglo-Frisian, Old English and Middle English,
our language has shown a gradual process of simplification and of the
breaking down of inflexions. The development has been, for the most part, in
one direction all the time: from synthesis to analysis. There have been both
gain and loss. We need not assume too readily with Jespersen that this
analytic process has meant unqualified progress in language or that our
forebears of five, four, and three thousand years ago were less gifted
linguistically than we. Think what linguistic alertness and precision are
required of those speakers who wield an elaborate system of inflexions
effectively and faultlessly! The language of twentieth-century London and
65
New York may become a very fine delicate instrument in the hands of
accomplished masters, but its qualities and potentialities are different from
those of, let us say, Periclean Greek...
Classical Greek and Common Germanic were roughly contemporaneous
and they were alike descended from parent Indo-European.
HEALTHY, WEALTHY AND WISE
by Marcia Eames-Sheavly
When I was quite young, my family had an enormous garden, and we
grew strawberries that were sold to a local market. The garden allotted to me,
however, was a tiny plot that was dictated to only by my whims. Weeds grew
there, along with sparse radishes, lettuce and carrots. I was the keeper of the
rhubarb, the only vegetable which managed to shoot above the snarl of other
plant life. In retrospect, there were no “shoulds”, “musts”, or “have to’s”
associated with my little garden. My parents had the foresight to allow my
growing experience to be delightfully undemanding. I gardened because my
family did, because I had my own small place in which to daydream, and
because it was fun. I am still gardening today.
Growing plants and learning about them is exciting for both children and
adults. Gardening is so satisfying because it simultaneously imparts a sense
of wonder, yet provides an understanding of “how things work” in nature.
Gardening with children gives us a fresh outlook that we may have otherwise
long forgotten. I have found myself getting swept up in the excitement of
spying on visiting butterflies. Watching the proud expression on my son’s
face when he handed me a perfect little zinnia is an experience I won’t forget
for a long time! Gardening can bring back nostalgic feelings of your own
childhood gardening practices, too.
Gardening is enjoyed by millions of adults, but it can have some
significant benefits for your child as well. The most obvious is that it
provides an opportunity to spend time with your kids in an enjoyable setting.
At the end of yet another unsettling day, being outdoors gives our family a
chance to unwind together. Fresh air seems to allow each of us to let off
steam without fraying each other’s already frazzled nerves. Gardening is
66
undemanding emotionally; we talk as we pick vegetables and fruits, laugh as
we get wet trying to water the flowers.
IN HIS EARLY BOYHOOD...
by J. Galsworthy
In his early boyhood Soames had been given to the circus. He had
outgrown it; “Circuses” were now to him little short of an abomination.
Jubilees and Pageants, that recurrent decimal, the Lord Mayor’s Show, Earl’s
Court, Olympus, Wembley all he disliked. He could not stand a lot of people
with their mouths open. Dressing up was to him a symptom of weakmindedness, and the collective excitement of a crowd an extravagance that
offended his reticent individualism. Though not deeply versed in history, he
had an idea, too, that nations who went in for “circuses” were decadent.
Queen Victoria’s funeral, indeed, had impressed him there had been a feeling
in the air that day; but, ever since, things had gone from bad to worse. They
made everything into a “circus” now! A man couldn’t commit a murder
without the whole paper-reading population himself included looking over
each other’s shoulders; and as to these football-matches, and rodeos they
interfered with the traffic and the normal course of conversation; people were
so crazy about them!
Of course, “circuses” had their use. They kept the people quiet.
Violence by proxy, for instance, was obviously a political principle of
some value. It was difficult to gape at the shedding of blood and shed it at the
same time; the more people stood in rows to see others being hurt, the less
trouble would they take to hurt others, and the sounder Soames could sleep
by night. Still sensation-hunting had become a disease, in his opinion, and no
one was being inoculated for it, so far as he could see!
As the weeks went on and the cases before it in the list went off, the
“circus” they were proposing to make of his daughter appeared to him more
and more monstrous. He had an instinctive distrust of Scotchmen they called
themselves Scotsmen nowadays, as if it helped their character! they never let
go, and he could not approve in other people a quality native to himself.
67
WASHINGTON IRWING
by Charles L.Grant
In 1783 the Peace Treaty that officially ended the war between Great
Britain and the United States was signed, the Philadelphia Evening Post
became the country’s first daily newspaper, and Washington Irving was born
in New York.
Irving was the youngest of eleven children, but despite the size, the
family was by no means poor. His father was a reasonably successful merchant who, being a Scot, placed a high degree of importance on demanding a
decent education for all his offspring. It was only natural then that Irving’s
parents expected him to not only gain as much schooling as was possible at
the time, but also, once that was done, to enter into either the family
business, or become a lawyer ‒ both very respectable and highly regarded
professions.
What they didn’t expect was his talent for writing.
Neither, apparently, did Irving.
What he did, in fact, was attempt as a loyal son to do exactly what was
expected of him by both family and friends, and at the age of sixteen he
became an apprentice to a law firm. And though he worked and studied as he
believed he ought to, his heart wasn’t really in it. His health was not as
robust as he would have liked, his schooling was fragmentary, and his brothers finally relieved him of his duties and sent him to Europe for two years.
This was an attempt to get back his health and, at the same time, continue his
interrupted education by visiting the “right places”, like museums and art
galleries.
Again, as a loyal son and family member, when he returned, he took and
passed the bar examination. He was a lawyer. But he didn’t much care for it.
What he did care for was carousing about town with his young friends,
and the minor pieces of writing he had done up until then ‒ theatre reviews,
sketches of New York society at the time, and wickedly satiric portraits of
businessmen and politicians.
68
REMBRANDT
by R. Huyghe
Rembrandt was undoubtedly the first painter to have made the soul and
its expression the purpose of his art. He comes at the end of the age of
humanism, in the sense that his subjects are most often taken from the Old or
New Testament. His work is steeped in the collective consciousness, whose
traditional religious themes he interprets with an unprecedented depth of
understanding. And whether he paints portraits, nudes, or Biblical scenes, he
always glorifies humanity and the love and goodness which bind men
together.
Nevertheless, while giving eloquent expression to the age of humanism,
he also introduces the age of individualism. From the very start he imbues it
with a note of astonishing intensity, for it was by exploring himself that he
acquired the power of affecting other men. Love, goodness, humanity — he
experienced them all within himself. To make them manifest it was sufficient
for him to study his own face, which each year grew more deeply furrowed
by cares, unhappiness, and the increasing incomprehension of his aims by his
contemporaries. He offers us, it may be added, a revealing symbol of his selfexploration in his obsession with the mirror; he constantly scrutinizes and
questions himself in his long series of self-portraits. He opened the way for
those after him who would turn their gaze inward, bringing to light their
personal secrets and making of them the shaping force of their art.
Rembrandt’s miracle is that even while he immersed himself in his inner
depths, he revealed and stirred the deep sources of others’ sensibility.
He was also an innovator in technique. Even more than the Venetians he
exploited the special beauties of oils. He succeeded in making of his colours
an enamel, a blended wash, a substance either smoothly flowing or
expressive of vehemence, according to his inspiration.
Just as the genius of Rubens left Flanders almost exhausted for many
years, so the genius of Rembrandt seems to have exhausted the creative
energy of the Dutch school. Until the end of the nineteenth century and the
appearance of Van Gogh, Holland was to produce minor painters only.
69
Приложение 2
ГЛОССАРИЙ
Абзацно-фразовый перевод. Упрощенный вид последовательного
перевода, при котором текст переводится после прослушивания не
целиком, а по частям, как правило, по фразам или абзацам.
Адекватная замена. Одно из закономерных соответствий, к которому
прибегает переводчик, когда для точной передачи мысли приходится
оторваться от буквы подлинника, от словарных соответствий и искать
решение задачи исходя из целого.
Адекватный перевод. Воссоздание единства содержания и формы
подлинника средствами другого языка. Адекватный перевод является
целью художественного перевода. Некоторые авторы предлагают
употреблять вместо термина «адекватный перевод» термин
«полноценный перевод”, имея в виду «исчерпывающую передачу
смыслового содержания подлинника и полноценное функциональностилистическое соответствие ему».
Адресат. Лицо, которому предназначено сообщение. Коммуникант,
получающий информацию. В переводе различают финальный адресат
и адресат-дублер, которым является переводчик.
Аналог. Результат перевода по аналогии посредством выбора одного
из нескольких возможных синонимов.
Антонимический перевод. Прием перевода, заключающийся в замене
понятия, выраженного в подлиннике, противоположным понятием.
Безэквивалентная лексика. Слова исходного текста, обозначающие
местные явления, понятия, реалии, не имеющие соответствий в языке
перевода.
Буквализм. Переводческая ошибка, являющаяся результатом
соответствия формальных или семантических компонентов двух
языков. Создание ложных языковых связей между двумя языками на
основе формальных или семантических связей.
70
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]