Добавил:
Upload Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Posibnyk_Zapolskykh_new.doc
Скачиваний:
307
Добавлен:
07.02.2016
Размер:
980.48 Кб
Скачать

Lexical devices

Sometimes to understand a text reader must decipher the connotations of words which enhance the overall meaning. Lexical devices are based on interaction of different types of lexical meaning:

  • Primary dictionary and contextually imposed meanings interact in metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony;

  • Primary and derivative logical meanings interact in zeugma and pun;

  • Logical and emotive meanings interact in the epithet and oxymoron;

  • Logical and nominal meanings interact in antonomasia;

  • Intensification of a certain feature of a thing or phenomenon is the essence of hyperbole.

The above mentioned devices are described in full in different manuals on stylistics; our task is to systematize them in order to single out the peculiarities of their rendering.

Metaphor

Metaphor is a figure of speech in which an explanation of an object or idea is produced through juxtaposition of disparate things with a similar characteristic, such as describing a courageous person as having a "heart of a lion".

Allegory — a sustained metaphor continued through whole sentences or even through a whole discourse. For example: "The ship of state has sailed through rougher storms than the tempest of these lobbyists."

Newmark distinguishes six types of metaphors:

1. dead metaphor: this type of metaphor frequently relates to universal terms of space and time, the main part of the body, general ecological features and the main human activities. Dead metaphors have lost their figurative value through overuse and their images are hardly evident. Some examples of a dead metaphor include 'at the bottom of the hill', 'face of the mountains', and 'crown of glory'.

2. cliché metaphor: this type of metaphor is known to have outlived its usefulness, and is used as a substitute for clear thought, often emotively, but without corresponding to the facts of the matter. Some examples include 'a jewel in the crown', 'to make one's mark', and 'backwater'.

3. stock or standard metaphor: is defined as an established metaphor, which in an informal context is an efficient and concise method of covering a physical and/or mental situation both referentially and pragmatically. He also states that stock metaphors, in contrast to dead metaphors, are not deadened by overuse. Examples of this type also mentioned by Newmark are: 'to oil the wheels', 'he's in a giving humour', and 'he's on the eve of getting married'.

4. adapted metaphor: this type of metaphor is actually a stock metaphor that has been adapted into a new context by its speaker or writer, for example, the stock metaphor 'carrying coals to Newcastle' can be turned into an adapted metaphor by saying ' almost carrying coals to Newcastle'.

5. recent metaphor: this type of metaphor is produced through coining and is spread in the SL rapidly. Examples of this kind are 'spastic', meaning stupid, and 'skint', meaning without money.

6. original metaphor: this type of metaphor is "created or quoted by the SL writer", and in the broadest sense, "contains the core of an important writer's message, his personality, his comment on life".

Since metaphor is shaped by the socio-cultural beliefs and attitudes of a specific culture, translation of this linguistic phenomenon is based on the 'cognitive equivalence,' where metaphors must be looked at as cognitive constructs representing instances of how people conceptualize their experiences, attitudes and practices, and record them. Then operationally, we should draw a distinction between the individual linguistic culture having its own set of metaphors related to a range of ideas, conventions, and beliefs, and a proposed 'universal culture' comprising many individual cultures (i.e. sub-cultures) sharing a set of metaphors reflecting the core values and practices common to most of the individual cultures.

Writers sometimes use metaphors and similes to help create a vivid image in the reader's mind. A simile explicitly compares two things using the word like or as. A metaphor also compares two things, but it does not use the word like or as.

E.g.: My father grumbles like a bear in the mornings (simile).

My father is a bear in the mornings (metaphor).

Since metaphors are related to different cultural domains, this implies that the translator has to do the job of conceptual mapping on behalf of the TL reader; he has to look for a TL similar cognitive equivalence in the target culture. The more the SL and TL cultures in question conceptualize experience in a similar way, the easier the task of translation will be. But since human real-world experiences are not always similar, and metaphors record these experiences, the task of the translator becomes more difficult when translating these metaphors across languages related to different cultures. The difficulty of metaphor rendition lies not in the assumption that languages cannot provide equivalent expressions for their metaphors, but in the fact that they lack counterpart metaphors related to the same conceptual domain or area.

Therefore, in search for cognitive equivalence to replace the SL image with a TL image that does not clash with the target culture, we have differentiated between three cognitive mapping conditions to the translation of metaphors:

  • metaphors of similar mapping conditions (e.g.: He is still green for such a talk // Він ще зелений для такої бесіди);

  • metaphors having similar mapping conditions but lexically implemented differently (e.g.: carrying coals to Newcastle - ехать в Тулу со своим самоваром);

  • metaphors of different mapping conditions.

The difference between these three can be represented as a cline or continuum, with the set of metaphors of similar mapping conditions at one end, and those of different mapping conditions at the other end of the continuum, and those of similar mapping conditions but lexically realized differently as an intermediate set in between the polar opposites. Examples of the first category generate when working on cultural universal SL metaphors derived from shared human experience; the second set is related to the same conceptual domain in the SL and the TL, but the ethical system in the TL or the SL has led to major differences in lexical choice; whereas the third set includes the culture-bound SL metaphors that are mapped into a domain different from that of the TL.

It can be concluded that translators, whose task is to produce a TL text that bears a close resemblance to the SL text, should be aware of cognitive and cultural issues when translating from English into Ukrainian or Russian or vice-versa. Therefore, it is not enough for translators to be bilingual, but they should be bicultural as well. Because translators suffer twice when approaching some metaphors which are culture-bound and due to their figurative meaning intralingually, it is recommended that translators be trained in coping with metaphor translation not only in foreign-language programs, but also in their native language. Sometimes, even native speakers are not always able to comprehend the figurative meaning of messages in their own language.

Newmark proposes the following seven strategies for translating metaphors:

1. Reproducing the same image in the TL

Play with someone's feelings → грати з почуттями, играть чувствами;

2. Replacing the image in the SL with a standard TL image which does not clash with the TL culture:

I got it off my chest → чистосердечно признаться в чем-л.; облегчить душу.

3. Translation of metaphor by simile, retaining the image

The coast was only a long green line → Узбережжя виглядало як довга зелена смуга.

4. Translation of metaphor (or simile) by simile plus sense, or occasionally metaphor plus sense

He is an owlВін як сова, веде нічний спосіб життя / Он угрюмый (мрачный) человек.

5. Conversion of metaphor to sense

To keep the pot boiling → зарабатывать на пропитание/ энергично продолжать.

6. Deletion. If the metaphor is redundant or serves no practical purpose, there is a case for its deletion, together with its sense component

7. Translation of metaphor by the same metaphor combined with sense. The addition of a gloss or an explanation by the translator is to ensure that the metaphor will be understood

The tongue is fire Язик горить, страва дуже гостра.

Personification

Personification is a figure of speech in which an inanimate object or abstraction is given human qualities or abilities. It is widely used in different types of texts. For instance, for over a century, companies have relied heavily on personification to create memorable images of their products--images that often appear in print advertisements and TV commercials for those "brands."

e.g.: Kleenex says bless you. (Kleenex facial tissues)

Nothing hugs like Huggies. (Huggies Supreme diapers)

Unwrap a smile. (Little Debbie snack cakes)

Goldfish. The snack that smiles back. (Goldfish snack crackers)

Carvel. It's what happy tastes like. (Carvel ice cream)

Cottonelle. Looking out for the family. (Cottonelle toilet paper)

The toilet tissue that really cares for Downunder. (Bouquets toilet paper, Australia)

You're in good hands with Allstate. (Allstate Insurance Company)

Taste me! Taste me! Come on and taste me! (Doral cigarettes)

What do you feed a machine with an appetite this big? (Indesit washing machine and Ariel Liquitabs, laundry detergent, UK)

The heartbeat of America. (Chevrolet cars)

The car that cares (Kia cars)

Acer. We hear you. (Acer computers)

How will you use us today? (Avery Labels)

Baldwin Cooke. Products that say "Thank You" 365 days a year. (Baldwin Cooke calendars and business planners)

Metonymy

Metonymy —a figure of speech that replaces the name of one thing with the name of something else closely associated with it, e.g. the bottle for alcoholic drink, the press for journalism, skirt for woman, Mozart for Mozart's music, the Oval Office for the US presidency, referring to actions of the U.S. President as "actions of the White House".A well-known metonymic saying is the pen is mightier than the sword (i.e. writing is more powerful than warfare). A word used in such metonymic expressions is sometimes called a metonym.

Modern literary theory has often used ‘metonymy’ in a wider sense, todesignate the process of association by which metonymies are produced and understood: this involves establishing relationships of contiguity between two things, whereas metaphor establishes relationships of similarity between them. The metonym/metaphor distinction has been associated with the contrast between syntagm and paradigm.

Though a literal translation strategy is often applied in such cases, a translator should be aware of such phenomena to identify them correctly and provide additition or explain if necessary.

For example, some government and business agencies are often called by the names of streets and buildings they are situated.

e.g.: White House – уряд США

Oval Office – президентська влада в США

Capitol – конгрес США

Wall Street – фінансовий центр США

Pentagon – збройні сили США

Madison Avenue – американський рекламний бізнес

Whitehall – британський прем’єр-міністр, уряд Великобританії

Downing Street – британський уряд

Buckingham Palace англійська королівська сім’я Великобританії

The Сity of London – фінансовий центр Великобританії.

Synecdoche

An important kind of metonymy is synecdoche, in which the name of a part is substituted for that of a whole (e.g. hand for worker), or vice versa. Synecdoche — related to metonymy and metaphor, creates a play on words by referring to something with a related concept: for example, referring to the whole with the name of a part, such as "hired hands" for workers; a part with the name of the whole, such as "the law" for police officers; the general with the specific, such as "bread" for food; the specific with the general, such as "cat" for a lion; or an object with the material it is made from, such as "bricks and mortar" for a building.

Irony

Irony — creating a trope through implying the opposite of the standard meaning, such as describing a bad situation as "good times".

The Three Basic Features of Irony

The principal obstacle in the way of a simple definition of irony is the fact that irony is not a simple phenomenon. We have now presented, as basic features for all irony:

  • a contrast of appearance and reality,

  • a confident unawareness (pretended in the ironist, real in the victim of the irony) that the appearance is only an appearance, and

  • the comic effect of this unawareness of a contrasting appearance and reality.

Five Kinds of Irony

Originally only three kinds of irony have been singled out since antiquity:

  • Socratic irony. a mask of innocence and ignorance adopted to win an argument.

  • Dramatic or tragic irony, a double vision of what is happening in a play or real-life situation.

  • Linguistic irony, a duality of meaning, now the classic form of irony. Building on the idea of dramatic irony, the Romans concluded that language often carries a double message, a second often mocking or sardonic meaning running contrary to the first.

In modern times, two further conceptions have been added:

  • Structural irony, a quality that is built into texts, in which the observations of a naive narrator point up deeper implications of a situation.

  • Romantic irony, in which writers conspire with readers to share the double vision of what is happening in the plot of a novel, film, etc.