The role of the functional-situational contents of the utterance in reaching equivalence in translation.
64. In this group the semantic similarity of the original and the translation is connected with the retention of main elements of the contents of the text. As a unit of speech communication the text is always characterized by communicative functionality, situational orientation and the selective character of method of describing the situation. These features are preserved in a minimal unit of the text – the utterance. In other words, in the contents of any utterance there is the expression of some purport of communication through the description of some situation, effected by a certain method (through the choice of certain features of the situation). In the first type of equivalence only the first component of the original is retained in the translation (the purport of communication), in the second type – the first and the second ones (the purport of communication and description of the situation), in the third type – all the three ones (the purport of communication, the identification of the situation, the method of its description).
The expression “component of the contents” does not mean “part of the utterance” or “the contents of the part of the utterance”. The stated parts of the contents are not placed one after another in a linear order. They are expressed by the whole of the utterance, one though another, making a kind of a semantic pyramid: information about distinctive features of a certain sum of objects connected with each other gives the description of some situation, and this description performs a certain function.
65. Presence of information about the purport of communication, situation and method of its description in the contents of the utterance (text) reflects the specific character of speech communication, its inseparable connection with people’s purposeful activity, the surrounding reality and the form of the reflection of this reality in human mentality. This bond is universal for speech communication in all languages, and its universal character largely determines the communicative similarity of texts in different languages. Though, as it was shown above, language selectivity sometimes prevents the retention in the translation of the method of describing the situation or even makes it necessary to substitute the situation for rendering the purport of communication, there is a principal possibility in any translation to ensure similarity of one, two or all the three important parts of the contents of the original.
|
|
|
Every translation can be regarded as belonging to a certain type of equivalence. Since each subsequent type implies a higher degree of semantic similarity we can say that every translation is made at a certain level of equivalence.
Thus, a translation event is accomplished at a definite level of equivalence. It should be emphasized that the level hierarchy does not imply the idea of approbation or disapprobation. A translation can be good at any level of equivalence.
Lecture 5. EQUIVALENCE IN TRANSLATION II: EQUIVALENCE OF TRANSLATION IN RENDERING THE SEMANTICS OF THE LINGUISTIC UNITS OF THE ORIGINAL
1. Language proper aspects of the contents of the text.
The characteristics of the fourth-type equivalence.
The use of synonymic structures in translation.
Word-order variations in translation.
The change of the number and type of sentences.
The characteristics of the fifth-type equivalence.
Possible differences in the denotative meaning of equivalent words in the ST and in the TT.
Peculiarities of rendering in the TT the connotative meaning of the words of the ST.
Equivalence in rendering the intra-linguistic aspects of the word meaning of the ST in the TT.
1. Language proper aspects of the contents of the text.
66. Functional-situational aspects of the contents of the utterance do not constitute its whole information. The contents of two utterances may differ, even if they render the same purport of communication, describe the same situation with the help of the same notions. For a full similarity of their contents it is necessary that the lexical units (words) and syntactic relations between them fully coincide. Any message is built of language units, each one representing certain information and having its own meaning. The contents of the utterance does not exist outside meanings of language units, constituting it, though it often is not the mere sum of such meanings. Besides expressing functional-situational aspects of its contents, language units lend to this contents also an additional sense, which is included in the message rendered. In different communicational conditions separate notional elements of the utterance may come forth, and then the choice of this or other word or syntactic structure acquires an important role in the contents of the whole message.
|
|
|
67. The first three levels of equivalence meant only rendering of elements of the sense, retaining of which was possible with a considerable divergence of language means, through which this sense is expressed in the O and the T. Now it is necessary to find equivalents for the meanings of the SL units. Meanings of units belonging to different languages do not fully coincide, and the elements substituting each other in the O and the T are not, as a rule, similar in meaning. However, in many cases it is possible to reproduce a considerable part of information, contained in the language units of the O. In the next two types of equivalence the semantic similarity of the O and the T includes not only retaining of the purport of communication, identification of the situation and method of its description, but also maximum possible similarity of meanings of corresponding syntactical and lexical units. We can say that here the translation conveys not only the "what for", the "what about" and the "what" of the original but also something оf the "how-it-is-said in the original
2. The characteristics of the fourth-type equivalence.
68. The fourth type of equivalence presupposes retention in the translation of the four meaningful components of the original: the purport of communication, the identification of the situation, the method of its description, and the invariant meaning of the syntactic structures.The structural organization of the O represents certain information, constituting the general contents of the ST. The syntactic structure of the utterance conditions the possibility of use in it of words of some meaning, in some succession and with some ties with other words, and largely determines the part of the contents, which come forth in the act of communication. That’s why maximum possible retention of the syntactic organization of the O in translation furthers a fuller reproduction of the contents of the original. Besides, the syntactic parallelism of the O and the T gives the base for relating separate elements of these texts, justifying their structural identification by the communicants.
|
|
|
69. The contrastive analysis reveals a considerable number of translations, which show syntactic parallelism with originals. The use in the translation of analogous syntactic structures ensures invariability of syntactic meanings of the O and the T. Especially important is to ensure such parallelism in translation of texts of state and international acts, where the T is often granted the juridical force of the O, i.e. both the texts have the same force and are authentic. The wish to preserve the syntactic structure of the text is also clearly seen in comparison of ST and TT of a different type, including belle-lettre. Here is, for example, a short passage from M.Twain’s novel “King Arhtur’s Court” and its translation by Н.Чуковский:
One thing troubled me along at first - the immense interest which people took in me. Apparently the whole nation wanted a look at me. It soon transpired that the eclipse had scared the British world almost to death; that while it lasted the whole country, from one end to the other, was in a pitiable state of panic, and the churches, hermitages and mockeries overflowed with praying and weeping poor creatures who thought the end of the world was come. Then had followed the news that the producer of this awful event was a stranger, a mighty magician at Arthur’s court; that he could I blown the sun like a candle, and was just going to do it when his mercy was purchased, and he then dissolved his enchantments, and now recognized and honoured as the man who had by his unaided might saved the globe from destruction and its people from extinction.
Одно тревожило меня вначале - то необыкновенное любопытство,с котором относились ко мнe все. Казалось, весь народ хотел на меня поглядеть. Вскоре стало известно, что затмение перепугало всю Британию до смерти, что пока оно длилось, вся страна от края и до края была охвачена безграничным ужасом и все церкви, обители и монастыри были переполнены молящиеся и плачущим людьми, уверенными, что настал конец света. Затем все узнали, что эту странную беду наслал иностранец, могущественный волшебник, живущий при дворе короля Артура, что он мог потушить солнце, как свечку, и собирался это сделать, но его упросили рассеять чары, и что теперь его следует почитать как человека, который своим могуществом спас вселенную от разрушения, а народы - от гибели.
|
|
|
The T of this text has been performed by a highly-qualified translator, skilfully using the wealth of expressive means of the Russian language. The narration is unfolded easily and freely, and it is difficult to find any dependence on the SL form. And, despite this, we can see a considerable parallelism of the syntactic structure of the O and the T. The general number of sentences coincide. The related sentences belong to the same type. The place, the order of main and subordinate clauses is the same. Homogeneous parts of the O sentences correspond to those of the T. In most cases each sentence member of the O corresponds to a similar sentence member of the T, placed similarly in relation to other members and so on.
Thus, the relations between the O and the T of the fourth type of equivalence is characterized by the following features:
1) a considerable, though not full parallelism of lexical units (one can easily find related words in the O and the T);
2) the use of the syntactic structures analogous to the structures of the O in the T, or related with them by syntactic variation, which ensures maximum possible reproduction of meanings of syntactic structures of the O in the T;
3) retention of the purport of communication, identification of the situation and method of describing the situation of the O in the T (the three parts of the contents of the O and the T, characterizing the 3rd type of equivalence).
70. When it is impossible to retain fully the syntactic parallelism, a smaller degree of invariability of syntactic meanings is achieved by using in the T of similar structures derived from those in the original through direct о backward transformations. In the fourth type of equivalence there are 3 main kinds of such syntactic variation: 1) the use of synonymic structures related with the original one by direct о backward transformation; 2) the use of analogous structures with the word-order change; 3) the use of analogous structures with the change of the type of bond between them.
3. The use of synonymic structures in translation.
71. Any language has synonymic structures derived from the source (nuclear) one , or this nuclear structure can be reached by certain syntactic transformations of synonymic structures. Such structures have general logical-syntactic bonds, and at the same time each of them has its own syntactic meaning, differentiating it from other structures of the same transformational (synonymic) series. Thus, from the nuclear structure with the meaning of “agent – action” one can derive a series of structures, retaining this essential meaning and different from them in additional syntactic meanings:
мальчик читает – чтение мальчика – читающий мальчик – прочитанное мальчиком and so on.
The differences between synonymic structures are not homogeneous. They are differences in the meanings of opposed forms within one syntactic category or one type of sentence:
Мальчик бросил камень – Камень был брошен мальчиком. That he went there was a mistake – It was a mistake that he went there.
They may be different type structures, united by the common meaning, for example, prepositional phrase (1) or деепричастный оборот (2), subordinate clause (3) and so on.
1 При описании данной теории…
2 Описывая данную теорию…
3 Когда описывается данная теория…
In all cases of that kind the contents of the utterance has a considerable similarity, being different only in additional information present in each separate structure. Sometimes this information may be important for the contents of the utterance, especially when it indicates to the preference of this structure in a certain sphere of communication, i.e. determines its stylistic reference. In the Russian language the use of the passive construction with a shortened participle is characteristic of bookish and business speech:
Он был рожден под знойным солнцем юга. Она была представлена к награде.
Similarly, in the English language asyndetic subordinate clause of condition belongs to official style:
Had a positive decision been taken at the General Assembly…
Contrary to it, a similar clause is used mainly in colloquial speech:
Дата добавления: 2018-04-15; просмотров: 534; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!