Unit IV. The Problem of Translatability. Levels of Equivalence.

Translation is the death of understanding.

Humboldt

According to Humboldt, translation in principle is not available. A person knows about the world as much as he was told in his own language. Full matches of source and target language word-senses are rather the exception than the rule. “Translation equivalence cannot be defined, the celebration and the brain racking about it goes on for ever… Nevertheless, translation equivalences and correspondences are indispensable operational terms in translation” (O.Newmark).The competence in translation depends on the competence in our own language (the theory of linguistic relativity).

E.? Ф.Достоевский «Кроткая» -

e.g. R.: творог

F.? J.Heller “Catch-22” -

Translation is at best an echo. In mathematics we have absolute equivalence, in translation we aim at achieving it. How to translate tenses, realia and other non-permanent equivalents? While scientists are in doubt, translators do their work in many ways:

шотландская юбка Zolotaya Bochka

kilt «Золотая бочка»

килт Golden Barrel

Translation equivalence is a measure of semantic similarity between ST and TT. According to V. Komissarov, there are 5 types of equivalence:

1. The purport (суть) of communication is retained in translation:

e.g. That’s a pretty thing to say! – Постыдился бы так говорить!

Maybe, there’s some chemistry between us that doesn’t mix.

A rolling stone gathers no moss.

(an absolute dissimilarity of language units, the absence of logical meaning, but “about the same thing”).

2. 1 + indentification of situation:

e.g. You see one bear. You’ve seen them all. – Все медведи похожи друг на друга.

Нe answered the phone. – Он снял трубку.

Are you married? You don’t say! – Да что вы!

(no parallelism of lexical or structural units, but a greater proximity of contents, some additional information.)

3. 1 + 2 + its description:

e.g. London saw a cold winter last year. – В прошлом году в Лондоне была холодная зима.

Scrubbing makes me bad-tempered. – От мытья полов у меня портится настроение.

You are not serious! – Ты шутишь!

(a semantic paraphrase of the original, preserving its basic semes and allowing free reshuffle in the sentence.)

4. 1 + 2 + 3 + the invariant meaning of the syntactic structure:

e.g. I don’t see that I need to convince you. – Не вижу надобности доказывать вам это.

He could guess from three goes. – Он смог отгадать с трех попыток.

(the use of similar or parallel structures.)

5. 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + word semantics:

e.g. I saw him at the theatre. -?

I’d like to know what this whole show is about before it’s out. -?

(the maximum possible semantic similarity the equivalence of semes.)

The best classification developed so far is made by A. Neubert who regarded translation in the context of semiotics (the system of signs). Semiotics distinguishes 3 types of relations:

syntactics – sign to sign

semantics – sign to object (meaning)

pragmatics – sign to man (a user of the sign)

The goal of translation is to produce a text bearing the same relation to the extra-linguistic situation as the original.

Wet Paint! ®

Beware of dogs! ®

I wish I were you! ®

He was found invincible. ®

Pragmatic relations are superimposed on semantic relations. The former are of free types:

1. the relation of SL sender to the original message;

2. the relation of the TL receptor to the TL message;

3. the relation of the translator to both meanings.

The first type amounts to the sender’s communication intent (коммуникационная установка отправителя). The translator should be aware whether the message is a statement, a fact, a request, a joke, etc. Very often the speaker’s communicative intent differs from what the message ostensibly said.

e.g. That’s a pretty thing to say! ®

You are too kind! How very good of you! ®

Is Mr. B there?®

Albert Neubert has proposed the classification of texts depending on their orientation towards different types of receptors:

a) texts for “domestic consumption” (local ads, instructions, rules…)

b) texts for “foreign consumption” (propaganda, ads for foreign receptors)

c) texts intended primarily for SL receptors but having also a universal human appeal (fiction)

d) texts without any specific national addressee (scientific & technical literature)

According to A. Neubert there are 3 levels of equivalence:

3. PRAGMATICS ­ Get out of here! (1 ® 2 ® 3)

2. SEMANTICS ­ He was given a book

1. SYNTACTICS ­ I love you.

Pragmatics is the study of language as it is used in a sociocultural context, including its effect on the participants in the process of communication. “Sociocultural” means “involving social and cultural factors”. The translator must be aware of the situational aspects of the language usage in order to produce authentic, i.e. culturally adequate, translation.

e.g., R: места для инвалидов ® E: Priority seating for persons with disabilities.

Until you reach the level of pragmatics, there will be no equivalence! The levels of equivalence have no parameters, in fact they are the levels of your success. Happy is the translator who has observed all the levels!

Further reading and exercises:

1. Komissarov,Koralova: pp. 10-20.

2.Translate the following sentences and define TEL:

1) Time and winds have worn out the stones of an old tower.

2) I hit (got) the bull’s eye!

3) You are a neat girl.

4) They didn’t permit him to join Life Saving Course because he was under age.

5) Calm down! We take over the situation.

6) The third channel goes dead.

7) Easy come, easy go.

8) I’ll bet you my bottom dollar!

9) You don’t say!

10) Johny came out of the blue to catch the pass and score a touchdown.

11) Those papers had much to say and little to tell.

12) I’d like to know what this whole show is all about before it’s out.

13) Come on, Bill, let’s do that no-sweat job!

14) The guy is something else.

15) Keep the ball rolling!

Tolkien:

1) Short cuts make long delays.

2) The silence seemed to dislike being broken.

3) It beats me why…

4) May your beards never grow thin!

5) What should be, shall be.

6) It was high summer.

7) He could guess from three goes.

8) When heads are at a loss, bodies must serve.

9) I’ll give you time to repent your words.

10) A bitter easterly breeze blew with a threat of oncoming winter.

11) Do as you think best.

12) Off you go! And quick before I knock a few more heads off to put some sense into the others!

13) Your wits are sleepy.

14) Money was only an afterthought with us.

15) I am glad to be still alive!

16) They went in single file along hedgerows and the borders of coppices, and night fell dark about them.

17) Long time ago there lived a clever-handed and quiet-footed little people.

18) There were several meals at which it snowed food and rained drink, as hobbits say.

19) Before long the place was packed with people who had no business there, but couldn’t be kept out.

20) The ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of author’s experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous.

21) His memory is like a lumber-room: thing wanted always buried.

22) The woods in the valley were still leafy and full of colour, and seemed peaceful and wholesome.

23) When heads are at a loss bodies must serve.

24) The morning may bring new counsel.

25) A wild beast cornered is not safe to approach.

26) Keep closer to the fire with your faces outward!

Дата добавления: 2015-07-10