19.The theory of untranslatability. Its incorrectness

The development of translatology has illustrated the incorrectness of he theory of untranslatability. Though it is obvious that the identity of the original and its translation is impossible. Henry Schogt sums up the reasons for it:

there is never a one-to-one relationship between components belonging to different languages;

no method can guarantee the obtainment of an exhaustive inventoryof semes (the smallest meaningful elements not necessarily formally expressed in the signifier);

even within one speech community there are considerable differences of interpretation as well as of formulation;

expressive, emotive and social elements, though very important in the communication process, are often not included in the semantic description because they are of doubtful intention;

a “final blow” is left to the translator [Schogt, 1992: 200].

But the mere fact that interlanguage communication and translation have been going on for thousands of years is considered sufficient proof that it is possible. Translation doesn’t imply creating a completely identical text, but the lack of identity is not an evidence of impossibility of translation. The loss of some elements of the original in the process of translation doesn’t mean that the text is untranslatable, as Prof. Komissarov has pointed. Most translation manuals stress the fact that, in spite of differences in value of some particular elements of the ST and the TT, there may be equivalence in actual signification at the level of the utterance. If some semes are lost, they may be added in some other parts of the sentence by way of compensation.

A special case arises when a distinction that is optional in the SL and compulsory in the IL is not expressed in the ST. Roman Jacobson, who pointed out this problem, when the translator has to add information not provided by the ST, believes that a passage from compulsory to not compulsory can always be made, and that lacunae can always be filled by circumscriptions or neologisms [Jacobson, 1992: 148]. Whether or not, in the case of literature, the aesthetic value of the ST is destroyed by such solutions is a moot point. The translator has to decide whether to maintain the cumbersome element, to replace it or leave it out. His choice will often depend on the public he is translating for. Thus, in the process of translating, the message is adapted to the presumed knowledge and background of the receiver and, in some instances, to his expectations.

The lack of identity doesn’t prevent translation from fulfilling communicative functions for which it is performed and for which the original text is created.

20. General theory of translation as the core of translatology. Branches of translatology. Bilingual theory of translation

The core of translatology is the general theory of translation which is concerned with the fundamental aspects of translatioon inherent in the nature of bilingual communication and, therefore, common to all translation events, irrespective of the languages involved, kind of the text being translated and the circumstances of translation. The general theory of translation deals, so to speak, with translation universal and is the basis for all other theoretical studies in this area, since it describes what translation is and what makes it possible. It describes the basic principles which are good for every translation event.

An important part of the theory of translation is the theory of equivalence aimed at studying semantic relations between the ST and the TT. There is a presumption of semantic identity between the translation and its ST. At the same time it is easy to demonstrate that, in fact, there is no such identity for even a cursory examination of any translation reveals inevitable losses, increments or changes of the information transmitted. For instance, “verbal systems may differ in that one puts great emphasis on temporality, whereas another has an overt marking of aspect, a category that does not have the deictic character of temporality. Even if the first language is able to express aspect and the second language temporality, these categories do not have a prominent position, so that thereis no real equivalence between the two languages as to temporality and aspect” [Schogt, 1992: 194].

Each type of translation has its own combination of factors influencing translating process.

In simultaneous interpreting the translator is expected to keep pace with the fastest speakers, to understand all kinds of foreign accents and defective pronunciation, to guess what the speaker meant to say but failed to express because of his inadequate proficiency in the language he speaks. In consecutive interpreting he is expected to listen to long speeches, taking the necessary notes, and then produce his translation in a complete or compressed form, giving all the details or only the main ideas. Thus, the general theory of translation should be supplemented by a number of special translation theories identifying major types of translation activities and describing predominant features of each type.

Of particular interest is the branch of translatology concerned with translating process itself. This direction of translation theory is of considerable practical value for it makes possible the description of particular methods of translation that can be used by the translator to ensure equivalence between the ST and the TT.

One more branch of the theory of translation deals with the pragmatic aspect of translation. The communicants involved in interlingual communication not only speak different languages but they also belong to different cultures, have different general knowledge, different social and historical background. This fact has a considerable impact on the translator’s strategy since the most truthful rendering of ST contents may sometimes be partially or fully misunderstood by receptors of the translation or fail to produce a similar effect upon them. The translator has to assess the possible communicative effect of the TT and take pains to ensure an adequate understanding of the message by the TR.. This may necessitate expanding or modifying the original message to make it more meaningful to the members of a different language community.

The bilingual theory of translation studies separate sets of equivalents within the two languages considered. All bilingual theories of translation proceed from the identical basic assumptions as to classification of equivalents and their role in translation process.

A1 branches of the theory of translation are concerned with important aspects of the translator’s work and constitute a body of theoretical thought of indisputable practical value.