20. The main directions of contemprorary theory of translation & the nature of translation.

The earliest ling theory of translation was developed by Retsker & Fedorov who pioneered in a linguistic analysis of translation problems. Their theory come to be known as the theory of regular correspondences. Translation they argued is inconceivable without a sound, linguistic basis & this basis can be provided by a contranstive study of linguistic phenomena & the establishment of certain correspodences btw the language of original & that of the translation.

In the 60-s some linguists proposed a theoretical model of translation, based on generative & transformational grammar. They subdivided the process of translation into 3 stages:

a) analysis where an ambiguous surface structure is transformed into non- ambiguous kernel sentences.

B) transfer where equivalents in the target language are fooundat a kernel &near-kernel level.

3) surface is resrtructing when target lang.kernel sentences are transformed into surface structurer.

The situational model of translation is based on situational analysis in linguistics. It’s based on the assumption that lang.use different sets of semantic components to describe identical extralinguistic situations.

Translation may be viewed as an interlingual communication act in which at least 3 participiants are involved:

1) the sender of the source;

2) the translator;

3) the receptor.(of the texta of the target lang.message).

Translation as an interlingual communicative act includes 2 phases: 1) communication btw the sender & the translator, 2) communication btw the translator & the receptor of the newly produced target-lang.text. Humbold said each lang is an embodiment of national spirit & the nation’s world view & so translation is an important task. But the very fact that translation makes interlingual communication possible is an argument against the problem of translatability.

21. Levels of equivalense & the concept of adequate translations.

In the theory of transl. different ideas have been put forward concerning the types & levels of equivalence in translation.

Gak & Levin distinguish the following types of equivalence: formal, semantic & situational.

E.g. - similarity of words & forms in addition to the similarity of meanings. Semantic equivalence exists when the same meanings are expressed in the 2 lang-s in a different way. Situational equiv-ce is established btw utterances that differ in linguistic devices & the semantic component is expressed but describe the same extralinguistic situation.

Komissarov distinguished btw 5 types or levels of equiv-ce.

At the 1^st level only the aim of communication is rendered in translation, no parallel syntactic patterns, nor word equiv-ce.

At the 2-d level besides the aim of communication remains the same but it’s described by diff. lexical means( Stop! I have a gun! –стой! Стрелять буду!).

At the 3-d level the translator preserves the aim the situation of communication, but he uses the same way of descriptions.(Scrubbings makes me bad-tempered- от мытья полов у меня портиться настроение).

At the 4-th level the 1^s three +syntactic patterns of the sentences. But there may be some lexical or grammatical variations (He was never tired of old songs- старые песни ему никогда не надоедали).

The 5^th level is characterized by a maximum similarity of the content o the original & the translation.

Adequate translation –s semantic & pragmatic equivalence btw the original & target-lang text. Literal translation reproduces the linguistic form of the original regardless of semantic & pragmatic equivalence.( вишневый сад-cherry orchard). Liter.transl.reproduces the form at the expense of the meaning. Free transl-consists in unmotivated additions & omissions.