1. Levels of equivalents

2. Adequate literal and free translation.

In The theory of translation different ideas have been put forward concerning the types and levels of equivalents in translation. Gak and Levin distinguish three types of equivalents:

1. Formal; it may be illustrated by such cases as the sun disappeared behind a cloud. Here we find the similarity of words and forms in addition to the similarity of meanings. The differences in the play of expression are in fact those determined by overall structural differences between Russian and English – the use of articles in English, the use of the perfective aspect and gender forms in Russian.

2. Semantic; they exist when the same meanings are expressed in the two languages in a different way – troops were airlifted to the battlefield –войска были переброшены по воздуху на поле боя. In English the verb Airlift contains the same meaning as the Russian phrase –перебросить по воздуху. Also different linguistic devices are used in Russian and English a word and a word group the sum of the semantic components is the same.

3. Situational. They are established between utterances that differ both in linguistic devices used and in the semantic components expressed. But nevertheless describe the same extralinguistic situation. To let someone pass – уступить дорогу. It should be noted that formal equivalents alone are insufficient. In fact the above examples pertain to two types of semantic equivalents :

1. Semantic equivalent + formal equivalents.

2. Semantic equivalents without formal equivalents.

As to situational equivalents it is another variety of semantic equivalents. That differs from the first type in that it is based not on the same semantic components, but on the equivalence of meanings made up of different semantic components. In other words the sum of different semantic components may be semantically equivalent. For example – upside down – вверх ногами. We may speak of two types of semantic equivalence:

-componential - the identity of semantic components.

- referential – referential equivalence of different semantic components.

The referential is preferable to situational equivalence because descriptions of the same situation are not necessarily semantically equivalent. Thus the following major types of translation equivalence are distinguished:

1. Formal equivalents plus semantic componential equivalents plus pragmatic equivalence

2. Semantic componential and\or referential equivalence plus pragmatic equivalence.

3. pragmatic equivalence alone. Pragmatic equivalence which implies a close fit between communicative intent and the receptor response is required at all levels of equivalents. It may sometimes appear alone without formal or semantic equivalents as in the case с днем рождения – many happy returns on the baby.

2.Adequate literal and free translation.

There is a fundamental difference between formal equivalence on the one hand and semantic and pragmatic on the other. Formal equivalence may accompany semantic and pragmatic equivalence but it is by no means obligatory. It has been pointed out that the translator does set himself the task of preserving the syntactic relations of the original nor does he aim at formal equivalence between the original and the translation. Usually formal equivalence results from similarity of grammatical forms and lexical items of the two languages. But it does not arise out of a deliberate effort.

Adequate translation may be defined therefore as that which is determined by semantic and pragmatic equivalence between the original and tagged language text. Cases of formal equivalence without semantic or pragmatic equivalence are usually described as literal translation (буквальный перевод). Literal translation reproduces the linguistic form of the original regardless of semantic or pragmatic equivalence. It may reproduce the morphological and sound form, or lexical items, overlooking the idiomatic meaning of the phrase.

Literal – погода сегодня ничего –the weather is nothing today. Semantic equivalence does not exist.

In other words literal translation reproduces the form at the expense of meaning and distorts the original. In some cases it may violate a stylistic norm, in reproducing the syntactic form of the original message. It was he who did it. –это был он кто это сделал. Finally it may reproduce both the linguistic form and the denotational meaning, but ignore the pragmatic aspects of the message. As a result the message will not get across and the intended communicative effect will not be achieved. For example – the sky was like a Guiseley sandstone. – небо было серым как гизлейский песчаник.

FREE TRANSLATION. This translation on the other hand consists in pragmatically unmotivated additions and omitions of semantic information. In literal translation the translator distorts the message by slavishly reproducing the form, while in free translation he distorts it by overstepping his authority and assuming the role of a co-author.

The ways of adequate translation.

Grammatical and lexical parallelisms between the source language and the tagged language make it possible in some cases to retain formal equivalence without departing from semantic or pragmatic equivalence. Otherwise various lexico-grammatical transformations are used. Some marginal elements of information may be lost in translation. Some of them may be compensated for by the use of different devices. Sometimes in a different portion of the message. For example – the Russian phrase –но ваше дело рисковое – but your job is damn risked, where the use of a low colloquial lexical item DAMN compensates for the non-standard morphological form рисковое. Derogatory connotations is expressed in the English phrase to sell the idea the noun is neutral, but the derogatory connotation is shifted to the bowl.

GRAMMATICAL EQUIVALENTS IN TRANSLATION.

The grammatical structure of the language is an important part of its overall system. No less important in fact that its vocabulary. The elements of the grammatical structure such as affixes, forms of inflection and derivation, syntactic patterns, word order, functional words, etc. serve to carry meanings which are usually referred to as grammatical or structural as distinct from lexical meanings. The rendering of such meanings in the process or translation is an important problem relating to the general problem of translation equivalence.

Grammatical forms of different languages only very seldom coincide fully as to the scope of their meaning and function. As a rule there is only partial equivalence, that is the grammatical meanings expressed by grammatical forms though seemingly identical of two different languages coincide only in part of their meaning and differ in other parts. Thus the category of number of the noun in English and the Russian seems to coincide – стол-столы, but there are many instance where this is not the case, in other case when in english plural form is rendered through a Russian singular form and vice a versa.…. This is especially common among the so-called singularian and pluralian tendon that is those nouns that have only a singular or plural form whose distribution if often arbitrary and motivated only historically. Oats – овес. Peas-горох. Outskirts- окраина.billiards- бильярд. And on the other hand money-деньги, ink-чернила, information-новости. Also the forms of number in new language often do not coincide when the noun is accompanied by a numeral. Thus in Russian of nouns proceeded. Ending in 1 are used in the singular form, while in English in corresponding patterns a plural form must be used. Twenty one tables- 21 стол. Another example is a category of tense.

Both English and Russian distinguish such forms of the predicate verbs as present and past their general grammatical meanings being on the whole identical. He lived\s in Moscow. However in certain cases the tense forms of the two verbs English and Russian do not coincide. For example in English there exists sequence of tenses according to which the predicate verb in subordinate object clause following the main clause in which a past form is used, must with a few exceptions also been used in a past form. Whereas in Russian this is not so and a present form is quite common in the same position. He said he lived in Moscow –он сказал что живет в Москве. The use of the past simple which denotes future in subordinate clauses of conditions.

The difference is even more striking when we consider other grammatical categories whose semantic content and function vary to a still greater extend.

Gender in Russian is expressed in the following ways:

1. Through agreement.

2. By the inflectional forms of the noun itself.

3. By means of pronominal substitution. (what a pronoun can substitute for noun)

In English the same three genders are also distinguished. However the only formal way to express the gender distinction is through pronominal substitution. For ex – boy – he, girl-she, house-it.

Consequently the category of gender in English is expressed not in the noun itself but in the corresponding personal possessive or reflexive pronoun . it follows that many nouns English are not marked as to gender and can be used as masculine and feminine depending on the context. Whereas in Russian a choice between this two genders is necessary with due regard for the wider context. Example – artist –, художник художница.

The above does not mean that there is absolutely nothing in common between the grammatical structures of two different languages. On the contrary there exist in all languages the so-called grammatical universals. That is categories that are found in all the languages and without which no language can function as a means of communication. These are mainly the so-called deep grammatical categories. That is categories that are semantic rather than formal such as object, process, quality, relation, actor, goal of action, instrument, cause and effect and so on. The formal ways in which they are manifested may differ widely. The translator’s task here is 1. To assign the correct meaning to this or that form;2. To find an appropriate form in the tagged language for the expression of the same meaning taking into account various factors. Moreover in should born in mind that the content which in one language is expressed grammatically, may be expressed lexically in another language. If no grammatical forms are available in the tagged language the translator must look for lexical means to render to the same semantic content. The only way to convey in English the semantic difference between the Russian perfective and imperfective verb forms is through lexical difference between the two verbs. Example: What had he done during this period – everything, nothing. Out came the chase – in went the horses- on sprang the boys – in got the travelers. – inversion (the additional meaning) in Russian we can’t see the same.

Быстро выкатили коляску, мгновенно запрягли лошадей, быстро вскочили на лошадей и путешественники поспешно заняли свои места. There are cases when grammatical meanings are not rendered in translation at all that is when this or that grammatical form is not used freely according to its o-meaning but when its use is predetermined by purely linguistic factors such as syntactic construction, rules of agreement ( grammatical concord or government) and so on. In such cases we may speak of the bound use of the grammatical form as opposed to its free use. In English the choice of the tense form of the verb even independent clause is free and depends on the proper meaning of the tense form itself. He lives in Moscow – he lived in Moscow. In a dependent clause however the use of the tense form is not free and is determined by the rule of sequence of tenses. He said he lived in Moscow, he said he had lived in Moscow. Consequently in the 1^st case the difference in the tense form must be reflected in translation while in the dependent clause the use of past is purely formal and as there is no corresponding rule in Russian it is not necessary to render the meaning of the grammatical past in the Russian translation as the rules of Russian syntax require the use of the present form to express non-priority of the action. The choice of the grammatical equivalent in the tagged language is determined by the following factors:

• The meaning inherent in the grammatical form itself – table tables- стол столы.

• The lexical character of the word or word-group used in this or that form. ( the use of the plural form in Russian is impossible with certain nouns) workers of all industries – рабочие всех отраслей промышленности., other philosophies – другие философские течения;here the grammatical meaning of plurality has to be rendered lexically in Russian as the corresponding Russian nouns lack the plural forms.

• Factors of style. Both English and Russian have the passive form of the verb. However in Russian the use of this form is mainly confined to the literary or the bookish style. The English passive structure such as at the station John was met by his brother – can theoretically be translated –на вокзале джон был встречен братом – but this translation is unacceptable because it is hardly used in colloquial speech or in the fiction. In appropriate form –на вокзале джона встретил брат. But in the formal language this is quite acceptable. Delegation was met.. Both English and Russian make use of the so-called historic present, however it is only in English that this form is employed in newspaper headlines.consequently such a headline as:Farmer Bill Dies In House. – законопроект о фермерах не был утвержден в палате парламента.

• Frequency of use. The American linguist and translator Naidah writes : rare forms of words may also constitute serious obstacle to a proper communication load. For ex – translator often find convenient formal parallels between constructions in the source and receptor languages and regardless of the relative frequency of such constructions in the language concerned and ever to match the forms more or less automatically, thus both source and receptor languages may have passive forms of words but in the source language they may be relatively frequent while in the receptor language they are rare. If under this conditions one attempts to translate every source language passive by a corresponding passive in the receptor language the result will be an inevitable over reading of the communication. “ Russian uses both subordinate clauses and verbal adverbs (деепричастие) to express adverbial relations however if a translator does not make use of the latter, his translation will sound unnaturally and too heavy. Also both in English and Russian both subordinate and coordinate are used but their relative frequency is different. English often prefers subordinations whereas Russian more often than not makes use of coordinative structures.(сочинительные)

Therefore subordinate syntactic structures of English are quite commonly replaced by coordinate structures in Russian translations, though from the point of view of purely formal grammar use such a replacement is not always necessary.

GRAMMATICAL TRANSFORMATIONS IN TRANSLATION.

1. Transpositions

2. Replacements

3. Additions

4. Omissions

1. Any attempt at word for word translation apart from very simple and short sentence is due to failure. In the course of translation it is always necessary to perform various grammatical and lexical changes or transformations to achieve translational equivalence.

Transposition is a change in the order of linguistic elements such as words, phrases, clauses and sentences. Most often this is due to the necessity preserving in fact what is called functional sentence perspective. (актуальное отчленение в предложений) . namely the division of the sentence into two main parts from the point of view of communication – the noun is called theme and the new which called rheme. In Russian this division of the sentence is usually expressed by means of word order – what is already known or supposed to be noun to the receptor ( usually from the proceeding context) that is the theme is placed at the beginning of the sentence whereas what is new that is communicated for the first type, and therefore what forms the semantically most important part of the message ,that is rheme, is placed at the end. In English the word order is arranged on the whole along the same lines. However in certain cases the theme is placed at the end and the rheme at the beginning due to the fact that the rheme is not differently namely b the use of the indefinite article (zero article for plural forms) with the noun which is the subject of the sentence. Therefore in Russian the word order in such cases must be reversed, that is the sentence subject which is the rheme of the sentence, must be placed at the end. example – девушка вошла в (новая)комнату. В комнату вошла девушка. A boy(rheme) came in. the boy came in (rheme). Вошел мальчик(рэма) в русском рема обычно в конце.

Within a complex sentence a singular tendency is observed – in Russian the first place is occupied by that part of the sentence which must logically precede the second while in English the position of both clauses though not quiet fixed is in most cases governed by purely syntactical rules namely the main clause proceeds the subordinate one. This often calls for a change in the order of the clauses in translation, for example – he trembled as he looked up. Within a passage of discourse independent sentences are also transposed. For example – you are going to court this morning asked Jill. We had strolled over. –мы подошли. Вы в суд пойдете спросил джил. Another device which is used …is replacement. Replacements can affect practically all types of the linguistic units – word forms, parts of speech, sentence elements, sentence types, types of syntactic relations.