Models of translation

Description of the translating process is one of the major tasks of the translation theory. Here we deal with the dynamic aspects of translation trying to understand how the translator performs the transfer operation from ST to TT.

Psychologically viewed, the translating process must include two mental processes – understanding and verbalization. First, the translator understands the content of ST, that is, reduces the information it contains to his own mental program, and then he develops this program into TT. The problem is that these mental processes are not directly observable and we do not know much of what that program is and how the reduction and development operations are performed. That is why the translating process has to be described in some indirect way. The translation theory achieves this aim by postulating a number of translation models.

A model is a conventional representation of the translating process describing mental operations by which the source text or some part of it may be translated, irrespective of whether these operations are actually performed by the translator. It may describe the translating process either in a general form or by listing a number of specific operations (or transfor­mations) through which the process can, in part, be realized. Translation models can be oriented either toward the situation reflected in the ST con­tents or toward the meaningful components of the ST contents.

The existing models of the translating process are, in fact, based on the same assumptions which we considered in discussing the problem of equivalence, namely, the situational (or referential) model (V.Gak) is based on the identity of the situations described in the original text and in the translation (wet paint—свіжа фарба, instant coffee — розчинна кава). In the situational model this intermediate level is extralinguistic. It is the described reality, the facts of life that are represented by the verbal description. The process of translating presumably consists in the translator getting beyond the original text to the actual situation described in it. This is the first step of the process, i.e. the break-through to the situation. The second step is for the translator to describe this situation in the target lan­guage. Thus the process goes from the text in one language through the extralinguistic situation to the text in another language. The translator first understands what the original is about and then says "the same things" in TL.

The transformational and semantic models postulate the similarity of basic notions and nuclear structures in different languages.

E. Nida suggested that the translating process may be described as a series of transformations. The structural transformational model (J.-P.Vinnay, E.Nida, J.Darbelnet, A. Schweitzer) postulates that in any two languages there is a number of nuclear structures which are fully equivalent to each other. Each language has an area of equivalence in respect to the other language. It is presumed that the translator does the translating in three transformational strokes. First — the stage of analysis — he transforms the original structures into the nuclear structures, i.e. he performs transformation within SL. Second —the stage of translation proper —he replaces the SL nuclear structures with the equivalent nuclear structures in TL. And third — the stage of synthesis — he develops the latter into the terminal structures in the text of translation (we had a long walk – we walked long).

A similar approach can be used to describe the translation of semantic units. The semantic transformational model (L.Barhudarov, Ya.Retsker) postulates the existence of the "deep" semantic categories common to SL and TL. It is presumed that the translator first re­duces the semantic units of the original to these basic semantic categories and then expresses the appropriate notions by the semantic units of TL.

Thus if he comes across the sentence “ John is the proud owner of a new car ”, he is first to realize that it actually means that “ John has a new car ” and that “ he is proud because of that ”. After transferring these basic ideas to Russian and converting them to the semantically acceptable phrases he will get the translation “У Джона (есть) новая машина, которой он очень гордится”.

In describing the process of translating we can explain the obtained variants as the result of the translator applying one or all of these models of action. This does not mean that a translation is actually made through the stages suggested by these models. They are not, however, just abstract schemes. Training translators we may teach them to use these models as practical tools. Coming across a specific problem in ST the translator should classify it as situational, structural or semantic and try to solve it by resorting to the appropriate procedure. If, for instance, in the sentence “He is a poor sleeper” the translator sees that the attributive group cannot be di­rectly transferred into Russian, he can find that the transformational model will do the trick for him here and transform the attributive group into a verb-adverb phrase: “Он плохо спит”.

Among other approaches to the description of the process of translating we can also mention the communicational approach (O.Kade) which postulates that translation is possible if the translator knows the user`s language and the subject matter well enough. The interpretational theory of translation or translatology of the text (I.Alekseeva, V.Falaleev)sees translation as interpretation of genre and stylistic, communicative, pragmatic and informational aspects of ST with adequate means to create TT, often ignoring general linguistic aspects of translation.

V.Komissarov created his Theory of Equivalence trying to combine different approaches to translation. Translation equivalence is defined as a measure of semantic similarity between ST and TT. If we compare a number of TTs with their STs we shall discover that the degree of semantic similarity between the two texts involved in the translating process may vary. In other words the equivalence between ST and TT may be based on the reproduction of different parts of the ST con­tents. Accordingly, several types of translation equivalence can be distin­guished. He distinguished five levels.

 The first level is the translation in which the degree of semantic similarity with ST seems to be the lowest:

Maybe there is some chemistry between us that doesn't mix.

Бывает, что люди не сходятся характерами.

Here we cannot discover any common semes or invariant structures in the original and its translation. It comprises the information which must be preserved by all means even though the greater part of the contents of the original is lost in the translation. This part of the contents which contains information about the general intent of the message, its orientation towards a certain communicative effect can be called 'the purport of communication ". Thus we can deduce that in the first type of equivalence it is only the purport of communication that is retained in translation.

The second group of translations can be illustrated by the following example:

He answered the telephone.

Он  снял трубку.

This group is similar to the first one, as the equivalence of translations here does not involve any parallelism of lexical or structural units. Most of the words or syntactical structures of the original have no di­rect correspondences in the translation but in this group of translations the equivalence implies retention of two types of information contained in the original – the purport of communication and the indication of the situation.

In the next group of translations the part of the contents which is to be retained is still larger.

Scrubbing makes me bad-tempered.

Oт мытья полов у меня настроение портится.

In this case the translation retains the two preceding informative complexes as well as the method of describing the situation. The translation is a semantic paraphrase of the original, preserving its basic semes and allowing their free reshuffle in the sentence. Thus we are faced with a situation that can be explained in terms of the semantic theory. We can now say that the third type of equivalence implies retention in the translation of the three parts of the original contents which we have conventionally desig­nated as the purport of communication, the identification of the situation and the method of its description.

The fourth group of translations can be illustrated by the following example:

Не was standing with his arms crossed and his bare head bent.

Он стоял, сложив руки на груди и опустив непокрытую го­лову.

In this group the semantic similarity of the previous types of equiva­lence is reinforced by the invariant meaning of the syntactic structures in the original and the translation. In such translations the syntactic structures can be regarded as derived from those in the original through direct or backward transformations. This includes cases when the translation makes use of similar or parallel structures.

 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 syntactic structures.

The fifth group of translations has the maximum possible semantic similarity between texts in different languages. These translations retain the meaning of all the words used in the original text. The examples to illustrate this semantic proximity are:

I saw him at the theatre.

Я видел его в театре.

The house was sold for 10 thousand dollars.

Дом был продан за десять тысяч долларов.

Here we can observe the equivalence of semes which make up the meaning of correlated words in the original text and the translation; parallelism of syntactic structures implying the maximum invariance of their meanings; the similarity of the notional categories which determine the method of describing the situation; the identity of the situations; the identi­cal functional aim of the utterance or the purport of communication. The relative identity of the contents of the two texts depends in this case on the extent to which various components of the word meaning can be rendered in translation without detriment to the retention of the rest of the informa­tion contained in the original.

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.

What is Translation?

Summing up the above-mentioned, we can see that the answer to this question is not a simple one. The human activities taking place in the process of translation, and in their pure form making up the notion of translation, are complicated and diverse. So the first characteristic peculiarity of the notion of translation is its multisided and complicated nature.

Translation cannot be understood and scientifically defined without taking into consideration its social nature and essence, social functions. Translation cannot appear, exist and function beyond a society. It appears only when at a certain stage of social development there are problems impossible to solve in any other way and when there are necessary conditions for that. The first primary aspect of the notion of translation is its social nature and function.  

Secondly, translation cannot be understood unless it is looked at as a cultural phenomenon, a part and parcel of development of the national culture and a factor influencing the cultural process. There doesn`t exist a national culture in the contemporary world which is not influenced by translation and does not take part in it. At the same time translation is a result of interaction and cooperation of two cultures: source country and target country. It is obvious that the next principal aspect of the notion of translation is that it is a cultural phenomenon, a fact and part of the process and motive force of the national and world culture.

Thirdly, translation cannot be understood and more than that scientifically defined unless its deepest linguistic basis, its linguistic nature is shown. Translation, in the first place, is a linguistic activity, a specific linguistic event in the process of which a transformation of an oral or written text from one into another takes place. And finally, this is a transfer of certain information or recreation of a certain system of images of one language in a respective system of another language. So still another principal aspect of the notion of translation is its linguistic aspect, its linguistic nature of translation.

Translation, in particular, literary translation, cannot be understood unless studied from the aesthetic or literary point of view. Literary translation is a great, very complicated and attractive field of translation and it is, in general, impossible practically and theoretically without taking into consideration the laws governing art. That is where its artistic nature is especially prominent. Translation is an intricately organized and functioning process the result of which is a translated work of art.

And finally,translation cannot be scientifically understood unless it is viewed within a historical context, unless it is shown as a historical event and historical process. Translation is not a frozen and unchanged abstraction. Translation appears historically at a certain stage of human development, exists historically, develops historically together with the development of social, cultural and other processes.

In the dictionary by P. Palazhenko (Несистематический словарь. – М. 2002) we find 43 definitions of “translation” which is still another proof of the complexity of this process. We worked with some of this definitions and now let`s look at what different people said about translation at different times.

In the history of translation we can find very interesting approaches to translation. Denis Diderot, the French philosopher and writer, in fact ignored the source text at all. He used to read the book several times, tried to feel and grasp its spirit, put the book aside and began writing his translation. Miguel de Cervantes didn`t believe in translation and the hero of his book Don Quixote skeptically compared translation with the back-side of a carpet. One of French translators even compared translation with a woman and said that it was impossible to expect translation to be beautiful and faithful at the same time. Very often mistakes in translations led to serious problems in the relations of countries. There exists an Italian saying: tradutori – traditori which means translators – traitors.  

As we see there exist many rather controversial definitions of translation and interpretation suggested by the representatives of different schools of linguistics and translation. These definitions range from formal, structural approaches to translation, e.g. “translation is substitution of elements or structures of one language by the elements or structures of another language (A.Oettinger, N.Chomsky, O.Kade, V.Rozentsveig), to semantic and functional treatment of translation, e.g. “translation is rendering in the target language (TL) of the closest equivalent of the initial message from the point of view of its meaning and style” (E.Nida, H.Claber).

All these approaches contributed to a contemporary understanding of translation as interlingual and intercultural communication recognized by many Ukrainian (I.Korunets, S.Maksymov, G.Miram, A.Panasyev, O.Semenets), Russian (A.Fedorov, L.Barkhudarov, G.Chernov, A. Chuzhakin, V.Komissarov, R. Minyar-Beloruchev, A.Shveitser) and western (M.Baker, M.A.K.Halliday, M.Hoey) writers on the subject.

According to this understanding translation is aprocess of transforming speech messages in the source language (SL) into the speech messages in the target language (TL) under condition that their sense and communicative intention remain unchanged. It is quite natural that in the process of translation the form of the messages can be transformed due to the structural (lexical, morphological and syntactical) differences between languages. Such transformations which are inevitable in the process of translation are also called "code shifting" (i.e. substitution of the SL structures by the TL structures).

 

Exercise1. Translate the following sentences using the semantic transformations suggested in the parenthesis.                                                        

1. Already the reactionary offensive of Yankee imperialism was begin­ning to get the inevitable answer from the Latin America peoples (specification). 2. At seven o'clock, a dull meal was served in the oak paneled dining room (specification). 3. I apologize for stepping on your toe (generalization). 4. Now, more than two hours later, the big jet was still stuck, its fuselage and tail blocking runway three zero (generalization). 5. He would cheer up somehow, begin to laugh again, and draw skeletons all over his slate, and before his eyes were dry (modulation). 6. Unfortunately, the ground to the right that was normally grass covered, had a drainage problem, due to be worked on when winter ended (modulation). 7. He had an old mother whom he never disobeyed (antonymous translation). 8. No person may be reinstated to a position in the post service without passing an appropriate examination (antonymous translation). 9. When she reached the house, she gave another proof of her identity (explication). 10. In one of his whistle-stop speeches, the Presidential nominee briefly outlined his attitude towards civil rights program (explication).                         

 

Exercise2. The sentences below are arranged in separate groups on the basis of a common polysemantic noun, verbor adjective. When translating them point out which meanings of the words in bold type are conveyed in Ukrainian at thelevel ofword-combination and which—at the level ofsentence only.

1. I'm going to put up the notice on Saturday. (S.Maugham). Praed comes in from the inner room puttingup his handkerchief which he has been using. (B. Shaw). I mustn't be upset... It will put up my temperature. (D. Defoe). What did it cost to put up those columns? (J. Galsworthy). 2. Lawrence Hadley ran the photographic department. (A. Cronin). In her mind were running scenes of the play. (T. Dreiser). After a few minutes he settled himself at his desk to run through the rest of his mail. (A. Cronin). Al­though she kept her head down she felt the blood run into her face. (Ibid.) I happened torun into their Mr. Smith the other day. (Ibid.)  I thought I'd run down for an hour. Am I a nuisance? (Ibid.) 3. Listen, children. I'm going out. If you finish your work, carry on with exercises I gave you. (P. Abrahams). Only fancy is he has a dear little boy tocarrythe family on. (J. Galsworthy). Well, all through the circus they did the most astonishing things, and all the time that clown carried on so... (M. Twain). 4. She realized that hers (life) was not to be a round pleasure. (T. Dreiser). The fact that work of any kind was offered after so rude a round of experience was gratifying. Her imagination trod a very narrow round. It would be an exceedingly gloomy round, living with these people. (Ibid.) 5. “Is that all you're worry­ing about? About what's on my mind?” (M. Wilson). Here he was with only a casual acquaintance to keep his mind from himself. “ No, I've changed my mind, I'm the paragon of husbandry again... She clearly had no idea how out­standing a mind she really had. (M. Wilson).The thought­ful serious state of mind in which Mary found herself had been unclouded in her by a conversation she had with her father the evening before. (Sh. Anderson). 6. He forgot the presence of the farmer and his mind racked back over his life as a married man. (Ibid.) 7. "Who's speaking?" he ask­ed mildly conscious of error on his part... (T. Dreiser). Some noise... was heard, but no one entered the library for the best part of an hour. (W. Scott). But to produce a com­modity a man must not only produce an article satisfying some social want, but his labour itself must form part and parcel of the total sum of labour expended by society (K. Marx). This to him (Drouet) represented in part high life — a fair sample of what the whole life must be. (T. Dreis­er). 8. Too much of a thing is good for nothing. (Proverb.) “You know there's one thing I thoroughly believe in” she said. I have a cup of coffee in the morning and then dinner but I never eat more than one thing for luncheon”. Then a terrible thing happened. (S. Maugham). “Well, John, how are things?” (A. Bennet). He was satisfied with most things, and above all other things, with himself. (Ch. Dickens). “Don't cry. Miss Dombey”, said Sir Walter, “what a wonder­ful thing that I am here”. (Ibid.) It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error and another to put him in pos­session of truth. (J. Locke). All things come round to him who will but wait. (H. Longfellow). 9. Keeping his back turned, he left the doorway and straddled a chair in a corner of the kitchen. If Uncle Dave will live here we could build another room on the back. They shook hands, with Jim Nel­son's back turned to the room. (J. Galsworthy).10. Keep these two books as long as you wish. (S. Leacock). I shall always keep this dollar. “Well”, said the doctor, “I want you to keep very quiet.” (Ibid.) In the winter it should bekept in a warm place, where it can hatch out its young. (Mark Twain). This didn't keep the neighbours from talking plainly among them. (K. Porter). “You needn't keep onsaying it round”, said Mr. Whipple. (Ibid.) June keeps after me all the time to tell her about what Uncle Dave is like. He kept his eyes fixed on his father's face, putting a quest­ion now and then. There was no medal for the Nelsons tokeep, only a reddish-brown photograph taken in London. (J. Galsworthy). 11. Alice, having fully considered the matt­er, thought it most prudent to write to Lady M. You ought not toconsider poverty a crime (Ch. Bronte). Consider our hands! They are strong hands. (P. Jones).You consider your own affairs, and don't know so much about other people's. (K. Lawrence).12. Fox introduced Erik to French and Larkin, two other assistants who had withdrawn to a corner to talk shop. The March night made him withdraw his over-coat. She wanted to withdraw from the people around her. Erik took advantage of this opportunity to withdraw from the project for a while. At last one third of those who had once been willing to sign the petition to the Board of Tru­stees now asked that their names be withdrawn. (M. Wilson). 13. Davon had said that he was recaptured by two sol­diers and as he lay on the ground Adair hit him with a club. (M. Star). The game is played with a ball the size of a tennis ball and a club that's a little shorter than for ice-hockey and a slightly bent at the end. (M. News). The chess club also meets once a week after school and is run by a teacher who is very keen on chess. (Ibid.) They clubbed at Kain’s, who resided at the Statler Hilton Hotel, to talk on poli­tics, to settle their affairs. (M. Star). 14. Erik couldn't remo­ve his eyes from Haveland's fair head. Erik turned: a fair slight girl in black suit stood next to him. He realized that he was greatly unfair. “It wasn't fair of you”, said Havilland, his voice became strained. “But no one could say he hadn't been fair ”, he insisted angrily. (M. Wilson). 15. So long as Mary lived beside that monstrous man, and in that monstrous house he realized that he would never be at rest. She could endure anything solong as he took her to him in the end. A long silence ensued, then the sound returned swelling in from the distant hills more loudly, retaining longer than before. No matter what happened she must live for Denis in the long run. Long ago she had realized with a crushing finality that she was chained to a man of domine­ering injustice. (A. Cronin).

 

                                                                           --------------------------------------------                          

CHAPTER2.

FREE ATTRIBUTIVE WORD-COMBINATIONS.

 

Problems of translation of word-combinations occupy an important place in the practical activities of translators/interpreters. Word-combinations, both free and phraseological, have a certain semantic independence and quite often translating problems are solved within a word-combination.

In the process of translation of word-combinations of great importance is translation of its components, i.e. the words they consist of. Translation is of analytic character: the whole is created of translation of elements on the basis of their relationship. In free word-combinations the words preserve their independent meaning and the translator has to deal with the problems of translation of separate words. But even in the case of free word-combinations the process of translation is not limited only by translation of separate words. On the one hand, translation of these words depends on their relationship within the word-combination in question, and on the other, the type of the word-combination itself can have specific peculiarities influencing the translation of its components. The characteristic peculiarity of bound/stable (phraseological) word-combinations is that the meaning of the whole dominates the meaning of the components and translation in this case is not of analytic but of synthetic character. This must be borne in mind translating free word-combinations.

The most widely used free word-combinations can be grouped like this:

1). Adj./Participle + Noun, e.g. a nice day, supersonic spending, Arab anger, silent majority, attempted coup, etc.

2). Noun + Noun, e.g. labour movement, labour conditions, labour contract, Labour Party, labour raids, labour spy, etc.

3). Multicomponental word-combinations, e.g. DouglasPlane Plant Strike Committee.

There exists a certain similarity between free and stable word-combinations and it can be of two types:

a) partial:

blind man but blind alley (тупік, безвихідне становище); liberal government but liberal education (широка гуманітарна освіта); common error but common sense (здоровий глузд); to make wine but to make a point (приділити увагу, надати значення); to take a book but to take pains (докладати зусиль);

b) complete:

to go to the country – поїхати за місто або зрозпустити парламент і призначити вибори; to sit on the fence – сидіти на заборі або зайняти вичикувальну позицію. (to make an impression, red herring, red tape, to drop a brick, to drag one`s feet)

Attributive groups are common both in English and in Russian: "a green tree" – “зелене дерево”. But the semantic relationships between the components of the group are broader in English, which often makes impossible a calque translation of the group into Ukrainian/Russian. As often as not the English attributive group is used to convey various adverbial ideas of location, purpose, cause, etc. Consider such groups as Madrid trial (location), profits drive (purpose), war suffering (cause). Such groups may also express various action-object relationships: cf. labour movement (movement by the workers), labour raids (raids against the workers), and labour spies (spies among the workers).

A word within an attributive group may sometimes change its meaning. So, war rehabilitation is rehabilitation of economy after the war, that is, post-war rehabilitation and Communist trials in the USA are trials of Communists or anti-Communist trials. As a result, many attributive groups are polysemantic and are translated in a different way in different contexts. War prosperity may mean

prosperity during the war or prosperity in the post-war period caused by the war. The Berlin proposals may imply proposals made in Berlin (say, at an international conference), proposals made by Berlin (i.e. by Germany), proposal on Berlin (of political, economic or other nature).