Logo GenDocs.ru

Поиск по сайту:  


Лекции по теории перевода - файл 1.doc

Лекции по теории перевода
скачать (309 kb.)

Доступные файлы (1):

1.doc309kb.17.11.2011 05:16скачать



  1   2   3

Матякубов Жуманазар Ибрагимович


Бакалавират 5220100 – филология (инглиз тили) таълим йыналиши учун

Тошкент - 2005

Ызбекистон давлат жащон тиллари универтитети Илмий кенгашининг 2005 йил «____» августидаги йи\илишида мущокама =илинган ва тасди=ланганю Байннома №


Ф.ф.н. доц. Г.Сатимов


Мазкур маъруза матни таржимашунослик сощасидаги замонавий илмий-услубий ишланмалар ва намунавий дастур талабларига мос келган щолда тузилган.

Маъруза матнлари талаб даражада ёритилган. Маъруза матни таржиманинг сощаси, ма=сад ва вазифалари, таржима стратегияси ва механизми, замонавий маданий муло=отда таржиманинг тутган ырни каби масалаларни ыз ичига олади.

Маъруза матнида таржиманинг лексик, грамматик ва фразеологик =ийинчиликларни бартараф этиш йыллари таклиф этилган.























Lecture № I


1. The subject matter of the theory of translation.

2.The main directions in the history of linguistic theory of translation.

3.The nature of translation.

4.Linguistic and extralinguistic aspects of translation.

KEY WORDS: translation, source language, target language, adequacy


The last decade saw considerable headway in the development of the linguistic theory of the translation.

A number of fundamental contributions to this theory have been recently made both in our country and abroad.

Theoretical studies in translation have kept abreast with the recent advances in linguistics, which provided some new insights into the mechanism of translation and the factors determining it.

The theory of translation has benefited from new syntactic and semantic models in linguistics and from development of such hyphenated disciplines as psycho – and – socio – linguistics. Equally insightful was the contribution to the theory of translation by semiotics, a general theory of sign systems.

A condensation of the major problems of translation introduces the reader to basic concepts and defines the terminology.

The subjects discussed include the subject – matter of the theory of translation and the nature of translating, semantic and pragmatic aspects of translation/these lectures were written by I.D.Shvaytser/, Grammatical problems of translation and grammatical transformations (L.S.Barkhudarov), Lexical problems of translation and lexical transformations (A.M.Fiterman), Stylistics aspects of translation and its socio - regional problems (A.D.Shveitser).

The summary of the lecture is based on the syllables of foreign scholars: prof.A.Neubet, prof.E.Nida, prof. Roger. T.Bell’s view points on theory and practical of translation.


The theory of translation is subdivided into general theory, dealing with the general characteristics of translation, regardless of its type, and special branches, concerned with a theoretical description and analyses of the various types of translation, such as the translation of fiction poetry, technical and scientific literature, official documents, etc.

The general theory of translation has a clearly defined subject matter; the process of translating in its entirely, including its results with due regard for all the factors affecting it. Each special branch depends and specifies the general theory for it is the job of the general theory to reflect what is common to all types and varieties of translation while the special branches are mainly concerned with the specifics of each genre.

The general theory of translation is an interdisciplinary area, predominantly linguistic, but also closely allied to philology, sociology, ethnography and etc. It is based on the application of linguistics theory to a specific type of speech behavior, i.e. translating. It differs from contrastive linguistics in that the former seem to compare different language systems with a view to determining their similarities and distinctive features while the theory of translation has a subject matter of its own (the process of translation) and uses the data of contrastive linguistics merely as a point of departure.

& 2. The main directions in the history linguistic theory of translation.

The earliest linguistics theory of translation was developed by Russian scholars Y.L.Retsker and A.V.Fedorov who pioneered in a linguistic analysis of translation problems. Their theory came to be known as the theory of regular correspondences.

Translation, they argeed, is inconceivable without a sound linguistic basis, and this study of linguistic phenomena and the establishment of certain correspondences between the language of the original and that of the translation. The authors of this theory were mainly concerned with the typology of relationship between linguistic

зunits equivalents – permanent correspondences not sensitive to context such as The League of Nations – Лига наций, and context - Sensitive variant correspondences , such as Slander – клевета нового поколения/ but also investigated some of the translation techniques, such as antonimic translation (see below, thus mapping out some ways of dealing with translation as a process.

In the 60 th some linguistics /N.U.Rozentsveig in Russia and L.E.Nida in the USA / proposed a theoretical model of translation based on generative or transformational grammar. E.Nida subdivided the process of translation into 3 stages; analysis where an ambiguous surface structure is transformed into non- ambiguous kernel sentences to facilitated semantic interpretation / the foundation of school/ somebody founded a school or a school has a foundation / transfer where equivalent in the target language are found at a kernel or near – kernel level and restructuring where target – language kernel sentences are transformed into surface structures.

It is true that in some cases it is necessary to paraphrase the source – language structure to facilitate it’s translation. Such transformations come in hardly especially when the target – language, /e.g. He stood with his feet planted wide a part; he stood, his feet were planted wide apart = Он стоял, его ноги были широко расставлены; oн стоял, широко расставив ноги.

But transformations in terms of generative are not the only type of paraphrases used in translation. What is more, in some cases, especially when close parallels exist between the Source – and target language structures, they are not even necessary.

The structural model of translation is based on analysis in linguistics developed others. It is based on the assumption that languages are somewhat different sets of semantic components /constituents of meaning/ to describe identical extra – linguistic situations, Russian verbs of motion contain the component of move but not always the direction of movement while their English equivalents are often neutral, the direction of / Вот он идёт - Here he comes / Here he goes/.

The structural model provides some interesting insights into the mechanism of translation, especially when a situation is described in different semantic categories of /проточный пруд and spring – fed pond/ but does not seem to apply to sentences going beyond a mere description of a situation.

Different translation models complement each other and should therefore be combined in analyzing of translation as a process.

& 3. The nature of translation.

Translation is the expression in target language of what has been said in source language preserving stylistic and semantic equivalence.

Traditionally under translation is understood:

  1. the process, activity of reproduction source language originally in target language.

  2. the product of the process of translation.

Translators must have:

  1. knowledge of the languages / at least 2 languages /

  2. cultural background: ability to interpret the text

  3. the background of the subject knowledge of techniques, transformations and procedous of quality translation.

The translators decode messages transmitted in one language and records them in another.

Translation may be orewed. As a interlingual communicative act in which at least 3 participants are involved: the sender of source / the author of the source language message/, the translator who acts individual capacity of the receptor of the source – language message and as the sender of the equivalent target – language / message /, and the receptor of the target – language /translation/. If the original was not intended for a foreign- language receptor there is one more participant: the source – language receptor for whom the message was originally produced.

Translation as such consists in producing a text / message / in the target language, equivalent to the original text /message/ in the source language. Translation as an interlingual communicative act includes 2 phrases: communication between the sender and the translator and communication between the translator and the receptor of the newly produced target – language text. In the first phrase the translator acting as a source – language receptor, analysis the original message. Extracting the information contained in it.

In the second stage, the translator acts as a target – language sender, producing an equivalent message in the target – language and re – directing it to the target language receptor.

In producing the target – language text the translator changes its plane of expression / linguistic form/ while its plane of context / meaning / should remain unchanged. In fact, an equivalent / target – language/ message, should match the original in the plane of content. The message, produced by the translator, should make practically the same response in the target – language receptor as the original message in the source language receptor. That means, above all, that whatever the text says and whatever it implies should be understood in the same way by both the source – language user for whom it was originally intended and by the target – language user. It is therefore the translator’s duty to make available to the target language receptor the maximum amount of information carried by linguistic sighs, including both their denotational / referential/ meanings / i.e. information about the extralinguistic reality which they denote / and their emotive – stylistic connotation.



However the information conveyed by linguistic signs alone, i.e. the messages overtly expressed in the text, would not be sufficient for adequate translation. Some linguists distinguish between what they call translation, based palely on the meaning expressed by linguistic sighs, and involving recourse to extralinguistic information. In fact, the two are very closely interwined and in most cases effective translation is impossible without an adequate knowledge of the speech – act situation and the situation described in the text. The phrase “Two on the aisle” / Два места ближе к проходу/ would hardly make much sense unless it is known that the conversation takes place at a box – office / speech act situation /.

The phrase “ Поворотом рычага установить момент поступления воздуха в цилиндр” was translated “turn the handle until the air comes into the cylinder” because the translator was familiar with the situation described in the text knowledge of the subject is one of the prerequisites of an adequate translation.

The translation of technical and amount of technical and scientific knowledge.


1. What is translation?

2. What subjects is the translation of theory and practice based on?

3. What is the subject matter of the theory of translation?

4. What are the main directions in the history of translation?

5. What are the main features of the nature of translation?

6. What linguistic and extralinguistic aspects of translation do you know?


  1. The history of theory of translation

  2. Development of translatology in Uzbekistan

  3. Outstanding linguists in the sphere of translatology


1. Barkhudarov L.S. Language and translation. M. 1975.

2. Shvaytser A.D. Translation and linguistics .M. 1973.


1. Levitskaya T.R, Fiterman A.M. The problem of Translation on the material of the contemporary English language. M. 1974.

2. Nida.E. Towards a science of translation. Leiden. 1964.

3. Roger. N. Bell. Translation and translating . (Theory and practice). London, New York. 1995.

lecture № ii


1.The basic problems of translation.

2. The types of lexical meanings and their realization within a context.

3.The choice of a word among synonyms.

4.The problem of translation of international words.

5.The problem of translation of neologisms.

6.Antonymic translation.

KEY WORDS: translation, lexical meaning, synonyms, international words, neologisms, antonymic translation


The difference between educational and professional translation is as follows:

The aim of professional translation is to acquaint the reader with the original work of fiction; educational translation as a linguistic subject at the special institute and at school is one of the methods of more conscious and profound study of the foreign language by the way of showing up in the English text lexical, grammar and stylistic peculiarities of the English language.

Before speaking of the basic principles of translating process the concept of the term “faithfulness of translation” should be determined.

The translation is considered to be faithful when the content of the book, its stylistic peculiarities are rendered by the linguistic means of the native language. It means that very often we have to use such linguistic categories of the native language, which formally don’t coincide with those of the English language but have the same emotional and psychological effect on the Russian reader.

The process of educational translation presents 4 stages:

  1. First of all the text should be thoroughly understood. It means that the student should be acquainted with the whole book, should have some knowledge of the history of literature and mode of life of the people from whose language the translation is being done.

  2. The student should realize the stylistic functions of lexical and grammar and phonetic phenomena which are used to express the content of the text.

  3. Then the work on the choice of corresponding means of expression in the native language should be done.

  4. The last stage is a work on the Russian or Uzbek text.

2.the choice of the word.

the types of lexical meaning

The choice of the word is one of the most difficult problems of translation, which is closely connected with the following problems.


any grammatical phenomena or stylistic peculiarities do not always coincide with those of the foreign language as well as the meaning of the separate words, which are lexical equivalents. The main meaning of the English word “table” coincides with that of the Russian language. But the Russian “стол ” has one additional meaning: “питание” “пансион” means while in English we have the special words to express the idea:

“board”,“room and board”. At same time English “table” has the additional meaning to “таблица”.

тable стол board

таблица питание room and board



The logical meaning of the word may be both independent and connected with other words. The latter can be understood in the given combination of words.

A color bar – цветной /ярко окрашенный/ барьер was seen in the distance.

There exist a color bar (расовая дискриминация) in the South Africa.


A lot of words may acquire emotive meaning and the same word in different sentences may be rendered by different words.

- China is a large country( страна )

- We are ready to die for our country(родина)

While translating one should take into consideration on that in different languages the words which are lexical equivalents mat arouse quite different associations.

For Russians “зима” means snow and frost, for Englishmen - fog and cold wind.

“Она ходит павой перед ним”- Дело Артaмоновых.

For Russians “пава” arouses the idea of something beautiful, stately, majestic, proud /a sama – to величава, выступает будто пава -Пушкин /.

For Englishmen “ peahen” has nothing in common with these asociations. That’s why it’s quite correct to translate the sentence as followes:

- “She poses proudly before him / to pose – позировать/


The meaning of the word shouldn’t be mixed with its use. Sometimes even a monosemantic word can be combined with a lot of words and is rendered in Russian by different words:

A young man Молодой человек

A young child Маленький ребёнок

Young in a crime Неопытный преступник

The night is young Началась ночь

Department of justice Министерство юстиции

Ministry of defense Министерство Oбороны

Board of trade Министерство торговли

Admiralty Морское министерство

The First Lord of Admiralty Военно- Mорской министр

Chancellor Министр финансов

War office Военное Министерство

A bad headache Сильная головная боль

A bad mistake Грубая ошибка

A bad weather Плохая погода

A bad debt Невозвращённый долг

A bad accident Тяжёлый / несчастный/ случай

A bad wound Тяжёлая ран


The word in the sentence may acquire so-called contextual meaning. It may be not constant , as a rule we can’t find the contextual meaning of the word in the dictionary . But it always has something in common with the main meaning of the word.

“In the atomic war common and children will be first hostage.” The dictionary gives only one meaning of the given word-“ золотник”, but in the given sentence the word acquires a new meaning : “жертва ”. Its a great difficulty to find out the contextual meaning of the word as the dictionary only gives hints how to search for the necessary word in our native town language .

The majority of the words are known to be polysemantic and the context becomes especially important while translating polysemantic words as translating in different languages is quite different.

While translating one should remember he may use the words not included in the dictionary because it’s impossible to include in the dictionary all the correct meanings of the word, which it may acquire in the context.

“He was developing grammatical nerves” – У него развивалось грамматическое чутьё.

We can find a lot of meanings of the word “nerves” “нервы, сила, мужество, хладнокровие, дерзость, нахалство” but in our text it is rendered as “чутьё”.

The student are to make out that thoughts, reflections should be translated not by separate words. So it’s quite possible and natural either to introduce some words and even:

- I lit my candle at the watchman’s/ Dickens/-Я зажёг свою свечу от фoнaря ночного сторожа.

Sentences or omit them if one can manage without them.


Besides finding the exact meaning of the word the students should be able to choose the necessary word from corresponding number of synonyms in the native language.

-“She was brave about it.”

“Brave” means “храбный”, “смелый”, “благородный”, “прекрасный” sentence and other words can be used in translating the given sentence and other words should be given preference too: “отважный”, “мужественный”.

The English language is very rich in synonyms. Synonymous pairs are very characteristic of the English language. They are more emhliatic.

-The week and humble Jewo. (“The Path of Thunder” page 80)


Those words which have similar form and meaning in different languages are called international words.

Some of them completely coincide in their meaning /such as football, diplomacy, artillery/ some of them partially.

They may be different in their stylistic coloring e.g. “businessman”, “cosmopolitan” are neutral in English while in Russian they have negative meaning. Some of them have entirely different meaning:

compositor – наборщик

conductor – дирижёр,кондуктор

These words are called pseudointernational words:

решительный- dramatic

pathetic – 1) трогательный

2) политический

наука и техника – science and technology


The English language is very rich in neologisms – the word have been created recently and perhaps will not live in the language for a long time. It is very seldom that we find equivalent for the translation of neologisms and for the most part we use descriptive translation and word-for-word translation /people of good will, top level talks.

We usually make out the meaning of the new words with the help of the context, but it is also necessary to take into consideration the way of their formation.


The translation with the help of antonyms can’t be escaped in case of different structure peculiarities of the English, Uzbek and Russian languages.

  1. The combination of negative prefixes with negative particles – litotes/widely used in English but not typical of the Russian language.

He was not unfriendly to a particular type of prisoner.

-“Soames, with his set lips and his square chin, was not unlike a bulldog” /Galm. The Man of Property/...

  1. Negative conjunctions “until” and “unless” used with negation:

The United States didn’t enter the war until April 1917 – Соединённые Штаты вступили в войну только в апреле 1917 г


1. Is there any difference in the aim of educational and professional translation?

2. What does the term “faithfulness of translation” mean?

3. What meaning is important in translation, dictionary or contextual? Why?

4. Say a few words about the international and pseudointernational words?

5. What is the main problem in translating neologisms?

6. What can you say about the role of antonymous translation?


  1. The main problems in the theory of translation

  2. The adequacy as a criterion in translation


  1. Barkhudarov L.S. Language and Translation. M. 1975.

  2. Catford I.C. A Linguistic theory of translation. L.N/Y.

  3. Shvaytser A.D. Translation and Linguistics. M.1973.

  4. Levitskaya T.R, Fiterman A.M. The problems of translation on the material of thecontemporary English language. M.1974.


  1. Nida.E. Towards a science of translation. Leiden. 1964.

  2. Roger. N. Bell. Translation and translating . Theory and practice. London, New York. 1995.

  3. Salomov G. Tarjima nazariyasiga kirish. T. 1978.

  4. Salomov G. Tarjima nazariyasi asoslari. T. 1983.

Lecture III

Problems for discussion:

  1. PPrinciples of translation

  2. levels of equivalence. adequate translation

  3. Equivalence. semantic and stylistic

  4. translation as a communication process

KEY WORDS: translation, equivalent, adequacy



although this is a theoretical subject we think that the following guidelines will help the students to evaluate their own work on translation. Below are some general principles which are relevant to all translation.

  1. Meaning. The translation should reflect accurately the meaning of the original text. Nothing should be arbitrarily added or removed, though occasionally part of the meaning can be “transposed”, for example: He has limp with fatigue..

Ask yourself:

is the meaning of the original text clear? if not what does the uncertainty mean?are any words “loaded”, that is, are there any underlying implications?/ “correct me if I’m wrong...” suggests I know I’m right”/.

  • Is the dictionary meaning of a particular word the most suitable one?/ should субверсия be subversion in English?/

  • does anything in the translation sound unnatural or forced?

  1. Form. The ordering of words and idea in the translation should match the original as closely as possible/ this is particularly important in translating legal documents, guarantees, contracts and etc./ But differences in language structure often require changes in the form and order of words. When the doubt underline in the original text the words on which the main stress falls.

  2. Register. Languages often differ greatly in their levels of formality in a given context /say the business letter/.To resolve these differences, the translator mustdistinguish between formal or fixed expressions/ Le vous prie , madme, d’agrier l’expression de mes sentiments distinguis, or please find enclosed/ and personal expressions in which the written or speaker sets the tone.

Consider also:

  • would any expression in the original sound too formal /informal , cold /warm , personal / impersonal / ... if translated literally

  • What is the intention of the speaker or writer / to persuade / dissuade, apologize /criticize?/ Does come through in the translation?

  1. Source language influence. One of the most frequent criticisms of translation is that “It doesn’t sound natural. This is because the translator’s thoughts and choice of words are too strongly molded by the original text.

A good way of shaking of the source language /SC/ influence a few sentences aloud, from memory. This will suggest natural, patterns of thought in the first language /LI/ which may not come to mind when the eye is fixed on the SL text.

  1. Style and clarity. The translator should not change the style of the original. But if the text is stoppily written, for the reader’s sake, correct the defects.

  2. Idioms. Idiomatic expressions are notoriously untranslatable. These include similes, metaphors, verbs and sayings /as good as gold/, jargon, slang, colloquialisms / user – friendly, the Big Apple, Yuppir, etc/, and / in English/ phrasal verbs. If the expressions cannot be directly translated, try any of the following:

  • retain the original word, in inverted commas: “yuppie” replain the original expression, with a literal expression in brackets; Indian summer /dry, hazy weather in late autumn/

  • use a close equivalent: talk of the devil =veek na oratima/literally/ the wolf at the door.

  • use a non- idiomatic or plain prose translation: a lot over the top = undue excessive.

The golden rule is: if the idiom does work in the LI, do not force in into the translation./The principles outlined above are adopted from Frederic Fuller, the translator’s handbook. For more detailed comments, see Peter Newmark: Approaches to translation./



LEVELS OF EQUIVALENCE: This problem was briefly discussed in

previous lecture in connection with the distinction between semantic and programmatic equivalence. In the theory of translation. For instance: V.G.Gark and I.N.Levin distinguish the following types of equivalents: formal semantic and situational. Formal equivalence may be illustrated by speech cases as: The sun disappeared behind a cloud – солнце скрылось за тучей.

Here we find similarity of words and forms in addition to the similarity. The differences in the plane of expression are in fact, those determined by overall structural differences between Russian and English. The use of articles in English, the use of perfective aspect, gender, forms, etc., in Russian.

^ Semantic equivalence exists when the same meanings are expressed in the two languages in a way.

Example:- Troops were airlifted to the battlefield- войска были переброшены по воздуху на поле.

The English word “airfield” contains the same meaning as the Russian phrase перебросить по воздуху. Although different linguistic devices are used in Russian and in English /a word group and a compound word/ the sum of semantic components is the same situational equivalence is established between that both linguistic devices but, nevertheless, describe the same extralinguistic situation: to let someone pass- уступит дорогу. It should be noted that formal equivalence alone is insufficient. In fact the above examples pertain to two types of semantic equivalence:

  1. Semantic equivalence and formal equivalence.

  2. Semantic equivalence without formal equivalence.

As to “situational equivalence”, it is in our view another variety of semantic equivalence that differs from the first type in that it is based on the same semantic components may be semantically equivalent /a+b/=/c+d/, upside down= вверх ногами.

We shall therefore speak of two types of semantic equivalence; componential /identity of semantic components/ and referential /reterential equivalence of semantic components/. The later is preferable to “situational equivalence” for descriptions of the same situation are not necessary semantically equivalent.

We may thus distinguish the following levels of equivalence:

Formal Semantic Pragmatic Component

equivalence equivalence equivalence equivalence

+ + + +

_ + + +

_ _ + +

_ _ _ +


Let us add to the definitions we have given so far a third which, in its extended form, takes us directly into the problem we must address: the nature of equivalence.

Translation is the replacement of a representation of a text in one language by a representation of an equivalent text in a second language.

The authors continue and make the problem of equivalence very plain.

Texts in different languages can be equivalent in different degrees/ fully or partially equivalent/ in respect of different levels of presentation /equivalent in respect of context, of semantics, of grammar, of lexic, etc./ and at different ranks /word-for-word, phrase-for-phrase, sentence-for-sentence/.

It is apparent and has been for a very long time indeed, that the ideal of total equivalence is a chimera. Languages are different from each other; they are different in form having distinct codes and rules regulating the construction of grammatical stretches of language and these forms have different meanings.

To shift from one language from another is, by definition, to alter the forms. Further, the contrasting forms convey meanings which cannot but fail to coincide totally; there is no absolute synonymy between words in the same language, so why should anyone be surprised to discover a lack of synonymy between languages?

Something is always lost / or, might one suggest “gained”?/ in process and translators can find themselves being accused of reproducing only part of original and so “betraying” the authors intentions. Hence the traitorous nature ascribed to the translator by the notorious Italian proverb: Traduttore traditore.

If equivalence is to be “preserved” at a particular level at all costs, which level is to be? What are the alternatives? The answer, it turns put, hinges on the duel nature of language itself. Language is a formal structure – a code –which consists of elements which can combine to signal semantic “sense” and, at the same time,

a communication system which uses the forms of the code to refer to entities/in the word/and create signals which possess communicative “value”.

The translator has the option, then, of focusing on finding formal equivalents which “preserve” the context –free semantic sense of the text at the expense of its context-sensitive communicative value of the text at the expense of its context- free semantic sense.

Each of these questions defines one or more parameters of variation.

What is the message contained in the text; the content of the signal; the proposional content of the speech act. Why? orients us towards the intention of the sender, the purpose for which the text was issued, the illocutionary forces of the speech acts which constitutes the underlying structure of the text, the discourse. These run the whole gamut from informing through persuading to flattering... and, as we shall see, it is rare for a text to possess a single function. Multiply functions are the norm rather than the exception for adult language so our task as receivers of text, is to find out the primary function from those which are secondary. When? is concerned with the time of the communication realized in the text and setting it in its historical context; contemporary or set in the recent or remote past or future.How? is ambiguous, since it can refer to:

  1. manner of delivery; the tenor of the discourse; serious; flippant or ironic.

  2. medium of communication; the mode of the discourse; the channel.

  3. verbal / non-verbal, speech/ writing – selection to carry the signal.

Where? is concerned with the place of communication the physical location of the speech level realized in the context.

Who? refers to the participants involved in the communication; the sender or receiver/s/. Both spoken and written texts will reveal to a greater or lesser extent characteristics of the speaker or writer as an individual and also, by inference, the attitude the sender adopts in relation to the receiver/s/ and to the message being transmitted; tabulated above are the following major types of translation equivalence/ formal equivalence + semantic componential equivalence +pragmatic equivalence; semantic componential and/or referential equivalence +pragmatic equivalence; pragmatic equivalence alone.

Pragmatic equivalence which implies a close fit between communicative intent and the receptor’s response is required at all levels of equivalence. It may sometimes appear alone, without formal or semantic equivalence, as in the case: С днём рождения! – Many happy returns of the day!


The translator, as we have been saying, is by definition a communicator who involved in written communication. We might, therefore, began by providing a rough, general model of the process of written communication before moving on to the special and particularly problematic process in which translators are involved.

The model of communication process may contain 9 steps which take us from encoding the message through its transmission and reception to the decoding of the message by the receiver. It provides us with a starting point for the exclamation of the process of communication, always limited to the monolingual and, by implicating, to dyadic interaction; one sender and one receiver:




Monolingual communication. Even with these limitations, however, it contains within it the elements and process which need to be explained and raises a large number of questions which require an answer. If we are to succeed at all in our attempt to make sense of the phenomenon of translation. We could describe this process in terms of 9 steps:

  1. the sender selects message and code

  2. encodes message

  3. selects channel

  4. transmits signal containing message

  5. receiver receives signal containing message

  6. recognizes code

  7. decodes signal

  8. retrieves message

  9. comprehends message.

We ought not, however, to assume that this is a simple, unidirectional and linear process nor that each step must be completed before the next can be started.

Processing is by its very nature both cycling / the sender/ sends more message at the receiver takes over the sender’s role/ and cooperative/ the sender may well begin again at step 1 while the receiver is no future advanced than step 5 or 6.

The model of translating process is as follows:

  1. Translator receives signal I containing message

  2. Recognizes

  3. Decodes signal I

  4. Retrieves message

  5. Comprehends message

  6. Translator selects code II

  7. Encodes message by means of code II

  8. Selects channel

  9. Transmits signal II containing message.

We might commit here. There are several crucial points of difference between the monolingual communication and bilingual communication involving translation/we are sticking to written communication in both cases/: there are two codes, two signals/ or utterances or texts/ and given what we have been saying about the impossibility of 100 % equivalence, the sets or content/ i.e more than one message/.

It follows, then that in our modeling of translating, we shall need two kinds of explanation:

  1. Psycholinguistic explanation which focuses mainly on steps 7 – decoding and encoding – and,

  2. A more text – linguistic or sociolinguistic explanation which successes more on the participants, on the nature of the message and on the ways on which the resources of the code are drawn upon by uses to create – carrying signals and the fact socio-cultural approach is required to set the process in context.


  1. What are general principles which are relevant to all translation? Name


  1. What are the reasons for using translation in the classroom?

  2. Speak about the levels of equivalence.

  3. What is semantic equivalence?

  4. What is stylistic equivalence?

  5. What is formal equivalence?

  6. What is situational equivalence?

  7. What is a communication process?


  1. Different levels of equivalence in source language and target language

  2. The role of translation into communication process


  1. Alan Duff. Translation. Oxford University press. 1972.

  2. Barkhudarov L.S. Language and Translation. M.1975.

  3. Frederick Fuller. The translation’s handbook. L.N/Y.

  4. Catford I.C. A Linguistic theory of translation. L.N/Y.


  1. Nida.E. Towards a science of translation. Leiden. 1964.

  2. Roger. N. Bell. Translation and translating. Theory and practice. London, New York. 1995.

  3. Salomov G. Tarjima nazariyasiga kirish. T. 1978.

  4. Salomov G. Tarjima nazariyasi asoslari. T. 1983.

  5. Peter Newmark. Approaches to translation. London.

  6. Shvaytser A.D. Translation and Linguistics. M. 1973

  7. Levitskaya T.R, Fiterman A.M. The problems of translation on the material of the contemporary English language. M.1974.





  1. The role of semantic, syntactic and pragmatic relations.

  2. The effect of the pragmatic motivation of the original message.

  3. The effect of the receptor of the text relation

  4. The effect of the translator’s angel of view

  5. The problem of translatability

  6. The rendering of the words of national colouring

  7. The way of rendering realies

KEY WORDS: translation, translatability, pragmatics, words of national colouring, realie



Semantics /the science investigating the general properties of sign system/ distinguish the following types of relations:

  1. semantic (sign to object),

  2. syntactic (sign to sign),

  3. pragmatic (sign to man).

One of the two texts / the original and its translation should be semantically equivalent sets a relationship between the linguistic science and their denatata (referents). The goal of translation is to produce a text, bearing the same relation to the extralinguistic situation as the original. Semantic equivalence of message does not necessary to imply semantic identify of each linguistic sign. Semantically equivalent utterances include not only those, made up of the semantically identical signs/ as for instance, He lives in ParisУ Парижда яшайди, but also utterances comprising different sets of signs which in the theory totality at up denotates the same types of relationship to the extralinguistic world and denotate the same extralinguistic situation (e.g. Wet paint – Эхтиёт булинг. Буялган).

Semantic relation effect translation both in the initial stage of analysis and in producing the target – language text of the translator to As distinct from semantic relations, syntactic relations are important only at the stage of analysis since relations between linguistic signs are essential for their semantic interpretation (e.g. Bill hits John and John hits Bill). But also they may be occasionally preserved in translation, the translator does not set himself this goal, very often and syntactically non-equivalent utterances prove to be semantically equivalent: He was considered invisible – Уни енгилмас хисоблашарди.

Pragmatic relations are superimposed on semantic relations and play an equally important role in analyzing the original text, and in producing an equivalent text in the target language. Semantically equivalent message do not necessary mean the same thing to the source and target language receptors, and therefore are not necessary pragmatically equivalent. The phrases “ He made 15 yard and run”- « У 15 ярдга сакради» are semantically equivalent for they denote the same situation but the American reader, familiar with American football will extract far more information from it then Uzbek counterpart who would neither understand the aim of the manourre nor appreciate the football player’s performance. The pragmatic problem, involved in translation, arises from three types of pragmatic relations. The relation of the source – language sender to the original message; the relation of the target – language receptor to the target – language message and the relation both messages.



The first type of relations’ amount to the sender’s communicative intent or the pragmatic motivation of the original message. The translator, in other words, should be aware whether the message is a statement of fact a request, an entreaty or a joke. Very often the speaker’s communicative intent differs from what of fact in which case it would be translated as “Мен билмайман” but also expression or hesitation “Сизга нима десам экан?» “What gives?” in American slang may either a question “Нима янгиликлар бор?” or just a greeting “ Салом”. “Is Mr. Brown there, please” is not a question but a distinguished request “Телефонга жаноб Враунни чакириб юборсангиз”.



Prof. A.Newbert / Text and Translation/ has proposed a classification of texts depending on their orientation towards different types of receptors: Texts, Intended for “domestic consumption” /local advertising, legislation, home news, etc./, texts intended primarily for the source – language receptor but having also a universal human appeal / belle- letters/ and texts without any specific national addresses / scientific literature/.

Typically, in written translation the translator deals with the text, not intended for target- language audience and therefore subject to pragmatic adaptations. Allowances are made for sociocultural: psychological and other differences in their background knowledge.

According to E.Nida / Linguistics and ethnology in translation problems/ /Language in culture and society; Language structure and translation. /, “snow” –white is translated into one of the African languages as a feathers of a “white heron.” Pragmatic factors mat effect the scope of semantic information conveyed in translating. Differences in background knowledge call for the addition of deletion of some information / e.g. “Part of the nuclear station in Cuberland has been closed down”-«Каберленд элетростанциясидаги атом электростанциясинингбир кисми ёпилган эди”; “According to Newsweek”- “Ньюсвик журналининг хабар беришича”/. Some cultural realize may be translated by their functional analogies/Америка империализмининг жандарми -a watchdog of US imperialism – from story about the 7 th US Fleet/



Another pragmatic factor relevant to translation, is the socio-psychological and ideological orientation of the translator himself.

Translation is a process, determined by quite a number of factors. In addition to conveying the semantic information, contained in the text, the detonational meanings and emotive-stylistic connotations, the translator has to take into account the author’scommunicative intent the type of an audience for which the message is intended socio-psiological characteristics and back-ground of knowledge. A process governed by so many variables cannot have a single outcome.

A process, governed by so many variable cannot have a single outcome. What is more, the synonymic and paraphrasing potential of language is so high that these may be several ways of describing the same extralinguistic situation, and even though they be not quite identical, the differences may be neutralized by the context. It should also be remembered that the translator’s decision may very depend on the receptor/ of the translation of realia, for the specialists and for the laymen/ and the purpose of translation.

If the old and the modernized version of the Bible: a woman, who had an evil spirit in her that had kept her such for 18 years... . A woman who for 18 years had been ill from some psyological cause. Also the poetic translation of Shakespeare by Pasternak and the scholarly translation by prof. Morozov.


Conflicting views have been expressed by linguistic concerning the problem of translatability ranging from entirely negative stand, typical of national spirit and the nation’s world view and therefore regarded translation as an impossible task, to an unqualified positive attitude, found in many contemporary writings on translation. The very fact that translation makes interlinguial communication, possible is in argument in favor of translatability.

Yet it is an oversimplication to claim that every meaningful element of the text is translatable.

In the preface to the “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” Mark Twain says, that he had reproduces in the book “ painstakingly and with the ...” support of personal familiarity the shadings of a number of dialects/The Missouri Negro dialects the backwoods – South- Western dialect, the Pike- country dialect, etc.../. Naturally none of these fine distractions can be reflected in the translation.

Yet by using colloquial and substandard forms the translator can give an adequate impression of the character’s socio and educational status and will render the most essential, functional characteristics of these dialects features.


National or local coloring is one of the main features of national peculiarities in literature. Here belong the following elements:

  1. The world denoting things peculiar to the social and material life of the Nation// реалии /- star chamber- вьездная палата; камин; дилитанс; клуб.

  2. Proper names, geographical denominations, names of streets, big shops, theatres.

  3. The way of greetings, formulas of politeness/ Hello, sir /

  4. Linear measures, liquid measures, day measures /мера сыпучих тел /.

The translation of realiy usually presents some difficulties. It’s necessary to have a thorough knowledge of the life of the nation to avoid ridiculous mistakes. Here are some ways of translating the words of local coloring: by translator / cab –кеб, ser- сер/. It helps to preserve foreign coloring in the translation, but the word translated should be clear to the reader. Otherwise, the disruptive translation is desirable.

-“A tall man entered the room. He wore a tweed coat and a pair of hob- nails”

-“Tweed” – a kind of Scottish woolen stuff dyed into two colors.

-«В комнату вошёл высокий человек. На нём была куртка сшитая из твида и

подбитые гвоздями сапоги».

But for the Russian and Uzbek readers it is not clear what the word “tweed” means that’s why it’s better to translate the sentence as follows:

В комнату вошёл высокий человек, одетый в шерстяную куртку.

But if we have no idea of the context we can’t say if the translation is correct. First of all we should find out for what reason the author mentioned the fact that the coat was made of tweed. After the reading the story we learn that the person who entered the room was a detective distinguished as a pleasant. So the translation should be as follows:

-В комнату вошёл человек, одетый в простую крестьянскую куртку.

If the author wanted to accentual that it was cold outside he should have translated it as follows:

-В комнату вошёл человек, одетый в тёплую шерстяную куртку.


Proper names, geographical denominations are rendered as a rule by means of transliteration, but we should take into account concerning historical proper names, geographical denominations, etc.

William the conquer – Вильгельм завоеватель

King Charles I – Карл I

/ But Charles Darwin – Чарлз Дарвин /

Hamlet – Гамлет

Paris- Париж

England - Англия.

The names of political parties and state offices are usually not translated. The names of newspapers and journals are usually translated, as well as the names of firms and companies:

House of Commons – Палата общин

Security council –Совет безопасности

But Scotland yard –Скотленд ярд / управление Лондонской полиции/

Intelligence service – интележенс сервис/развед управления Англии/

But: modern languages - модерн ленгвижес

New time - новое время

We translate the proper names which make some semantic meanings:

dramatic / театральное/ persons of “ The Scholl for scandal” by Sheridan.

Sir Peter Teazle /ворс /

Sir Oliver Surface

Sir Harry Bumpler- /амортизатор, прибор, смягчающий удары/

Sir Benjamin Backbite –/ to blackbite - злословить за стеной, клеветать/

Joseph Surface

Charles Surface



Crabtree / crab- дикая яблоня/

Jady sneerwall- / to sneer – глушиться/

Mrs. Candour- / искренность, прямота/

Formulas of politeness are rendered by means of transliterations. But in official documents and informations “Господин” and “ Госпожа” are usually used.

As for as linear measures, liquid measures and etc. They are usually rendered by means of transliteration, but the tradition is also taken into consideration:

A pound of sterling – фунт стерлинг

Ounce – унция

Mile- миля

Pint –пинта

Some peculiarities of English measures are not reflected in Russian:

Six months- полгода

Eighteen month –полтора года

Fortnight- две недели

The peculiarities of the English language are extremely exact indications of measures, which seem for Russian quite unusual:

He could take nothing for dinner but a partridge with an imperial “cab”.

  1. Наёмный экипаж /we want for example to stress that the hero was rich/

  2. Кеб /we have for an object to preserve national coloring/

  3. Извозчик / russian coloring /

  4. Такси /modern life/


1. What is the role of semantic, stylistic and pragmatic relations in translation.

2. What is the effects of the pragmatic motivation of the original message?

3. Speak about the effect of the receptor to the text relation.

4. What are the main features of rendering of the words of national colouring?

5. How do you understand the problem of translatability?

6.What is pragmatics?


  1. Pragmatics and translations

  2. Translation as an act of communication

  3. Translation and national world picture


  1. Alan Duff. Translation. Oxford University press. 1972.

  2. Barkhudarov L.S. Language and Translation. M.1975.

  3. Frederick Fuller. The translation’s handbook. L.N/Y.

  4. Catford I.C. F Linguistic theory of translation. L.N/Y.

  5. Peter Newmark. Approaches to translation. London.

  6. Pragmatics and translation. M.1990


  1. Levitskaya T.R, Fiterman A.M. The problems of translation on the material of the contemporary English language. M.1974.

  2. Language Transfer Cross – Linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge University Press. 1993.

  3. Nida.E. Towards a science of translation. Leiden. 1964

  4. Nida.E. Linguistics and ethnology in translation problems. Language structure and Translation. Atanford. 1975.

  5. Roger. N. Bell. Translation and translating. Theory and practice. London, New York. 1995.

  6. Shvaytser A.D. Translation and Linguistics. M. 1973

  7. Salomov G. Tarjima nazariyasiga kirish. T. 1978.

  8. Salomov G. Tarjima nazariyasi asoslari. T. 1983.

  9. Tommola Q. Translation as a psycho-linguistic process. L.1986.




  1. Lexical problems of translation. Complete lexical


  1. Partial lexical correspondences.

  2. Types of lexical transformations.

  3. Absence of lexical correspondences.

KEY WORDS: translation, lexical problems, correspondence, transformation


Due to the semantic features of language the meaning of words, their usage, ability to combine with other words, associations awakened by them, the “ place” they hold in the lexical system of a language do not concur for the most part. All the same “ideas” expressed by words coincide in most cases, though the means of expression differ.

As it is impossible to embrace all the cases of semantic differences between two languages, we shall restrict this course to the most typical features.

The principal types of lexical correspondences between two languages are as follows:

I Complete correspondences.

II. Partial correspondences

III. The absence of correspondences

  1   2   3

Скачать файл (309 kb.)

Поиск по сайту:  

© gendocs.ru
При копировании укажите ссылку.
обратиться к администрации