Device of translation essay

? When a textual content is being translated it is usually segmented into small parts which are easy and convenient to translate. Such segments of any text are known as products of translation. V. N. Komissarov uses the term “пе to refer to this notion. One of many foreign leaders of the theory of translation J. Catford introduced the definition of ‘rank of translation’ in the book “A Linguistic Theory of Translation” (London 1965) which was found in a similar meaning.

According to S. N. Tyulenev, the system of translation should be termed translateme (т and thought as a combination of a linguistic product of the origin language expressing a certain in-text meaning and the minimal matching linguistic device of the goal language with all the same that means.

The term ‘unit of translation’ was first used by J-P. Vinay, J. Darbelnet who claimed that its size may be variable as it serves only practical purposes. In this connection P.

Torop who investigates translation in close connection with language and culture points out that for a translator/interpreter it is necessary to operationally distinguish elements of culture and language both on the level of a text and the level of language units.

it reasonable to keep apart three aspects of the unit of translation that should be discussed separately and not confused as they arouse their own particular problems: (1) theoretical: its understanding and definition which should take into account the most important features of a unit of translation; (2) size-of-the-unit: relation of a init of translation to language levels; (3) operational: criteria applicable in the process of their identification in a SLT, i. e. segmenting a SLT into textual elements that are convenient to translate.

The definition of the unit of translation may be given from three points of view: 1) with reference to a SLT, 2) with reference to a TLT, 3) with reference to both a SLT and a TLT. Within the above three approaches scholars may take into account various criteria: (a) content, or (b) form, or (c) both content and form. The first aspect of the unit of translation is connected with its definition. The most well-known definition of the unit of translation based on the criterion of content with reference to a SLT was suggested by J. -P. Vinay and J. Darbelnet.

According to them, a unit of translation is a unit of sense. The criterion of form is very important in form-oriented translation when formal peculiarities serve as an additional channel of conveying some information, e. g. English favours alliteration as a stylistic device which it is possible to render in translation often at the expense of its content (cf. Papa, potatoes, poultry, prunes and prism are all very good words for the lips (Ch. Dickens. Little Dorrit). – Папа, п пали пе и п – п для б (Е. Конаше ).

The definition which takes into account both content and form in Russian translation studies was suggested by prof. Komissarov V. N. who defined a unit of translation as a minimum language unit in SLT which is chosen as an independent object of translation process. With reference to a TLT, definitions of the unit of translation first appeared in the works of scholars who tackled the problems of machine translation. A unit of translation was understood as a combination of certain lexemes and grammemes which corresponds to a certain lexical or grammatical category in TLT (I.I. Revzin, V. Yu. Rozenzweig).

Definitions of the unit of translation which are formulated with reference both to a SLT and a TLT are also numerous. The most wide-spread definition based on these criteria was given by prof. Barkhudarov L. S. It runs as follows: It is a minimum language unit in a SLT which taken as a whole has a certain correspondence in TLT, but the constituent parts of which taken separately do not have a correspondence with a similar meaning in a TL [Ба 1975: 175].

To sum up the discussion of the understanding of this category of LTT it is necessary to stress its main features which are as follows: (a) a unit of translation should always be found in a SL text, not in a TL text, (b) it is established as a special category relevant from a translator’s point of view and therefore it has no correlation with the existing language levels, (c) it is a minimum unit in a sense that it cannot be segmented in translation into smaller parts without detriment to its sense.

The second aspect of the unit of translation has to do with its relationship with language levels. At present there are various approaches to the solution of this problem. 1. Some scholars believe that the unit of translation is always larger than a separate word. It may be a sentence or a clause, a group of sentences, a paragraph or even a whole text. This point of view is supported by Ya. I. Retsker, V. N. Komissarov, etc. They claim that a word cannot be chosen as a unit of translation for several reasons: 1) its boundaries are not always clear-cut;

2) words blend together in speech forming various semantic and structural complexes, the elements of which must be viewed together by a translator in order to retain in translation the meaning of a whole unit; 3) the outer (formal) aspect of a speech event to be rendered in translation may be often more important than the semantic one. E. g. in actual speech stylistic effect is often due to special devices that are based on the formal aspect of speech units recurring in a succession of words in a speech string (repetition of some sounds, sound symbolism – e.g. the effect of the sounds [d], [i], [ing] recurrent within one or even more than one utterances.

2. V. N. Komissarov points out that a sentence is usually chosen as an operational unit of translation since it provides a microcontext necessary and sufficient to comprehend its meaning properly [Коми 1999a]. True, he admits the possibility of choosing other units of translation within a sentence which are of a lower rank, and associated with a word-level or a word-group level.

In other words, the author introduces the idea of hierarchy of units of translation which may be chosen on different levels (higher and lower). 3. K. Reiss and H. Vermeer hold that a unit of translation should be chosen on the level of a text as it may help to overcome contextual ambiguity and ambivalence of words and even sentences that arise from differences in languages and cultures; a text realizes the speaker’s intention (‘scopos’) (K. Reiz, H. J. Vermeer and others).

Translation practice testifies that the unit of translation can be chosen on various language levels: (a) phonemes which is usually the case in dealing with proper and geographic names, sport, space, computer and other sets of terms, etc: Challenger – Челендже bobsleigh – боб minority interests – мино инте prime time – п merchandising – ме The method of reproducing SL phonemes by corresponding phonemes in TL is called transcription.

It is regarded as one of the types of borrowed translation and underlies borrowing of the so-called international words. Since words have not only a sound form, but also a graphic form, graphemes may also serve as units of translation. In practice it may be a combination of both phonemes and graphemes chosen as units of translation: off-shore – офшо Waterloo – те poster – по The method of reproducing graphemes of SL by similar graphemes of TL is known as transliteration and it is very popular today alongside transcription when translating neologisms, terms, etc.

(b) morphemes may be chosen as units of translation when translating bymorphemic and polymorphemic words: – self-promotion, е дом ох – nondepartmental security guard, отказник — refusenik. The method of segmenting words into morphemes which are further translated into TL which reproduces the morphological structure of a word is called loan translation. It is also qualified as a kind of borrowed translation because the translator not only reproduces the morphemes, but also retains the morphological structure of a word and arrangement of morphemes.

(c) words are often chosen as units of translation. Their proper translation depends on two main factors: 1) semantic peculiarities, i. e. whether a word is monosemantic or polysemantic, the correlation of denotational and connotational components of meaning and some other features; 2) the degree of dependence on a context and a situation of discourse. From this point of view words are divided into context-free and context-bound words. In the former case the translation does not depend on a context, e. g. here refer units of precision lexis, proper and geographical names, inch – дюйм, New Zealand – Но я Зеландия.

In the latter case the context plays a great role, especially when translating polysemantic words, e. g. to make an assault upon a fortress – шту к some music is an assault on the ears – е музыка, кото о assaults upon the prerogatives of Parliament – п п па (d) word-groups as units of translation are especially important when translating from English into Russian because in analytical (lexical) languages like English the dependence of a word on its environment is much greater than in synthetical (grammatical) languages like Russian.

E. g. Three hundred workers went on strike over a bonus claim. – Т заба т платы п e) sentences serve as units of translation in two main cases: 1. when translating utterances used to describe identical situations in the two languages in their own idiomatic ways, cf. Authorized Personnel only – По од зап / од 2. when translating proverbs and sayings which are based in different languages on different images, though they are related in sense, cf. Still waters run deep. – тихом омуте че дят

Apart from these two cases the unit of translation may be chosen on the level of a sentence to retain a proper stylistic effect. E. g. Their bodies were covered with fur. – Они были одеты меха. (Их одежда была из меха. – пе Н. лжина). Word-for-word translation of the sentence would sound misleading, cf. Их тела были пок мехом. f) a text. The term “text” itself needs some clarification since linguists are not at one concerning its understanding and definition. O. I. Moskalskaya, for instance, qualifies any stretch of speech that expresses a complete thought as a text.

It may be a single word in a telegram message. According to I. R. Galperin a communicative speech unit only then turns into a text if it possesses a number of text-forming features such as the category of information, modality, cohesion, and some others. Without going into details on this complicated matter we confine our understanding of a text for the purposes of translation as a combination of several sentences which forms a connected stretch of speech possessing as a whole unit certain content and formal features.

Practitioners of translation claim that the unit of translation on the level of a text is often chosen when translating poetry. In dealing with prose it is hard to overestimate the importance of a text to achieve an adequate translation. Though a prosaic text as a whole cannot serve as a unit of translation it influences to a great extent correct translation of its parts. This influence can be easily observed in translations of titles of books. The title of the famous novel by J. Braine “Room at the top” was translated by several variants from word-for-word to more adequate, cf.«Ман >«Ме на >«Путь на style=”text-align: justify”>For this reason translation of the game titles of books very often goes through varied changes, «На муд до льно п (А. Н. О – “Even a Wise Man Stumbles”, “Even the Sensible Can Err”, “Scoundrel”. Hence, in conclusion it must be stressed that the unit of translation must not be tied within any particular language level since while has been shown over it can be located on various levels on state that it satisfies the criteria and requirements set by the cited definition.

The third important aspect of any unit of translation is definitely connected with standards on which a translator might rely in order to identify this in the process of segmenting a hSL text. The research of various approaches testifies to diverging approaches to this problem. Most translatologists contend that this sort of criteria usually do not include the qualifying criterion of the scale a unit of translation since it is variable in this respect in various translation acts. Several linguists connect the size of the unit of translation not with a SLT, good results . the capacity from the TL expressing the same idea that is portrayed in the unique [Тюлене 2004].

According to D. S. Barhkudarov, we should rely in this subject on the lifestyle of TL correspondences for certain segments of the text. In search of reliable requirements some language specialists associate devices of translation with translation problems, hence the only requirements of a unit of translation is stated to be connected with its being sufficient for making proper translation solutions (cf. « личина от тек не может быть к единицы пе Таким к должна быть зможно п на пе [Минья 1999]).

In other words, models of translation call for a person translation answer. Such an way of the criteria of your unit of translation was elaborated by Ye. Versus. Breus whom defined models of translation in connection with a text which is viewed as a matrix (« of translation problems. This matrix protects problem translation areas and problem-free translation areas. Inside the former case a translator deals with units of translation which this individual has to convert creatively associated with his very own accord, whilst in the latter circumstance he transcodes a text message using regular correspondences in accordance to En este momento.

I. Retsker’s theory. As a result apart from the assumptive aspects of understanding and understanding a unit of translation generally there arise sensible difficulties connected with segmenting a SLT in to minimal translation units. It really is obvious which the knowledge of SL and TL systems alone is certainly not sufficient to handle this task. Actually the process of segmenting a SL text into units of translation ought to be viewed as a multi-stage procedure the success of which in turn depends largely on the two linguistic and extra-linguistic factors.

As a rule, translatologists establish three stages in this process: 1) considering linguistic units of a certain level (usually words), 2) evaluating their very own contextual interdependence and 3) modifying that in various methods (enlarging initially chosen linguistic units for the size of word-combinations, sentences and in many cases entire sentences and text messages; or reducing them and choosing over a lower level or perhaps combining a lot of into one; or perhaps dropping in translationl.

We believe that it is insufficient to take into account just linguistic elements (systemic and contextual), but it really is also required to pay attention to this sort of important areas of translator’s activity as translation norm, situational and wider cultural variables which decide the sense and effects of a SL text influencing the choice of proper units of translation on the given celebration.

Thus, in connection with these elements and variables of a SLT it is possible to single out this stages inside the text-segmentation method: 1) segmenting a textual content, depending on the knowledge of the language, into little units of sense (in regard to meaningful vocabulary units) or perhaps minimal devices of outer expression (phonemes or graphemes) which cannot be further segmented into small parts devoid of detriment to either sense or type.

(cf.  This is a new building – I’m attached to new taters, where new for translation purposes ought to be singled out on a word-level inside the first phrase (но е) and a word-group – level in the second case (молодой ка 2) analyzing all contextual modifications of proven semantic and formal popular features of those units (cf. … Не п мин хе и не думай об Мон (А. Тол 102) – Don’t look for that, myn Herz. You mustn’t also think of the Mons girl now…(A.  Miller)

3) considering all situational and backdrop factors which determine particular uses of the established units (cf. I actually made the voucher (W. Saroyan. Picked short stories) – Я пи тебе (пе Л. Натан); 4) enlarging, diminishing or dropping picked units of translation under the influence of translation best practice rules as a confirmation of their correct choice in a given framework (cf. In a panic this individual shoveled hay over the pup with his fingers. – и он бы за щенка (Хай 1997). 5) applying the principle of interchangeability, electronic.  g. No longer turn over – Не канто ть.

6) taking into consideration the addressee factor (cf. recycling – пе 7) choosing a proper translation strategy, voir. Бо– God with them! (word-for-word translation) The almighty is with these people! (literal translation) Never mind info! (adequate translation). Thus, it can be apparent that segmenting a SLT into units of translation is known as a complicated procedure of it is interpretation which is the decisive factor of adequate making in a TL and at various stages the SLT research and segmentation in parts rely upon both linguistic and nonlinguistic factors.

We might conclude that the discussion of the device of translation should provide for light its main elements: theoretical (connected with the understanding and meaning of this notion), the size-of-the-unit aspect (connected with the range of units of translation about different dialect levels on such basis as identificatory criteria), operational feature (connected with principles of segmenting a SLT in units of translation).

1