IMPORTANCE OF LANGUAGE IN TRANSLATION

INTRODUCTION

When a language is taught to students of non-linguistic specialties -so-called Language for Special Purpose (LSP) - this fact is usually taken into account by the authors of language manuals and results in special manuals either intended for a particular profession (for example, English for Law Students) or covering a range of similar occupations (e. g., Technical English, Financial English, etc.).

As a rule, LSP Manuals focus students' attention on peculiar professional vocabulary and phrasing, comprise training text materials pertaining to particular profession and explain grammar rules and stylistic patterns conspicuous for certain professional speech variety. Also, LSP Manuals include numerous translation exercises involving texts of specific professional orientation.

Although translation is part and parcel of any LSP Manual, however, with several rare exceptions (e. g., Military Translation Manual by L. Nelyubin et al.) there are no translation manuals specifically intended for students of non-linguistic specialties.

First and most of all, translation is an effective tool that assists in matching language communication patterns of the speakers of different languages in a specific professional field, especially such communication-dependent one as international relations.

This aspect of translation teaching becomes even more important under the language development situation typical of New Independent States such as Kazakhstan.

Thought this work is titled "Lexical problems of translation", this is not the only point examined. The qualification paper consists of three parts and each part in its turn divided into points.

The author's trying to explain the importance of language in translation observing its different fields and aspects. We also come across with phraseological translation and its problems. So, this work should be of particular interest to students of foreign languages universities and those who're interested in studying languages, as well.

PART I.  IMPORTANCE OF LANGUAGE IN TRANSLATION

1.1               Language and extra linguistic world.

The language sign is a sequence of sounds (in spoken language) or symbols (in written language) which is associated with a single concept in the minds of speakers of that or another language.

It should be noted that sequences smaller than a word (i.e morphemes) and those bigger than a word (i.e. word combinations) are also language signs rather than .only words. Word combinations are regarded as individual language signs if they are related to a single mental concept which is different from the concepts of its individual components (e. g. best man).

The signs of language are associated with particular mental concepts only in the minds of the speakers of this language. Thus, vrouw, Frau, femeie, and kobieta are the language signs related to the concept of a woman m Dutch, German, Romanian and Polish, respectively. It is important to note that one can relate these signs to the concept of a woman if

and only if he or she is a speaker of the relevant language or knows these words otherwise, say, from a dictionary.

One may say that language signs are a kind of construction elements (bricks) of which a language is built. To prove the necessity of knowing the language sign system in order to understand a language it is sufficient to run the following test: read with a dictionary a text m a completely unknown language with complex declination system and rich inflexions (say, Hungarian or Turkish). Most probably your venture will end in failure because not knowing the word-changing morphemes (language signs) of this language you won't find many of the words in a dictionary.

The mental concept is an array of mental images and associations related to a particular part of the extra linguistic world (both really existing and imaginary), on the one hand, and connected with a particular language sign, on the other.

The relationship between a language sign and a concept is ambiguous: it is often different even in the minds of different people, speaking the same language, though it has much in common and, hence, is recognizable by all the members of the language speakers community. As an example of such ambiguity consider possible variations of the concepts (mental images and associations) corresponding to the English word engineer in the minds of English-speaking people when this word is used, say, in a simple introductory phrase Meet Mr., X. He is an engineer.

The relationship between similar concepts and their relevant language signs may be different also in different languages. For example, among the words of different languages corresponding to the concept of a women mentioned above: vrouw-, Frau, femeie, and kobieta, the first two will include in the concept of a woman that of a wife whereas the last two will not..

The differences in the relationship between language signs and concepts (i.e. similar concepts appearing different to the speakers of different languages and even to different speakers of the same language) may explain many of the translation difficulties.

For example, the German word haben possesses the lexical meaning of to have with similar connotations and associations and in its grammatical meaning it belongs as an element to the German grammatical system of the Perfect Tense. One may note similar division of the meanings in the English verb to have or in the French verb avoir.

Thus, a lexical meaning is the general mental concept corresponding to a word or a combination of words   To get a better idea of lexical meanings lets take a look at some definitions in a dictionary . For practical purpthey may be regarded as descriptions of the lexical meanings of the words shown below:

mercy - 1. (capacity for) holding oneself back from punishing, or from causing suffering to, somebody whom one has the right or power to punish;

 2. piece of good fortune, something to be thankful for, relief; 3. exclamation of surprise or (often pretended) terror.

noodle - 1. type of paste of flour and water or flour and eggs prepared in long, narrow strips and used in soups, with a

sauce, etc.; 2. fool.

blinkers (US - blinders) - leather squares to  prevent a horse from seeing sideways.

A connotation is an additional, contrastive value of the basic usually designative function of the lexical meaning. As an example, let us compare the words to die and to peg out. It is easy to note that the former has no connotation, whereas the latter has a definite connotation of vulgarity.

An association is a more or less regular connection established between the given and other mental concepts in the minds of the language speakers. As an evident example, one may choose red which is usually associated with revolution-, communism and the like. A rather regular association is established between green and fresh {young) and (mostly in the last decade) between green and environment protection.

Naturally, the number of regular, well-established associations accepted by the entire language speakers' community is rather limited - the majority of them are rather individual, but what is more important for translation is that the relatively regular set of associations is sometimes different in different languages. The latter fact might affect the choice of translation equivalents.

The concepts being strongly subjective and largely different in different languages for similar denotata give rise to one of the most difficult problems of translation, the problem of ambiguity of translation equivalents.

These      relations      are      called      polysemy (homonymy)      and      synonymy, accordingly. For example, one and the same language sign bay corresponds to the concepts of a

tree or shrub, a part of the sea-, a compartment in a building, room etc., deep barking of dogs, and reddish-brown color of a horse and one and the same concept of high speed corresponds to several language signs: rapid, quick, fast.

The peculiarities of conceptual fragmentation of the world by the language speakers are manifested by the range of application of the lexical meanings (reflected in limitations in the combination of words and stylistic peculiarities). This is yet another problem having direct relation to translation - a translator is to observe the compatibility rules of the language signs (e. g. make mistakes, but do business).

The relationship of language signs with the well-organized material world and mostly logically arranged mental images suggests that a language is an orderly system rather than a disarray of random objects.

1.2               Language as a means of communication

Thus, a language may be regarded as a specific code intended for information exchange between its users (language speakers). Indeed, any language resembles a code being a system of interrelated material signs (sounds or letters), various combinations of which stand for various messages. Language grammars and dictionaries may be considered as a kind of Code Books, indicating both the meaningful combinations of signs for a particular language and their meanings.

For example, if one looks up the words (sign

combinations) elect and college in a dictionary, he will find that they are meaningful for English (as opposed, say, to combinations ele or oil), moreover, in an English grammar he will find that, at least, one combination of these words: elect college is also meaningful and forms a message.

The process of language communication involves sending a message by a message sender to a message recipient - the sender encodes his mental message into the code of a particular language and the recipient decodes it using the same code (language).

The communication variety with one common language is called the monolingual communication.

If, however, the communication process involves two languages (codes) this variety is called the bilingual communication.

Bilingual communication is a rather typical occurrence in countries with two languages in use (e. g. in Ukraine or Canada). In Ukraine one may rather often observe a conversation where one speaker speaks Ukrainian and another one speaks Russian. The peculiarity of this communication type lies in the fact that decoding and encoding of mental messages is performed simultaneously in two different codes. For example, in a Ukrainian-Russian pair one speaker encodes his message in Ukrainian and decodes the message he received in Russian.

Translation is a specific type of bilingual communication since (as opposed to bilingual communication proper) it obligatory involves a third actor (translator) and for the message sender and recipient the communication is, in fact, monolingual.

Translation as a specific communication process is treated by the communicational theory of translation discussed in more detail elsewhere in this Manual.

Thus, a language is a code used by language speakers for communication. However, a language is a specific code unlike any other and its peculiarity as a code lies in its ambiguity - as opposed to a code proper a language produces originally ambiguous messages which are specified against context-, situation and background information.

Let us take an example. Let the original message in English be an instruction or order Book! It is evidently ambiguous having at least two grammatical meanings (a noun and a verb) and many lexical ones (e. g., the Bible, a code, a book, etc. as a noun) but one will easily and without any doubt understand this message:

1. as Book tickets! in a situation involving

    reservation of tickets or

2. as Give that book! in a situation involving sudden and

    urgent necessity to be given the book in question.

So, one of the means clarifying the meaning of ambiguous messages is the fragment of the real world that surrounds the speaker which is usually called extra linguistic situation.

Another possibility to clarify the meaning of the word book is provided by the context which may be as short as one more word a {a book) or several words (e.g., the book I gave you).

In simple words a context may be defined as a length of speech (text) necessary to clarify the meaning of a given word.

The ambiguity of a language makes it necessary to use situation and context to properly generate and understand a message (i.e. encode and decode it).Since translation according to communicational approach is decoding and encoding in two languages the significance of situation and context for translation cannot be overestimated.

There is another factor also to be taken into account in communication and, naturally, in translation. This factor is background information, i.e. general awareness of the subject of communication.

To take an example the word combination electoral college will mean nothing unless one is aware of the presidential election system in the USA.

Apart from being a code strongly dependent on the context, situation and background information a language is also a code of codes. There are codes within codes in specific areas of communication (scientific, technical, military, etc.) and so called sub-languages (of professional, age groups, etc.). This applies mostly to specific vocabulary used by these groups though there are differences in grammar rules as well.

As an example of the elements of such in-house languages one may take words and word combinations from financial sphere (chart of accounts, value added, listing), diplomatic practice (credentials, charge d'affaires, framework agreement) or legal language (bail, disbar, plaintiff).

PART 2.  LEXICAL TRANFORMATION

                      2.1 LEXICAL CORRESPONDENCES.

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.

I. COMPLETE  LEXICAL  CORRESPONDENCES Complete correspondence of lexical units of two

languages can rare!) be found. As a rule they belong to the

following lexical groups,

1)    Proper names and geographical denominations;

2)                                  Scientific   and   technical    terms   (with   the
                    exception   of terminological polysemy);

3)                   The months and days of the week, numerals.

 II. PARTIAL LEXICAL CORRESPONDENCES

       While translating the lexical units partial correspondences mostly occur. That happens when a word m the language of the original conforms to several equivalents in the language it is translated into. The reasons of these facts are the following.

1.  Most words in a language are polysemantic, and the
same of word-meaning in one language does not concur the
same system in another language completely. That's why the
selection of a word in the process of translating is determined
by the context.

The specification of synonymous order which pertain selection of words. However, it is necessary to allow the nature of the semantic signs which an order of synonyms is based on. Consequently, it is advisable to account the concurring meanings of members of synonymic orders, the difference in lexical and stylistic meanings, and ability of individual components of orders of synonyms combine: e. g. dismiss, discharge (bookish), sack, fire; the edge of the table— the rim of the moon.

2.  Each word effects the meaning of an object it
designates. Not infrequently languages «select» different
proper-s and signs to describe the same denotations. The way,
each language creates its own «picture of the world», is known
as «various principles of dividing reality into parts». Despite
the difference of signs, both languages reflect one and the
same phenomenon adequately and to the same extent, lich must
be taken into account when translating words of this kind, as
equivalence is not identical to having the same meaning.

3. The difference of semantic content of the

equivalent words in two languages. These words can be divided into three sub-groups:

a) Words with a differentiated (undifferentiated)
mean-g: e. g. In English: to swim (of a human being), to sail of ship), to float (of an inanimate object).

b)      Words with a «broad» sense: verbs of state (to be),
perception and brainwork (to see, to understand), verbs of
action and speech (to go, to say), partially desemantisized
words (thing, case).

c)       "Adverbial verbs" with a composite structure, which
have a semantic content, expressing action and nature at the
same time: e.g. The train whistled out of the station.

4. Most difficulties are encountered when translating the so called pseudo-international words, 1. e. words which are similar in form in both languages, but differ in meaning or use. The regular correspondence of such words in spelling and sometimes in articulation (in compliance with the regularities of each language), coupled with the structure of word- building in both languages may lead to a false identifier.

5. Each language has its own typical rules of combinability. The latter is limited by the system of the language. A language has generally established traditional combinations which do not concur with corresponding ones in another language.

Adjectives offer considerable difficulties in the process of translation that is explained by the specific ability of English adjectives to combine. It does not always coinside with their combinability in the Russian language or:

account of differences m their semantic structure and valence. Frequently one and the same adjective in English combines with a number of nouns, while in Russian different adjectives are used in combinations of this kind, For this reason it is not easy to translate English adjectives which are more capable of combining than their Russian equivalents.

A specific feature of the combinability of English nouns Is that some of them can function as the subject of a sentence, indicating one who acts, though they do not belong to a lexico-semantic category Nomina Agentis. This tends to the «predicate—adverbial modifier» construction being replaced by that of the «subject—predicate».

Of no less significance is the habitual use of a word, which is bound up with the history of the language and the formation and development of its lexical system. This gave shape to cliches peculiar to each language, which are used for describing particular situations.

2.2. TYPES OF LEXICAL TRANSFORMATIONS

In order to attain equivalence, despite the difference in formal and semantic systems of two languages, the translator is obliged to do various linguistic transformations. Their aims are: to ensure that the text imparts all the knowledge I inferred in the original text, without violating the rules of the language it is translated into.

 The    following    three    elementary    types    are deemed    most    suitable    for describing all kinds of lexical

transformations:

1.lexical substitutions;

2. supplementations;

3.omissions (dropping) .

1. Lexical substitutions.

a) In substitutions of lexical units words and stable word combinations are replaced by others which are not their equivalents. More often three cases are met with: a) a concrete definition—replacing a word with a broad sense by one of a narrower meaning.

b) generalization—replacing a word with a narrow meaning by one with a broader sense.

c) Antonymous translation is a complex lexico-grammatical substitution of a positive construction for a negative one (and vice versa), which is coupled with a replacement of a word by its antonym when translated.

d) Compensation is used when certain elements in the original text cannot be expressed in terms of the language it is translated into. In cases of this kind the same information is communicated by other means or in another place so as to make up the semantic deficiency. ( ... He was ashamed of his parents . . ., because they said «he don't» and «she don't».

       2.Supplementations. A formal inexpressibility of
semantic components is the reason most met with for using
supplementations as a way of lexical transformation. A formal
inexpressibility of certain semantic components is especially
of English word combinations N+N and Adj.+N

       3.Omissions (dropping). In the process of lexical
transformation of omission generally words with a surplus
meaning are omitted (e. g. components of typically English

pair-synonyms, possessive pronouns and exact measures) in order to give a more concrete expression.

III. ABSENCE OF LEXICAL CORRESPONDENCES

Realiae are words denoting objects, phenomena and so on, which are typical °f a people. In order to render correctly the designation of objects referred to in the original and image associated with them it is necessary to know the tenor of life

epoch and specific features of the country depicted in the original work.

The following groups of words can be regarded as having no equivalents:

 1) realiae of everyday life—words denoting objects,

     phenomena etc., which typical of a people (cab, fire:

    -place);

 2) proper names and geographical denominations;

 3) addresses and greetings;

 4) the titles of journals, magazines and newspapers;

 5) weights, linear measures etc.

When dealing with realiae it is necessary to take special account of the pragmatic aspect of the translation, because the «knowledge gained by experience» of the participants of the communicative act turns out to be different. As a result, much of which is easily understood by an Englishman is in comprehensible to an Uzbek or Russian readers or exerts the opposite influence upon them. It is particularly important to allow for the pragmatic factor when translating fiction, foreign political propaganda material and

advertisements of article's for export.

Below are three principal ways of translating words denoting specific-realiae:

1) transliteration (complete or partial), i.e. the direct use of a word denoting realiae or its root in the spelling or in combination with suffixes of the mother tongue.

2)creation of new single or complex word for denoting an object on the basis of elements and morphological relationship in the mother tongue.

3)use of a word denoting something close to (though not identical with) realiae of another language. It represents an approximate translation specified by the context, which is sometimes on the verge of description.

2.3 Translation definition

Translating a phraseological unit is not an easy matter as it depends on several factors: different combinability of words, homonymy, synonymy, polysemy of phraseological units and presence of falsely identical units, which makes it necessary to take into account of the context. Besides, a large number of phraseological units have a stylistic-expressive component in meaning, which usually has a specific national feature. The afore-cited determines the necessity to get acquainted with the main principles of the general theory of phraseology.

The following types of phraseological units may be observed: phrasemes and idioms. A unit of constant context, consisting of a dependent and a constant indicators may be called a phraseme. An idiom is a unit of constant context which is characterized by an integral meaning of the whole and

by weakened meanings of the components, and in which the dependant and the indicating elements ore identical and equal for the -whole lexical structure of the phrase.

Any type of phraseological unit can be presented as a definite micro-system. In the process of translating phraseological units functional adequate linguistic units are selected by comparing two specific linguistic principles. These principles reveal elements of likeness and distinction. Certain parts of these systems may correspond in form and content (completely or partially) or have no adequancy.

The main types of phraseological conformities are as follows:

I.                                         Complete conformities.

II.                Partial conformities.

III.                         Absence of conformities.

I. Complete conformities. Complete coincidence of form and content in phraseological units is rarely met with.

1.black frost (Phraseme)

2.To bring oil to fire. (Idiom)

3.To lose one's head. (Idiom)

II. Partial conformities. Partial conformities of phraseological units in two languages assume lexical, grammatical and lexico-grammatical differences with identity of meaning and style, i.e. they arc figuratively close, but differ in lexical composition, morphologic number and syntactic arrangement of the order of words. One may find:

1)  Partial lexic conformities by Iexic parameters (lexical
composition):

l.To get out of bed on the wrong foot. (Idiom) 2.To have one's heart in one's boots. (Idiom) 3.To lose one's temper. (Phraseme)

4.To dance to smb's pipe. (Idiom)

2)  Partial conformities by the grammatical parameters:
differing as to morphological arrangement'(number).

1    To fish in troubled waters. (Idiom)

2    From head to foot. (Idiom)

3    to agree like cats and dogs (Phraseme)

         4 to keep one's head (Idiom)

b) differing as to syntactical arrangement

1.Strike while the iron is hot

2.Egyptian darkness

3.armed to teeth

4.All is not gold that glitters

III. Absence of conformities.

Many English phraseological units have no phraseological conformities in Russian. In the first instance this concerns phraseological units based on realiae. When translating units of this kind it is advisable to use the following types of translation:

A. verbatim word for word translation

B.  Translation by analogy.

C.  Descriptive translation,

Verbatim translation is possible when the way of thinking (in the phraseological unit) does not bear a specific national feature,

l.To call things by their true

  names.(Idiom)

         2.The arms race. ( Phraseme)

         3.Cold war. (Idiom)

Translating by analogy. This way of translating is resorted to when the phraseological unit has a specific national realiae.

 1. "Dick", said the dwarf, thrushing his head in at the door- "my pet", my pupil, the apple of my eye hey! (Idiom)

 2. to pull somebody's leg (Idiom)

Descriptive translation. Descriptive translating i e. translating phraseological units by a free combination of words is possible when the phraseological unit  has a particular national feature and has no analogue in the language it is to be translated into.

 1.to enter the House (Phraseme)

 2.to cross the floor of the House (Idiom) Usually when

 people speak about translation or even write about it in  

 special literature they are seldom specific about the meaning. The presumption is quite natural- everybody understands the meaning of the word. However to describe translation intuitive understanding is not sufficient - what one needs is definition.

Translation means both a process and a result and when defining translation we are interested in both its aspects. First of all, we are interested in the process because it is the process we are going to define.

But at the same time we need the result of translation since alongside with the source the translated text is one of the two sets of observed events we interested in disposal of we intend to describe the process. In order to explain translation we need to compare the original source text and resulting target text.

However the formation of the source text and target text is governed by the rules characteristic of the source and target languages.

Moreover, when describing a language one should never forget that language itself is a formal model of thinking, i.e. of mental concepts we use when thinking.

In translation we deal with two languages: two codes and verify the information they give us about the extralinguistic object and concepts we should consider extralinguistic situation and background information.

Having considered all this we shall come to understand that as an object of linguistic study translation is a complex entity consisting of the following interrelated components.

a.  Elements and structures of the source text.

b.  Elements and structures of the target language.

c.  Systems of the languages involved in translation.

            d.  Transformation rules to transform the elements

             and structures of the source texts into those of the

             target text.

          e.  Conceptual content and organization of the source
             text, conceptual content and organization of the    

             target text.

f.     Interrelation of the conceptual contents of the

     source and target texts.

In short, translation is functional interrelation of languages and to study this process we should study both the interacting elements and the rules of interaction.

Among interacting elements we must distinguish between the observable and those deducible from the observables. The observable element in translation are part of words, words, and word combinations of the source text.

However, translation process involves parts of words and word combinations of the target language (not of the target text, because when we start translating or to be more exact when we I begin to build a model of translation, the target text is yet to be I generated). These translation compositions deducible from I observable elements of the source text.

Thus, the process of translation may be represented as I consisting of three stages:

1.  analysis of the source text, situation and

                        background  information.

2.        synthesis of the translation model, and

3.         verification of the model against the source and

              target context (semantic, grammatical, stylistic),

              situation, and background information resulting in the

              generation of the final I target text.

  Let us illustrate this process using a simple assumption I that you receive for translation one sentence at a time (by the way I this assumption is a reality of consecutive translation). For example, if you received:

"At the first stage the chips are put on the conveyer" as the source sentence. Unless you observe or know the situation your model of the target text will be:

" На первом этапе стружку (щебень, жареный картофель, нерезаный сырой картофель, чипсы) помещают на конвейер.

Having verified this model against the context provided in the next sentence (verification against semantic context):

" Then they are transferred to the frying oven "

you will obtain:

“На первом этапе нарезанный сырой картофель помещают на конвейер.”

It looks easy and self-evident, but it is important indeed for understanding the way translation is done. In the case we have just discussed the translation model is verified against the relevance of the concepts corresponding to the word "chips" in all its meaning to the concept of the word "frying".

Then, omitting the grammatical context which seems evident (though, of course, we have already analyzed it intuitively) we may suggest the following intermediate model of the target text that takes into account only semantic ambiguities:

Европейские лидеры (лидеры европейской интеграции) считают (верят) что эта критика постепенно прекратится (сойдет на нет). Как только важность расширения (Евросоюза) начнет утверждаться в сознании общества (как только общество станет лучше понимать значение расширения Европейского союза)

On the basis of this model we may already suggest a final target text alternative:

Лидеры европейской интеграции считают. Что как только важность расширения Европейского союза начнет утверждаться в сознании общества, эта критика постепенно сойдет на нет.

        We seldom notice this mental work of ours, but always do it when translating. However, the way we do it is very much dependent on general approach, i.e. on translation theories which are our next subject.

   2.4 Translation ranking.

            Even in routine translation process there no different ways of translation, that one rank of translation consists of rather simple substitutions whereas another involves relatively sophisticated and not just purely linguistic analysis.

Several attempts have been made to develop a translation theory based on different translation ranks or levels as they are sometimes called. Among those one of the most popular in the former Soviet Union was the “theory of translation equivalence level (TEL)^” developed by V.Komissarov.

According to his theory the translation process fluctuates passing from formal inter-language transformations to the domain of conceptual interrelations. V. Komissarov's approach seems to be a realistic interpretation of the translation process, however, this approach fails to demonstrate when and one translation equivalence level becomes no longer appropriate and, to get a correct translation, you have to pass to a higher TEL.

Ideas similar to TEL are expressed by Y.Retsker who maintains that any two languages are related by "regular" correspondences (words, word-building patterns, syntactical structures) and "irregular" ones. The irregular correspondences cannot be formally represented and only the translators knowledge and intuition can help to find the matching formal expression in the target language for a concept expressed in the source language.

According to J. Firth in order to bridge languages in the process of translation, one must use the whole complex complex of linguistic and extralinguistic information rather than limit oneself to purely linguistic objects and structures. J.Catfort similar to V.Komissarov and J.Firth interprets translation as a multy-level process. He distinguishes between "total" and "restricted" translation- in "total" translation all levels of the source text are replaced by those of the target text, whereas in “restricted” translation the substitution occurs at only one level.

According to J. Catford a certain set of translation tools characteristic of a certain level constitutes a rank of translation and a translation performed using that or another set of tools is called rank level.

Generally speaking, all theories of human translation discussed above try to explain the process of translation to a degree of precision required for practical application, but no explanation is complete so far.

The transformational approach quite convincingly suggests that in any language there are certain regular syntactic, morphological, and word-building structures which may be successfully matched with their analogies in another language during translation.

Besides, you may observe evident similarity between the transformational approach and primary translation ranks within theories suggesting the ranking of translation (Komissarov, Retsker, Catford and others).

As you will note later, the transformational approach forms the basis of machine translation design - almost any machine translation system uses the principle of matching forms of the languages involved in translation. The difference is only in the forms that are matched and the rules of matching.

The denotative approach treats different languages as closed systems with specific relationships between formal and conceptual aspects, hence in the process of translation links between the forms of different languages are established via conceptual.

This is also true, especially in such cases where language expressions correspond to unique indivisible concepts. Here one can also observe similarity with higher ranks within the theories suggesting the ranking of translation.

The communicational approach highlights a very important aspect of translation - the matching of the sauruses. Translation may achieve its ultimate target of rendering a piece of information only if the translator knows the users' language and the subject matter of the translation well enough (i.e. if the translator's language and subject thesauruses are sufficiently complete). This may seem self-evident, but should always be kept in mind, because all translation mistakes result from the insufficiencies of the thesauruses.

Moreover, wholly complete thesauruses are the ideal case. No translator knows the source and target languages equally well (even a native speaker of both) and even if he or she does, it is still virtually impossible to know everything about any   possible subject matter related to the translation.

Scientists and translators have been arguing and still do about the priorities in a translators education. Some of them give priority to the linguistic knowledge of translators, others keep saying that a knowledgeable specialist m the given area with even a relatively poor command of the language will be able to provide a more adequate translation than a good scholar of the language with no special technical or natural science background .

In our opinion this argument is counter-productive - even if one or another viewpoint is proved, say, statistically, this will not add anything of value to the understanding of translation.

However, the very existence of this argument underscores the significance of extra linguistic information for translation.

Summing up this short overview of theoretical treatments of translation we would again like to draw your attention to the general conclusion that any theory recognizes the three basic component of translation and different approaches differ only in the accents placed on this or that component So the basic components are:

Meaning of a word or word combination in the source language (concept or  concepts corresponding to this word or word combination in the minds of the source language speakers).

Extra linguistic information pertaining to the original meaning and/or its conceptual equivalent after the translation.

So, to put it differently, what you can do in translation is either match individual words and combinations of the two languages directly (transformational approach) or understand the content of the source message and render it using the formal means of the target language (denotative approach) with due regard of the translation recipient and background information (communicational approach).

The hierarchy of these methods may be different depending on the type of translation Approach depending on the type of translation are given in Table below

Translation Type	Translation Method
Oral Consecutive	Denotative, Communicational
Oral Simultaneous	Transformational,
Written (general and	Transformational
Written (fiction and	Denotative

In simultaneous translation as opposed to consecutive priority given to direct transformations since a simultaneous interpreter simply has no time for profound conceptual analysis.

In written translation when you seem to have time for everything priority is also given to simple transformations (perhaps, with exception of poetic translation).

It should be born in mind however, that in any translation we observe a combination of different methods.

From the approaches discussed one should also learn that the matching language forms and concepts are regular and irregular, that seemingly the same concepts are interpreted differently by the speakers of different languages and different translation users.

 2.5 Translation and style

                The problem of translation equivalence is closely connected with the stylistic aspect of translation - one cannot reach the required level of equivalence if the stylistic peculiarities of the source text are neglected. Full translation adequacy includes as an obligatory component the adequacy of style, i.e. the right choice of stylistic means and devices of the target language to substitute for those observed in the source text. This means that in translation one is to find proper stylistic variations of the original meaning rather than only meaning itself. For example, if the text you'll see, everything wills he hunky-dory is translated in neutral style (say,Увидишь…все будет хорошо) the basic meaning will be preserved but colloquial and a bit vulgar connotation of the expression hunky-dory will be lost. Only the stylistically correct equivalent of this expression gives the translation the required adequacy. (e.g.Увидишь…все будет тип-топ).

Modern stylistics distinguishes the following types of functional styles.

-Belles-lettres (prose, poetry, drama):

-Publicist style:

-Newspaper style.

-Scientific style:

-Official documents

Any comparison of the texts belonging to different stylistic varieties, listed above will show that the last two of them (scientific style variety and official documents) are almost entirely devoid of stylistic devoid of stylistic coloring being characterized by the neutrality of style whereas the first three (belles-lettres (prose, poetry, drama), publicistic and newspaper style) are usually rich in stylistic devices to which a translator ought to pay due attention. Special language media securing the desirable communication effect of the text are called stylistic devices and expression means.

First of all a translator is to distinguish between neutral, bookish and colloquial words and word combinations, translating them by relevant units of the target language. Usually it is a routine task. However, it sometimes is hard to determine the correct stylistic variety of a translation equivalent, then – as almost all instances of translation - final decision is on the basis of context, situation and  background information.

For example, it is hard to decide without further information, which of the English words -disease, illness or sickness - corresponds to the Russian words, болезнь and заболевание. However even such short contexts as infectious disease and social disease already help to choose appropriate equivalents and translate the word disease as инфекционное заболевание and социальная болезнь. This example brings are based us to a very important conclusion that style is expressed in proper combination of words rather than only stylistic coloring of the individual words. Stylistic devices are based on the comparison of primary dictionary meaning and hat dictated by the contextual environment on the contradiction between the meaning of the given word and the environment, on the association between words in the minds of the language speakers and on purposeful deviation accepted grammatical and phonetic standards.

The following varieties of stylistic devices and expression means are most common and frequently dealt with even by the translators of non-fiction texts.

Metonymy is similarity by association; usually one of the constituents of an object replaces the object itself.

As a rule translators keep to literal translation when translating the cases of metonymy. For example, crown (meaning the royal family) is usually translated as корона,hand-рука(e.g. He is the right hand of the president),etc. Cases of irony do not present serious problems for translation and the approaches similar to those mentioned above (semantic or pragmatic equivalence) are commonly used. For example, the ironical expression paper war may be translated as (бумажная война or война бумаг)

Semantic and syntactic irregularities of expression used as stylistic devices are called transferred qualifier and zeugma, respectively.

A good example of a transferred qualifier is he paid his smiling attention to ... -here the qualifier smiling refers to a person, but is used as an attribute lo the state attention.

Translator's task is this case consist m rendering the idea in compliance with the lexical combination rules of the target language For instance, in Russian it may be expressed as (улыбаясь…)

Zeugma is also a semantic irregularity, e.g. If one and the same verb is combined with two or more nouns and acquires a different meaning in each of such combinations For example. He has taken her and another cup tea. Here attain the translator's task is to try to render this ironical comment either by finding a similar irregularity in the target language or failing to show a zeugma land irony of the author) stick to regular target language mean.-, (i.e. separate the two actions Он ее сфотографировал и выпил еще одну чашку чая or try to lender them as a zeugma as well.Он  сделал снимок и еще один глоток  чая из чашки). A pun    (so called play of words') is righteously considered the most difficult for translation, Pun is the realization in one and the same word of two lexical meanings simultaneously.

A pun can be translated only by a word in the target language with similar capacity to develop two meanings in a particular context. English is comparatively rich in polysems and homonyms, whereas in Russian these word types are rather rare. Let's take an example of a pun and its fairly good Russian translation.

-What, gear were you in al the moment of impact?

-Gucci's sweats and Reebok.

-На какой передаче вы были в момент столкновения

-“Последние известия”

               Another stylistic device is a paraphrase. Its frequent use is characteristic of the English language. Some of the paraphrases are borrowed from classical cources (myths and the Bible): others are typically English. To give an example, the paraphrases of the classical origin are «Beware (ireeks... », Prodigal son (Бойтесь данайцев) whereas "Lake Country" "Озерный край" is a typically English paraphrase. As a rule paraphrases do not present difficulties for translation however their correct translation strongly depends on situation and appropriate background information .

Special attention is to be paid by a translator to overt and covert quotations Whereas the former require only correct rendering of the source quotation in the target language (Never suggest your own home-made translation for a quotation of a popular author), the latter usually takes the shape of an allusion and the pragmatic equivalence seems the most appropriate for the ase For example, "the Trojan horse raid one may translate as нападение, коварный, троянский конь(i.e. preserving the  allusion) or as коварное нападение  (loosing the meaning of the original quotation)

A translator is to be ready to render dialect forms and illiterate speech in the target language forms. It goes without saying that one cans hardly lender, say, cockney dialect using the Western Ukrainian dialect forms. There is no universal recipe for tins translation problem. In some cases the distortions in the target

grammar are used to render the dialect forms but then again it is not 'a cure-all and each such case requires an individual approach.

Thus, any good translation should be fulfilled with due regard of the stylistic peculiarities of the source text and this recommendation applies to all text types rather than only to fiction.                  

         PART 3. THE WAYS OF WORDS AND

                   SENTENCES TRANSLATION

           3.1 MORPHOLOGICAL      CORRESPONDENCE

Every language has a specific system which differs from that of any other. This is all the more so with respect to English and Russian, whose grammatical systems are I typologically and genetically heterogenous. English and Russian belong to the Germanic and Slavonic groups respectively of the Indo-European family of languages; the Kazakh language pertains to the Turkic group of the Altaic family. Concerning the morphological type both English and Russian are inflected, though the former is notable for its analytical character and the latter for its synthetic character in the main. Kazakh is an agglutinative language.

As to grammar the principal means of expression in languages possessing an analytical character (English) is the order of words and use of function words (though all the four basic grammatical means—grammatical inflections, function words,

word order and intonation pattern—are found in any language). The other two means are of secondary importance.

The grammatical inflections are the principal means used in such languages as Russian and though the rest of

grammatical means are also used but they are of less frequency than the grammatical inflections.

The   comparison of the following   examples   will    help to    illustrate   the difference between the languages considered: The hunter killed the wolf.

               English the order of words is fixed. The model of simple declarative sentences in this language is as follows:

Subject — Predicate

This means that the subject (S) is placed in the first position and the predicate (V)—in the second position. If the predicate is expressed by a transitive verb then in the third position we find the object (0), that is S—Vtr—0

Any violation of this order of words brings about a change or distortion of the meaning.

The corresponding Russian sentence adheres to the pattern S—Vtr—0. But it permits the transposition of the words, i.e. Russian models by the order of wards and morphological arrangement of the object which may be marked or unmarked.

These patterns are not equivalent. The first allows transposition of words, which leads to stylistic marking (characteristic of poetry). Besides, the ending «HИ» expresses an additional meaning of definiteness. The second pattern does not tolerate transposition of words.

The principal types of grammatical correspondences;

a)         complete correspondence;

b)       partial correspondence;

c)         the absence of correspondence.

COMPLETE  MORPHOLOGICAL  CORRESPONDENCE Complete morphological correspondence is observed when in the languages considered there are identical grammatical categories with identical particular meanings.

In all the three languages there is a grammatical category of number both the general categorical and particular meanings are alike;

Number

Singular    Plural

Such correspondence may be called complete  PARTIAL MORPHOLOGICAL  CORRESPONDENCE.

Partial morphological correspondence is observed when in the languages examined there are grammatical categories with identical categorical meanings but with some differences in their particular meanings.

In the languages considered there is a grammatical category of case in nouns. Though the categorical meaning is identical hi all the three languages the particular meanings are different both from the point of view of their number and the meanings they express. English has two particular meanings while Russian have six. Though the latter two languages have the same quantity of particular cases, their meanings do not coincide.

The differences in the case system or in any other
grammatical categories are usually expressed by other means in
languages.                                                    

ABSENCE OF

MORPHOLOGICAL CORRESPONDENCE

Absence of morphological correspondence is observed when there are not corresponding grammatical categories in the languages examined. As for instance in Russian there is a grammatical category of possessiveness, which shows the affixation of things to one of the three grammatical       persons.

English

my book

your book

his, her, its book

In English we use certain grammatical means to express a definite and indefinite meanings, that is articles. But there are no equivalent grammatical means in Kazakh and Russian. They use lexical or syntactic means to express those meanings. (See Substitution.)

3.2 COMPLETE SYNTACTIC CORRESPONDENCE

By complete syntactic correspondence is understood the conformity m structure and sequence of words in word-combinations and sentences.

Complete syntactic correspondence is rarely to be found in the languages examined here. However, the pattern adj + N is used in word-combination: red flags. The same may be said of sentences

in cases when the predicate of a simple sentence is expressed by an intransitive verb: He laughed.

PARTIAL SYNTACTIC CORRESPONDENCE

By partial syntactic correspondence in word-combinations is understood the conformity in meaning but discrepancy in the structure of phrase.

Partial syntactic correspondence in word-combinations are found in the following patterns:

Attributes formed by the collocation of words. Owing to [the fact that English is poor in grammatical inflections, attributes are widely formed by means of mere collocation of words in accordance with (lie pattern Nl +N2) which expresses the following type of relations.

ABSENCE OF SYNTACTIC CORRESPONDENCE

1. By absence of syntactic correspondence we mean lack of certain syntactic constructions in the Target language, which were used in the Source language. In English this concerns syntactic constructions with non-finite forms of the verb which compose the extended part of a sentence with an incomplete or secondary predication. The semantic function of predicative constructions can be formulated as intercommunication and interconditionality of actions or states with different subjects. These constructions have no formal grammatical connection with the main parts of sentences, though there, is always a conformity between them. The degree of attendancy of action or conditions in predicative constructions determines the choice of complex, compound or simple sentences in translation.

Compare: I heard the door open .. .

In the English sentence the predicative construction which

functions as an object is composed of a noun in the common case and an infinitive. In Kazakh this construction corresponds to the word-combination which carries out the same function, though there is neither structural nor morphological conformity; it is a word combination expressed by a noun and participle. Thus, an English predicative construction when translated into Kazakh gets nominalized. In Russian this construction is expressed by a complex sentence with a subordinate object clause.

3.3 TYPES OF GRAMMATICAL TRANSFORMATIONS

In order to attain the fullest information from one language into another one is obliged to resort to numerous interlinguistic lexical and grammatical transformations.

Grammatical transformations are as follows;

l) substitution,

2) transposition,

3) omission,

4) supplementation.

The cited types of elementary transformations as such are rarely used in the process of translating. Usually they combine with each other, assuming the nature of «complex» interlinguistic transformations.

1.    Substitution. By substitution we understand the substitution of

one part of speech by another or one form of a word by another. Consequently there are two kinds of substitution constituting a grammatical type of transformation: substitution of parts of speech and the grammatical form of a word.

Transformation by substitution may be necessitated by several reasons: the absence of one or an other grammatical form or construction m the Target language; lack of coincidence in the ire of corresponding forms and constructions a^c well as lexical reasons- different combinability and use of words, lack of a part of speech with the same meaning.

An example of the substitution of a word-form may be the interpretation of the meaning of the grammatical category of posteriority of an English verb, which is presented in two particular meanings: absolute posteriority (He says lie will come) and relative posteriority (He said he would come). Kazakh and Russian verbs do not possess word-forms of this kind and communicate their meaning with use of other grammatical means;

In Kazakh the meaning of this category is expressed by a substantivized participle ending m or by the infinitive ending in; in Russian the future tense form of a verb is used.

There are two types of substitution of parts of speech: obligatory and non obligatory. The obligatory substitution is observed when in the Target language, there is no part of speech corresponding to that used in the Source language, e. g. the English articles.

Apart   from   other functions (he article may function   as an indefinite or demonstrative pronoun, a numeral, and may be used for emphasis. In cases of this kind it is necessary to substitute them with functionally—adequate means of expression in Kazakh and Russian.

E.g. When we were in Majorca, there was a Mrs. Leech there and slie was telling us most wonderful things about you. (A. Christie)

In Kazakh and Russian an indefinite pronoun is used

for translating the indefinite article.

Non obligatory substitution is a substitution undertaken by the needs or demands of the context:

The climb had been easier than he expected. A noun in the English sentence is substituted by infinitives in the Kazakh and Russian languages.

2. Transposition.Transposition (as a type of transformation used in translations) is understood to be the change of position (order) of linguistic elements in the Target language in comparison with the Source language.

Transposition (change in the structure of a sentence) is necessitated by the "difference in the structure of the language (fixed or free order of words etc.), in the semantic of a sentence, and others. There are two types of transpositions; transposition (or substitution) of parts of a sentence and transposition occasioned by the change of types of syntactic connection in a composite sentence. Examples: Active defenders of the national interests of their people, the Communists, are at the same time true internationalists. (W. Foster.)

The first component of the English attributive word-combination “active defenders” is an adverb while the second becomes the predicate when translated into Kazakh. In Russian the same word-combination is expressed by an adverbial word combination. The means used to express the semantic core of a statement may not be identical. In English the indefinite article, the construction it is ... that (who), inversions of different kinds are used for this purpose, while the order of words is the most frequent means of expression in Kazakh and Russian: words, communicating new information are not placed at the beginning of the sentence:

A big scarlet Rolls Royce had just stopped in front of the local post office.

              In the English sentence the semantic core is expressed by the indefinite article while in Kazakh and Russian it is assigned to the second and third places accordingly.

When translating English compound sentences into Kazakh and Russian, the principal and subordinate clauses may be transposed. This is explained by the fact that the order of words in compound sentences does not always coincide in the languages considered. Compare:

A remarkable air of relief overspread her countenance as soon as she saw me. (R. Stevenson.)

3. Omission. As a type of grammatical transformation-omission is necessitated by grammatical redundancy of certain forms in two languages.

He raised his hand.

4. Addition. Addition, as a type of grammatical
transformation, can be met with  cases of forma! inexpressive-
ness of grammatical or semantic components in the language of the original text.

Also, there was an awkward hesitancy at times, as he essayed the new words he had learnt.

It must be emphasized that the division into lexical and grammatical transformations is, to a great extent, approximate and conditional. In some cases a transformation can be interpreted as one or another type of elementary transformation. In practice the cited types of lexical and grammatical transformations are seldom met with in «pure form». Frequently they combine to form complex transformations.

CONCLUSION

Roughly, the human translation theories may be divided into three main groups which quite conventionally may be called transformational approach, denotative approach, and communicational approach.

The transformational theories consist of many varieties which may have different names but they all have one common feature: die process of translation is regarded as transformation. Within the group of theories which we include in the transformational approach a dividing line is sometimes drawn between transformations and equivalencies .

According to this interpretation a transformation arts at the syntactic level when there is a change, i.e. when we alter, say, the word order during translation. Substitutions at other levels are regarded as equivalencies, for instance, when we substitute words of the target language for those of the source, this is considered as an equivalence.

In the transformational approach we shall distinguish three levels of substitutions: morphological equivalencies, lexical equivalencies, and syntactic equivalencies and. or transformations.

In  the  process of translation:

-at the morphological level morphemes (both word-building and word-changing) of the target language are substituted   for   those     of    the source;

-at the lexical level words and word combinations of the target language are substituted for those of the source;

-at   the   syntactic   level   syntactic   structures   of  the   target

language are substituted for those of the source.

The syntactic transformations in translation comprise a broad range of structural changes in the target text, starting from the reversal of the word order in a sentence and finishing with division of the source sentence into two and move target ones.

                                             Appendix

Blitzkrieg   молниеносная война.

 Comprehensive Programmed of Disarmament n    Всеобъемлющая программа разоружения.

International Nuclear Information System n  международная система ядерной информации.

National Guard n  Национальная гвардия

abet resistance v  оказывать поддержку движению сопротивления(vi)

abrogated a treaty v  расторгнул договор (vi).

1.      abrogating a convention n  расторжение договора.

2.  abrogating a convention v расторгающий договор(vi). absolute rule n самовластие.

3.  absolute war n решительные боевые действия

accelerate upon an agreement v  ускорять достижение соглашения(vi).

1.      adhering to treaty provisions n соблюдение положений договора.

2.   adhering to treaty provisions v соблюдающий положения договора(vi)
adjustment of disputes n урегулирование разногласий, administration of
peace-keeping operations n осуществление операций по поддержанию мира.
bar the way to war v преграждать путь к войне (vi) .

basic war plan n основной стратегический  план.

beam the opposition v  подавлять сопротивление(vi).

brush blaze n локальная война

brush fire war n местная война

call to the colors v объявлять мобилизацию(vi).

carried the day v  одержал победу(vi).

challenge to the world community n вызов международному сообществу.

change in a policy n смена политики.

chemical warfare agreement n соглашение о запрещении химического оружия.

circumvention of an agreement n обход соглашения.

claims to world superiority n притязания на мировое господство.

comparison of military expenditures in accordance with international

standards n сопоставление военных бюджетов по международным стандартам

compensation allowance n денежная компенсация.

competitive co-existence n сосуществование в условиях соперничества.

completion of talks n завершение переговоров.

compliance with commitments n соблюдение обязательств.

conduct an arms race v вести гонку вооружений(vi).

conduct diplomacy v проводить дипломатию (vi).

conduct of disarmament negotiations n ведение переговоров по разоружению.

consolidation of peace n укрепление мира.

construction of all-embracing system of international security n

создание всеобъемлющей системы международной безопасности..

consultative board n.консультативный совет

contending nation n. воюющее государство.

contest the air v оспаривать господство в воздухе

control agency n. орган управления.

convene a meeting v созывать совещание

convene the UN Security Council v  созывать Совет Безопасности OOH (vi).

conventional armament n. обычное вооружение

desperate situation n  отчаянное положение

dentist n  сторонник разрядки международной напряженности deterioration of resistance nослабление сопротивления

diminished international tension n. спад международной безопасности

diplomatic attack n дипломатическая атака

diplomatic co-operation n дипломатическое сотрудничество

diplomatic decision n. дипломатическое решение

disarmament issue n. проблема разоружения.

                                 Bibliography

1.           Chafe WX. Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago, 1971

2.    Catford J.A. Linguistic theory of translation. London,1967

3.    Firth J.R. Linguistic analysis and translation. The Hague, 1956

4.    Grishman R. Communicational Linguistics: an introduction. Cambridge,

    1987

5.    Hornby A.S. Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English.

     Oxford, 1982

6.    Hiroaki Kitano. Speech-to-speech translation. Boston, 1994

7.    Solomon L.B. Semantic and common sense. New York, 1966

8.   Бархударов Л.С. Язык и перевод. Международные

    отношения.Москва,1975

lO.Глушко М.М.,Карулина  Ю.А. Текстология английской научной 

     речи. МГУ, Москва,1978

ll. Левицкая Т.Р., Фитерман А.М. Пособие по переводу с английского

    языка на русский. Высш.шк.Москва,1973

12. Комиссаров В.Н. Лингвистика перевода.Москва,,1981

13. Комиссаров В.Н. Слово о переводе.Москва,1973

14. Мирам Г.Э. Профессия-переводчик.К.,1999

15. Мирьяр-Белоручев Р.К. Теория и методы перевода.Московский

      лицей.Москва,1996

16. Рецкер Я.И. теория перевода и переводческая

      практика.Москва,1974

17. Швейцер А.Д. теория перевода.

     Статус,проблемы,аспекты.Наука.Москва,1988

18. Щвейцер А.Д. Перевод  

      лингвистика.Москва,1980

19. Шевякова В.Е.

      Современный английский

      язык.Наука.Москва,1980

20. Федоров А.В. Основы

      общей теории перевода-

      лингвистические

      проблемы

21. www.tanslateweb.org 22.kz.wikipedia.org

23. www.longman.com 24.www.multitran.ru