Chapter 2.General theoretical questions of translation.

2.1. Translation Theory

Equivalent translation - “a translation that is carried out at a level necessary and sufficient for the transfer of an unchanged plan of maintenance while complying with the standards of the IT is an equivalent translation” (Barkhudarov, 2008, p. 186). “Fully equivalent texts, fully equivalent (equivalent); the texts are partially equivalent, partially equivalent to each other” (Schweitzer, 2009, p. 97). According to the researchers, only such text can be considered as a translation that equivalently or adequately transmits to the IT (verbally or in writing) that information (content) that was expressed in the source text on the FL (Vinogradov, 2001).

However, it is possible to speak about keeping the content plan unchanged only in a relative, and not in an absolute sense, since with interlanguage conversion, the full transfer of all values ​​of the original text is impossible and losses are inevitable. Not being fully equivalent, the translational and source texts should preserve the common semantic and functional invariant. The measure of conservation of this invariant determines the measure of equivalence of the translation.

The following factors are highlighted as the basis for the principle possibility of equivalent translation in Russian translation studies. First, the objective existence of interlanguage translation correspondences. The values ​​of linguistic units in different languages ​​do not match, as are the living conditions of linguistic groups and their experience. However, in some ways the reality for all remains common, and also the basic values ​​are common. Secondly, any human language contains the potential to describe new, unfamiliar situations, since each language has the ability to be an instrument of knowledge. Thirdly, the differences between languages ​​in the semantic and structural plans can be compensated in the text. The translator’s understanding of the order in which the transmission of values ​​is necessary in a particular situation, namely which of the values ​​are priorities and which can be “sacrificed” in order to minimize losses, also helps to achieve an equivalent translation.

The question of equivalence of translation is associated with the problem of choosing a unit of translation, which can be a unit of any level of language - from phoneme or grapheme to whole text. At the same time, the unit of translation can constantly change throughout the same text: one of the main difficulties of translation is the need to find an appropriate unit of translation for each specific case. For example, the translation at the phoneme level is carried out when transferring proper names through the sounds of the CL, which are closest to the IL phonemes: cf. English surname Heath and Rus. Hit. Proverbs, like speech formulas and clichés, are usually translated at the sentence level: Eng. Keep off the grass and rus. On the lawns do not walk. For stable phrases and idioms, the unit of equivalent translation is usually the phrase: English. book parcel - rus. parcel post; English to catch fire - rus. catch fire

Equivalent translation must be distinguished from the literal one, which distorts the content of IT and violates the norms and standards of the IT. A literal translation usually operates with a word or a morpheme of a compound word as a unit of translation. So, eng. delicate balance when literally translated into a delicate balance, while the real meaning of this expression is an unstable equilibrium. Thus, a literal translation is carried out at a level lower than the equivalent, necessary to reproduce the contents of the original in unchanged form.

Equivalent translation is also opposed to free translation, in which IT undergoes too deep transformations and its value is not accurately conveyed. Free translation is fully justified and often occurs when translating fiction, however, when translating texts from a number of other genres, such as official documents, free translation is not allowed (Barkhudarov, 2008).

2.2. Translational transformations and their classification

A. M. Fiiterman and T. R. Levitskaya distinguish three types of translational transformations:

• grammatical transformations,

• stylistic transformations,

• lexical transformations.

A. D. Schweitzer proposes to divide the transformation into four groups:

• transformations at the component level of semantic valency,

• transformations on a pragmatic level,

• transformations carried out at the referential level,

• transformation at the stylistic level - compression and expansion.

Retkar Ya. I. names two types of transformations:

• grammatical transformations in the form of substitution of parts of speech or sentence members,

• lexical transformations consist in concretization, generalization, differentiation of meanings, antonym translation, compensation for losses arising in the translation process, as well as semantic development and holistic transformation.

R.K. Minyar-Beloruchev called three types of transformations:

• lexical,

• grammar,

• semantic.

The concept of V. N. Komissarov is reduced to the following types of transformations:

• lexical,

• grammar,

• complex.

Speaking of lexical transformations, he calls transliteration, translation transcription, tracing, some lexico-semantic substitutions.

For example, modulation, specification, and generalization.

Grammatical transformations are literal translation (or syntactic assimilation), grammatical substitutions (substitutions of sentence members, forms of words, parts of speech), and sentence division.