Lectures on the Theory of Translation.

GENERAL PROBLEMS
LECTURE 1
THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE THEORY OF TRANSLATION AND THE NATURE OF TRANSLATION
The subject-matter of the theory of translation
The theory of translation is subdivided into general theory, dealing with the general theory, dealing with the general
characteristics of translation, regardless of its type, and special branches, concerned with a theoretical description and
analysis 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 entirety, including its results, with due regard for all of the factors, affecting it. Each special branch deepens and
specifies 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 allied to psychology,
sociology, ethnography and area studies. It is based on the application of linguistic theory to a specific type of speech
behaviour, i.e. translating.
It differs from contrastive linguistics in that the former seeks 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.
The main directions in the contemporary linguistic theory of translation. The earliest linguistic theory of translation was
developed by Soviet scholars Y. I. 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 argued, is inconceivable
without a sound linguistic basis, and this basis can be provided by a contrastive study of linguistics 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 a typology of relationships between linguistic units (equivalents permanent
correspondences, not sensitive to context, such as The League of Nations , and context-sensitive variant
correspondences, such as slander- , , ) but also investigated some of the translation techniques,
such as antonymic translation (see below), thus mapping out some ways of dealing with translation as a process.
In the 60 some linguists (V. Y. Rozentsveig in the USSR and E. Nida in the USA) proposed a theoretical model of
translation, based on generative or transformational grammar. E. Nida sub-divides the process of translation into three
stages: analysis where an ambiguous surface structure is transformed into non-ambiguous kernel sentences to facilitate
semantic interpretation (the foundation of a school <- (somebody) founded a school or <- a school has a
foundation), transfer where equivalents 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 its translation. Such
transformations come in handy especially when the source-language structure is ambiguous or when it has no parallel in
the target language (e.g. He stood with his feet planted wide apart <- He stood; his feet were planted wide apart ->
, " , .
But transformations in terms of generative grammar 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 situational model of translation is based on situational analysis in linguistics, developed by V. G. Gak (USSR), J.
Catford (UK) and others. It is based on the assumption that languages use somewhat different sets of semantic
components (constituents of meaning) to describe identical extralinguistic situations. Russian verbs of motion contain the
component of mode but not always the direction of movement while their English equivalents are often neutral with regard
to the mode but always specify the direction (cf. Here he comes/Here he goes). The situational model
provides some interesting insights into the mechanism of translation, especially when a situation is described in different
semantic categories (cf. 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 translation as a
process.
The nature of translation
Translation may be viewed as an interlingual communicative act in which at least three participants are involved: the
sender or source (the author of the source-language message), the translator who acts in dual capacity as the receptor
of the source-language message and as the sender of the equivalent target-language message), and the receptor of the
target-language message (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 two 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 phase the translator, acting as a source-language receptor, analyses 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 plan of expression (linguistic form) while its plan of
content (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 evoke 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 translators duty to make available to the
target-language receptor the maximum amount of information, carried by linguistic signs, including both their denotational
(referential) meanings (i.e. information about the extralinguistic reality which they denote) and their emotive-stylistic
connotations.
Linguistic and extralinguistic aspects of translation
However, the information, conveyed by linguistic signs alone, i.e. the meanings overtly expressed in the text, would not be
sufficient for adequate translation. Some linguists distinguish between what they call translation, based solely on the
meanings expressed by linguistic signs, and interpretation, involving recourse to extralinguistic information. In fact, the
two are very closely intertwined, 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 (
) would hardly make much sense unless it is known that the conversation takes place at a box-office (speech-act
situation).
The phrase 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 scientific
texts requires a certain amount of technical and scientific knowledge.
LECTURE 2
SEMANTIC AND PRAGMATIC ASPECTS OF TRANSLATION
The role of semantic, syntactic and pragmatic relations
Semiotics (the science investigating the general properties of sign systems) distinguishes the following types of relations:
semantic (sign to object), syntactic (sign to sign) and pragmatic (sign to man). One of the most essential requirements,
imposed on translation, is that the two texts (the original and its translation) should be semantically equivalent. In other
words, they should be characterized by equivalent sets of relationships between the linguistic signs and their dentate
(referents). The goal of translation is to produce a text, bearing the same relation to the extralinguistic situation as the
original. Semantic equivalence of messages does not necessarily imply the semantic identity of each linguistic sign.
Semantically equivalent utterances include not only those, made up of the semantically identical signs (as, for instance,
He lives in Paris , but also utterances comprising different sets of signs which in their totality add up
to the same type of relationship to the extralinguistic world and denote the same extralinguistic situation (e.g. Wet paint
! .). Semantic relations affect translation both in the initial stage of analysis and in producing the
target-language text.
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 (cf. Bill hit John and John hit Bill). But although they may be
occasionally preserved in translation, the translator does not set himself this goal. Very often syntactically non-equivalent
utterances prove to be semantically equivalent: He was considered invincible .
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 messages do not necessarily
mean the same thing to the source and target-language receptors, and therefore are not necessarily pragmatically
equivalent. The phrases He made a fifteen-yard end run and are
semantically equivalent for they denote the same situation but the American reader, familiar with American football, will
extract far more information from it than his Russian counterpart who would neither understand the aim of the maneuver
nor appreciate the football-players performance. The pragmatic problems, involved in translation, arise from three types
of pragmatic relations. The relation of the source-language sender to the original message, the relation of the targetlanguage receptor to the target-language message and the relation of the translator to both messages.
The effect of the pragmatic motivation of the original message
The first type of relations amounts to the senders 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, a
command, an entreaty or a joke. Very often the speakers communicative intent differs from what the message seems to
say. I dont know may be not only the statement of fact in which case it would be translated as , but also an
expression of hesitation ?. What gives in a greeting !. Is Mr. Brown there, please is not
a question but a disguised request - .
The effect of the receptor-to-text relation
Prof. A. Neubert (DDR) 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 receptors but having also a universal human appeal (belles-lettres) and texts without
any specific national addressee (scientific literature). Typically, in written translation the translator deals with texts, not
intended for target-language audiences and therefore subject to pragmatic adaptations. Allowances are made for sociocultural, psychological and other differences between source- and target-language receptors, particularly differences in
their background knowledge. According to E. Nida, snow-white was translated into one of the African languages as white
as the feathers of a white heron.
Pragmatic factors may affect the scope of semantic information, conveyed in translating. Differences in background
knowledge call for addition or deletion of some information (e.g. Part of the nuclear station in Cumberland has been
closed down .

 According to Newsweek). Some cultural realia may be translated by their functional analogues (
a watchdog of US imperialism from a story about the 7th US Fleet).
Allowance should be made for the receptors professional status and his familiarity with the subject. In texts, intended for
specialists source culture realia are more frequently rendered by transcription or transliteration while in texts for the
laymen explanatory or descriptive translation is preferred (e.g. impeachment ,
; absenteeism , .)
The effect of the translators angle of view
Another pragmatic factor, relevant to translation, is the socio-psychological and ideological orientation of the translator
himself. As far back as 1936 K. I. Chukovsky wrote that every translator translates himself, i.e. deliberately or
inadvertently reflects his class affiliations. And in doing so he does not necessarily set himself the task to falsify the
original. This view may be somewhat oversimplified but it is true that although ideally the translator should identify
himself with the author, this is not always the case. What is more, sometimes it is impossible. Therefore, classics are retranslated as each generation re-reads them from its own vantage point. Chukovsky cites an instructive example: in
translating Shakespeare's Coriolaunus the Russian translator Druzhinin tried to reproduce the original as accurately as
possible. Yet he inadvertently adapted the tragedy to his own of a liberal opposed to the revolutionary raznochintzi of the
1860s.
Non-uniqueness of the translator's decisions
Translation is a process, determined by quite a number of factors. In addition to conveying the semantic information,
contained in the text, the denotational meanings and emotive-stylistic connotations, the translator has to take into account
the author's communicative intent, the type of an audience for which the message is intended, its socio-psychological
characteristics and background knowledge.
A process, governed by so many variables, cannot have a single outcome. What is more, the synonymic and
paraphrasing potential of language is so high that there may be several ways of describing the same extralinguistic
situation, and even though they may be not quite identical, the differences may be neutralized by the context. It should
also be remembered that the translator's decision may vary depending on the receptor (cf. the translation of realia for the
specialists and for the laymen) and the purpose of translation. Cf. the old and the modernized version of the Bible: a
woman... who had an evil spirit in her that had kept her sick for eighteen years ... a woman who for eighteen years had
been ill from some psychological cause. Cf. also the poetic translation of Shakespeare by Pasternak and the scholarly
translation by Prof. Morozov.
The problem of translatability
Conflicting views have been expressed by linguists concerning the problem of translatability ranging from an entirely
negative stand, typical of W. von Humboldt who considered each language an embodiment 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 interlingual communication possible is an
argument in favor of translatability. Yet it is an oversimplification to claim that every meaningful element of the text is
translatable.
In his preface to the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn Mark Twain says that he had reproduced in the book painstakingly
and with the support of personal familiarity the shadings of number of dialects (The Missouri Negro dialect, etc.).
Naturally none of these fine distinctions can be reflected in the translation.
Yet by using low colloquial and substandard forms the translator can give an adequate impression of the character's
social and educational status and will thus render the most essential functional characteristics of these dialect features.
As compared to the determing semantic and functional properties of the text which are perfectly translatable, the
untranslatable elements are marginal and relatively unimportant. Besides, as we shall show in the next lecture, most of
the losses can be to some extent compensated for. Therefore, we may speak of sufficient or adequate (though not
necessary complete) translatability to permit effective interlingual communication and satisfactory rendering of
communicatively relevant information.
LECTURE 3
LEVELS OF EQUIVALENCE AND THE CONCEPT OF ADEQUATE TRANSLATION
Levels of equivalence
This problem was briefly discussed in the previous lecture in connection with the distinction between semantic and
pragmatic equivalence. In the theory of translation different ideas have been put forward concerning the types and levels
of equivalence in translation. For instance, V. G. Gak and Ju.Levin distinguish the following types of equivalents: formal,
semantic and situational. Formal equivalence may be illustrated by such cases as: The sun disappeared behind a cloud
.
Here we find similarity of words and forms in addition to the similarity of meanings. 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 the perfective aspect, gender forms, etc. in Russian.
Semantic equivalence exists when the same meanings are expressed in the two languages in a different way: Troops
were airlifted to the battlefield .
The English verb airlift contains the same meaning as the Russian phrase . 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 utterances that differ both in linguistic devices used and in the semantic
components expressed but, nevertheless, describe the same extralinguistic situation: to let someone pass

. 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 + 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 not on the same semantic components but on the equivalence of meanings, made up of different semantic
components. In other words, sum of different semantic components may be semantically equivalent (a+b = c+d; upside
down = ). We shall therefore speak of two types of semantic equivalence: componential (identity of
semantic components) and referential (referential equivalence of different semantic components). The latter 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 equivalence Semantic equivalence Pragmatic equivalence
Componential
Referential
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
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
receptors response, is required at all levels of equivalence. It may sometimes appear alone, without formal or semantic
equivalence, as in this case: Many happy returns of the day.
Adequate, literal and free translation
There is a fundamental difference between formal equivalence, on the one hand, and semantic and pragmatic
equivalence, on the other. Formal equivalence may accompany semantic and pragmatic equivalence but it is by no
means mandatory. It has been pointed out that the translator does not set himself the task of preserving the syntactic
relations of the original. Nor does he aim at formal equivalence between the original and the translation. Usually formal
equivalence results from similarity of grammatical forms and lexical items of the two languages. But it does not arise out
of a deliberate effort. Adequate translation may be defined therefore as that which is determined by semantic and
pragmatic equivalence between the original and target-language text. Cases of formal equivalence without semantic or
pragmatic equivalence are usually described as literal translation. Literal translation reproduces the linguistic form of the
original regardless of semantic or pragmatic equivalence. It may reproduce the morphological and sound form as, for
instance, in Chukovsky's well-known examples: for compositor, (Cherry Orchard) instead of
. It may also reproduce lexical items, overlooking the idiomatic meaning of the phrase (God bless my
soul , ).
In other words, literal translation reproduces the form at the expense of the meaning and distorts the original. In some
cases it may violate a stylistic norm as, for instance, in reproducing the syntactic form of the original message: It was he
who did it , .
Finally, it may reproduce both the linguistic form and the denotational meaning but ignore the pragmatic aspects of the
message. As a result, the message will not get across, and the intended communicative effect will not be attained (e.g.
the English sentence, comparing the sky to Guiseley sandstone, translated as ,
, is pragmatically inadequate).
Free translation, on the other hand, consists in pragmatically unmotivated additions and omissions of semantic
information. In literal translation the translator distorts the message by slavishly reproducing the form while in free
translation he distorts it by overstepping his authority and assuming the role of a co-author.
For instance, Irinarkh Vvedensky sometimes added pages of his own to Dickenss novels. He translates the phrase She
burst out crying as . And the word refuge as ,
.
The ways of adequate translation
Grammatical and lexical parallelisms between the source language and the target language made it possible in some
cases to retain formal equivalence without departing from semantic or pragmatic equivalence. Otherwise various lexicogrammatical transformations are used. For details see the lectures on the lexical and grammatical problems of translation.
Losses and their compensation
It will be recalled that some marginal elements of information may be lost in translation. Some of them may be
compensated for by the use of different devices, sometimes in a different portion of the message. For instance, the
Russian vernacular (Sholokhov) may be translated as But your job is damn risky thus the
use of a low colloquial lexical item (damn) compensates for the nonstandard morphological form (). In the
phrase derogatory connotation is expressed by the suffix. In the English phrase to sell the idea
the noun is neutral but the derogatory connotation is shifted to the verb.
GRAMMATICAL PROBLEMS
LECTURE 4
GRAMMATICAL EQUIVALENTS IN TRANSLATION
The grammatical structure of language is an important part of its overall system, no less important, in fact, than its lexicon
or vocabulary. The elements of the grammatical structure, such as affixes, forms of inflection and derivation, syntactic

patterns, word order, functional words, etc. serve to carry meanings which are usually referred to as grammatical or
structural, as distinct from lexical meanings. The rendering of such meanings in the process of translation is an
important problem relating to the general problem of translation equivalence, which now must be considered at length.
Grammatical forms of different languages only very seldom coincide fully as to the scope of their meaning and function.
As a rule, there is only partial equivalence, that is, the grammatical meanings expressed by grammatical forms, though
seemingly identical, of two different languages coincide only in part of their meaning and differ in other parts. Thus, for
instance, the category of number of noun in English and in Russian seems to coincide and, indeed, does coincide in very
many cases of their use; cf. table , tables , etc. However, there are many instances where this is not the
case, in other words, where an English plural form is rendered through a Russian singular form and vice versa; this is
especially common among the so-called Singularia and Pluralia Tantum, that is, those nouns that have only a Singular or
a Plural form whose distribution is often arbitrary and motivated only historically. Compare: oats , peas ,
onions , cherries (used collectively), outskirts (of a town) , billiards , measles ;
and, on the other hand, money , ink , information , etc. Also, the forms of number in
two languages often do not coincide when the noun is accompanied by a numeral; thus, in Russian all nouns preceded by
such numerals as , and others ending in are used in the Singular form while in
English in corresponding patterns a Plural form must be used: twenty-one tables, one hundred and thirty-one passengers,
etc.
Another good example is the category of Tense. Both English and Russian distinguish such forms of the predicate verbs
as Present and Past, their general grammatical meanings being, on the whole identical; cf. He lives in Moscow
. lived in Moscow , etc. However, in certain cases the Tense forms of the two
verbs English and Russian do not coincide; thus, for instance, in English there exists such a grammar rule as
Sequence of Tenses according to which the predicate verb in subordinate object clause following the main clause in
which a Past form is used must, with a few exemptions, also be used in a Past form, whereas in Russian this is no so and
a Present form is quite common in the same position: He said he lived in Moscow , .
The difference is even more striking when we consider other grammatical categories whose semantic content and
function vary to a still greater extent. Take, for instance, such category as Gender. Russian distinguishes three genders:
Masculine, Feminine and Neuter, which are formally expressed in the following ways: (a) through agreement, e.g.
; ; etc; (b) by the inflectional forms of the
noun itself, e.g. (Masc.) zero ending, hard stem, - (Fem.) - the ending - , (Neut.) the ending -o, etc;
() by means of pronominal substitution, e.g. (Masc.) ; (Fem.) ; etc. In English, the same three
genders are also distinguished; however, the only formal way to express the distinction is through pronominal substitution,
e.g. boy he, girl she, house it, their being no such things as agreement in gender or difference in inflectional (case)
endings.
Consequently, the category of gender in English is expressed, actually, not in the noun itself but in the corresponding
personal (possessive, reflexive) pronoun. It follows, then, that many nouns in English are not marked as to gender and
can be used as Masculine or Feminine depending on the context, whereas in Russian a choice between these two
genders is necessary with due regard for the wider context; cf. artist , ; worker ,
; student , ; teacher , ; writer , ; cook
, ; friend , ; acquaintance , , etc. (See for reference . . ,
, . 147-151)
The above must not be taken to mean that there is absolutely nothing in common between the grammatical structures of
two different languages. On the contrary, there exist in all languages the so-called grammatical universals, that is,
categories that are found in all languages and without which no language can function as a means of communication.
These, however, are mainly the so-called deep grammatical categories, i.e. categories that are semantic rather than
formal, such as object, process, quality, relation, actor, goal (of action), instrument, cause and effect, etc. The
formal ways in which they are manifested may differ widely. The translator's task here (as with lexic meanings) is, first to
assign the correct meaning to this or that form and, secondly, to find an appropriate form in the target language for the
expression of the same meaning, taking into account various factors which will be described below. Moreover, it should be
born in mind that the content which in one language is expressed grammatically may be expressed lexically in another
language. If no grammatical forms are available in the target language, the translator must look for lexical means to
render the same semantic content. Thus, for instance, the English language does not distinguish between the forms of
the Perfective and Imperfective aspect ( ) that are so typical of the Russian verb.
Consequently, while translating such a sentence as ?
. ? , . (. ? (J. C. Catford, A Linguistic Theory
of Translation, London, 1965, p.75)
The only way to convey in English the semantic difference between the Perfective and the Imperfective verb forms of
Russian is through lexical differences between two verbs, for instance: What did Beltov do during these ten years?
Everything, or almost everything. What did he achieve? Nothing, or almost nothing.
Another example: in the sentence Out came the chaise in went the horses on sprang the boys in got the travelers.
(Ch. Dickens, Pickwick Papers) inversion is employed to convey the additional meaning of rapidity of movement. In
Russian, however, the same meaning cannot be conveyed by inversion alone and the lexical means must be resorted to
achieve adequate translation, as, for instance: , , , (. . , .
, . , .2, ., 1965, . 33).
Finally, it should be noted that there are cases when grammatical meanings are not rendered in translation at all, that is,
when this or that grammatical form is not used freely, according to its own meaning, but when its use is predetermined by

purely linguistic factors, such as syntactic construction, rules of agreement (grammatical concord) or government, etc. In
such cases we can speak of the bound use of the grammatical form, as opposed to its free use. One example will show
the difference: in English the choice of the tense form of the verb in an independent clause is free and depends on the
proper meaning of the tense form itself; cf. He lives in Moscow He lived in Moscow. In a dependent clause, however,
the use of the tense form is not free and is determined by so-called rule of the sequence of tenses: He said he lived in
Moscow. Consequently, in the first case the difference in the tense form (Present vs. Past ) must be reflected in
translation: .
In the independent clause, on the other hand, the use of the English Past is purely formal and, as there is no
corresponding rule in Russian, it is not necessary (or even possible) to render the meaning of the past in the Russian
translation; here the rules of Russian syntax require the use of the Present form to express non-priority (e.g. simultaneity)
of the action: , .
On the whole, the choice of the grammatical equivalent in the target language is determined by the following factors:
a) The meaning inherent in the grammatical form itself, e.g.: table, tables, or lives, lived
(see the examples above).
b) The lexical character of the word or word-group used in this or that form. Thus, for instance, the use of the Plural
form in Russian is impossible with certain nouns while possible with others: cf. workers of all industries
; other philosophies / etc. Here the
grammatical meaning of plurality has to be rendered lexically in Russian as the corresponding Russian nouns lack the
plural form.
c)
Factors of style. Thus, for instance, both English and Russian have the Passive form of the verb: however, in
Russian the use of this form is mainly confined to the literary or bookish (formal) style. Therefore, though the English
Passive structure such as At the station John was met by his brother can, theoretically speaking, be translated as
, we feel that the translation is unacceptable as it sounds too formal and hardly be
used in colloquial speech or in fiction. As an appropriate version here would be: . In
the formal language, however, for instance, in newspaper reports, this is quite acceptable; cf.: At the station the
delegation was met by a group of students .
Another example: both English and Russian make use of the so-called Historic Present (the Present tense used to
denote past events); however, it is only in English that this form is employed in newspaper headlines. Consequently, such
a headline as Prominent Scientist Dies can not be rendered as since Russian headlines
favour noun phrases, it is preferable to translate the above as (for details see the lecture
on style);
d) Frequency of use. Speaking about this factor, the American linguist and translator E. Nida writes: Rare form of words
may also constitute serious obstacle to a proper communication load. For example, translators often find convenient
formal parallels between constructions in the source and receptor languages, and, regardless of the relative frequency of
such constructions in the language concerned, endeavour to match the forms more or less automatically. Thus, both
source and receptor languages may have passive forms of words, but in the source language they may be relatively
frequent, while in the receptor language they are rare. (English and Russian are perfectly the case.) If under these
conditions one attempts to translate every source language passive by a corresponding passive in the receptor language,
the result will be an inevitable overleading of the communication... (Toward a Science of Translating, p. 133).
Thus, Russian uses both subordinate clauses and verbal adverbs () to express adverbial relations:
however, if a translator does not make use of the latter, his translation will sound unnatural and too heavy. Also, both in
English and in Russian subordinate and co-ordinate are used, but their relative frequency is different: English often
prefers subordination whereas Russian more often than not makes use of co-ordinate structures.
Therefore, subordinate syntactic structure of English are quite commonly replaced by co-ordinate structures in Russian
translations, though, from the point of view of purely formal grammar rules such a replacement is not always necessary
(see below, Grammatical transformations).
LECTURE 5
GRAMMATICAL TRANSFORMATIONS IN TRANSLATION
Any attempt at word-for-word (literal) translation (apart from very simple and short sentences) is doomed to failure. In the
course of translation, it is always necessary to perform various grammatical and lexical changes of transformations to
achieve translational equivalence. These transformations can be divided into four types: (1) transpositions; (2)
replacements; (3) additions; (4) omissions. It should be borne in mind, however, that this classification is, to a great
extent, arbitrary and that in practice it is hardly possible to find these elementary transformations in their pure form: in
most cases they are combined with one another, so that we observe is a combined use of more than one type of
transformation.
TRANSPOSITIONS
What is known as transposition is a change in the order of linguistic elements, such as words, phrases, clauses and
sentences. Most often, this due to the necessity preserving in fact what is called functional sentence perspective,
namely, the division of the sentence into two main parts from the point of view of communication: the known or theme
and the new or rheme, in Russian this division of the sentence is usually expressed by means of word order: what is
already known or supposed to be known to the receptor (usually from the preceding context), that is, the theme is
placed at the beginning of the sentence whereas what is new, that is, communicated for the first time and , therefore, what
forms the semantically most important part of the message (rheme) is placed at the end. In English the word order is
arranged, on the whole, along the same lines; however, in certain cases the theme is placed at the end and the rheme,
at the beginning due to the fact that the rheme is marked differently, namely, by the use of the indefinite article (or, with

plural forms of nouns and with uncountable nouns, the zero article) with the noun which is the subject of the sentence.
Therefore, in Russian the word order in such cases must be reversed, that is, the sentence subject which is the rheme
of the sentence must be placed at the end. Cf.:
A boy came in .
But: The boy came in .
Likewise: A match flared in the darkness .
Light was coming into the cellar from somewhere - .
Cigarettes were passed after lunch .
Within a complex sentence, a similar tendency is observed: in Russian, the first place is occupied by that part of the
sentence (main or subordinate clause) which must logically precede the second, whereas in English the position of both
clauses, though not quite fixed, is in most cases governed by purely syntactical rules; namely, the main clause precedes,
in most cases, the subordinate one. This often calls for a change in the order of the clauses in translation, as, for
instance: He trembled as he looked up , . (Note here also the rendering of the English
subordinate clause by means of the Russian verbal adverb; see above, the preceding lecture).
Within a passage of discourse, independent sentences are also transposed, as in the following example: You goin to
court this morning? asked Jim. We had strolled over. (H. Lee, To kill a Mockingbird).
. ? . (. . . )
Here the transposition of the sentence is used to make up for the absence in Russian of the difference between the Past
Indefinite and the Past Perfect (the action of the second English sentence precedes that of the first). See also below, on
additions.
REPLACEMENTS
Replacements are by far the most common type of grammatical transformations. Replacements can affect practically all
types of linguistic units: word forms, part of speech, sentence elements, sentence types, types of syntactic relations, etc.
(a) Word forms
Replacement of word forms are quite common in translation. A few examples will suffice:
The struggles of the Indian people in all parts of the US .
A novel about the lives of common people .
(replacement of Plural by Singular)
He said he knew the man , .
(replacement of Past by Present)
The door was opened by a middle-aged woman .
(replacement of Passive by Active).
See also the preceding lecture.
(b) Parts of Speech
This type of replacement is also fairly common. Especially typical is the replacement of English nouns, derived from verbs
and denoting actions (Nomina Actionis) by Russian verbs:
It is our hope that... ,
...The abandonment by Irene of all the glittering things he had given her.... (J. Galsworthy, In Chancery)
, .
The same is also true of the so-called Nomina Agentis, which in English are usually represented by nouns with the suffix
er. Russian either has no such nouns at all (e.g. corresponding to such English nouns as riser, packer, drinker, sleeper )
or uses them to denote people of permanent occupation, as, say whereas in English the word writer may denote simply
a person who writes or has written something, as in the writer of this note - , . Compare:
He is an early riser .
John is a sound sleeper .
Im a very rapid packer (J.Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye) .
She is a very good dancer (ib.) - .
Fairly often, English adjectives are replaced by Russian nouns (in an oblique case or preceded by a preposition):
Australian prosperity () .
The Soviet acceptance of this proposal .
youthful joblessness .
generational style of life- , .
(The above examples are very typical of the so-called journalese)
English comparative forms of adjectives such as higher, lower, longer, shorter, better, etc. A frequently replaced by
Russian nouns (derived from adjective stems which, in their turn are verbalized) , , ,
, etc.: They demand higher wages and better living conditions
.
(c) Sentence elements
This is sometimes referred to as syntactic restructurings of the sentence in the process of translation. It consists in
changing the syntactic functions of words in a sentence, a process which is usually due to the same tendency as is
observed in transpositions, viz., preserving the functional sentence perspective. In English, as in Russian, the theme is
generally (with some exceptions) placed at the beginning of the sentence; however, this place is, of course, reserved for
the sentence subject. As a result the theme of the English sentence is, as a rule, also its subject, though semantically it
is not always the doer of the action expressed by the predicate verb: it may be its object (goal) or even denote some
adverbial relation such as time, place, cause etc. In Russian the word order is relatively free, therefore the first word or

word group within a sentence (its theme) must not necessarily be at the same time its syntactic subject. Hence the
subject of the English sentence is often replaced in Russian by a corresponding secondary element, such as object,
adverbial of time, place, cause, etc., with concomitant changes in the syntactic pattern of the whole sentence, often also
with necessary lexical changes. See the following examples:
He was met by his sister .
He was given money .
The new film is much spoken about . (and other passive-active transformation; see
above)
Last week saw the 500-strong meeting of shop stewards and trade-union officials... (Morning Star,11.III.75)
, 500
.
The tent sleeps six people .
Rhodesia has hanged five African guerillas .
New terrorists attacks have injured six persons
.
The fog stopped the traffic - .
Figure 2 gives a summary of the results of such experiments . 2
.
It is self-evident that during translation from Russian into English the process is reversed; cf.:
The room turned silent,
Radio equipment often includes systems of electronic wires....
(d) Sentence types
A very common transformation is the replacement of a simple sentence by a complex one and visa versa. Thus, while
translating from English into Russian it often becomes necessary to render English structures with non-finite verbal forms
by means of subordinate clauses, thus turning a simple sentence into complex, as, for instance:
I want you to speak English , -.
I heard my mother go out and close the door (Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye) ,
.
Here is a book for you to read , .
The Generals a good man to keep away from (S.Heym. The Crusaders) , , ,
.
A subtype of this transformation is known as unification, or, conversely, division of sentences in translation, that is, a
replacement of two simple sentences by one complex or compound and visa versa; cf.:
Thousands of Algerians tonight fled from the dead city of Orleansville after a 12-second earthquake had ripped through
central Algeria, killing an estimated 1.100 people. (Daily Worker)
This is a typical lead, that is, the first sentence (and the first paragraph) of a news item which contains the bulk of the
information the details of which are given below in the main text of the report (See the lectures on style). Such a device is
alien to Russian newspaper articles, which makes it necessary to divide the English sentence into two or more Russian
sentences, as below:
, .
, , 1100 .
. (Note also change in the order of sentences).
More rarely, unification of two or more sentences into one complex or compound sentence takes place, as in the following
case:
The only thing that worried me was our front door. It creaks like a bastard (Sallinger, The Catcher in the Rye)
.
(e) Types of syntactic relations
Both English and Russian have such types of syntactic relations as co-ordination and subordination. However, the former
is more characteristic of spoken Russian; hence it is often necessary or desirable to replace subordination of sentences
by co-ordination while translating from English into Russian; cf.:
...He had a new father whose picture was enclosed... (H. Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird)
.
So I started walking way over east, where the pretty cheap rastaurant re, because I didn't want to spend a lot of dough.
(Salinger, the Catcher in the Rye) , :
.
From a purely, grammatical point of view this transformation is optional; however, taking into account what was said
concerning the relative frequency of grammatical forms (see the preceding lecture), such transformations are necessary if
we want our translation t sound natural.
Likewise, both English and Russian make use of syndetic and asyndetic co-ordinate structures, but their relative
frequencies differ: Russian, especially spoken Russian, prefers asyndetic co-ordination in multi-member structures where
English often employs the syndetic type, as, for instance:
All I have in it is two dresses and my moccassins and my underwear and socks and some other things. (J. Salinger)
, , , ,
In the original, the conjunction and is used four times while in the Russian translation it appears only once, before the last
constituent, the rest being joined asyndetically.

Cf.: also Co , , . Masterly performance was

displayed by boat crews, airmen and paratroopers.
ADDITIONS
Additions are caused by various factors. Very often they are necessitated by what may be called lexical incompleteness
of certain word groups in the source language. Thus, in English in many cases words are omitted that can be easily
restored from the context, while in Russian their actual presence in the word is necessary, which calls for additions in
translation; compare: pay claim ;
gun license ;
oil talks ;
solid engine ;
the Watergate judge , .
Sometimes, additions are required to compensate for the lack of grammatical forms in the target language. Thus, the lack
of plural forms of the corresponding nouns in Russian calls for lexical additions when translating the following phrases:
workers of all industries ; modern weapons ;
enemy defences ; other philosophies
().
OMISSIONS
Omissions are the reverse of additions and are used to ensure a greater degree of what is called compression, that is,
reducing the redundancy of the text by omitting words which can be easily restored from the context. Thus, the following
sentence from J. Salinger's novel: So I paid my check and all. Then I left the bar and went out where the telephones
were is translated by R. Rait-Kovaleva as: .
The words left the bar are omitted because of their redundancy (the bar was mentioned in the preceding context and
leaving is implied by the subsequent use of went out). Note also other transformations here, such as unification of
sentences and replacement of a complex sentence by a simple one, all of which greatly reduce redundancy of the original
text.
For other examples of additions and omissions, as well as of other transformations, see also . . ,
, . 5.
LEXICAL PROBLEMS
LECTURE 6
SEMANTIC DIFFERENCIES BETWEEN LANGUAGES
Languages differ not only in their phonological and grammatical systems. Their systems of meaning are also different. As
J. C. Catford puts it, Meanings, in our view, is a property of a language. An S.L. (Source Language) text has an S.L.
MEANING, and a T.L. (Target Language) text has a T.L. meaning. (J.C. Catford A Linguistic Theory of Translation, L,1965* p.35) Hence it follows that semantic structures of correlated words of the Source Language and the Target
Language cannot b co-extensive, can never cover each other. A careful analysis invariably shows that semantic
relationship between correlated words, especially polysemantic words, is very complex.
Therefore it seems to b necessary first to consider here the three types of lexical meaning which can be distinguished
and are to be rendered in translation: referential, emotive and stylistic.
Referential meaning (also called logical, denotative) has direct reference to things or phenomena of objective reality,
naming abstract notions and processes as well. It is also necessary to distinguish between primary and secondary
referential meaning.
Emotive meaning, unlike referential meaning, has reference not directly to things or phenomena of objective reality but to
the feelings and emotions, associated with them. It is a connotative meaning created by connotations raised in the mind
of the speaker and reader; it is inherent in a definite group of words even when they are taken out of context.
Stylistic meaning is based on stylistic stratification of the English vocabulary and is formed by stylistic connotations.
Stylistic and emotive meanings are closely connected. As a rule, stylistically coloured words, i.e., words belonging to
certain stylistic strata, except the neutral, possess a considerable element of emotive meaning. The slang-words mug,
phiz are undoubtedly more expressive than their neutral counterpart face and have a pejorative emotive meaning. In
addition to the emotive and stylistic meanings, proper to the word as a linguistic unit, some emotive connotations may be
acquired in the context. Both are to be rendered in translation.
1. Referential Meaning and Its Rendering in Translation
Causes of lexical transformations in the rendering of referential meaning
1. Different vision of objects of reality and different usage;
2. Different semantic structure of a word in the source language and the target-language;
3. Different valency or ollocability.
1. Different vision and usage
One and the same object of reality can be seen by different languages in different aspects. This is reflected in different
usage, e.g.
Hot milk with skin on it - .
English singles out the outer covering and Russian the boiling form.
School-leavers
In English teenagers leave the school while in Russian the school releases them into the world.

The city is built on terraces rising from the lake (The Times, 1957) ,
. folded his arms across his chest, crossed his knees (Taylor Caldwell) ,
.
This factor presents less difficulty for the translator into Russian than for the translator into English. The difficulty arises
when such words are used figuratively as part of some lexical stylistic device.
Instant history, like instant coffee, can sometimes be remarkably palatable, at least it is in this memoir by a former White
House aide who sees L.B.J. as an extraordinary gifted President who was the wrong man from the wrong place at the
wrong time under the wrong circumstance, (Time, 1969). ,
, , ,
,
, , , ,
.
render the simile the translator is forced to resort to an addition: , ...
Sometimes, due to a different vision the meaning of a word in the source-language is wider and less differentiated and
corresponds to two or more correlated words in the target language. E.g. Blue corresponds to two Russian words:
, .
Th Russian equivalents of purple are , , . The choice of the equivalent depends on the
linguistic or extra-linguistic context: purple robes of Roman emperors ;
purple ink ; purple shades .
2. Divergences in the Semantic Structure
Divergence in the semantic structure is one of the primary causes of lexical transformations. These divergences are
connected with peculiar features of a word or a group of words. Even words, which seem to have the same meaning in
the source language and the target language are not identical. Most often primary meanings of such words coincide while
their derivative meanings do not. Semantic correlation between two languages is not to be interpreted as semantic
identity. Due to complexity of semantic structure one-to-one correspondence between the semantic structure of
correlated polysemantic words in the S.L. and T.L. is scarcely possible.
Not infrequently similar meanings of Russian and English words differ in some components (semes). This phenomenon is
usually reflected in dictionaries where more than one Russian equivalent is listed under the same meaning of the English
word. For example, the primary and the secondary meanings of the adjective gloomy are rendered in English-Russian
dictionaries by two Russian words: 1) , 2) , . The use of two Russian equivalents
proves that the semantic volume of the English meaning is wider and requires two Russian words for an adequate
rendering.
The analysis of the polysemantic word mellow shows that it can apply to a variety of objects and notions: fruit, wine, soil,
voice, man. Each sphere of its application corresponds to a different derivative meaning and each meaning (consisting of
several semes) has two or more Russian equivalents.
1. , , , / /; 2. . , ; . / /; 3.
, / /; 4. , , / /; 5. ) ;
) , / /; 6. . , . //
3. Different Valency
The aptness of a word to appear in various combinations is described as its lexical valency or collocability. The lexical
valency of correlated words in different languages is not identical. This is only natural since every language has its
syntagmatic norms and patterns of lexical valency. Words, habitually collocated, tend to constitute a cliche, e.g. bad mistake, high hopes, heavy sea (rain, snow), etc. The translator is obliged to seek similar cliches, traditional collocations in
the target-language: , , , //.
The key word in such collocations is usually preserved but the collocated one is rendered by a word of a somewhat
different referential meaning in accordance with the valency norms of the target-language:
trains run ;
a fly stands on the ceiling ;
It was the worst earthquake on the African continent (D.W.) .
Labour Party pretest followed sharply on the Tory deal with Spain (M.S.1973)
.
Different collocability often calls for lexical and grammatical transformations in translation though each component of the
collocation may have its equivalent in Russian, e.g. the collocation the most controversial Prime Minister cannot be
translated as -.
Britain will tomorrow be welcoming on an official visit one of the most controversial and youngest Prime Ministers in
Europe (The Times, 1970).
- , .
Sweden's neutral faith ought not to be in doubt (Ib.) .
The collocation documentary bombshell is rather uncommon and individual, but evidently it does not violate English
collocational patterns, while the corresponding Russian collocation - impossible. Therefore its
translation requires a number of transformations:
A teacher who leaves a documentary bombshell lying around by negligence is as culpable s the top civil servant who
leaves his classified secrets in a taxi (The Daily Mirror, 1950) ,
, , ,
, .
Translation of Monosemantic Words

10

Monosemantic words are comparatively few in number. There are the following lexical group of monosemantic words: (1)
antroponyms, (2) geographic names, (3) names of institutions, organisations, periodicals, (4) scientific and technological
terms.
nsm is typical of numerals, names of months, days of the week, etc.
1. Rendering of Antroponyms
The function of antroponyms is purely nominative. They help to identify a person.
There are two ways of rendering them: transcription and transliteration.
Transcription is now universally accepted. Mary , Jack , Hailey , etc. Tradition, however, still plays
an important role. Some well-known names are rendered according to the tradition. Thus, it is George Bernard Show
(not ). King George is , King Charles I .
Some telling names in fiction are translated:
- Slap-Dash, Humpty-Dumpty -.
2. Rendering of Geographical Names
Tradition is very strong in rendering this group of words. They are often rendered according to the usage of earlier days,
e.g. Dover , Texas , Hull , etc.
But in some cases the tradition has been abandoned in favour of transcription. So Virginia is now , not
, and Hull is often rendered as . Extended names are often translated: the Cape of Good Hope
.
3. Rendering of the Names of Institutions, Periodicals, Hotels. Streets, etc,
These classes of proper names are usually transcribed, e.g.
General Motors , Times . Hotel Carlton , Bayswater Road
.
But the telling names of old inns as well as the names of streets in historical novels are translated; The Red Lion
. The Economist publishing office is in Threadneedle street
, but tailors lived in Threadneedle street

4. Translation of terms
Terms are generally associated with a definite branch of science. They are characterised by a tendency to be
monosemantic in a given branch of science and technology and therefore easily call forth the required concept: calorie
, equator , polysemantic , etc. But it should be taken into consideration that one and
the same term may have different meaning in different branches of science, e.g. line 1) , 2)
. In some cases the recent terminological explosion has produced polysemy even within the same branch
(e.g. in electronics may be keep-alive electrode or trigger electrode).
There is another group of words of terminological nature: names of animals, birds, etc, e.g. tiger , cat ,
swallow . These words may acquire a figurative meaning in the source language which has no equivalent in
the target-language, e.g. tiger had a transferred meaning (now rare) smart-liveried small boy as groom (Concise Oxford
Dictionary) , -.
Names of plants also belong to this group: oak , lily-of-the-valley , as well as names of natural elements,
names of the days of the week, of months and numerals: oxygen , Thursday , July ,
thousand , million .
Despecialization of terms in news media may occasionally pose a translation problem (the launching pad for his career
).
LECTURE 7
TRANSLATION OF POLYSEMANTIC, PSEUDO-INTERNATIONAL WORDS AND NON-EQUIVALENTS
Translation of Polysemantic Words
Different meanings of polysemantic words are revealed in the context. The term context is understood as the minimum
stretch of speech diagnosing each individual meaning of the word. The context individualizes the meanings, brings them
out.
The context reveals concrete or abstract meanings of a word, its direct or transferred meaning, e.g. the word truth is
used in its concrete everyday meaning in the phrase Tell me the truth , while in the following
sentence To understand and to know the reality, it is necessary to have a theory of knowledge corresponding to truth (R.
Fox, Marxism and literature) the word truth is used in its abstract philosophical meaning . ,
, , . In the
following examples the context reveals direct and transferred meanings of the word to cripple. Smith was crippled in the
war (direct meaning), Reactionaries cripple the national movement in Africa
(transferred meaning).
The context also reveals a free or bound use of the word. He made a pace or two forward. (free)
. He kept pace with the times (bound) . In this latter case the word pace forms part of a
phraseological unity and is translated by a corresponding phraseological unity.
Here are some more examples. The adjective brittle developed a new figurative meaning used to describe tone,
looks, temper, etc.
He has a brittle easily loses his temper. (Hornby)

11

A brittle smile (a forced smile) Kathleen was as white as Cade had been the day Scarlett called,
white and hard and brittle( M. Mitchell) , .
, . The context is not always limited to a minimum stretch of speech
(microcontext). Sometimes macrocontext ( a paragraph, a chapter or even a whole book) is necessary for a correct
interpretation of the meaning. Describing Becky Sharp Thackeray writes: The wretched woman was in a brilliant full
toilet. Knowing Thackerays negative attitude toward Becky, of the two meanings of the word wretched (1)
, (2) the latter should be used in the translation of this sentence: //
.
Translation of Pseudo-International Words
There is a distinct group of words, which constitute a special difficulty for the translator, the so-called pseudo-international
words. As distinct from genuine international words which have a more or less similar phonetic form and carry the same
meaning (electronics , cybernatics , algebra , the pseudo-international words
differ in meaning from language to language either completely, e.g. commutator , complexion , or
partially elevator 1) , 2) .
They are known as the translators false friends. Although they are warned against them, translators are often deceived
by formal resemblance into making errors. Here are some examples of such words and their equivalents in Russian:
There were attempts to sabotage key services in Santiago (the Economist, 1974)
.
We are told that BBC television this autumn will give a massive coverage to the general election (Morning Star, 1968)
, --
.
The Russian word is monosemantic and has positive connotations. The meaning of the English progress is
neutral and can apply to any movement as can be seen from the title of Hogarth picture Rakes Progress
, or from the following examples: Her progress about London during that first week was one thrilling adventure
(H. Walpole) .
Sometimes the meaning of international words is identical in English and in Russian but the collocation pattern is different
which prevents the use of the Russian word in translation.
Never before in the history of the world have there been so many persons engaged in the translation of both secular and
religious materials (E. Nida and Ch. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation).
Although the meanings of the words religious and materials are identical, the collocation
is quite impossible in Russian. An adequate translation would be:
, .
Rendering of Contextual Meaninigs
A contextual meaning arises in the context. It should not be regarded as part of the semantic structure of the word. Every
word possesses an enormous potentuality for generating new contextual meanings. These occasional contextual
meanings are not arbitary, but are always predetermined by the semantic structure of the word. It largely depends upon
the semantic context. A contextual meaning possible in one language is impossible in another.
In an atomic war women and children will be the first hostages (D.W.)
.
In this sentence the contextual meaning of the word hostage is the victim. This contextual is evidently implicit in its
dictionary meaning. A similar contextual meaning cannot be generated by the Russian word . Thus the word
is the only possible equivalent.
The word exploitation acquires an unexpected contextual meaning in the following sentence: Britains worldwide
exploitation was shaken by colonial Liberation Movement. (D.W.)
The contextual meaning was formed metonymically: every colonial system is based on exploitation which is the
foundation of colonial power. The Russian word can not generate similar contextual meaning. A possible
equivalent will also be formed metonymically:
- .
Contextual meanings often produce a strong effect, performing a stylistic function of deceived expectancy. The
translator is confronted with a double difficulty: he should avoid toning it down and must not violate the norms of the
target-language.
Translation of Non-equivalents
The so-called non-equivalents are the words of the source-language which either have no equivalents in the target
language or no equivalent denotatum in the target culture. They may be divided into two groups. The first group consists
of the so-called realia-words denoting things, objects, features of national life, customs, habits, etc., e.g. House of
Commons, thane, coroner, teach-in, drive-in, cricket, etc.
The second group embraces words, which for some linguistic reason have no equivalent in the target language:
conservationist, readership, glimpse, etc.
Three Ways Of Rendering Non-Equivalents
1. By direct borrowing (transliteration or transcription): impeachment , thane , mayor , knowhow -. The latter is now used as a term in official documents, trade agreements etc. But the translator should not
abuse his right to use loan words and should avoid overburdening the Russian text with numerous and often unnecessary
borrowings. This tendency for indiscriminate borrowings of words denoting foreign realia was strongly opposed by the
famous Soviet translator I.A. Kashkin. (.. , ,
, , 1952, 2.)

12

Such borrowings, as -, - are frequently not understood by the general reader. It is often better to resort
to interpreting translation to make the notion clear: tribalism- , press-release ,
teach-in
.
2. By translation loans. House of Commons , backbencher , brain-drain
.
3. By descriptive or interpreting translation. Landslide , a
stringer (Am.) , , wishful
thinking .
The action of Congress and of North Carolina and Tennessee statesmen, aided by gifts of wise conservationists, have set
this land aside as a Great Smoky National Park. (National Geographic, 1964).
-
,
, .
LECTURE 8
THE RENDERING OF EMOTIVE AND STYLISTIC MEANINGS
Translation of words with emotive meaning
Emotive meaning may be regarded as one of the objective semantic features proper to words as linguistic units and
should not be confused with contextual emotive meaning that words may acquire in speech. Emotive meaning varies in
different word classes. In some of them, for example, in interjections, the emotive element prevails whereas in function
words it is practically non-existent.
The emotion meaning is based on connotations positive, negative or neutral. Russian is rich in emotive suffixes whose
meaning is rendered by using additional lexical items (e.g. small, wretched house) or different lexemes (cf.:
house, hovel).
Some words may acquire a negative or positive connotation in different contexts. The noun glamour and the adjective
glamorous may illustrate this point. The following examples are from Somerset Maugham: R. was captivated by the
vulgar glamour and the shoddy brilliance of the scene before him. .
.
(As a matter of fact both collocations vulgar glamour and shoddy brilliance are synonymous):
...who were attracted for the moment by the glamour of the dancer or the blatant sensuality of the woman. ...
.
Cf.: the following example from a newspaper review:
Hirshs Richard is not lacking in glamour. Facially he is a smiling fallen angel (The Observer Review, 1973).
. .
Sometimes differences in usage or valency do not allow the use of the Russian referential equivalent, and the translator is
forced to resort to a lexical replacement with the emotive meaning preserved.
In the general strike, the fight against the depression, the antifascist struggle, and the struggle against Hitlerism the British
Communist Party played a proud role (The Labour Monthly, 1970).
, ,
.
The emotive meaning of some adjectives and adverbs is so strong that it suppresses the referential meaning (I. R.
Galperin. Stylistics. M.,1971, p.60.) and they are used merely as intensifiers. They are rendered by Russian intensifiers
irrespective of their reference.
Even judged by Tory standards, the level of the debate on the devaluation of the pound yesterday was abysmally low
(M.S., 1973).

// .
The emotive meaning often determines the translators choie. The English word endless is neutral in its connotations,
while the Russian has negative connotations boring or tiresome ( ). Thus, in the
translation of the phrase the endless resolutions received by the National Peace Committee the word endless should
be translated by Russian adjective or . ,
. The Russian word conveys positive connotations, e.g.
, where as its English referential equivalent is evidently neutral. Horror dawned in her face (Victoria
Holt). A possible translation will be: .
Rendering of Stylistic Meaning in Translation
Every word is stylistically marked according to the layer of the vocabulary it belongs to. Stylistically words can be subdivi ded into literary and non-literary. (See I. R. Galperin, op. cit. p.63. ) The stylistic function of the different strata of the
English vocabulary depends not so much on the inner qualities of each of the groups as on their interaction when
opposed to one another.(I. R. Galperin, op. cit. p.68.) Care should be taken to render stylistic meaning My dear
Copperfield, said Mr. Micawber, this is luxurious. This is a way of life which reminds me of a period when I was myself in
a state of celibacy, and Mrs Micawber had not yet been solicited to\plight her faith at the Hymeneal altar (Ch. Dickens)
, , .
, ,
.
If you don't keep your yap shut... (J. Salinger)

13

 /. . /
Then he really let one go at me (ibid.) -.
It would be an error to translate a neutral or a literary word by a colloquial one. A mistake of this type occurs in the
excellent translation of Henry Esmond by E. Kalashnikova:
She had recourse to the ultimo ratio of all women and burst into tears. ultimo ratio
.
Translation of Phraseological Units
Phraseological units may be classified into three big groups:
phraseological fusions, phraseological unities and phraseological collocations.
Phraseological fusions are usually rendered by interpreting translation: to show the white feather pyco; to dine
with Duke Humphry . Sometimes they have word-equivalents: red tape , to pull one's
leg , .
The meaning of a phraseological fusion may often be rendered by a series of alternative phrases, e.g. to go the whole
hog - - , , , (
.).
According to the principles of their translation phraseological unities can be divided into four groups:
1) Phraseological unities having Russian counterparts with the same meaning and simailar images. They can often be
traced to the same prototype: biblical, mythological, etc.
All that glitters is not gold. , .
As a man sows, so he shall reap. , .
2) Phraseological unities having the same meaning but expressing it through a different image. Too many cooks spoil the
broth .
T buy a pig in a poke. .
Phraseological unities of the source-language sometimes have synonymous equivalents in the target-language. The
choice is open to the translator and is often determined by the context.
Between the devil and the deep sea , ; .
In the absence of a correlated phraseological unity the translator resorts to interpreting translation.
A skeleton in the closet (cupboard) , , .
Target-language equivalents having a local colour should be avoided. To carry coals to Newcastle should not be
translated by the Russian . In this case two solutions are possible: a) to preserve
the image of the English phraseological unity . b) to resort to interpreting translation
.
3) Phraseological unities having no equivalents in Russian are rendered by interpreting translation. Little pitchers have
long ears .
4) Phraseological unities having word equivalents: shake a leg , hang fire -, ,
.
Translation of Phraseological Collocations
Phraseological collocations are motivated but they are made up of words possessing specific lexical valency which
accounts for a certain degree of stability in such word groups.
They may be translated by corresponding phraseological collocations of the target-language: to take part
, to throw a glance . They may be also translated by a word (to take part ) or a
free word group (to take one's temperature ).
LECTURE 9
LEXICAL THANSFORMATIONS
There are five types of lexical transformations:
1. Concretization
2. Generalization
3. Antonymic translation
4. Metonymic translation
5. Paraphrasing
Concretization is a most frequent device in translation from English into Russian. There is a large group of English words
of wide semantic volume ( ). These words belong to different parts of speech;
nouns, adjectives, verbs, e.g. thing; point, stuff, stunt, affair; nice, fine, bad; to say, to go, to get, to come, to involve. As
the meaning of such words is relatively vague they can be used in different contents, and their valency is therefore
extremely broad. In fact they are sometimes used as mere prop-words. So a context, at least a microcontext (a minimal
stretch of speech), is necessary to determine their meaning.
He came in signt of the lodge, a long, low, frowning thing of red brick (A. Wilson). ,
, , .
If the Prime Minister's speech made few new points, it was statesmanlike. And if it was stronger in terms of planned policy
than of achieved results, this is often the ase with political oratory (The Times, 1965). -
, .
, ,
.

14

In the first example the decemantized word thing was concretized and translated by a word of full meaning , in
the second example the desemantized words points and the case are used as prop-words and not rendered in the
translation.
Many English verbs also belong to this group, particularly verbs of motion and verbs of speech.
, -
. (... -
, ., 1968, . 90.)
At the by-election victory went to the Labour candidate (M.S. 1973).
.
The rain ame in torrents (I.Murdoch). .
So far 65 people have died in floods in Dacca Province, East Pakistan (Morning Star, 1973)
, 65 , .
Sometimes a macrocontext is necessary for the translation of such words:
Two of the shipwrecked seamen died of exposure (M.S., 1976) e
/ /.
It was a good solid house built to withstand time and exposure (A. Christie). ,
, .
Abstract nouns are often concretized in translation if there is no correlated abstract word in Russian: The Soviet Union's
record in medial care .
Not infrequently concretization is resorted to as correlated generalizing words in English and in Russian have a different
usage. Thus the word limbs has a wider usage than the Russian .
Thank you, said Margaret, feeling large and awkward and clumsy in all her limbs. (H. Walpole). ,
, , .
The English word child has a wider usage than its correlated Russian and is often concretized as ,
, , .
No one know with what passionate emotion she loved this child (H. Valpoie). ,
.
Generalization
This device is the reverse of concretization. Still there is a tendency in the English language for differentiation where the
Russian language uses a more general word, e.g. , hand and arm; leg and foot; fingers and toes.
In some cases, although there is an equivalent in the target language at the some level of abstraction, generalization may
be desirable for purely stylistic reasons:
Since the shooting of Robert Kenney five days ago about 90 Americans have been shot dead. (The Guardian, 1968).
, , 90
.
Generalization is sometimes used in rendering non-equivalents (e.g. summary court ; a summary
court is not only a disciplinary court but the least formal one, consisting of one officer, etc.).
Antonymic Translation
Antonymic translation is a kind of grammatical and lexical transformation which substitutes an affirmative construction for
a negative or vice versa with some accompanying lexical change, usually substituting the antonym for the original word.
Keep the child out of the sun He .
M precious wife, said I, we must be serious sometimes. (Ch. Dickens), , ,
.
M aunt and I, when we were left alone, talked far into the night, how the emigrants never wrote home otherwise than
cheerfully and hopefully. (Ibid.)
, , ,
.
Metonymic Translation
Metonymic translation is a lexical transformation based on the substitution of contiguous concepts.
The advantages of sound have nowhere been better understood or utilized than on the Third Programme. (Ved Mehta,
John Is Easy to Please)
--.
On Capitol Hill residents have been assaulted on their porches in their garages or while waiting for a bus, sometimes
within full view of other citizens too frightened to move.
, ,
, , .
London in July with the sun for once continually shining had become mad place, stiffing, enclosed, dry (I.Murdoch).
, , .
In all these examples adequate translation has been achieved by means of metonymic transformations.
Paraphrasing
Paraphrasing is rendering of the meaning of some idiomatic phrase in the source language by a phrase in the target
language consisting of non-correlated lexical units, e.g.
Good riddance ; In for a penny, in for I pound ;
, .

15

A phraseological unit is rendered by a corresponding Russian phraseological unit expressing the same idea in different
words.
LECTURE 10
TRANSLATION AND THE PROBLEMS OF STYLE
The problems of style, affecting translation, may be subdivided into two major categories: the problem of functional styles
and the problem of stylistic devices.
The problem of functional styles pertains to the specific features of texts of different genres in the source and target
languages. Texts, belonging to different functional styles, such as official documents, scientific papers, technical manuals,
news items and fiction, are characterized by a number of distinctive features that vary from language to language. These
variations affect the composition of the text, its syntactic and semantic structure and the choice of linguistic devices for
each type of a text. Official documents are replete with set phrases for which there are usually standard equivalents in the
target language (of. the High Contracting Parties , done in the city of Moscow
. , we, the undersigned , , etc., typical of the text of a treaty). Their
syntax is usually characterized by complex structures and their lexicon by the highest degree of formality (hereinafter
referred to , the signatories of the present agreement shall be responsible for ensuring the
observance thereof -, , ). Scientific and
technical texts are characterized by the use of special terminology, equivalents, for which should be selected at the
appropriate style level (for instance, in a medical text pneumonia should be translated as and not as
ee .
In a technical manual it is essential in case of terminological synonymy to use the same term for a given item (e.g. if
is translated as antenna switch, the latter should be consistently used throughout the text for
the use of the synonymic duplexer gives the impression that reference is made to two units rather than n. Special
attention should be paid to the so-called technical phraseology (e.g. turn as far as it will go,
rotate clockwise).
Text analysis and translation. Russian and English newspaper texts are characterized by a number of common features
(an abundance of neologisms and cliches, a wide stylistic range, preference for compressed structures, etc.) Yet these
texts display several distinctive features. These features may be illustrated by the English news item and its Russian
counterpart.
The Headline of a Russian news item is more frequently based on noun phrases while an English headline favours verb
phrases ( Kidnapped General Escapes). English headlines use the present for the past
( Government Resigns) and an infinitive for the future while in Russian futurity may be
expressed lexically (Coal-miners to Strike ) English headlines re full of the socalled headline words, short words, covering a very wide semantic area (e.g. quite abandon, withdraw, leave, give up,
resign; bid = appeal, try, attempt, initiative; rap = criticize, condemn, expose) whose translation usually depends on the
context of the item itself.
The lead should ideally answer the 6 wh'-s (who? when? where? what? why? how?) of course, not necessary all of
them.
The most typical sequence of elements in a Russian lead is as follows: Source + Message (
) In English it is usually Message + Source (The next round of
voting take place to-morrow, the UPI reports). The Message in English is typically presented, in this order: Event + Place
+ Time (The British Prime-Minister yesterday arrived for top-level talks in Washington/ The British Prime-Minister arrived
yesterday for top-level talks in Washington. The word order of the Russian lead is often inverted: Time + Place + Event
( - ) Another problem, involved in the translation of newspaper texts,
is that of newspaper cliches. Some of them have close-parallels in the target language (cf. the English trial balloon and
the Russian . Cliches tend to become polysemantic which may affect their translation. Thus
communications gap may be rendered as , .
The frequency parameters of lexical items should be taken into account in choosing their equivalents in the target language (e.g. the English circles is not used in English newspaper texts as frequently as the Russian and therefore
should be sometimes alternated with synonyms (e.g. quarters as in official quarters) or contextual substitutes (as, for
instance, community in the business community).
Stylistic modifications of the text are among the most frequent transformations, used in translation. A typical modification
in translating newspaper texts from Russian into English is from bookish to neutral and sometimes even colloquial while in
translating into Russian a typical change is from colloquial or neutral to bookish:
The secretary told the news conference that the talks would soon be resumed. - ,
.
Sport writers banged away at club officers. .
Such charges are due to a somewhat greater orientation of the Russian news media towards the bookish style or
officialese.
Compression and expansion of the text. A contrastive analysis of Russian and English newspapers reveals a considerably
greater proportion of compressed structures in English. This calls for expansion (an increase in the number of syntactic
elements) when translating into Russian and compression (their reduction) when translating into English.
Compression and expansion may involve a mere re-grouping of semes (semantic components), i.e. choosing a more or
less economical form of their expression (using a word instead of a phrase or vice versa):
. Car output averages a million a year; He

16

 ? Would you please illustrate this thesis? On the other hand, they may amount to the omission or
addition of semantic components, implied in the linguistic or extralinguistic context:
At the summit meeting in the White House yesterday... Defense Panel
; After Paris or London Washington looks provincial ,
, .
Peace Committee .
The problem of stylistic devices centers around the relative functional value of seemingly identical stylistic resources. In
case their functional role is different in the source and target languages, a different stylistic device should be employed in
the target language to achieve e comparable stylistic effect. Thus the stylistic effect of alliteration, very widely used in
English but relatively uncommon in Russian, except in poetry, is compensated for by using such devices as, for instance,
rhyme: Butler; donnish, dignified and dull : , .
It should be borne in mind that news media, both in Russian and in English, tend to use stereotyped stylistic devices
rather than freshly minted ones. To evoke a similar response an equally stereotyped device is sought; in the target
language, even if it involves some modification of the underlying image. Cf.: the swelling tide of wording-class opposition
and a similar, sufficiently stereotyped metaphor in Russian.
A change in the image, underlying an extended metaphor, becomes inevitable if the metaphor in question is a
phraseological unit which cannot be rendered verbatim:
Pie in the sky is too colourless a phrase to describe Mr. Heath's closing speech to the Tory Party's conference. It was
more like caviar in the stratosphere. ,
, . - . Shifts in the denotational
(referntial) meaning are therefore inevitable in many instances when a stylistic effect is as im portant as the informative
content of the message. It is particularly true in translating puns whose humorous effect can, harder be conveyed without
sacrificing part of the denotational meaning:
At the television cameras pan contestants and the critics pan the show, muscles twitch, words are flubbed, sweat
drenches dinner jackets and gowns. ,
.
The substitution of for cameras makes it possible to achieve a similar stylistic effect, based on the etymological
end semantical association of the Russian and . Another powerful expressive device is
'code switching', i.e. an abrupt change to an altogether different style register to achieve a stylistic effect. Very often this is
done merely to reinforce the expressive power of the phrase:
But the fact remains that the people of Spain in their overwhelming majority hate Franco's guts.
, .
The English slang phrase hate Franko's guts becomes particularly expressive against a stylistically neutral background of
the rest of the sentence. But that does not mean that the same device should be used to Russian. A literary lexical
intensifier () will serve the same purpose.
On the other hand, the use of slang as a characterization device calls for the use of a similar style register in the target
language:
But he knows that community control of police is where it's at ,
.
LECTURE 11
SOCIOLGICAL VARIATION OF ENGLISH AND ITS REFLECTION IN TRANSLATION
As all languages, English is by so means a homogeneous or monolithic system. It is made up of a multitude of
subsystems of territorial and social dialects. What is more, Standard English is not homogeneous either end comprises
several varieties British American, Australian, etc.
The existence of all these subsystems and varieties poses a number of problems for translation.
In dealing with territorial dialects it should be remembered that they cannot be considered purely regional varieties of
English In fact, they are socioregional subsystems for the communities of their users are usually defined not only in
geographic but also in social terms. For instance, Cockney, the dialect of the East End district of London, is not just a
regional, but a socioregional dialect whose speakers belong to the lower and less educated social groups.
In rendering dialect characteristics the translator, as we have already pointed out, blots out purely regional features but
conveys the social markets by using common vernacular or other substandard forms of the target language, void of any
regional characteristics, Here is, for instance, the way the translator rendered one of the passages in B.Shaw's
Pygmalion, where Eliza speaks broad Cockney:
...and what I say is, them as pinched it done her in. , , .
At the same time compensation is widely used in such cases: Of the following instance of a lexical compensation for
phonetic dialect markers from the same source:
Nah then, Freddy: look wh'y y' gowin, deah. , ! !
...eed now bettrn to sprawl a pore gel's flahrzn than ran awy athaht pyin... , ,
!
The two major varieties of Standard English are British and American. Their distinctive features affect in a different
manner the process of translating into English and into Russian. In translating into Russian British-American variations
amount to a problem of properly interpreting the English original. It should be a noted that seemingly identical lexical
items may take different denotational meanings in British and American English.
Harvard's faculty led all the rest in this demand For a Federal Force in Selma -

.

17

In this example the word faculty is used in a specific American sense (the teaching staff). To diagnose the meaning pro perly the transistor should note the origin of the text. The above passage, for example, comes from an American
newspaper. Sometimes differences between the two varieties of Standard English affect not the denotational meaning in
its entirety but just one of its components (semes). Such partial semantic divergences are also important for translation.
Cf. the following example:
To ship at least a carload of fruit constantly, one needs to have 1,000 to 1,200 trees of each variety in full bearing.
, o , 1000 1200
.
The verb ship means to transport both in British and American English. But in British English it has an additional
semanti component (by boat). In American English (and the above text comes from an American source) it means to
transport without any qualification. Therefore, goods may be shipped (in an American text) not only by boat, but also by
rail, track, etc.
Semantic differences between British and American English may affect not only words but also phrases. Thus the phrase
public school in the US means a school, usually for primary or secondary grades, that is maintained at public
expense. In England it is one of the few exclusive and endowed boarding schools (usually for boys) that prepare pupils
for university study or public service (e.g. Harrow, Eton, etc.). Thus the phrase He went to a public school would be
translated as or as depending on whether it
occurs in an American or English setting.
Essential semantic differences affect the system of numbers. Billion, used in an American text, is , but, if it is
used in a British text, it should be translated as . Equally important are some differences in the system of weights
and measures. Converting some of the American and British units into the metric system, the translator should remember,
for instance that the American ton (short ton) is equivalent to 2000 pounds while the British long ton amounts to 2240
pounds.
Lexical differences between British and American English may affect not only denotational but also connotational
meanings. Thus the term politician is stylistically neutral when it is used in Britain and should therefore be translated as
or . In the United States, however, it may also be , used in a derogatory connotation
and imply the use of dubious means to promote political goals. It may be translated in such cases as or
. On the other hand, the aggressive may lose its derogatory connotation in American texts and
could be rendered as , .
In translating into English the problem is that of selecting the proper variant with due regard for the receptor's nationality.
The choice of a lexical (and sometimes even grammatical) variant in rendering a Russian text into English sometimes
depends on whether the translation is intended for English or American readers. It is no coincidence that British readers
frequently object to the use f Americanisms in some texts, translated from Russian (e.g to instructor instead of
lecturer for the Russian. , graduate instead of school-leaver / /
diapers, instead of nappies apartment house instead of block of flats for . Americans, on the
other hand, object to the use of Briticisms in texts, intended for US readers. They consider unacceptable such items as,
for instance, green-grocery (instead of ''vegetable store for spanner instead of wrench for
, biscuit instead of cookie for etc.
However, in some cases the translator has to produce a text, intended for any English-speaking receptor, regardless of
his nationality, The choice of linguistic variants should then be based on different principles. Preference should be given to
linguistic forms and units, void of any local colour, over Americanisms, Briticisms, Canadianisms, etc. For instance, the
Russian should be rendered in such cases as a letter box (a general English term) rather than a mailbox (an Americanism) or a pillar-box (a Briticism), the Russian as corridor (general English), not as hallway (American), the Russian as dinner-jacket (general English), not as tuxedo (American). Unfortunately, this
is not always possible for a neutral general English term is not always available, and the translator then faces a choice
between an Americanism and Briticism. For example, the Russian has to be rendered either as
perambulator, pram (both British) or baby-carriage (American). In such cases the translator cannot disregard the
general tradition of the publishing house, news agency, etc. The Progress Publishers normally prefer in such situations
the British lexical variant (and, for that matter, British spelling as well).

. . , ., 1975.
. . . ., 1973.
. ., . ., . . 1, ., I960,
, , 1965
. ., A. M. . ., 1976
.. . ., 1974
. . . ., 1968
T. A. , ., 1976
.. . .,1973
Catford J. C. A linguistic theory of translation.
Jakobson R. On linguistic aspects of translation. In: On translation
R. A. Brower.(Ed.); Cambridge, Mass., I960.
Nida E. Towards a science of translation. Leiden, 1964
Nida E., b . The theory and practice of translation; Leiden, 1968

18