CHAPTER V

SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES

5.1 Introduction

Syntactic pattern is a predominant feature in the system

of any language. The syntactic pattern of a language is

idiosyncratic to it. Some languages permit interchange of the

various constituents of a sentence with minimal change in the

meaning conveyed while some other languages do not allow it at

all. The syntactic changes which occur in TL, most of the times,
pose formidable challenges to a researcher in the field of

translation as he is surprised by the pattern behavioural change.

One could find the influence of one language on the other in

addition to the usual errors committed by the translators

themselves.

The present study mainly discusses the SL sentence

structures like simple, complex, active, passive, interrogative

and exclamatory and analysed how they get equivalents during the

process of FT and BT.

5.2 Changes in the Syntactic Structure

The changes taking place in the syntactic structure fall

under the two types of sentence pattern and they are discussed
below.
 130

i) The sentence patterns on the basis of structure and

ii) The sentence patterns on the basis of meaning

The study of sentence pattern on the basis of structure

depends on the grammatical elements involved in the actual

construction of the original text and they are analysed in the

following passages.

Simple Sentence Construction: The sentences which have only one

verb without any conjoined NPs are known as simple sentences or a

simple sentence which has only one finite verb.

Complex sentence construction: Embedding one or more than one

sentence, in a main sentence complex sentences are constructed.

Active sentence construction: In active sentences, the subject is

the agent doing an action. These are the sentences found mostly

in any language.

Passive sentence construction: In passive sentences, the subject

the agent of an action is instrumental NP and the object, the

sufferer (patient) of the action is subject.

Features of relative clause construction: In all the natural

languages noun and verb are two indispensable parts of speech.

With these two, languages have some words and clauses as the
modifiers of them. The clauses coming as the modifiers of the

noun are known as adjectival clauses or relative clauses.

Interrogative sentences: The interrogative sentences have raised
intonation expecting an answer.
 131

Exclamation: Generally, these sentences express the feelings like

wonder, pity, sorrow, fear and happiness.

Imperative sentence: Imperatives order a person to do an action,

and action of requisitions.

5.3 Identification of Syntactic Pattern in Translation

This section discusses the sentence on the basis of

structure. The changes that have taken place in the translation

are analysed here. The following examples show the changes

clearly. The total number of changes that have taken place in

each of the types has been given in the frequency table with

percentage.
Examples
1. SL1 - The minister said while addressing a function here

recently

TL -amaiccar cami:pattil natanta oru ku:ttattil

katumaya:ka ps.-cina.-r

SL2 - There was a meeting held in recently in which the

minister roughly scolded

The SL1 sentence is translated into TL with addition of

the adverbial clause katumayarka pe:cina:r. Here the text has

simple sentence structure and when it is back translated into

SL2, the text gets again the complex structure. Here the clause
 132

'roughly scolded' is the translated form of katumaya:ka pe:cina:r

and other structures in TL are partially translated forms. The

TL form amaiccar, camitpattil and oruku:ttattil are noun phrase

structures and the form natanta is the infinite verb, and when

these forms are translated in to SL2, the text gets two clause

structures one is 'there was a meeting held in recently1 as the

main clause structure and other is 'in which the minister roughly

scolded1 as the sub-ordinate clause structure. This type of

feature in translation some times create the complex structure in

the process of BT.

When some of the English simple sentences are translated

into Tamil the text gets again the same sentence structure and

while it goes back into English, it gets complex sentence.

For instance,

SL1 - The government had allotted Rs.1,800 crore for education

TL - araca:nkam kalvikka:ka atika ma:na tokaiyai otukkiyatu

SL2 - The government sanctioned more amount for education rather

than sanctioning for other departments.

The TL form aracainkam is a noun and the other form

atikama:na tokaiyai is the adjectival phrase; here the form
otukkiyatu is finite verbial structure. The clause atikama:na
tokaiyai is identified as the additional structure to the

original text. This additional form is equated with the SL2 text

'the government sanctioned more amount for education' which shows

 133

the main clause structure in the sentence. The sub-ordinate

structure 'rather than sanctioning for other departments' is

identical addition in SL2. In this example it is found that this

additional occurrence is caused by the use of TL form 'atikama:na

tokaiyai'. So it is inferred that the additions in FT could be
one of the causes for additions in BT.

While translating some of the English simple sentences

into Tamil they get simple sentence structure and when they are

re-translated into English, they get double sentence structure.

Example

SL1 - The first session consists of an overview of HIV infection

and AIDS
*TL - attkolli no:y ippolutu viraiva:kapparavukiratu

SL2 - AIDS is dangerous disease to human. Now it is widely

spreading

In this example the TL text is a badly translated version

of the original text. The SL2 text shows the partial translation
of TL text. Here, the TL clause a:tkolli no:y is the noun phrase
and it gets the same structure in SL2 as 'dangerous disease'

and other word ippolutu is a particle and the clause

viraiva:kapparavukiratu is the adverbial clause structure. These

two forms were translated satisfactorily with the eguivalents

'now' and 'widely spreading'. The forms 'AIDS' and 'to human'
 134

are additions to the TL structure. Such a type of additions in

the normal structure creates double sentences. In this example

the SL2 text gets two broken sentence structure; one is 'AIDS is

dangerous disease to human', and other one is 'now it is widely

spreading1.

When some of the sentences having complex structure in

English are translated into Tamil, the text gets the same complex

structure, and when it goes to BT the text gets the simple

sentence structure.
SL1 - The minister said while addressing a function here

recently
TL - cami:pattil natanta nikalcciyil pe:cumpolutu amaiccar itai

kurippitta:r

SL2 - The minister pointed out in recent meeting

Here, the TL text shows the translated version of the SL1

structure. The clause itai kurippitta:r is the additional

structure to the TL text, but both SL1 and TL texts are complex.
The SL2 text is adversely affected owing to the droppings that

have occurred in the TL text, i.e., the clauses natanta, itai and

pecumpolutu.
The following example explains this further
SL1 - Two sparrows built a nes in a nice spot in the roof of

Ramayya's house and the mother bird laid her eggs in it

* TL - irantu cittukkuruvikal ku:tu katti makilntu va:Intatu
i

*SL2 - Two sparrows lived in a nest

 135

Here the SL1 and TL text have the complex sentence

structure, when it is re-translated the text does not get a

complex structure. Already it is seen in the previous example

that due to the droppings the simple sentence structure is

produced. Here also the SL2 text is not translated properly. The

TL text gets complex structure and droppings are also found to

occur. The clauses 'in a nice spot', in the roof of Ramayya's

house and the mother bird laid her eggs in it' in the original

text are dropped. Here it is understood that sometimes the

droppings can also produce the complex sentence structure. The

TL forms irantu cittukkuruvikal makilntu Va:lntatu is the main

clause structure and the clause ku:tu katti is the derived form

of the main sentence.

Some of the items in the corpus show that while

translating the English simple sentence structure into Tamil

the text gets the complex sentence structure and while it is

re-translated into English the text gets the same sentence

structure.
SL1 - Minister for forest K.Lawrence has criticised private

engineering and medical colleges in the state

TL - taniya:r maruttuvam marrum poriyiyal kallu:rikalil ve/li

ma:navarkalai ce:rttukkolvatu parri vanatturai amaiccar

la:rans pe:cina:r

SL2 - The minister for forest Lawrence blamed that the private
medical and engineering colleges giving more admissions

to the outside students

 136

Analysing this example, it is found that the translators

have added the contextual information with the original text. Due

to this, the translated text gets complex structure in TL. Here,

the TL clauses vanatturai amaiccar la:rence pe:cin.a:r is the main

clause and other clauses are sub-ordinate sentences but they are
all the derived f orm , of the main clause structure and they are

partially translated into SL2. By scrutinizing this example it

can be estimatedwhether the additional occurrences are related

or not original text, and whether it creates only complex

sentence structure in both texts.

While translating the simple sentence structure into

Tamil, in some cases the sentence gets the same sentence

structure and while it goes back to SL2. Then also it gets

simple sentence structure.

SL1 - Two sparrows built a nest in a nice spot

TL - irantu kuruvikal o:ritattil ku:tu kattiyatu

SL2 - Two birds built a nest

Here the TL text is a partially translated version of the

SL1 text. The clause kuruvikal is the sub component of the main

component form paravaikal, in SL2 text, which has been translated

with the form 'birds' here also the text is not translated

properly, and the other TL form o:ritattil is properly translated

the SL1 text 'in a nice spot' is distinctively identified. While
 137

it goes to SL2 text the TL form o:ritattil has been dropped.

Here both texts show simple sentence structure. It is already

noticed that sometimes the droppings can create only the complex

structure but, here it has been disproved that it can also be the

cause of the simple sentence structure in FT and in BT.

The clauses coming as the modifiers of the noun are known

as adjectival or relative clauses. While some of the English

constructions having simple sentence structure are translated

into Tamil they modifiers or relative clause construction. When

they are processed in BT they do riot get the relative clause, on

the other hand they get the noun forms separately.

SL1 - Two sparrows built a nest in a nice spot in the roof of

Ramayya's house

TL - irantu cittukkuruvikal kattiya ku:du onru ra:mayya:

vi:ttil iruntatu
*

* SL2 - There is one nest in the Ramayya's house

In this example the clause kattiya ku:tu in TL text is

the relative clause and the whole text is constructed with

complex form and it is partially translated form of the SL1 text.

The relative clause kattiya ku:tu does not get the same in SL2

text and it gets noun form 'nest' alone. Here the SL2 text gets
the simple sentence structure which is due to dropping in the TL

structure. The whole process tries to say that wherever the

 138

relative clause construction occurs in the translation it would

result in having only the complex sentence, because the relative

clause occurrence gives the additional structure to the original

text. This is the case only found in the process of FT and where

the case droppings are a type of additions in the process of BT,

the text produces only non-relative clause with the simple

sentence structure.

When the sentences having passive construction in English

are translated into TL, the some of the texts get the active

sentence structure and while they are again translated into SL2

they get passive sentence structure. For instance,

SL1 - My dear! began the male sparrow

TL - a:n kuruvi anpa:ka alaittatu

SL2 - My dear! called by male bird

In FT the TL form a:nkuruvi is partially translated from

the SL1 form 'male sparrow1 and other form anpa:ka is the

connotative expression of the clause 'my dear; the form

alaittatu is not a translation of the SL1 text word 'began1. By

observing the construction, it is clear that the TL structure is

the deviated from the original. The SL2 text shows the forms
'called1 and 'male bird1 are properly translated the TL forms

alaittatu and a:nkuruvi and other form 'my dear' is the

 139

connotative expression of TL form anpa:ka. Here the addition

'by' creates the passive nature to the normal construction,

whereas in SL1 text the form 'began' is dropped in the TL text

and it has been substituted with the form alaittatu. Wherever

dropping or modifications are found (the structure getting

substitution), the sentence has the active sentence structure

during the FT. In other words, where additions occur in the

construction, the sentence gets the passive structure. In this

example, the SL2 text gets the same original structure.

When the passive sentences in English are translated into

Tamil, some of the texts get the passive structure in the process

of FT, and when they are translated back into English, they get

the active structure.

Example

SL1 - The government had allotted Rs.1,800 crores for education

TL - kalvikka:ka aracatl rupa:y 1,800 ko:&i otukkapattirukkiratu

SL2 - The government sanctioning Rs,1800 crores for education

The above example shows that the forms occur in the TL

text aracatl and otukkappattirukkiratu are two passive

structures in the translation. Here the form
otukkappattirukkiratu is the translated version of SL1 text
clause 'had allotted'. When considering the SL2 text the
 140

passive structure araca:l otukkappattirukkiratu has been

translated into active structure with the form 'government

sanctioning'. Here the TL passive structure araca:l has been

dropped. It is understood that whenever dropping occurs in the

passive construction, the sentence produces active structure.

When the sentences having active structure in original

are translated into Tamil some of the texts get the passive

structure whereas the SL2 texts get active sentence structure.

Example
SLl - The teaching programme is divided into four sessions
TL - pa:tattittam na:nku pirivukala:ka pirikkappatukiratu

SL2 - The teaching programme will divide into four sections

In this example, the TL clause pirikkappatukiratu is the

translation of SLl form 'divided' and the other clause

pirivukala:ka is not a mere translation of SLl form 'sessions'.

When it goes to SL2, the text shows dropping in the translation.

Here the TL clause pirivukala:ka produces the active sentence

structure. Here it is inferred that in case the clauses are

dropped in passive structure in the process of BT, the text can

also produces the active sentence structure.

 141

5.4 Change of Sentence Type

In this section some sentences are categorized on the

basis of meaning and they are analysed with few relevant

examples.

When the sentences having interrogative meaning are

translated into Tamil, the text gets the same sentences and

when it is back translated into English the text gets the

statement sentence.
For examples

SL1 - How am I to know?

TL - enakku eppati teriyum?

* SL2 - I don't know

The TL sentence is the translated version of SL1 text

whereas the SL2 sentence is not a translation of TL. If it is

analysed structurally the TL sentence is a partially translated

version. Though it is the same sentence structure as in

original. In SL2, the form 'know' is identically translated form

of TL form teriyum and it is in the nature of answer.

SL1 - Can I have a whisky - and - soda in here?

TL - na:n unkalukku matuvum co:ta:vum kontuvarava:?

*

SL2 - I will bring drink for you

 142

This example shows that both SL1 and TL texts have

interrogative sentences. In SL2 the text is in the form of the

statement sentence. Here, it is to be understood that wherever

the English interrogative sentences are translated into Tamil,

the text takes only the interrogative sentence. In other words

wherever the Tamil interrogative sentences are translated into

English the text takes only the statement sentences. This is

only because of the droppings. In this example the TL forms

'matuvum' and 'co:ta:vum' are dropped while back translated.

While translating the TL interrogative sentences into

SL2 the text gets the same original construction in the process

of BT. Here, it is seen that both translation are satisfactorily

done.

Examples

1. SL1 - Where exactly this place?

TL - inta itam cariya:ka enke: ullatu?

SL2 - Where exactly this place?

2. SL1 - What do you want now?

TL - unakku enna ve:ntum?

SL2 - What do you want?

3. SL1 - Should we not help this poor brahmin Ramayya?

TL - e:n inta e:lai ayyar ra:mayyavukku utavakku:ta:tu?

SL2 - Why can't help this poor brahmin Ramayya?

 143

When the English interrogative sentences are translated

into Tamil, some of the texts get the same sentence structure and

when go to BT, the English texts get imperative sentences. For

instance,

SL1 - Can I have a whisky -and -soda in here?

TL - inke: matuvum 6o:tavum perala:ma?

SL2 - Please let me have drink here

Here, while comparing the TL with SL2 text, the TL text

is the translated version of SL1 text at the same time the TL

text is not properly translated into SL2.

When the exclamatory sentences are translated into Tamil

the text gets the same sentences; As these sentences are getting

re-translated into English the translated text gets normal

statement sentence.

Example

SL1 - I see
TL - o: na;n pa:rkkire:n
SL2 - I will see

Here, the TL text is a literal translation of the

sentence and it has additional exclamatory marker 'oh' and it is

not properly translated into SL2 and the text indicates

droppings of the exclamation 'o:'.
 144

2. SL1 - My dear! began the male sparrow

TL - o: en anpe: a:n kuruvi a:rampitatu

* SL2 - The male bird lovely called

The SL1 text is partially translated into TL text, and

the TL text also is translated partially. While going to SL2,

the text does not have the exclamation, and it is in statement

sentence structure. Here the TL clause a:rampitatu dropped.

Moreover the clause en anpe: itself implies the meaning of

calling. It is inferred that the dropping of exclamatory feature

in FT creates the statement sentence.

5.5 Frequency Table

The following table shows the frequency of total

availability of all the above type of structures in both FT and

BT.

Pattern Structure Structure Frequency in

in SL1 in TL in SL2 availability

Complex Simple Complex 70%

Simple Simple Complex 56%
Simple Simple Double 44%
Complex Complex Simple 87%
Simple Complex Complex 98%
Simple Simple Simple 58%
Simple Relative Non-relative 25%
Passive Active Passive 67%
Passive Passive Active 86%
Active Passive Active 50%
Interrogative Interrogative Statement 33%
Interrogative Interrogative Interrogative 75%
Interrogative Interrogative Imperative 48%
Exclamation Exclamation Statement 85%
 145

Structure in SL1 Frequency of Frequency of

retention TL retention SL2

Simple 81% 60%

Complex 90% 70%
Active 50%
Passive 79% , 68%
Interrogative 75% 75%
Exclamation 85%

The preceding sections discussed the role of sentence

structure in both translations. Here it is scrutinized and

observed the frequency of the retention range in both

translations and they are calculated.

5.6 Conclusion

On the basis of the analysis, it is inferred that

wherever the complex sentences are translated, the frequency of

retention is found higher either in FT or in BT. When the simple

sentence structure is translated, the frequency of retention in

FT is higher than the frequency of retention in BT. No

occurrence of retention is found when the active sentences are

translated into Tamil, whereas in BT 40% of the frequency

retention is found. Here the passive constructions get more

frequency of retention in FT than the frequency of retention in

BT. When the interrogative sentences are translated the

frequency of retention range is meagre in both FT and BT. In the
translation of exclamatory sentence structures in FT, 68% of the

frequency of retention is found, whereas no frequency of

retention is found in BT.