Replacing a word with a narrow meaning by one with a broader sense is called

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PART I.  IMPORTANCE OF LANGUAGE IN TRANSLATION

1.1               Language and extra linguistic world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sauce, etc.; 2. fool.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.2               Language as a means of communication

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

For
example, if one looks up the words (sign

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.
as Book tickets! in a situation involving

    reservation
of tickets or

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

    urgent
necessity to be given the book in question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PART
2.  LEXICAL TRANFORMATION

                      2.1 LEXICAL CORRESPONDENCES.

Due to the semantic features of language the
meaning of words, their usage, ability to combine with other
words associations awakened by them, the «place» they hold in
the lexical system of a language do not concur for the most
part. All the same «ideas» expressed by words coincide in most
cases, though the means of expression differ.

As it is impossible to embrace all the cases
of semantic differences between two languages, we shall restrict this
course to the most typical features.

The
principal types of lexical correspondences between two languages are as
follows:

I.                                            
Complete correspondences.

II.                  
Partial correspondences.

III.             
The absence of correspondences.

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

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

following
lexical groups,

1)   
Proper names and geographical denominations;

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

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

 II. PARTIAL LEXICAL CORRESPONDENCES

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

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

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

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

3.
The difference of semantic content of the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.
TYPES OF LEXICAL TRANSFORMATIONS

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

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

transformations:

1.lexical
substitutions;

2.
supplementations;

3.omissions
(dropping) .

1.
Lexical substitutions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. ABSENCE OF LEXICAL CORRESPONDENCES

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

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

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

 1)
realiae of everyday life—words denoting objects,

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

    -place);

 2)
proper names and geographical denominations;

 3)
addresses and greetings;

 4)
the titles of journals, magazines and newspapers;

 5)
weights, linear measures etc.

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

advertisements
of article’s for export.

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

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

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

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

2.3
Translation definition

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

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

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

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

The main types of phraseological conformities
are as follows:

I.                                        
Complete conformities.

II.               
Partial conformities.

III.                        
Absence of conformities.

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

1.black
frost (Phraseme)

2.To
bring oil to fire. (Idiom)

3.To
lose one’s head. (Idiom)

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

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

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

4.To
dance to smb’s pipe. (Idiom)

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

1    To
fish in troubled waters. (Idiom)

2    From
head to foot. (Idiom)

3    to
agree like cats and dogs (Phraseme)

        
4 to keep one’s head (Idiom)

b)
differing as to syntactical arrangement

1.Strike
while the iron is hot

2.Egyptian
darkness

3.armed
to teeth

4.All is not gold that glitters

III. Absence of conformities.

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

A.
verbatim word for word translation

B.  Translation by analogy.

C.  Descriptive translation,

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

l.To call things
by their true

  names.(Idiom)

         2.The arms race. ( Phraseme)

         3.Cold war. (Idiom)

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

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

 2.
to pull somebody’s leg (Idiom)

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

 1.to
enter the House (Phraseme)

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

 people
speak about translation or even write about it in  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a.  Elements and structures of the source text.

b.  Elements and structures of the target language.

c.  Systems of the languages involved in translation.

           
d.  Transformation rules to transform the elements

            
and structures of the source texts
into those of the

            
target text.

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

            
target text.

f.    
Interrelation of the conceptual contents of the

     source
and target texts.

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

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

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

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

1. 
analysis of the source text, situation and

                       
background  information.

2.       
synthesis of the translation model, and

3.        
verification of the model against the source and

             
target context (semantic, grammatical, stylistic),

             
situation, and background information resulting in the

            
 generation of the final I target text.

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

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

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

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

»
Then they are transferred to the frying oven «

you will obtain:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   2.4
Translation ranking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 2.5
Translation and style

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

Modern stylistics distinguishes the following
types of functional styles.

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

-Publicist
style:

-Newspaper
style.

-Scientific
style:

-Official
documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Gucci‘s sweats and Reebok.

-На какой передаче вы были в момент столкновения

-“Последние известия”

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

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

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

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

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

        
PART 3. THE WAYS OF WORDS AND

                  
SENTENCES TRANSLATION

          
3.1 MORPHOLOGICAL      CORRESPONDENCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject
— Predicate

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

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

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

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

The
principal types of grammatical correspondences;

a)        
complete correspondence;

b)      
partial correspondence;

c)        
the absence of correspondence.

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

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

Number

Singular   
Plural

Such
correspondence may be called complete  PARTIAL MORPHOLOGICAL  CORRESPONDENCE.

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

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

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

ABSENCE OF

MORPHOLOGICAL CORRESPONDENCE

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

English

my book

your
book

his,
her, its book

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

3.2 COMPLETE
SYNTACTIC CORRESPONDENCE

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

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

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

PARTIAL SYNTACTIC
CORRESPONDENCE

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

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

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

ABSENCE
OF SYNTACTIC CORRESPONDENCE

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

Compare:
I heard the door open .. .

In
the English sentence the predicative construction which

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

3.3 TYPES
OF GRAMMATICAL TRANSFORMATIONS

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

Grammatical
transformations are as follows;

l) substitution,

2) transposition,

3) omission,

4) supplementation.

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

1.   
Substitution. By substitution we understand the substitution of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In
Kazakh and Russian an indefinite pronoun is used

for translating
the indefinite article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He
raised his hand.

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

In  the 
process of translation:

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

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

-at   the   syntactic   level   syntactic   structures  
of  the   target

language
are substituted for those of the source.

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

                                             Appendix

Blitzkrieg   молниеносная война.

 Comprehensive
Programmed of Disarmament n    Всеобъемлющая программа разоружения.

International Nuclear
Information System n  международная система ядерной информации.

National Guard n  Национальная
гвардия

abet resistance v  оказывать
поддержку движению сопротивления(vi)

abrogated a treaty v  расторгнул
договор
(vi).

1.      abrogating a
convention n  расторжение договора.

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

3.  absolute war n решительные
боевые действия

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

1.      adhering to treaty provisions n соблюдение положений договора.

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

basic war plan n основной
стратегический  план.

beam the opposition v  подавлять
сопротивление(vi).

brush blaze n локальная
война

brush fire war n местная война

call to the colors v
объявлять мобилизацию(vi).

carried the day v  одержал победу(vi).

challenge to the
world community n вызов международному сообществу.

change in a policy n смена политики.

chemical warfare agreement n соглашение
о запрещении химического оружия.

circumvention of an
agreement n обход соглашения.

claims to world superiority n притязания на мировое господство.

comparison of military expenditures in
accordance with international

standards n сопоставление
военных бюджетов по международным стандартам

compensation allowance
n денежная компенсация.

competitive co—existence n сосуществование
в условиях соперничества.

completion of talks n завершение
переговоров.

compliance with
commitments n соблюдение обязательств.

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

conduct diplomacy v проводить дипломатию (vi).

conduct of
disarmament negotiations n ведение переговоров по разоружению.

consolidation of
peace n укрепление мира.

construction of
all-embracing system of international security n

создание
всеобъемлющей системы международной безопасности..

consultative board
n.консультативный совет

contending nation n. воюющее государство.

contest the air v оспаривать
господство в воздухе

control agency n. орган управления.

convene a meeting v созывать совещание

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

conventional armament
n. обычное вооружение

desperate situation n  отчаянное положение

dentist n  сторонник разрядки международной
напряженности deterioration of resistance nослабление сопротивления

diminished
international tension n. спад международной безопасности

diplomatic attack n дипломатическая атака

diplomatic
co-operation n дипломатическое сотрудничество

diplomatic decision
n. дипломатическое решение

disarmament issue n. проблема
разоружения.

                                 Bibliography

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

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

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

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

    1987

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

     Oxford, 1982

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

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

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

    отношения.Москва,1975

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

     речи. МГУ,
Москва,1978

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

    языка на
русский. Высш.шк.Москва,1973

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

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

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

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

      лицей.Москва,1996

16. Рецкер Я.И. теория
перевода и переводческая

     
практика.Москва,1974

17. Швейцер А.Д.
теория перевода.

    
Статус,проблемы,аспекты.Наука.Москва,1988

18. Щвейцер А.Д.
Перевод  

     
лингвистика.Москва,1980

19. Шевякова В.Е.

      Современный
английский

     
язык.Наука.Москва,1980

20. Федоров А.В.
Основы

      общей теории
перевода-

     
лингвистические

      проблемы

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

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

 

TYPES OF LEXICAL TRANSFORMATIONS 

In order to attain equivalence, despite the difference in formal and semantic systems of 

two languages, the translator is obliged to do various linguistic transformations. Their aims are: 

to ensure that the text imparts all the knowledge inferred in the original text, without violating 

the rules of the language it is translated into. 

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

transformations: 

1fexical substitutions; 

2. Supplementations; 

3. Omissions (dropping)

1

. 

1. Lexical substitutions. 1) In substitutions of lexical units words and stable word 

combinations are replaced by others which are not their equivalents. More often three cases are 

met with: a) a concrete definition —replacing a word with a broad sense by one of a narrower 

meaning (He is at school. —У мактабда ўқийди.—

OH УЧИТСЯ В ШКОЛЕ

; He is in the army. — 

У армияда хизмат киляпти; 

OH СЛУЖИТ В АРМЕ

; b) generalization —replacing a word with a 

---

---

Broadening is a type of semantic change by which the meaning of a word becomes broader or more inclusive than its earlier meaning. Also known as semantic broadening, generalization, expansion, or extension. The opposite process is called semantic narrowing, with a word taking on a more restricted meaning than it had before.

As Victoria Fromkin points out, «When the meaning of a word becomes broader, it means everything it used to mean and more,» (An Introduction to Language, 2013).

Explanations of Broadening

A number of writers, linguists, and others have provided explanations of how broadening came about, as this selection of quotes demonstrates.

Sol Steinmetz

Broadening of meaning . . . occurs when a word with a specific or limited meaning is widened. The broadening process is technically called generalization. An example of generalization is the word business, which originally meant ‘the state of being busy, careworn, or anxious,’ and was broadened to encompass all kinds of work or occupations.

Adrian Akmajian

Sometimes the use of existing words can become broader. For example, the slang word cool was originally part of the professional jargon of jazz musicians and referred to a specific artistic style of jazz (a use that was itself an extension). With the passage of time, the word has come to be applied to almost anything conceivable, not just music; and it no longer refers just to a certain genre or style, but is a general term indicating approval of the thing in question.

Terry Crowley and Claire Bowern

Quite a number of words have undergone semantic broadening in the history of English. The modern English word dog, for example, derives from the earlier form dogge, which was originally a particularly powerful breed of dog that originated in England. The word bird derives from the earlier word bridde, which originally referred only to young birds while still in the nest, but it has now been semantically broadened to refer to any birds at all.

Othe language experts have used examples of specific words or phrases—such as «thing,» «holiday,» or «you guys»—to show how broadening has developed over time.

Andrew Radford

The word thing is a classic example of such broadening. In Old English and Old Norse, this word meant ‘a public assembly.’ In present-day Icelandic, a language with similar Germanic roots to English, it still does. In Modern English, however, it has now been extended so much that it simply means ‘an entity of any kind.’ The word companion provides another example. It used to mean ‘someone who eats bread with you’ (see Italian con ‘with’ plus pain ‘bread’); now it means ‘someone who is with you.’ The word broadcast, which only a couple of centuries ago meant ‘to sow seeds,’ has now, in this technological age, been extended to include the spreading of information on television and radio. Pudding, which today is usually sweet and eaten for dessert, comes from the French word boudin, meaning a sausage made with animal intestines, a meaning retained in English black pudding.

Stephan Gramley and Kurt-Michael Pätzold

A recent generalization or semantic broadening has taken place in the phrase you guys in AmE, which is no longer restricted to men and can refer to mixed company, or even women only. Sell-by date also shows an extended meaning (metaphor) in Kennedy kept Hoover on past his sell-by date.

David Crystal

Extension or Generalization. A lexeme widens its meaning. Numerous examples of this process have occurred in the religious field, where office, doctrine, novice, and many other terms have taken on a more general, secular meaning.

George Yule

An example of broadening of meaning is the change from holy day as a religious feast to the very general break from work called a holiday.

John Holm

Semantic shift represents an extension of a word’s meaning with the loss of its earlier meaning (e.g. pineapple no longer means ‘fir cone’ in standard English). Semantic broadening is such extension without the loss of the original meaning. For example, tea in most English Creoles refers not only to the infusion made from various leaves, but also to any hot drink.

Benjamin W. Forston IV

Thing used to refer to an assembly or council, but in time came to refer to anything. In modern English slang, the same development has been affecting the word shit, whose basic meaning ‘feces’ has broadened to become synonymous with ‘thing’ or ‘stuff’ in some contexts (Don’t touch my shit; I’ve got a lot of shit to take care of this weekend). If a word’s meaning becomes so vague that one is hard-pressed to ascribe any specific meaning to it anymore, it is said to have undergone bleaching. Thing and shit above are both good examples. When a word’s meaning is broadened so that it loses its status as a full-content lexeme and becomes either a function word or an affix, it is said to undergo grammaticalization.

Change of meaning. Extension, narrowing, elevation, degradation of meaning of a word, metaphor, metonymy.

Definition of changes of word meaning Types of changes Extension Elevation Narrowing Degradation Metaphor Metonomy

Changes in word meaning When a word loses its old meaning and comes to refer to something different, the result is a change in word meaning. Change of meaning refers to the alternation of the meaning of existing words, as well as the addition of new meaning to a particular word. Changing word meaning has never ceased since the beginning of the language and will continue in the future. The changes in meaning are gradual, and words are not changed in a day.

Types of Change -Extension of meaning -Narrowing of meaning -Elevation of meaning -Degradation of meaning

Extension of Meaning — Generalization of Meaning It is a process by which a word which originally had a specialized meaning has now become generalized or has extended to cover a broader concept.

salary (original) a sum of money given to Roman soldiers to enable them to buy salt (present) fixed payment made by employer at regular intervals to employees holiday (original) holy day, a day of religious significance (present) day of festivity or recreation

She is such a pretty little thing. I have to pack my things for the journey. There is another thing I want to ask you about. That only makes things worse. The thing is, can we finish the job in time? A large proportion of polysemous words of modern English have their meanings extended sometime in the course of development. Some words are generalized to such a degree that they can mean almost everything. “Thing” which used to mean “a public assembly” or “a council” in Anglo-Saxon times, now has become an all-purpose word. Its meaning is so general, and we sometimes call this noun a ‘light noun’.

Generalization of meaning is also found in many technical terms, which are confined to specialized use. allergic (original) too sensitive to medicine (present) averse or disinclined alibi (original) a legal term signifying “the plea that the accused is not at the place when the crime is committed” (present) excuse

Narrowing of Meaning It is a process by which a word of wide meaning acquires a narrow or specialized sense. In other words, a word which used to have a more general sense becomes restricted in its application and conveys a special concept in present-day English. Narrowing; specialization; restriction

Narrowing of Meaning For economy, some phrases are shortened and only one element of the original, usually an adjective, is left to retain the meaning of the whole. Such adjectives have thus taken on specialized meanings. a general = a general officer an editorial = an editorial article Some material nouns are used to refer to objects made of them and thus have a more specific sense. glass a cup-like container or a mirror iron device for smoothing clothes

Change in associative meaning Both extension and narrowing of meaning are talking about the changes in conceptual meaning. Next we will talk about the changes in associative meaning. Elevation of meaning Degradation of meaning

Elevation of Meaning (amelioration) -It is the process by which words rise from humble beginnings to positions of importance. -Some words early in their history signify something quite low or humble, but change to designate something agreeable or pleasant. -A “snarl” word becomes a “purr” word, or a slang becomes a common word. -elevation; amelioration

Examples of elevation nice -ignorant — foolish — delightful, pleasant fond -foolish — affectionate awesome -terrible—terrific marshal -a keeper of horses — a high ranking army officer constable -a keeper of horses — a policeman Terrific headache Terrific party

Degradation of Meaning It is a process by which words with appreciatory or neutral affective meaning fall into ill reputation or come to be used in a derogatory sense. A “purr” word becomes a “snarl” word. degradation, degeneration, pejoration

Examples silly blessed and happy— innocent—-simple or simple-minded —-foolish sad full, satisfied, contented —— calm —— serious —-sorrowful

Figurative use of words Change in word meaning may result from the figurative use of the language. Metaphor and metonymy are two important figures of speech. Metaphor is a figure of speech containing an implied comparison based on similarity. E.x.: A cunning person may be referred to as a fox. Here “fox” means something other than its literal meaning. The word “fox” gets the figurative meaning of “a cunning person”.

Metaphor This is also a horse, but a metaphorical horse.

Example: foot foot 1. The lower extremity of the vertebrate leg that is in direct contact with the ground in standing or walking. 2. The lowest part; the bottom the foot of a mountain the foot of a page This meaning is derived through the metaphor “The last line on this page is the foot of the page.”

Metonymy is another important factor in semantic change. It is a figure of speech by which an object or an idea is described by the name of something else closely related to it.

Example: seat Seat (its sense is extended to the right to sit as a member of a committee, such as the House of Commons) He lost his seat in House of Commons. The word “seat” has acquired the meaning of “the right to sit as a member” through the above metonym.

More Example: cradle Cradle 1. A small low bed for an infant, often furnished with rockers 2. The earliest period of life; infancy from the cradle to the grave 3. A place of origin; a birthplace the cradle of civilization. These meanings are derived through the following metonyms.