Word for word translation это

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Literal translation, direct translation or word-for-word translation, is a translation of a text done by translating each word separately, without looking at how the words are used together in a phrase or sentence.^[1]

In translation theory, another term for «literal translation» is metaphrase (as opposed to paraphrase for an analogous translation).

Literal translation leads to mistranslation of idioms, which was once a serious problem for machine translation.^[2]

The term as used in translation studies[edit]

Usage[edit]

The term «literal translation» often appeared in the titles of 19th-century English translations of classical, Bible and other texts.

Cribs[edit]

Word-for-word translations («cribs,» «ponies» or «trots») are sometimes prepared for a writer who is translating a work written in a language they do not know. For example, Robert Pinsky is reported to have used a literal translation in preparing his translation of Dante’s Inferno (1994), as he does not know Italian.^{[citation needed]} Similarly, Richard Pevear worked from literal translations provided by his wife, Larissa Volokhonsky, in their translations of several Russian novels.^{[citation needed]}

Poetry to prose[edit]

Literal translation can also denote a translation that represents the precise meaning of the original text but does not attempt to convey its style, beauty, or poetry. There is, however, a great deal of difference between a literal translation of a poetic work and a prose translation. A literal translation of poetry may be in prose rather than verse, but also be error free. Charles Singleton’s translation of the Divine Comedy (1975) is regarded as a prose translation.

As bad practice[edit]

«Literal» translation implies that it is probably full of errors, since the translator has made no effort to (or is unable to) convey correct idioms or shades of meaning, for example, but it can also be a useful way of seeing how words are used to convey meaning in the source language.

Examples[edit]

A literal English translation of the German phrase «Ich habe Hunger» would be «I have hunger» in English, but this is clearly not a phrase that would generally be used in English, even though its meaning might be clear. Literal translations in which individual components within words or compounds are translated to create new lexical items in the target language (a process also known as “loan translation”) are called calques, e.g., “beer garden” from German “biergarten.”

The literal translation of the Italian sentence, «So che questo non va bene» («I know that this is not good»), produces «Know(I) that this not goes(it) well,» which has English words and Italian grammar.

Machine translation[edit]

Early machine translations (as of 1962^[2] at least) were notorious for this type of translation, as they simply employed a database of words and their translations. Later attempts utilized common phrases which resulted in better grammatical structure and capture of idioms, but with many words left in the original language. For translating synthetic languages, a morphosyntactic analyzer and synthesizer is required.

The best systems today use a combination of the above technologies and apply algorithms to correct the «natural» sound of the translation. In the end, though, professional translation firms that employ machine translation use it as a tool to create a rough translation that is then tweaked by a human, professional translator.

Douglas Hofstadter gave an example for the failures of a machine translation: The English sentence «In their house, everything comes in pairs. There’s his car and her car, his towels and her towels, and his library and hers.» is translated into French as «Dans leur maison, tout vient en paires. Il y a sa voiture et sa voiture, ses serviettes et ses serviettes, sa bibliothèque et les siennes.» That does not make sense, because the literal translation of both «his» and «hers» into French is «sa» in case of singular, and «ses» in case of plural, therefore the French version is not understandable.^[3]

Pidgins[edit]

Often, first-generation immigrants create something of a literal translation in how they speak their parents’ native language. This results in a mix of the two languages in something of a pidgin. Many such mixes have specific names, e.g. Spanglish or Denglisch. For example, American children of German immigrants are heard using «rockingstool» from the German word «schaukelstuhl» instead of «rocking chair».

Translator’s humor[edit]

Literal translation of idioms is a source of translators’ jokes and apocrypha. The following has often been told in relation to inexperienced translators or to machine translations: When the sentence, «The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak» («дух бодр, плоть же немощна«, an allusion to Mark 14:38) was translated into Russian and then back into English, the result was «The vodka is good, but the meat is rotten» («водка хорошая, но мясо протухло«). This is generally believed to be an amusing apocrypha rather than a reference to an actual machine-translation error.^[2]

References[edit]

^ «LITERAL | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary». dictionary.cambridge.org. Retrieved 2019-09-21.
^ ^a ^b ^c Hutchins, John (June 1995). ««The whisky was invisible», or Persistent myths of MT» (PDF). MT News International (11): 17–18. Archived from the original on 3 January 2021. Retrieved 16 February 2022.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
^ Hofstadter, Douglas (30 January 2018). «The Shallowness of Google Translate». The Atlantic. Retrieved 16 February 2022.

A. The Methods

Word-for-word translation

This is often demonstrated as interlinear translation, with The TL immediately below the SL words. The SL word-order is preserved and the words translated singly by their most common meanings, out of context. Cultural words are translated literally. The main use of word-for-word translation is either to understand the mechanics of the source language or construe a difficult text as a pre-t ran slat ion process.

Literal Translation

The SL grammatical constructions are converted to their nearest TL equivalents but the lexical words are again translated singly, out of context. As a pre-translation process, this indicates the problems to be solved.

Faithful translation

A faithful Translation attempts to reproduce the precise contextual meaning of the original within the constraints of the TL grammatical structures. It ‘transfers’ cultural words and preserves the degree of grammatical and lexical ‘abnormality’ (deviation from SL norms) in the translation. It attempts to be completely faithful to the intentions and the text-realisation of the SL writer.

Semantic translation

Semantic translation differs from ‘faithful translation’ only in as far as it must take more account of the aesthetic value (that is, the beautiful and natural sounds of the SL text, compromising on ‘meaning’ where appropriate so that no assonance, word-play or repetition jars in the finished version. Further, it may translate less important cultural words by culturally neutral third or functional terms but not by cultural equivalents – une nonne repassant un corporal may become ‘a nun ironing a corporal cloth’ – and it may make other small concessions to the readership. The distinction between ‘faithful’ and ‘semantic’ translation is that the first is uncompromising and dogmatic, while the second is more flexible, admits the creative exception to 100% fidelity and allows for the translator’s intuitive empathy with the original.

Adaptation

This is the ‘freest’ form of translation. It is used mainly for plays (comedies and poetry; the themes, characters, plots are usually preserved, the SL culture converted to the TL culture and the text rewritten. The deplorable practice of having a play or poem literally translated and then rewritten by an established dramatist or poet has produced many poor adaptations, but other adaptations have ‘rescued’ period plays.

Free translation

Free translation reproduces the matter without the manner, or the content without the form of the original. Usually it is a paraphrase much longer than the original, a so-called ‘intralingual translation*, often prolix and pretentious, and not translation at all.

Idiomatic translation

Idiomatic translation reproduces the ‘message’ of the original but tends to distort nuances of meaning by preferring colloquialisms and idioms where these do not exist in the original- (Authorities as diverse as Seteskovitch and Stuart Gilbert tend to this form of lively, ‘natural’ translation.)

Communicative translation

Communicative translation attempts to render the exact contextual meaning of the original in such a way that both content and language are readily acceptable and comprehensible to the readership.

B. Comments In These Methods

Commenting on these methods, I should first say that only semantic and communi-cative translation fulfil the two main aims of translation, which are first, accuracy, and second, economy. Semantic and communicative translation treat the following items similarly: stock and dead metaphors, normal collocations, technical Terms, slang, colloquialisms, standard notices, phaticisms, ordinary language.

So much for the detail, but semantic and communicative translation must also be seen as wholes. Semantic translation is personal and individual, follows the thought processes of the author, tends to over-translate, pursues nuances of meaning, yet aims at concision in order to reproduce pragmatic impact. Communicative translation is social, concentrates on the message and the main force of the text, tends to under-translate, to be simple, clear and brief, and is always written in a natural and resourceful style. A semantic translation is normally interior in it original- as there is both cognitive and pragmatic loss ‘Baudelaire’s translation Poe is said to be an exception: a communicative translation is often better than its original. At a pinch, a semantic translation has to interpret, a communicative translation to explain.

C. Equivalent Effect

It has sometimes been said that the overriding purpose of any translation should be to achieve ‘equivalent effect, i.e. to produce the same effect i’or one as close as possible on the readership of the translation as Has obtained on the readership of the original. This is also called the ‘equivalent response’ principle. Nida calls it “dynamic equivalence”. As I see it, ‘equivalent effect is the desirable result, rather than the aim of any translation, bearing in mind that it is an unlikely result in two cases: (a) if the purpose of the SL text is to affect and the TL translation is to inform (or vice versa); (b) if there is a pronounced cultural gap between the SL and the TL text.

D. Methods And Text-Categories

Considering the application of the two translation methods semantic and communicative to the three text-categories, suggest that commonly vocative and informative texts are translated too literally, and expressive texts not literally enough. On the other hand, the inaccuracy of translated literature has much longer roots: the attempt to see translation as an exercise in style, to get the ‘flavorful or the ‘spirit’ of the original: rhe refusal ro Translate by any TL word that looks the least bit like the SL word, or even by the SL word’s core meaning fl am talking mainly of adjectives), so that the translation becomes a sequence of synonyms ”grammatical shifts, and one-word to two- or three-word translations are usually avoided), which distorts its essence.

In expressive texts, the unit of translation is likely to be small, since words rather than sentences contain the finest nuances of meaning; further, there are likely to be fewer stock language units colloquialisms, stock metaphors and collocations, etc. Uhan in other texts. However, any type and length of cliche must be translated by its TL counterpart, however badly it reflects on the writer.

Note that I group informative and vocative texts together as suitable (or communicative translation. However, further distinctions can be made. Unless informative texts are badly/ inaccurately written, they are translated more closely than vocative texts. The translation of vocative texts immediately involves translation in the problem of the second person, the social factor which varies in its grammatical and lexical reflection from one language to another.

Where communicative translation of advertisements works so admirably, producing equivalent pragmatic effect, there seems no need to have recourse to * co-writing’, where two writers are given a number of basic facts about one product and instructed to write the most persuasive possible advert in their respective languages. I should mention that I have been describing methods of translation as products rather than processes, i.e, as they appear in the finished translation.

E. Translating

As for the process of translation, it is often dangerous to translate more than a sentence or two before reading the first two or three paragraphs, unless a quick glance through convinces you that the text is going to present few- problems. In fact, the more difficult – linguistically, culturally. There are plenty of words, like modal particles, jargon-words or grammatically-bound words, which for good reasons you may decide nor to translate. But translate virtually by words first if they are ‘technical’, whether they are ‘linguistic’ (marigot), or cultural (sesterce” or referential ‘sessile) and appear relatively context-free. Later, you have to contextualize them, and be prepared to back-track if you have opted for the wrong technical meaning.

F. Other Methods

1. Service translation, i.e. translation from one’s language of habitual use into another language. The term is not widely used, but as the practice is necessary in most countries, a term is required.

2. Plain prose translation, The prose translation of poems and poetic drama initiated by E. V. Rieu for Penguin Books. Usually stanzas become paragraphs, prose punctuation is introduced, original metaphors and SI. culture retained, whilst no sound-effects are reproduced. The reader can appreciate the sense of the work without experiencing equivalent effect. Plain prose translations arc often published in parallel with their originals, to which, altera ‘careful word-for-word comparison, they provide ready and full access.

3. Information translation. This conveys all the information in a non-hierary text, somerimes rearranged in a more logical form, sometimes partially summarised. and not in the form of a paraphrase.

4. Cognitive translation. This reproduces the information in a SL re a converting the SL grammar to its normal TL transpositions, normally reducing any figurative to literal language. I do not know to what extent this is mainly a theoretical or a useful concept, bur as a pre-translation procedure it is appropriate in a difficult, complicated stretch of text. A pragmatic component added to produce a semantic or a communicative translation.

5. Academic translation. This type of translation, practised in some British uni-versities, reduces an original SL text to an ‘elegant’ idiomatic educated TL version which follows a non-existent; literary register It irons out the expressiveness of a writer with modish colloquialisms. The archetype ot this tradition. which is still alive at Oxbridge ”the important thing is to get the flavour of the original”‘, was R. L. Graeme Ritchie, evidently a brilliant teacher and translator, who was outstandingly more accurate than his imitators. I quote tiny scraps of Ritchie’s weaknesses: La Noire-Dame avanca – ‘The Notre-Dame worked her way in‘; La plme hromlla les objets – The rain obscured everything1; Cette vie $e surpassera par le martyre t et le martyre ne tardera plus -That life was to Transcend itself through martyrdom and now martyrdom was not to be long in coming.

These last two concepts are mine, and only practice can show whether they will be useful as terms of reference in translation.

Reference

Newmark, Peter. (1988). A textbook of translation. New York: Sanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

Источник

Advantages and disadvantages of Word for Word Translation

Word for word translation or literal translation is the rendering of text from one language to another one word at a time with or without conveying the sense of the original text. In translation studies, literal translation is often associated with scientific, technical, technological or legal texts.

A bad practice

It is often considered a bad practice of conveying word by word translation in non-technical texts. This usually refers to the mistranslation of idioms that affects the meaning of the text, making it unintelligible. The concept of literal translation may be viewed as an oxymoron (contradiction in terms), given that literal denotes something existing without interpretation, whereas a translation, by its very nature, is an interpretation (an interpretation of the meaning of words from one language into another).

Usage

A word for word translation can be used in some languages and not others dependent on the sentence structure: El equipo está trabajando para terminar el informe would translate into English as The team is working to finish the report. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not. For example, the Spanish sentence above could not be translated into French or German using this technique because the French and German sentence structures are completely different. And because one sentence can be translated literally across languages does not mean that all sentences can be translated literally.

Literal translation can also denote a translation that represents the precise meaning of the original text but does not attempt to convey its style, beauty, or poetry. There is, however, a great deal of difference between a literal translation of a poetic work and a prose translation. A literal translation of poetry may be in prose rather than verse, but also be error free. Charles Singleton’s translation of The Divine Comedy (1975) is regarded as a prose translation.

Machine Translation

Early machine translations were famous for this type of translation because they simply created a database of words and their translations. Later attempts utilized common phrases which resulted in better grammatical structure and capture of idioms but with many words left in the original language.

The systems that we use nowadays are based on a combination of technologies and apply algorithms to correct the “natural” sound of the translation. However, professional translation agencies that use machine translation create a rough translation first that is then tweaked by a professional translator.

Mistakes and Jokes

Literal translation of idioms results quite often in jokes and amusement among translators and not only. The following famous example has often been told both in the context of newbie translators and that of machine translation: When the sentence “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak was translated into Russian and then back to English, the result was “The vodka is good, but the meat is rotten. This is generally believed to be simply an amusing story, and not a factual reference to an actual machine translation error.

No spam, we promise.

Since an early age I have been passionate about languages. I hold a Master’s degree in Translation and Interpreting, and I have worked as a freelance translator for several years. I specialize in Marketing, Digital Marketing, Web and Social Media. I love blogging and I also run the blog www.italiasocialmedia.com

Источник

First off, some data:

According to COCA word-for-word has 60 usages, 3 of them are «word-for-word translation». Word-by-word has 26 usages, none of them are «word-by-word translation» (but some with «transcription»).

The definition of word-for-word:

Oxford: In exactly the same or, when translated, exactly equivalent words
Merriam-Webster: being in or following the exact words, verbatim
The Free Dictionary: one word at a time, without regard for the sense of the whole

Only the last dictionary contains a definition for word-by-word, too:

The Free Dictionary: one word at a time

The definitions given by The Free Dictionary are, obviously, identical to each other.

Google hits:
Word-for-word ~21m
Word-for-word translation ~318k
Word-by-word ~3.8m
Word-by-word translation ~95k

According to usages and dictionaries word-by-word is, at least, less popular. And assuming that there may be a lot of usages from non-natives among the Google hits, this could be an indicator for word-by-word being even utterly wrong.

In another forum I found the following statement:

When I translate something «literally,» (wörtlich) it still follows the main rules of the language I’m translating into. What you mean is «word-by-word» (wortwörtlich) to me.

I assume that this was written by a German but I don’t know it. However, if this would be true a «word-by-word translation» would be a translation where I keep, for instance, the order of the words, disregarding if it makes sense in the target language.

Some examples:

Original: word-by-word
Word-by-word translation: Wort bei Wort (That’s a terrible translation!)

Original: It is critical to know…
Word-by-word translation: Es ist kritisch zu wissen… (That’s a terrible translation!)

Original: Ich glaub, ich spinne.
Word-by-word translation: I think I spider. (I guess only Germans understand this.)

A «word-for-word translation», however, would be an attempt to keep the word-choice as close as possible but following the rules of the target language (e.g. order of words) and also considering if the statement still makes sense in the other language. Here are better translations for the examples above:

Wort für Wort
Es ist wichtig zu wissen…
I think, I’m going nuts. (Actually, this is not a word-for-word translation but rather a sense-for-sense translation.)

So, my questions again:

As neither Oxford nor Merriam-Webster have any entries for word-by-word in their dictionaries: is word-by-word actually valid?
If yes, is there any difference between «word-by-word translation» and «word-for-word translation»? If yes again, what is it specifically?

Источник

Let me be clear, word-for-word translation doesn’t alter the grammar at all from source language (SL) to target language (TL). It is considered ridiculous, means nothing, and try not to use it if you’re a professional translator. The history of word-for-word translation began when people wanted to convert backwater people to learn their sacred texts (presumably the Bible), so they wanted to translate the sacred texts into the native languages. But they’re scared of changing the word of God, so they tried to preserve the “form” of the original text as much as possible, i.e., number of sentences, number of words in each sentence, and words in exactly the same order. Needless to say, the result is gibberish.

Translation that is fit for purpose should not achieve “formal equivalence” but “functional equivalence” and to do that, the “words” will disappear, change places, multiply, sprout, one will turn into ten and vice versa. Since translation’s main objective is “meaning”, it is very important to study about the theory of meaning. This is where semantics comes into the picture.

According to Catford (1965: 94) untranslatability occurs when it is impossible to build functionally relevant features of the situation into the contextual meaning of the TL text. Those happen where the difficulty is linguistic such as ambiguity (due to shared exponent of two or more SL grammatical or lexical items and polisemy) and oligosemy, and where difficulty is cultural. In semantics, there are some methods of analyzing the meaning of a word. Ogden & Richard propose the triangular concept of meaning in which semantics is also related to semiotics, pragmatics and discourse. The point is, in understanding the meaning we also need to relate it with the context.

Componential/Feature/Contrast analysis refers to the description of the meaning of words through structured sets of semantic features, which are given as “present”, “absent” or “indifferent with reference to feature”. Componential analysis is a method typical of structural semantics which analyzes the structure of a word’s meaning. Thus, it reveals the culturally important features by which speakers of the language distinguish different words in the domain (Ottenheimer, 2006:20). This is a highly valuable approach to learning another language and understanding a specific semantic domain of and Ethnography. For examples:

Man = [+ male], [+ mature],

Woman = [– male], [+ mature],

Boy = [+ male], [– mature],

Girl = [– male] [– mature],

Child = [+/– male] [– mature].

Another approach in meaning which is also very useful for translation study is a theory proposed by Anna Wierzbicka (1996) known as Natural semantic metalanguage (NSM) which employs simple culturally-shared meanings (semantic primes) as its vocabulary of semantic and pragmatic description. NSM is based on evidence supporting the view that, despite their enormous differences, all languages share a small but stable but stable core of simple shared meanings (semantic primes), that these meanings have concrete linguistic exponents as words or word-like expressions in all languages, and that they share a universal grammar of combination, valency, and contemplation. That is, in any natural language one can isolate a small vocabulary and grammar which has precise equivalents in all other languages. The number of semantic primes appears to be in the low-sixties. Examples include the primary meanings of the English words: someone/person, something/thing, people, say, words, do, think, want, good, bad, if, can, because. Semantic primes can be combined, according to grammatical patterns which also appear to be universal, to form simple phrases and sentences such as: ‘people think that this is good’, ‘it is bad if someone says something like this’, ‘if you do something like this, people will think something bad about you’, and so on. The words and grammar of the natural semantic metalanguage jointly constitute a surprisingly flexible and expressive “mini-language”.

Hermeneutics proposed by Shi in the article entitled Hermeneutics and Translation Theory, this approach is relevant to translation because there is no translation without understanding and interpreting texts, which is the intial step in any kinds of translation. It involves cultivating the ability to understand things from somebody else’s point of view & appreciate the cultural and social forces that may have influenced their outlook. Through understanding the ‘inner life’ or an insider/first-person perspective of an engaged participant in these phenomena, hermeneutics interprets and inquires into the meaning and import of these phenomena.

In addition, lexical semantics is also very necessary as it deals with synonym, antonym, polisemy, and hyponymy. It involves more or less explicit considerations concerning the number of interpretational variants of a word form, i.e., identifying the lexical items associated with a lexeme.

Parker Sante’s explanation on Transliteration vs Translation

A transliteration is a word-for-word translation from one language to another.

A translation is what it would sound like in common speak.

Say you wanted to translate “la madre de mi madre es mi abuela” into English.

The transliteration would be “the mom of my mom is my grandmother”, which sounds kind of clunky.

Let’s fix that up. The translation would be “my mom’s mom is my grandmother”, which sounds like more actual normal English. The transliteration issue results from the fact that contractions don’t exist in Spanish, so the transliteration is changed to accommodate it.

P.S. “Transliteration” is the representation of sounds in a source language (SL) in the phonetic notation of the target language (TL). So when we talk about the capital of Japan we talk about “Tokyo”. That is a transliteration into the Roman letters of the English alphabet of the Japanese word 東京. If we were to translate that word it would be “East Capital” but generally we don’t translate proper nouns — Chris Poole

See Chris Poole’s cool explanation on the difference of word-for-word translation and literal translation.

Tatum Derin consistently writes research with her team who equally loves writing too. A research assistant who loves to hunt for stories and opportunities. A nerdfighter who likes to spend time reading about the science of language and outer space, and geeks with fellow Anime fans (definitely One Piece and Attack on Titan!). Adores tear-jerking family movies badly (and Billie Eilish level of horror).
View all posts by Tatum Derin

Источник

From Teflpedia

A Word-for-word translation is a translation of language in one language to another language, one word at a time. The nature of this is that it retains the grammar of the first language but with the vocabulary of the second.

For example, consider the Chinese sentence 我每天和朋友在餐厅吃饭 (in Pinyin: Wǒ měitiān hé péngyǒu zài cāntīng chīfàn). The English translation of this is «I eat at the restaurant with my friends every day» (some minor variations are possible). However, the word-for-word English translation is *»I every day with friends at restaurant eat». As an English sentence, it is ungrammatical, but nevertheless comprehensible and this is broadly similar to Chinese learner English because Chinese learners’ interlanguage tends to be influenced by their L1 grammar due to L1 transfer.

Turning this around, we can start with the English sentence «I eat at the restaurant with my friends every day» and change this word-for-word into Chinese, producing *»我吃饭在 [the] 餐厅每天和朋友» or *“Wǒ chīfàn zài [the] cāntīng měitiān hé péngyǒu». Note that the definite article has not been translated because Chinese lacks an equivalent. This is also ungrammatical but comprehensible to a Chinese speaker, but it may provide them some insight into the structure of English better than e.g. This sentence is «subject + verb + prepositional phrase adverbial (preposition + definite article + object of a preposition) + noun phrase adverbial (adjective + noun)».

Источник

The term as used in translation studies[edit]

Usage[edit]

Cribs[edit]

Poetry to prose[edit]

As bad practice[edit]

Examples[edit]

Machine translation[edit]

Pidgins[edit]

Translator’s humor[edit]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

Further reading[edit]

Interlinear translation.

Literary translation.

Смотреть что такое «Word-for-word translation» в других словарях:

Словосочетания

Автоматический перевод

Перевод по словам

Примеры

A. The Methods

Word-for-word translation

Literal Translation

Faithful translation

Semantic translation

Adaptation

Free translation

Idiomatic translation

Communicative translation

B. Comments In These Methods

C. Equivalent Effect

D. Methods And Text-Categories

E. Translating

F. Other Methods

Advantages and disadvantages of Word for Word Translation

A bad practice

Usage

Machine Translation

Mistakes and Jokes

Parker Sante’s explanation on Transliteration vs Translation