Questions for the Exam

Theory and Methods of Translation (Applied Linguistics, 3rd year students) Examination topics 1. Branches of Translation Studies. The object, subject of translation. 2. Functions and methods of translation. 3. Translatability and its factors. 4. Stages and models of translation process. 5. Non-translatability theories (Linguistic relativism (determinism) – W.von Humboldt, E. Sapir–B.L. Whorf). 6. History of translation: ancient period – 18th century. 7. History of translation: late 18th – early 20th century. 8. Evolution of requirements and principles in translation. 9. Ukrainian translators (19th century – 1950s). 10. Ukrainian translators (1950s – 1990s). Hryhorii Kochur vs. Mykola Lukash: their translating methods. 11. Translation in Ukraine at the threshold of the millennia. 12. Kinds of translation. 13. Kinds of interpreting. 14. Lexical transformations of substitution (differentiation, concretization) 15. Lexical transformations of substitution (generalization, sense development – modulation). 16. Lexical transformations of full rearrangement, compensation of losses: semantic and stylistic compensation. 17. Lexical transformations of addition, omission, antonymous translation. 18. Grammatical transformations of transposition (permutation), addition and omission. 19. Grammatical transformations of replacement (morphological and functional). 20. Grammatical transformations of syntactic substitution (Partitioning vs. Integration). 21. Methods of translating personal names and nicknames, names in fairy/ folk tales 22. Methods of translating geographical names: cities, countries, provinces, districts, etc. 23. Methods of translating geographical names: seas, oceans, mountains, bays, straits, capes, etc. 24. Methods of translating streets, avenues, squares, gardens, etc. 25. Methods of translating institutional names (companies, corporations, funds and foundations). 26. Methods of translating printed and electronic mass media (newspapers, journals, magazines, etc.), paintings. 27. Methods of translating publishing houses, news agencies, books, movies, etc. 28. Methods of translating names of schools, hospitals, hotels, theaters, airports, restaurants, etc. 29. Methods of translating public bodies (international organizations, trade unions, political parties) 30. Methods of translating phraseological units (I. Korunets’ approach). 31. Methods of translating phraseological units containing imagery (M. Poliuzhin’s approach). 32. Methods of translating culture-specific concepts (A. Graedler and M. Harvey’s approach). 33. Methods of translating culture-specific concepts (P. Newmark’s approach). 34. Methods of translating culture-specific concepts expressed by permanent appositions (L. Kolomiiets’). 35. Methods of translating culture-specific concepts expressed by permanent epithets (L. Kolomiiets’). 36. Reproducing English asyndetic noun compounds (clusters). 37. Translation of modal verbs and words. 38. Methods of translating absolute constructions. 39. Methods of reproducing English passive constructions, 40. Methods of translating English article. 41. Methods of reproducing English infinitive and infinitive constructions. 42. Methods of reproducing English gerund and gerund constructions. 43. Methods of reproducing English participle and participial constructions. 44. Translation of metaphor. 45. Translation of metonymy, simile, epithet. 46. Translation of alliteration and assonance, irony and allusion. 47. Translation of pun, zeugma and paraphrase. 48. Correlation of text functions, information types and basic methods of translating. 49. Communicative method of translation. 50. Semantic method of translation. 1. BRANCHES OF TRANSLATION STUDIES. THE OBJECT, SUBJECT OF TRANSLATION. Translation Studies cover philosophy, theory, history, criticism and methodology of translation. The aims and tasks of all these branches are different. 1. The philosophy of translation (методологія) focuses on the most general credos and laws of translation. It is, in fact, an appliance of philosophy proper to translation, the latter being treated as a field of human endeavour. It deals with such notions as language and thought, result and process, form and content, human understanding, translatability, system as such, i.e. interaction of elements named structure (hence it inevitably features unity and piece, or the whole and a detail), etc. 2. The theory of translation explains the role of translation in the development of society, its culture in particular, and how a translator mind works, that is how a text in one language is transformed into another, how the original is understood and embodied into a variety of versions. It highlights general patterns and skills, ways and means to provide correspondence (adequacy) of translation product. One can speak of many theories of translation, e.g. many models of translation process, and equally of many motives that condition the translator decision. One should also mention such principles as formal and functional equivalence, such models as denotative (situational), transformational and semantic ones. 3. The history of translation gives a picture of what was translated through the ages and it explains why that was done and how. It studies changes in approach to work. It dwells upon requirements and principles inherent to various schools of translation as well as to well-known individual translators. It looks into their creative vigor and method, the way they used to understand original texts and viewed their mission, their craft and art. The perception of a classical masterpiece is normally manifested through a range of translation versions, coming one after another, hence the principles of historical insight and evaluation are to be consistently applied by an analyst to all these. 4. Translation criticism propagates (or rather hallmarks and updates) criteria of assessment for the present-day translator products thus helping the reader and the translator, especially as the author is ushered into a new context. Along with history critical studies give an analysis of a nation’s translation process at large, evaluating notable efforts, but a critic does that on the basis of modern requirements, neither retrospectively nor taking facts for granted. This field is expected to explain successful translator decisions as well as drawbacks and failures. 5. Methodology (методика) of translation is a practical branch meant to teach how to translate skillfully to live up to the highest professional standards and demands. That is why it normally treats a certain pair of languages and gives a choice of means and modes to overcome a variety of language difficulties. It also highly specializes falling into written and oral (consecutive and simultaneous), as well as into a number of spheres, e.g. businesses, industries, sciences, law, media, etc. The general principles of methodology overlap into theory. Methods of training translators constitute a separate applied branch. The contents of the original message represented textually is the object of translation effort. In view that the target language and its power to explain belong to a community rather than someone it is not only the mediating translator in person but the addressee, i.e. the translator side, culture, civilization, epoch and nation that constitute the subject of a translation. Equally, it is not only the individual human speaker or writer that is the author (creator) and sender of the original message but its whole social environment reflected in the source language. To create a new text the translator uses the expressive means of the target language as tools. More to read: Ажнюк М. Т. Перекладознавство // Українська мова: Енциклопедія, – К., 2004, с. 466–467; Коптілов В. Теорія i практика перекладу: Навч. посібник. – К., 2003, с. 6–10; Радчук В. Перевод как отражение и эстетическая задача // Теория и практика перевода. Вып. 13. – К., 1986, с.40–50; Федоров А. Основы общей теории перевода.– Москва, 1983, с. 15– 23.

2. FUNCTIONS AND METHODS OF TRANSLATION. The functions performed by translations (those of literary classics in particular) are many, their combination varies being conditioned by social demands. The translation: 1) consolidates humanity by breaking language barriers; 2) discloses the contents of the original being a means of analysis (cognitive function); 3) communicates as vehicle of information; 4) accelerates the development of the target language; 5) enriches the target culture, literature in particular (with new images, genres, styles and versification); 6) represents the original as its substitute (sometimes draws attention to it); 7) teaches languages and styles to the translator; 8) shades and develops the aesthetical values (meanings) inherent to a classical masterpiece, the chain(s) of translations serving as literary history. The translator method depends on (1) what is translated, (2) the purpose of translation and (3) on its reader (hearer); it also varies (4) historically, (5) from nation to nation and (6) personally. In other words, (1) the method of translation will vary along with the functional style, genre, type of text, contents and composition etc. (also with the change of all these within one piece, or integral unit); (2) the same text can be (not necessarily should be) translated differently for different purposes, e.g. a drama for a town theatre, a school textbook, or a study of the author’s poetics (as it was stated above, the functions of translations, old and new, can also vary); (3) what is good for one reader can be quite bad for another (take children and adults or specialists and non-specialists, for instance); (4) the changing reality brings with it new demands and approaches to translator work; (5) different countries have their specific needs and long-term traditions of translation; (6) every translator applies a theory and ways of one’s own to every piece of work he or she does (naturally, one’s individual credo, creative patterns and language tools change along too). That explains why the word “method” has so many applications to the art and craft. Its meaning often travels between “a particular style” and “a chosen (sometimes ordered) way of doing things”. For semantic and communicative methods see lectures (on P.Newmark) and M. Olikova, Theory and Practice of Translation. – Lutsk, 2000. –P.12-14 More to read: Коптілов В. В. Теорія і практика перекладу. – К., 2003 (жанровий і галузевий переклад);

3. TRANSLATABILITY AND ITS FACTORS. Translatability is a basic principle of our profession. No art or craft of that sort would exist without the possibility to convey ideas and images adequately in a different language. Translatability is a dynamic, ever changing value, a realm with shaky borders. What is beyond translation becomes translatable, i.e. enters the powers of other language, under certain circumstances. What are the factors that determine the dynamic character of translatability? These are many. 1. The distance between languages is the most evident factor. A literary work will have different chances for a true representation in a variety of languages, close and distant. Naturally, it is easier to translate from Byelorussian into Ukrainian than it is from Chinese and Arabic or even from English and French. 2. The scope of translatability depends on our awareness of the original, i.e. what we have learnt from it and about it. There are many dark places in some texts, while others are interpreted inadequately. 3. Translatability is conditioned by the peculiarity of the original and it varies from genre to genre and from style to style. It is far harder to translate a text on a scientific discovery or technical innovation than to transfer a regular description of a car engine to another tongue, with all its terms at hand. 4. Translatability widens in view of the expansion of the language resource. It is largely due to translations that the palette of a language becomes richer and more flexible. 5. The possibilities of translation grow with the expanding background knowledge (thesaurus) of the reader who learns more and more about the other human worlds. More to read: Влахов С., Флорин С. Непереводимое в переводе. – Москва, 1986; Кундзіч О. Творчі проблеми перекладу. – К., 1973; Радчук В. Перекладність в динаміці // Філологія і культура. Зб. наук. праць. – К., 1996, с. 35-40. Радчук В. Забобон неперекладності (Чи під силу мові Тараса переклад цитат?) – Всесвіт, 2000, № 1–2, с. 166–170; Радчук В. Суржик як недопереклад // Українська мова та література, № 11, 2000; Федоров А. Искусство перевода и жизнь литературы. – Москва, 1983, с. 171–186; Федоров А. Основы общей теории перевода.– Москва, 1983, с. 84–130; Федоров А. Ще раз до питання про перекладність // “Хай слово мовлено інакше...”: Проблеми художнього перекладу. – К., 1982, с. 5–18;

4. STAGES AND MODELS OF TRANSLATION PROCESS. To simplify, translation falls into analysis of the original and synthesis of the contents in another language. Each stage has its specific difficulties. One is in no position to analyze not knowing the foreign language properly. But it is not only the foreign language as such that one is supposed to know. It is a set of semiotic codes within the original text that should appeal to the reader by courtesy of the mediator. A vast number of expressive subsystems within a foreign language must be learned in order to work as a translator. Among these are registers and functional styles, professional terms, social jargons, territorial dialects and standard variants, poetic imagery codes etc. Adequate synthesis, i.e. accurate and precise translation, is absolutely impossible without a sound knowledge of one’s own (target) language. Here one cannot confine oneself to one’s own idiolect, or one’s own personal style but should learn to apply accordingly the numerous varieties of the language, with its extensive vocabulary and grammar always being used to the point. V.Koptilov sets out four stages of translation in his book “The original and the translation”: 1 Analysis of the contents of the original with the aim to single out its formal constructive elements and to place it into the context of literature and the author’s works. 2. Search (choice) of an approach to translation by revealing basic corresponding elements in the target lingual and literary traditions. 3. Synthesis of the transformed features into a new poetic unity. 4. Polishing (correction) of the translation, sort of analytical check-up of its correspondence. Various models of translation present a sequence of stages in translation. Some are drawn and described in books by linguists L.Barkhudarov, V.Komissarov and A.Shveitser (see below). Many other translatologists, like R.Bell, imagine translation as a search of a bridge which is just a key notion (a general phrase) chosen to represent the variety of synonymous ways of rendering an idea. This finds ground in the theory of transformational grammar and that of translation as transformation. More to read: Models of translation: Olikova M. Theory and Practice of Translation. – Lutsk, 2000. – P. 50-55. Бархударов Л. Язык и перевод. – Москва, 1975; Комиссаров В. Слово о переводе. – Москва, 1973; Коптілов В. Першотвір i переклад. – К., 1972, с. 65–81; Радчук В. Робоча мова перекладача // Філологія і культура. Зб. Наук. праць. – К., 1996, с. 118– 123; Швейцер А. Перевод и лингвистика. – Москва, 1973; Bell, Roger T. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London: 1996.

49 – 50. TEXT FUNCTIONS. METHODS OF TRANSLATION. TYPES OF INFORMATION Texts are divided according to the functions of language – expressive, informative, and vocative (persuasive). Serious literature (fiction), speeches, declarations, personal and intimate writing, where the style is more important than the facts, perform expressive function (A). Journalism, reporting, scientific and technical papers, general textbooks, most non-literary work, where the facts are more important than the style, perform informative function (B). Advertising, propaganda, popular literature, notices, instructions, rules and regulations – all these to persuade or direct the reader – perform vocative function (C). Function A is author-centered, the personal use the writer makes of his language. Function B is neutral, objective, extralinguistic information content of the text. Function C is reader-centered, includes all the emotive resources with which the writer affects (influences) the reader, so that he ‘gets the message’.

Peter Newmark (1988) mentions the difference between translation methods and translation procedures. He writes that, "[w]hile translation methods relate to whole texts, translation procedures are used for sentences and the smaller units of language" He goes on to refer to the following methods of translation:

Semantic translation: attempts to recreate the precise flavor and tone of the ST, grammatical structures, preserve the author’s idiolect (individual style), his form of expression, the aesthetic value of the SL text.

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; attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original.

Newmark writes of a continuum existing between "semantic" and "communicative" translation. Any translation can be "more, or less semantic—more, or less, communicative—even a particular section or sentence can be treated more communicatively or less semantically."

Eg.: По газонах не ходити – Semantic translation: Walking on the turf is forbidden Communicative translation: Keep off the grass!

Thus, semantic translation is author-oriented, communicative is reader-oriented. Cognitive translation is analytical translation, pre-translation procedure, rough (first) TL version of the ST.

Consider the examples below: I. W. S. Maugham “Theatre” (excerpt)

Original “What nonsense that Roger talked the other day, and poor Charles, who seemed to take it seriously. He’s a silly little prig, that’s all”. She indicated a gesture towards the dance room. The lights had been lowered, and from where she sat it looked more than ever like a scene in play. “‘All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players’. But there’s the illusion, through that archway; it’s we, the actors, who are the reality. That’s the answer to Roger. They are our raw material. We are the meaning of their lives. We take their silly little emotions and turn them into art, out of them we create beauty, and their significance is that they form the audience we must have to fulfil ourselves. They are the instruments on which we play, and what is an instrument without somebody to play on it?” Cognitive translation (neutral, analytical) “Яка дурниця то була, що Роджер казав нещодавно, а бідний Чарльз, який, здавалося, сприйняв це (розмову) серйозно. Він (Чарльз) дурний маленький педант, це все. Вона (Джулія) зробила жест у напрямку танцювальної зали. Вогні згасли, і з місця, де вона (Джулія) сиділа, реальність видавалась більш ніж будь-коли схожою на сцену у виставі. “‘Увесь світ – це сцена, а всі, чоловіки та жінки, просто актори’. Але існує ілюзія у цьому (сценовому) проході під аркою; це ми, актори, хто є реальністю. Це – відповідь Роджеру. Вони (люди) – наш сировинний матеріал. Ми (актори) є значенням їхнього (чоловіків, жінок) життя. Ми беремо їхні (людей) дурні, дрібні емоції і перетворюємо їх (емоції) у мистецтво. Ми (актори) створюємо красу з них (людей), їх (людей) значущість полягає в тому, що вони (люди) утворюють публіку, яку нам (акторам), напевно, доводиться реалізовувати самим. Вони (люди) є інструментами, на яких ми (актори) граємо, а який інструмент без того, хто грає на ньому?” Semantic translation (author-oriented) “‘Яку ж тільки дурницю сказав нещодавно Роджер. А нещасний Чарльз повірив його словам. Він просто педант’. Її рука мимоволі піднялась, вказуючи на танцювальну залу. Вогні згасли і реальність видавалась як ніколи схожою на одну зі сцен п’єси. “‘Увесь світ – театр, а люди в ньому просто актори.’ Але все зовсім не так. Саме ми, актори, – єдина реальність. Ось відповідь Роджеру. Люди не більш ніж глина, з якої ми ліпимо мистецтво. Саме завдяки нам їхнє життя набуває значення. Ми перетворюємо їхні дрібні жалюгідні емоції в мистецтво, породжуючи прекрасне. Вони лише публіка, яку нам самим необхідно довершити, інструменти, на яких ми граємо. А чого вартий інструмент без виконавця?” (переклад С. Засєкіна) Communicative translation (Ukrainian reader-oriented) “‘Яка ж то була дурниця, що казав нещодавно Роджер. А нещасний Чарльз довірився йому. Він просто педант’. Її рука мимоволі піднялась у напрямку танцювальної зали. Вогні згасли і реальність видавалась як ніколи схожою на одну зі сцен вистави. “‘Увесь світ – театр, а люди в ньому просто актори.’ Але всі ми – в полоні ілюзій. Ми – актори, і тільки ми реальні. Роджеру це сподобається. А люди – це просто тканина, з якої ми щось справді цінне виплітаємо. Саме через нас їхнє життя чогось варте. Ми перетворюємо їхні дрібні жалюгідні емоції в мистецтво, породжуючи красу. А вони – лише публіка, яку нам самим доводиться довершувати, інструменти, на яких ми граємо. А чого вартий інструмент без музúки?” (переклад С. Засєкіна)

II. Dan Brown “The Da Vinci Code” (excerpt) Original: The castle was dark save the windows at the very top of the building, which glowed ominously. The library, Aringarosa thought. They are awake and waiting. He ducked his head against the wind and continued on without so much as a glance toward the observatory domes. <… > «We were worried about you, Bishop» the priest said, checking his watch and looking more perturbed than worried. «My apologies. Airlines are so unreliable these days». [Brown 2003]. Communicative translation (Ukrainian reader-oriented) : Замок був темний, і лише кілька найвищих вікон світилися. У цьому червонястому сяйві єпископові привиділося щось погрозливе. Бібліотека, подумав Аринґароса. Вони не сплять і чекають на мене. Він нахилив голову, ховаючи обличчя від вітру, й рушив уперед, скинувши лише одним коротким поглядом на круглі бані обсерваторії. <…> − Ми турбувалися про вас, єпископе, − сказав священик, поглянувши на свого годинника. Він здавався не так стурбованим, як стривоженим. − Прошу пробачення. Повітряне сполучення сьогодні не дуже надійне [Переклад В. Шовкуна]. Semantic translation ( author - oriented ): Замок був занурений у пітьму, за винятком кількох вікон нагорі, що світилися якось зловісно. «Бібліотека, – подумав Арінґароса. – Вони не сплять і чекають». Він опустив голову проти вітру і рушив до входу, навіть не глянувши на куполи обсерваторії. <…> – Ми непокоїлися через вас, єпископе, – сказав він, подивившись на годинник. Він виглядав не так занепокоєним, як збентеженим. - Перепрошую. Авіалінії сьогодні дуже ненадійні. [Переклад А. Кам’янець].

The expressive function is related to semantic translation; both of them correlate with aesthetic information. The informative function is related to cognitive translation; both of them correlate with cognitive information. The vocative function is related to communicative translation; both of them correlate with emotional information. Table 1 Correlation of text functions, methods of translation, types of information Text function expressive informative vocative Method of translation semantic cognitive (analytical) communicative Type of information aesthetic cognitive emotional

Aesthetic information is conveyed in the text primarily by stylistic devices (metaphor, metonymy, epithet, simile, etc.). Cognitive information is conveyed by proper names, emotionally neutral lexis, numbers, date, etc. Emotional information is conveyed by emotionally charged words, adjectives (in comparative or superlative degree), etc.