FILOLOGIJA 2012 (17) ISSN 1392-561X

ENGLISH-LITHUANIAN INTERPRETER’S FALSE FRIENDS: PSYCHOLINGUISTIC ISSUES

Lai­mu­ Kas­pa­ Military Academy of Lithu­nia [email protected]

Ke­words: interpreter’s false friends, psycholinguistic issues, semantic structu­ re of the word, interference, foreign langu­ge learners, translators, interpreters.

It is well known that no two langu­ges divide the semantic space in the same way; that is why semantic equivalence between words of different langu­ges is only relative. Externally similar words in different langu­ges are no exception to this: it is only sometimes that they are full equivalents, very often they share only one or a few me­nings, or none at all. In practice they can therefore be easily confused not only by foreign langu­ge learners and spe­kers but also by translators and interpreters. Externally similar words have been part of the lexical systems of various lan­ gu­ges either as a result of me­ning divergence of cognate words or an indirect borrowing through intermediary langu­ges. In linguistic studies various terms have been coined to de­fne them (lexical pseudo-equivalents, interlingual homonyms/ana­ logues, deceptive doubles, deceptive cognates, lexical parallels, unreliables, look-ali­ kes, tautonyms, etc.); in translation studies these words are known as interpreter’s false friends (faux amis), the term coined by Koessler and Derocquigny in 1928, the authors of the first Dictionary of English-French False Friends. Although the term ‘false friends’ has been criticized for being both too long and explicit (Budagov 1976, 267), it is useful insofar as it reminds of pitfalls that are in store for any­ne de­ling with different langu­ges, because the category potentially includes lexemes the external form of which may be individually perceived as foreign. The probability that these words will have the same semantic structure as in their native langu­ge is unreliable, the degree of unreliability depending on different aspects of the semantic structure and predicted or expected norms of usage. Thus the term ‘false friends’ in fact de­fnes a psy­cholin­guistic cate­gory­: de­ling with false friends one cannot ignore the foreign langu­ge learner, spe­ker, translator or interpreter. Filologija 2011 (17)

67 The phenome­non of false friends (FF) has received a lot of attention from scho­ lars, although “they never granted it the status it deserves in mainstream research” (Ha­ward and Moulin 1984, 190). Yet the signi­fcance of false friends is considerab­ le if one takes into account not only the high frequency of the words involved but also the importance of clear understanding and exact translation in the scientific, political, commercial fields as well as in many others. The present paper focuses on a number of psycholinguistic issues in connection with the phenomenon of English- Lithu­nian FF. Basing its findings on the study of research literature on the question and examples of usage, it aims at discussing the re­sons of them being a stumbling- block for the foreign langu­ge users. Comparative analysis of both related and non-related langu­ges presents a large corpus of formally similar or identical lexemes: even in many non-related langu­ges this phenomenon would reach the proportion of 10 to 20% (Veisbergs 1998, 12). A considerable share of these lexemes, however, has differences in their semantic structures (e.g. English dislocate “to disturb the normal connection, esp. in a joint in the body; disrupt, put out of order”: Lith. dislo­kuoti “to deploy, to station”; E. a cabin “a compartment in an aircraft or ship for passengers”, also “a small shelter or a house”: Lith. ka­bina – “a compartment”; E. career “one’s advancement through life and profession”, Lith. karjera means only professional advancement). The first pair of lexemes can be ascribed to the category of absolute false friends, when no me­nings are shared; the other two pairs are partial false friends, as the words have some common me­nings. Used as equivalents in another langu­ge, FF lead to false associations, wrong use, distortion of text, imprecision, misunderstanding, disregard for the right stylistic colouring and other numerous translation problems. In order to demonstrate that the problem is of importance, the following extracts from transla­ tions can be quoted: (1) The re­ding hall of LSC stores *prospects (Lith. prospektai = E. prospectu­ ses or brochures) of registration of securities and periodically receives copies of is­ suers’ annual and semi-annual reports… (Lithu­nian Securities Commission 1999, 39). (2) ‘Merry Christmas, every­ne,’ I said with a gracious smile. ‘I expect we’ll see you all at the Tur­key Curry Buffet’ (Fielding 1996, 305) translated – Visiems lin­kiu links­mų Kalėdų, – palin­kėjau elegantiš­k­ai š­ypsodamasi. – Ti­ k­iuosi susitik­tika­ la­kutienos troš­ki­nio *bufete (va­karėlyje, pobū­vyje) (Fielding 1999, 266). (3) The cow k­ic­ked the minister’s son translated  Beheydt & Colson (1996), Budagov (1976), Don Nilsen (1977), Gorbahn-Orme & Hausmann (1991), Gottlieb (2002); Granger & Swallow (1988), Hammer (1976, 1979), Hartmann (1991), Hartmann & James (1998), Ha­ward & Moulin (1984), Le Huche (1975), Lipczuk (1992), Malone (1982), Markov (1997), McCulloch (1998), Muravyev (1969), Nicholls (1995), Pateau & Barrie (1999), Perkins (1977), Sansome (2000), Sheen (1996, 2000), Spence (1987), Spillner (1991), Veisbergs (1997, 1998), Viberg (1999), Weberová & Skochová ( (2000), Wilczyńska (1992), Woulfe (1981). In Lithu­nian linguistics FF have been investigated by Aprijaskytė & Pareigytė (1972, 1975), Aprijaskytė (1982), Laptėvaitė

Filologija 2012 (17) (1978); Gudavičius (1977); Gaivenis (1987).

68 Karvė į­spyrė *ministro (pastoriaus) sū­nui (an English film on television, 1999). Examples above demonstrate that false friends can be found not only in oral in­ terpreting (3), which can be attributed to various external factors, such as haste, etc., but also in published texts. With the recent influx to Lithu­nia of mass media, films, music and literature from the West, translation problems caused by false friends are even more numerous than before. FF can be words, whose etymons in another langu­ge developed different mea­ nings, but they can also be words directly or indirectly borrowed from the langu­ge under comparison, or enter the vocabulary of each contrasted langu­ge by borrowing from a third langu­ge directly or through an intermediary langu­ge. Whenever any two langu­ges are in contact, loan words (particularly in non-scientific, non-techno­ logical langu­ge) tend to take on to varying degrees lives of their own, the pheno­ menon described as a semantic shift – generalization, specialization, amelioration, pejoration, etc. Baker writes: “Once a word or expression is borrowed into a langua­ ge, we cannot predict or control its development or the additional me­nings it might or might not take on” (1992, 25). Gudavičius also emphasises the unpredictability of the “semantic fate” of the loan word (1977, 39). The appe­rance of FF can be at­ tributed to the peculiarities of the vocabulary of each langu­ge, i.e. by the pressure of the system. In the new langu­ge, with the loss of former semantic links, borrowed words easily acquire new me­nings, which differ from the etymon. It is obvious that the more exposed a langu­ge has been to langu­ge contacts, especially through inter­ mediary langu­ges, the higher the possibility of false friends. It is not always, however, that semantic differences of the loan words are the result of their development under the influence of the langu­ge into which they have been borrowed. As Gottlieb (1972) rightly points out, very often the word becomes a false friend because only one me­ning of a polysemous lexical unit is borrowed at a time. Later the same word may be borrowed again for a different me­ning. As this usually happens during a long period of time, the word in the original langu­ge may have changed its me­ning in the process. There are cases when a borrowed word does not change its original me­ning for centuries, while in the source langu­ge the word is either substituted by another word or changes its me­ning. Often, however, loan words are semantic equivalents, especially if borrowed directly for a specific purpose. It would be interesting to find out about how, why and when divergences occurred in these langu­ges, i.e. to follow lexical pseudo-equivalents diachronically, but this is beyond the scope and aim of our research. As has been mentioned, FF, even though they often are the result of complica­ ted processes of borrowing from different langu­ges, cannot be identified with the concept of loan words. Loan words are the phenomenon of a langu­ge system and do not cause particular problems after they have been adapted into the system. FF, however, are usually explained by the phenomenon of interference, when the seman­ tic structure of the word in the native langu­ge is identified with that of the formally

similar word in a foreign langu­ge. Thus loan words can become FF when two or Filologija 2011 (17)

69 more langu­ge systems are being used, i.e. in translation/interpreting and in learning foreign langu­ges. Thus almost all FF are loan words, but loan words are not neces­ sarily FF. The question is whether it is formal or semantic similarity of these words or both that causes wrong associations. All sorts of didactic implications depend on the answer to this question and researchers offer different opinions. Most Lithu­nian and foreign authors (Aprijaskytė and Pareigytė 1972; Apri­ jaskytė 1982; Gottlieb 1972; Laptėvaitė 1978; Lipczuk 1992; Piesarskas 1987; Wilczińska 1992, etc.) agree that false friends are the result of the well-known phenomenon of interference. In sciences, from which the term has been borrowed, interference means a certain impact, a mutual or one-sided influence. In linguistics, the term is understood as transferring the relations of one langu­ge system into anot­ her langu­ge (in the case of a foreign langu­ge learning it is usually from the native langu­ge or mother tongue onto a foreign or second langu­ge). Interference can be graded in terms of its stability and prevention possibilities in the following way: phonetic-prosody interference is the strongest, followed by spel­ ling (*mortyr (Lith. mortyra) instead of mortar, *rang (Lith. rangas) instead of rank­, *granate (Lith. granata) instead of grenade), phrase­logical and lexical-semantical interference (on the level of figurative me­ning), then goes morphological or syntac­ tic interference, and, finally, lexical-semantical interference on the level of literal me­ning (Karaliūnas 1997, 347). That means that phonetic-phonological, grammati­ cal-syntactical, and lexical-semantical systems of the native/first langu­ge serve like a filter through which a foreign or second langu­ge is ‘poured’. This ‘filter’ can be helpful, but next to the positive role pla­ed by the native langu­ge in second/foreign langu­ge acquisition, its interference may be an obstacle, both in pronunciation and vocabulary acquisition. Aprijaskytė’s (1982, 5) research proves that even advanced level students make mistakes in pronouncing international words (or words similar in form in Lithu­nian and English) because of the interference of Lithu­nian. Apri­ jaskytė bases her conclusions on the findings of the Soviet scholar Uznadze and his followers, who investigated resolution, i.e. psycho-physical re­diness of an indivi­ dual to perform a certain action, as a major factor preceding any human behaviour, speech included. The transfer of Lithu­nian pronunciation rules onto English words of a similar form also holds true for the semantic transfer. That is why the most com­ mon mistakes of Lithu­nian students in word usage are also caused by interference of their mother tongue. Most errors in the vocabulary use are due to the differences in the semantic structure of words and their different combinability in both langua­ ges. Mistakes due to the difference in the semantic structure occur even when there is no formal similarity (English word belong is used instead of depend because the Lithu­nian word pri­klausyti has both me­nings, the same happens with carry and bear – perneš­ti, listen and obey – k­lausyti, etc.). Laptėvaitė’s (1978, 28) research seems to prove that interference is more likely to occur where there is a formal simi­ larity between the elements of the two langu­ges. Differences in me­ning or even the absence of any common semantic components do not prevent interference (e.g.

Filologija 2012 (17) the students spell *gourilas (‘guerrillas’) in English because of its similarity with

70 the Lithu­nian word gorila (‘gorilla’). Aitchison (1987) also supports the idea of the importance of formal similarity for interference or transfer. In her book “Words in the Mind” she attempts at finding out in what morphological and phonetic form words are stored in the human brain. Basing her findings on the results of wide rese­ arch, she arrives at a conclusion that our mental lexicon contains complete words. Phonetically words are grouped together by similar sound patterns, in particular at the beginning and end of words. That is why she thinks that mistakes in word choice can be caused not only by semantic similarity, but also by phonetic structure or by both. Here it is dif­fcult not to quote Karaliūnas who said that “the formal difference of words does not affect semantic interference, but similarity of expression de­fnitely stimulates it” (1997, 352) (our translation). Thus very often the student endows an English word which has a similar form in Lithu­nian with the me­ning peculiar only to its etymological equivalent in Lithu­nian (e.g. Lith. ka­binetas “a room/study” is wrongly translated into English as a cabinet, scena “stage” is translated scene, and komanda “team” is translated command). Gottlieb, on the other hand, argues that interference is not caused by the formal similarity. He writes: “It would be wrong to believe that external similarity (phone­ tical or morphological) between the word pairs is the main factor determining false semantic correspondence of these words. Most false friends are polysemous words, which could be ascribed to the group of partial false friends. This can be explained by the fact that the existence of one or more common me­nings between formally si­ milar words leads to a mechanical transference of other me­nings of the word in the native langu­ge to the word in a foreign langu­ge, in which it lacks these me­nings” (1972, 438) (our translation). More than that, in his opinion, interference does not even require the existence of one or two common me­nings; some common compo­ nents of me­ning (semes) are enough. External similarity, in his opinion, is rather an impulse and is important only when both foreign langu­ge knowledge and receptive skills are very weak. The appe­rance of FF thus can be ascribed to the unreliability of the assumption of correspondence between externally similar words in the native and foreign langu­ ages. Unreliability can be of various degrees, depending on the different aspects of formal and semantic structure and usage of the expected equivalent. To quote Wilc­ zyńska who writes: “The sources of the mechanisms of interference are likely to exist in general learning and communicative strategy, based, most often, implicitly, on the principle of structural-semantic correspondence between the langu­ges. This naïve but popular belief is further supported by bilingual dictionaries and langu­ge teaching strategies based on explaining foreign langu­ge characteristics as differen­ ces without trying to reveal their internal links (especially concepts and symbols in cultural sphere). Then a list of FF seems to be an unimportant segment of the general pattern of principal correspondence, while the main way to understand the phenome­ non is to memorize the differences” (Wilczyńska 1992, 167) (our translation). She believes that next to interference, such factors as usual carelessness, convenience,

and search for psychical comfort cause using false friends. All this explains their ap­ Filologija 2011 (17)

71 pe­rance in both spoken and written texts: the student sees/hears the word s/he has alre­dy known for a long time and endows it with the same me­ning as in his/her mother tongue. This seems to be the easiest and most economical way unless s/he is warned to watch out. However, she points out to a common tendency: the more educated people are, or the more advanced they are in a foreign langu­ge studies, the less they trust direct interlingual analogies, the more they tend to check the first equivalent that automatically comes to mind. Other authors also demonstrate that simpli­fcation, understood in its bro­dest terms, rather than interference is the most common scenario during bilingual con­ tact. For example, Sylva-Corvalan writes: “The general hypothesis is that bilinguals develop strategies aimed at lightening cognitive load of having to remember and use two linguistic systems” (1994, 6). That is why cognitive simpli­fcation may be an accurate assessment in the case of false friends. Even though she speaks about sim­ pli­fcation, and not interference, she admits that “…it most easily leads to transfer when parallel structures alre­dy exist between the two langu­ges” (Sylva-Corvalan 1994, 205). Thus it can be summed up that the source of interpreter’s false friends is words of common etymology in different langu­ges that developed different me­nings/sha­ des of me­nings or usage; also loan words, borrowed either from the contrasted langu­ge or from a third langu­ge directly or through an intermediary langu­ge. On the level of speech (especially langu­ge learning, translation and interpreting) the appe­rance of FF seems to be explainable by various phenomena: interference of the native langu­ge, usual carelessness, convenience, search for psychical comfort and cognitive simpli­fcation. Although false friends have been recognised in linguistics as one of the most expressed forms of interlingual interference, yet no false friend component seems to be incorporated in foreign langu­ge courses (textbook and other teaching materials), with the result that a signi­fcant number of errors can be blamed on methodology. This has become especially common with audio-visual and communicative approa­ ches, which too often tend to present an over-simplified picture of word behaviour and can downgrade accuracy in favour of other factors. The problem would be easier to solve if all false friends were total or absolute pseudo-equivalents. As the words associated have nothing in common except their graphical appe­rance and perhaps their etymology, it is comparatively easy for the learner to keep them apart and asc­ ribe to them the correct me­ning in the right langu­ge, although it seems that adult learners often think that etymology of a word is its only and permanent me­ning. The dif­fculty lies with the numerous partial false friends, pairs of words which are very close to each other and often share some senses while they differ in others. On the other hand, with partial false friends, students may sometimes get by with an assumption of a semantic identity between the native and foreign lexeme, because partial false friends share at least one me­ning and the mistake may either pass by unnoticed or cause only minor distortion of the text. With absolute false friends this Filologija 2012 (17)

72 is not the case: these words can never be used as translation equivalents without cau­ sing a major misunderstanding. To expand on the last point we have to go back to the notions of interference. As has been mentioned, FFs in langu­ge learning are the result of an interference of the mother tongue or L1 on a foreign langu­ge – L2. Interference can be classified into direct and indirect (Aprijaskytė, Pareigytė 1972, 18). In our case interference of the mother tongue may be considered direct when the me­ning of the L1 word is transferred on to the L2 word. Interference is indirect when, with the range of me­ anings of the L1 word being narrower than that of the L2 counterpart, the peculiar me­ning(s) of the latter are neglected by the learner. As a result, the student abstains from using the L2 counterpart in the me­ning(s) not peculiar to L1. In comprehen­ sion interference of the mother tongue is felt too; it results in the faulty interpretation of English words. In the case of absolute false friends, the dif­fculties for the student to overcome are both in usage and in comprehension. In usage, i.e. in production of the English text, the direct interference finds its expression in the student’s endowing the English word with the me­ning of the Lithu­nian word (e.g. instance is used for Lith. instan­ cija “institution, organization”). The indirect interference in usage is felt when the student does not use the English counterpart at all, replacing it by some other word. For instance, when the student is to use an equivalent of the Lithu­nian sporto salė, s/he will rather use sports hall/facilities than gymnasium, because the latter is asso­ ciated in his/her mind with a classical/grammar school. In comprehension the Lithu­ anian student will face direct interference. In cases when the English word has more than one me­ning, all of them different from the Lithu­nian word, opportunities for misinterpreting the English word grow in number accordingly. Thus, confronted with the English decoration, the learner will have to overcome not only the dif­fcul­ ty of not associating it with dekoracijos (“scenery”), but also to learn to associate it with two objects: orders/medals and Christmas tree decorations. In the case of partial false friends, the langu­ge learner also faces dif­fculties in both usage and comprehension. As the Lithu­nian word possesses me­nings not pe­ culiar to the English counterpart, the student will erroneously use the English word in a non-existing me­ning, e.g., camera is likely to be used instead of cloak­room or baggage compartment, fre­zer, inner tube of the tire, etc. (because of the me­nings of the Lithu­nian word kamera) and cabinet instead of of­fce, room, etc. (Lith. ka­bine­ tas). The gre­ter the number of me­nings peculiar to the Lithu­nian word, the more occasions for the students to use the English counterpart in a non-existing me­ning. The student will experience some dif­fculty in learning to use the English words of this group in me­nings peculiar only to the English counterpart. Furthermore, s/he will abstain from using the word scandal that the Lithu­nian word does not have and will so­ner use harmful gossip (Aprijaskytė & Pareigytė 1975, 22) as a result of the indirect interference. The dif­fculty will also arise while listening and re­ding, i.e. in comprehension: the student is likely to overlook the specific me­ning(s) of the En­

glish counterpart, which results in either misunderstanding or a mistranslation. If the Filologija 2011 (17)

73 learner has to find an equivalent for the Lithu­nian words interesas, re­kordas, interva­ las, s/he will make no mistakes in using words of the same form in English (interest, record and interval). Here the formal similarity is helpful or we can say that we have a case of a ‘positive’ interference. However, the student failing to re­lize the gre­ter polysemy of the English word will tend to abstain from using the English word in its peculiar English me­ning(s), thus falling prey to the indirect interference. The harm done here by the interference will result not in a mistake but in the student’s poorer vocabulary. The student will also experience dif­fculty in comprehension and inter­ preting the English text if the English word is used in the me­ning it does not have in Lithu­nian. The student is likely to use the word technique in the me­ning of ‘ma­ chinery’, ‘equipment’ (Lith. techni­ka) and coc­ktail (Lith. k­ok­teilis) in the me­ning of a non-alcoholic drink, though s/he knows the words equipment and milks­ha­ke. The temptation is all the gre­ter as all the me­nings of the English word (technique, coc­ktail) coincide with the Lithu­nian techni­ka and k­ok­teilis. Here we have a case of direct interference. As can be seen, the dif­fculties caused by either direct or indirect interference of the L1 may result in mistakes in both interpreting/understanding and spe­king, i.e. both in comprehension and usage. Very much depends on the age and the level of the langu­ge knowledge of the students, but in the specialist literature it has been pointed out that false friends are a cause of mistakes not only for the beginners, but also for bilingual spe­kers and expe­ rienced translators/interpreters (Veisbergs 1998; Baker 1994; Karaliūnas 1997, etc.). A study of false friends will sharpen the students’ precision in the use of vocabulary as well as help them to avoid mistakes that, at worst, may seriously hamper effective communication. It also provides a motivation for the learner to pay more attention to the context for further indication or confirmation of what s/he has discovered. This way false friends, being potential enemies, could be transformed into allies.

References

Aitchison J. Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon. Basil Blackwell, 1987. Aprijaskytė R., Pareigytė E. Lietuviams būdingos leksinės anglų kalbos klaidos. Kalbotyra XXIII (3), 1972, 7–16. Aprijaskytė R., Pareigytė E. Beware of Pitfalls. Vilnius: Vilnius University Press, 1975. Aprijaskytė R. Влияние интерференции интернационализмов литовского языка на произношение английских слов литовцами. Kalbotyra XXXIII (3), 1982, 5–13. Baker M. In Other Words. Routledge, 1992. Baker M., Kaplan R. Translated! A new breed of bilingual dictionaries. Babel, 1994, vol. 40, no. 1, 1–11. Budagov B. Человек и его язык. Moskva, 1976. Gottlieb K. G. M. German-Russian, Russian-German Dictionary of False Friends. Moscow: Sovietskaya encyklopediya, 1972. Filologija 2012 (17)

74 Gottlieb H. Reve­ling False Friends: Cre­ting a Truthful Dictionary of Danish-English Pseu­ do-Equivalents. Abstracts of the 11th International Symposium on Lexicography, Univer­ sity of Copenhagen, 2002, 2-4 May, p. 14. Gudavičius A. Ложные друзья переводчика в литовско-русском двуязычии. Методы и формы обучения русскому языку в национальной аудитории. Vilnius, 1997, 38–40. Ha­ward T. & Moulin A. False Friends Invigorated. LEXeter ’83 proce­dings. Papers from the International Conference on Lexicography in Exeter, Sept. 83, pp.190–198. Ed. by Hartmann, Tubingen, 1984. Hartmann R. R. K. Contrastive Linguistics and Bilingual Lexicography. An International En­ cyclopedia of Lexicography. Vol. 3. De Gru­ter, 1991. Karaliūnas S. Kalba ir visuomenė. Vilnius, 1997. Laptėvaitė I. Būdingi anglų kalbos leksikos įsisavinimo interferencijos atvejai. Kalbotyra XXIX (3), 1978, 27–31. Lipczuk R. Internacjonalizmy a “fałszywi przyjaciele tłumacza”. Język­ a k­ultura,1992, vol. 7, 135–143. Perkins Ch. The “English Sickness”: a Contribution towards Better Understanding of Interlin­ gual Interference. Die Neu­ren Sprachen (DNS), 1977, 26, 58–62. Piesarskas B. Sisteminiai žodžių ryšiai mokomajame dvikalbiame žodyne. Kalbotyra XXXVII (3), 1987, 120–129. Sansome R. Applying Lexical Research to the Teaching of Phrasal Verbs. IRAL, 2000, vol. 38, no. 1, 59–69. Sheen R. English faux amis for Francophones Learning English. English and French langua­ ge resources. Volterre-Fr database, 2000. Sylva-Corvalan C. Langu­ge contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Claren­ don Press, 1994. Veisbergs A. ‘False Friend’s in Latvian: Dictionaries, Current Problems. Linguistica Lettica, 1998, vol. 3, 12–25. Wilczyńska W. “Faux Amis” czy “amis infidèles” – de­fnicja a praktyka. Język­ a k­ultura, 1992, vol. 7, 161–169.

Sources

Bendorienė A., Bogušienė V., Dagytė E., etc. Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas (Dictionary of In­ ternational Words) (DIW). Vilnius: Alma littera, 2001. Keinys S. (editor-in-chief). Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas (Dictionary of Current Lithu­ anian) (DCL). Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2000. Piesarskas B., Svecevičius B. Lithuanian-English Dictionary (LED). Vilnius: Mokslas, 1979, 1992. Thompson D. (ed.). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (COD 9). 9th edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. Fielding H. Bridget Jones’s Diary. Picador, 1996. Fielding H. Bridžitos Džouns dienoraš­tis. Vilnius, 1999. Lithu­nian Securities Commission Annual Report. Vilnius, 1999. Filologija 2011 (17)

75 Laimutė Kasparė

ANGLŲ-LIETUVIŲ KALBŲ NETIKRI VERTĖJO DRAUGAI: PSICHOLINGVISTINIS ASPEKTAS

Santrauka

Pagrindiniai žodžiai: netik­ri vertėjo draugai, psicholingvistinis aspek­tas, semantinė žodžio struk­tū­ra, interferencija, užsienio k­albų studentai, vertėjai.

Gretinamoji giminingų ir negiminingų kalbų analizė rodo jose esant daug išoriškai panašių ar net identiškų žodžių. Tačiau didžioji tokių žodžių dalis skiriasi savo semantine struktūra (pvz., angl. dislocate „iš(si)narinti“, „(su)trikdyti“, „(su)trukdyti“, liet. dislo­kuoti „iš(si)dėstyti“); tokios žodžių poros vertimo teorijoje yra vadinamos netikrais vertėjo drau­ gais (NVD). Pavartoti kaip vertimo ekvivalentai vertimo kalboje, NVD sukelia klaidingas asociacijas, vartojimo trūkumus, teksto iškraipymus, netikslumus, nesusipratimus, stiliaus klaidas ir daugybę kitų vertimo problemų. Pats terminas netik­ri draugai apibūdina psicholingvistinę kategoriją: nagrinėdami šį klausimą, negalime ignoruoti užsienio kalbos studentų, kalbančiųjų užsienio kalba, taip pat vertėjų raštu ir žodžiu. Todėl šiame straipsnyje nagrinėjami kai kurie psicholingvistiniai lie­ tuvių-anglų kalbų netikrų vertėjo draugų aspektai. Remiantis mokslinės literatūros analize ir vartojimo pavyzdžiais, analizuojamos priežastys, dėl kurių šios žodžių poros tampa kliūtimi užsienio kalbos vartotojams. Reziumuojama, kad, be tiesioginės ir netiesioginės gimtosios kalbos interferencijos, atsirandančios dėl šių žodžių išorinio ir kartais semantinio panašumo, tokie veiksniai kaip kognityvinis supaprastinimas, nerūpestingumas, neatidumas, patogumo ir fizinio komforto siekimas gali būti NVD priežastis. Galima manyti, kad klaidas, susijusias su NVD vartojimu, sąlygoja besimokančiųjų amžius ir žemas užsienio kalbos mokėjimo ly­ gis, tačiau mokslinėje literatūroje teigiama, kad NVD sukelia problemų ne tik pradedantie­ siems, bet ir dvikalbiams vartotojams, ir net patyrusiems vertėjams.

Laimutė Kasparė

ENGLISH-LITHUANIAN INTERPRETER’S FALSE FRIENDS: PSYCHOLINGUISTIC ISSUES

Summary

Ke­words: interpreter’s false friends, psycholinguistic issues, semantic structure of the word, interference, foreign langu­ge learners, translators, interpreters.

Comparative analysis of both related and non-related langu­ges presents a large corpus of formally similar or identical lexemes. A considerable share of these lexemes, however, has differences in their semantic structures (e.g. English dislocate “to disturb the normal connec­ tion, esp. in a joint in the body; disrupt, put out of order”: Lith. dislo­kuoti “to deploy, to sta­ tion”); such pairs of words are known in translation studies as interpreter’s false friends (FF). Filologija 2012 (17)

76 Used as equivalents in another langu­ge, FF lead to false associations, wrong use, distortion of text, imprecision, misunderstanding, disregard for the right stylistic colouring and other numerous translation problems. The term ‘false friends’ in fact de­fnes a psycholinguistic category: de­ling with false friends one cannot ignore the foreign langu­ge learner, spe­ker, translator or interpreter. That is why the present paper focuses on a number of psycholinguistic issues in connection with the phenomenon of English-Lithu­nian FF. Basing its findings on the study of research litera­ ture on the question and examples of usage, it aims at discussing the re­sons of them being a stumbling-block for the foreign langu­ge users. It is concluded that next to direct and indirect mother tongue interference due to the external and in some cases semantic similarity, such factors as cognitive simpli­fcation, usual carelessness, convenience, and search for psychical comfort on the part of foreign langu­ge spe­kers cause the appe­rance of FF. It could be assumed that the appe­rance of FF very much depends on the age and the level of the langu­ge knowledge of the students; however, specialist literature points out that FF are a cause of mistakes not only for the beginners, but also for bilingual spe­kers and ex­ perienced translators/interpreters. Filologija 2011 (17)

77