Министерство Образования и науки Республики Казахстан
Атырауский государственный университет им. Х. Досмухамедова
Кафедра «Переводческое дело и иностранные языки»
Допущен к защите
Заведующий кафедрой
Переводческое дело и
иностранные языки, к.ф.н.
____________ А.Х.Хайржанова
«____» ______________ 20___ж.

ДИПЛОМНАЯ РАБОТА
Тема: “Types of adoptive transcoding”
Специальность-5В020700 «Переводческое дело»
Выполнил:

Ш.Серікқалиұлы

Научный руководитель:

З.Н.Каримова

Норма контроль:

Д.Т.Кенжахметов

Атырау 2017

CONTENT
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3
I.MODIFICATION OF INFORMATION AS INTERLINGUAL
COMMUNICATION .................................................................................................. 5
1.1Theoretical and practical aspects of cross-cultural communication ........................ 6
1.2Transfer of anthroponomy in Interlingual and cross-cultural communication ........ 8
1.3Personal names and their diminutive options ........................................................ 11
II.TRANSLATION STANDARDS .......................................................................... 37
2.1Types of interlingual transformations .................................................................... 41
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 56
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................... 59

INTRODUCTION
This diploma work is devoted to a research of lexical and stylistic features of the
translation of texts in the sphere of literature.
Researches in the field of the translation — the important and urgent task
directed to achievement of adequate translations, promoting the decision of many
application-oriented tasks and an acceleration of information exchange in the field of
the latest developments of science among experts and the scientific different
countries.
Subject of researchare the scientific texts of financial and economic subject
which are of interest in respect of detection of lexical features of the translation of
scientific and technical texts.
Research question - lexicon of texts of scientific subject and manifestation of
its features in translation practice as means of cross-cultural communication in the
sphere of language.
Relevance of operation is caused by increase in the significance of the
translation of scientific literature as method of exchange and distribution of
information in the world scientific community
Goal of research - Separation of lexical features of scientific texts within the
tasks which are carried out by them as the communication medium in the sphere of
science, and a study of influence of these features on translation practice of texts of
economic subject.
Goal of research defined the following tasks:
• To specify general options of the scientific text as means of cross-cultural
communication in the sphere of science.
• To select features of scientific style of English in comparison with the Russian
and Kazakh languages.
• To research terminology on the example of the English scientific texts.
• To select the main difficulties of the translation of terminology of scientific
texts and to plan ways of their decision.
Study materials are Englishand Russian texts of classic literature, and texts of
Russian and western researchers
• theory of the text (Arnold I. V., Razinkina N. M, Strakhova of B.C, Ryabtseva
N. K., Vlakhov S., Parshin A., Komissarov V. N., Tolstoy S. S., Rubtsova M. G.,
Brandes M. P., Vorobyova M., Volodina M. N.)
• translation theory (Barkhudarov L. S., Borisova L. I., Breus E. V., Kazakova.,
Komissarov V. N., Latyshev L. K., Pumpyansky A. L., E.Nida., G.Toury. Slepovich.)
Research method: Work is performed by a complex technique on the basis of
comparative and comparative and semantic analyses of the text.
The purpose and research problems predetermined the following operation
structure: this operation includes introduction, two chapters and the inference.
PartI contains the analysis of features of scientific and technical texts as means
of cross-cultural communication, also considers comparative stylistic features of the
Russian, Kazakh and English scientific and technical texts, and also terminology
3

research problems.
Part II contains the analysis of problems of the translation of scientific
terminology on the example of economic texts, and sentences according to their
decision.

4

I.

MODIFICATION OF INFORMATION AS INTERLINGUAL
COMMUNICATION

Language- means communication, and expression of thoughts. Certainly, it has
also other functions, but these two — the most main. Language serves
communication, it is principal, the most explicit, and the most official and socially
recognized of all types of communicative behavior [1:211].
Language - the multivariate phenomenon which arose in human society: it both
system and anti-system, and activities and a product of these activities, both spirit and
matter, and spontaneously developing object and the ordered self-regulating
phenomenon, it is also any and made, etc. Characterizing language in all its
complexity from the opposite sides, we open its entity. [2:4]
Communication — the act of communication, the communication between two
or more individuals based on mutual understanding; reporting of information by one
person to another or number of persons.
Determination of culture there is a set. V. A. Maslova in the book
«Linguaculturology selects only 11 basic approachesof culture understanding and
determination. Culture it is any creative human activities, such activities as a result of
which there is a certain product, or the result expressing the ideas, thoughts, beliefs,
traditions and so on, available to others. The word «culture» is applied usually to
high-quality and quantitative determination of this product.
The term culture is taken from the technical vocabulary of anthropology,
wherein it embraces the entire way of life of members of a community insofar as it is
conditioned by that membership [3:27].
Determination of cross-cultural communication is obvious from the term: this
communication of the people representing different cultures [4:14].
The term «cross-cultural communication» is called adequate mutual
understanding of two participants of the communicative act belonging to different
national cultures [5:26].
It is slightly more difficult to explain the concept «cross-language
communication», first of all, that in literature it not often is considered separately. We
tried to find determination for this concept in this thesis.
Language is a culture component, and the culture is a meeting of traditions,
ideas, and achievements of a civilization. As language – the means of
communication, communication (communication, communication) between cultures
can be carried out rather effectively on the basis of one or several languages. Today,
when the international corporations carry out globalization processes, it becomes
especially obvious – the huge number of languages dies out, they just become
unnecessary. Cultural traditions show the highest ability «to be alloyed» under the
uniform ideas. And for promotion of such ideas one language which is rather easily
perceived by people of this region – a certain international and cross-cultural
language usually serves. Presently English can be an example of such language.
However there are several only one official options of English, and also a huge
number of options on which speak in different regions of the world – up to dialects.
5

The similar situation develops also in those regions of the world where the language
serving for communication between cultures is Russian or Chinese.
Thus, Interlingualcommunication consists of ability to speak language which is
cross-cultural. It or officially established international language, or language which
choice historically is also culturally caused for communication between
representatives of different languages and cultures. And in most cases language is
used exclusively functionally – for a household talk, for trade and other aspects of
human activity. From this party there is especially obvious an importance of a role of
the person assistant at implementation of cross-cultural communication who knows
language more widely and understands his subtleties.
So, interlingual communication is
1. Direct communication of representatives of different cultures in one language,
but at the same time this language changes under the influence of cultural features of
native speakers;
2. Communication of representatives of different cultures in different languages,
but through the intermediary having a certain set of knowledge of culture and
language of parties concerned.

1.1 Theoretical and practical aspects of cross-cultural communication
At a turn of the second and third millennia becomes more and more obvious that
the mankind develops on the way of expansion interrelations and interdependence of
various countries, people and their cultures. This process has captured various
spheres of public life of all countries of the world. Today it is impossible to find
ethnic communities which wouldn't be influenced by influence as from cultures of
other people, and wider public environment existing in certain regions and in the
world in general. It was expressed in rapid growth of cultural exchanges and direct
contacts between the state institutes, social groups, social movements and certain
individuals of the different countries and cultures. Expansion of interaction of
cultures and the people does especially urgent a question of cultural originality and
cultural distinctions. The cultural diversity of modern mankind increases and the
people making him find more and more means to keep and develop the integrity and
cultural shape. This tendency to preservation of cultural originality confirms the
general regularity consisting that the mankind, becoming more and more
interconnected and uniform, doesn't lose the cultural diversity. In the context of these
tendencies of social development becomes extremely important to be able to define
cultural features of the people to understand each other and to achieve mutual
recognition.
The process of interaction of cultures leading to their unification causes in some
nations aspiration to cultural self-affirmation and desire to keep own cultural values.
A number of the states and cultures show the categorical rejection of the happening
cultural changes. They oppose to process of opening of cultural borders
impermeability own and hypertrophied pride the national originality. Various
6

societies react to outside influences differently. Range of resistance to process of
merge of cultures is rather wide: from passive rejection of values of other cultures
before active counteraction to their distribution and the statement. Therefore we are
witnesses and contemporaries of the numerous ethno-religious conflicts, growth of
nationalist sentiments, regional fundamentalist movements.
Noted processes in a varying degree have found the manifestation and in Russia.
Reforms of society have led to serious changes in the cultural image of Russia. For
several last year’s absolutely new public groups have appeared: businessmen,
bankers, political leaders of different movements, Russian staff of foreign firms, etc.
There is a formation of absolutely new type businesscultures, new idea of social
responsibility of the business world to the client and society is formed, life of society
in general changes. Process develops extremely difficult and painfully as faces a huge
number of obstacles and restrictions from the state, mistrust to the authorities,
incompetence and voluntarism. One of ways of overcoming the existing difficulties is
adjustment of effective system of communication between various public groups and
the power. This system has to be based on the principles of equal access to necessary
information, direct communication among themselves, and collective decisionmaking and effective work of employees. It is necessary to add to it that versatile
international contacts of heads and businessmen of all levels have shown that success
in any kind of the international activity in many respects depends on extent of
training of the Russian representatives in area of cross-cultural communication. And,
at last, the end of «Cold War» between the East and the West has significantly
expanded trade and economic relations between them; the number of the people
having economic contacts outside the culture from year to year grows in each
country. Now in the world there are more than 37 thousand. Multinational
corporations from thousand. Branches in which several tens of millions of people
work. For the effective activity they have to consider features of culture of the
partners and countries of residence. Crisis situations of the last years in Russia
(1998), Mexico and Brazil (1999) which have broken the existing economic order
and have led to new alignment of forces on the world scene became the evidence of
interrelation of world economy.
Wide availability of direct contacts with cultures which seemed mysterious and
strange earlier became result of the new economic relations. At direct contact with
such cultures of distinction are realized not only at the level of kitchen utensils,
clothes, a diet, but also in various attitude towards women, children and old men, in
ways and means of business management.
Becoming participants of any kind of cross-cultural contacts, people interact
with representatives of other cultures often significantly differing from each other.
Differences in languages, national cuisine, clothes, standards of public behavior, the
relation to the performed work often make these contacts difficult and even
impossible. But it is only private problems of cross-cultural contacts. A main reason
for their failures lies outside obvious distinctions. They in distinctions in attitude that
is other relation to the world and to other people. The principal hindrance hindering
the successful solution of this problem consists that we perceive other cultures
7

through in case of the culture therefore our observations and the inferences are
restricted to its frames. With great difficulty we understand word meanings, acts,
actions which aren't characteristic of ourselves. Our ethnocentrism not only hinders
cross-cultural communication, but also it is difficult to recognize it as it is
unconscious process. From here the output arises that effective cross-cultural
communication can't arise in itself, it needs to study purposefully.
Languages shall be learned in continuous unity with the world and culture of the
people speaking these languages. Language structures sociocultural are the
cornerstone of structure [4:28].
1) Theculture, as well as language, is the forms of consciousness displaying
outlook of the person;
2) The culture and language exist in a dialog among themselves;
3) The subject of culture and language is always the person or society;
4) A normative - general for language and culture;
5) Historicism - one of intrinsic properties of culture and language;
6) The antinomy «dynamics - statics» is inherent in language and culture.
Language and culture are interrelated:
1) In communicative processes;
2) In ontogeny (formation of language abilities of the person);
3) In phylogeny (formation of the public person).
These two entities differ with the following:
1) In language as a phenomenon aims to the masseswhereas in culture to the
individuals;
2) Though the culture - sign system (like language), but it isn't capable to selforganize;
3) As it was already noted by us, language and culture are different semiotics
systems 5[20:60].
So, the theoretical aspect of cross-cultural communication consists in the current
trends of world development leading to unification of cultures and increases in
number of cross-cultural contacts. In these conditions it is necessary to differentiate
the concepts «culture» and «language», to accurately understand a difference between
various social and cultural groups. The practical aspect of cross-cultural
communication means need of direct cross-cultural contacts up to the household
level, systematic approach to cross-cultural contacts, establishing cross-cultural
communications within the country, directly training of cross-cultural
communication.

1.2 Transfer of anthroponomy in Interlingual and cross-cultural
communication
Anthroponomy is the proper name (or a set of names, including all possible
options) which is officially appropriated to the certain person as his identification
mark. Anthroponomy calls, but doesn't attribute any properties. Anthroponomy have
8

conceptual value which cornerstone idea of category, a class of objects is. The
following signs are inherent in this value, as a rule:
a) The instruction that the carrier of an anthroponomy — the person: Peter,
Lewis unlike London, Thames;
b) The instruction on belonging to a national linguistic community: Robin,
Henry, William unlike René, Henri, Wilhelm;
c) The instruction on a sex of the person: John, Henry unlike Mary, Elizabeth
[6:39].
It is clear, that each person can't have unique, only to him one inherent name.
Both personal names and the surnames taken in it have a set of carriers.
Out of a concrete situation or the sphere of communication the names John,
Elizabeth, Thomas, etc. don't indicate any specific person. We will call multiple
anthroponomy such names which in language consciousness of collective don't
contact preferably any one person. Other anthroponomy also belong to many people,
but one is connected with someone first of all. These are names of the people who
have become widely known (Plato, Shakespeare, Darwin, Einstein и.т.п.). Such IS
we will call single anthroponomy[6:39]. V.P.Berkov has suggested to differentiate
the specified groups respectively as the general and single IS [7:107]. The term
«general IS», however, is submitted not absolutely successful as can suggest an idea
that it something more general, abstract, than single names. The principle of
differentiation of these two types of anthroponomy in another: in absence or
existence of an object to which anthroponomy points first of all.For example,
Churchill proper name used in the text without explanations most likely will be
understood as a surname of the British prime minister 40 — the 50th years (Churchill
was a heavy smoker). Only when the context or a speech situation contradicts such
understanding, the name will be apprehended as multiple: Churchill, my next-door
neighbor, has just come from Africa. Thus, multiple anthroponomy are characterized
by the fact that the communicative sphere in which they unambiguously define one
reviewer is limited. Therefore at their introduction to wider sphere of communication
the specifying context surely has to accompany them, for example: I heard somebody
coming through the shower curtains. Even without looking up, I knew right away
who it was. It was Robert Ackley, this guy that roomed next to me. Not even Herb
Gale, his own roommate, ever called him «Bob». (J. Salinger) Single anthroponomy,
on the contrary, don't demand such specifying context as their communicative sphere
— all language collective. It is shown, in particular, by those cases when by
anthroponomy it is entered into the text without any explanations and when on the
basis of the text it is impossible to establish who possesses this name. For example:
That characteristic romanticism of the Victorian mind the sea represents something
mysterious, boundless, reaching out wider and wider into eternal truths and eternal
progress.
Charlotte Bronte, seeing the sea for the first time, was «quite overpowered so
that she couldn't speak», and Hazlitt’s reaction was no less awestruck at the «strange
ponderous riddle, which we can neither penetrate nor grasp in our comprehension».
(International Herald Tribune)
9

In article from where the given fragment is taken, it isn't specified anywhere that
Charlotte Bronte (1816-1855) and Hazlitt (1778-1830) - prominent English writers. It
is supposed that they are rather well-known to readers. A factor extra linguistic —
wide popularity of the person in society — finds linguistic expression that single
anthroponomy don't need the accompanying context of the specifying character, and
their reviewers don't depend on the narrow communicative sphere.
From this it follows that the known information on the carrier of a name is
included into value of a single anthroponomy as language units. For the translator it is
important to know what volume of this information and whether it is possible to
equate it to the encyclopedic information about the person to whom the name
belongs. As it was already specified, there is an opinion according to which single IS
have «infinitely rich» content and their value joins all encyclopedic information on an
object.Fairly objecting to this point of view, A.B. Superanskaya notes: «Speaking
about infinitely rich contents of Cervantes, we substitute the language analysis of this
name for the biographic information about the author of Don Quixote, forgetting that
a name Cervantes also other people could be called just as also there are a lot of
people by the name of Churchill». And nevertheless the author of Don Quixote holds
special position among all persons by the name of Cervantes. This surname really
belongs to many people, but additional information that one of these people — the
great writer and the author of the famous novel, apparently, is imprisoned in this
name not only for the whole language collective, but even for many language
collectives. In this regard, when it is about this person, the name Cervantes doesn't
need additional explanations. The minimum idea that Cervantes — «the famous
writer, the author of the novel «Don Quixote»«, strongly enters the characterizing
component of value of this name. Of course, not each member of language collective
has all completeness of information about the particular person therefore value of a
single anthroponomy in language is the known abstraction corresponding to the
average level of knowledge of the name carrier. Aesop's fables, Albert Einstein's
works or the biography of Lincoln were read, certainly, not by all, however all (or
almost everything) own the known sum of information about these people, having got
these data from other persons, from books, the periodical press, radio - and telecasts.
Such average sum of information steadily corresponds to a single name. This
sum of data, this well-known minimum of information on the carrier of an
anthroponomy can also be considered, apparently, value of single anthroponomy in
primary nomination. So, IS value Homer is almost completely exhausted by the
following definition; Ancient Greek poet, author of eposes «Iliad» and «Odyssey».
First, it is that sum of data which is associated with this name in consciousness of
most of native speakers, and secondly, it honors everything that is known of this
person to historical and literary science. That is why the playful maxim so comically
sounds: «It is established that «Iliad» was written at all not by Homer, but other
Greek of the same name». The status of primary nominative value in cross-cultural
communication happens different for different anthroponomy. Popularity of many
people was beyond their country and a linguistic community, according to their
names are single anthroponomy and in other languages. On the other hand, the glory
10

of other figures widely known in the countries doesn't come to the international level.
If anthroponomy Einstein, Aesop, Newton, and Lincoln are single both in English,
and in Russian, then William Hazlitt or Willa Cather's names have no such status in
Russian. If the translator draws a similar conclusion concerning the text translated to
them and that audience for which the translation is designed, he has bases to apply
the specifying, descriptive or reformative compliances.Besides, the analysis of a
context can show that single the IC realizes the value in the figurative nomination
[6:39-43].
Thus, differentiation of the concepts «single anthroponomy» and «multiple
anthroponomy» is necessary. Information on the name carrier is important for single
anthroponomy, except the signs peculiar to both types. Besides, in a situation when in
the text there is no object which specifies anthroponomy, and the text is expected,
including, and the international audience, additional data on this object can be
necessary.

1.3 Personal names and their diminutive options
The concept of a personal name, i.e. the relation of members of language
collective to the names, gradually changes, and it is carried to reorganizations by the
anthroponomical of systems. For the modern Russian person the most naturally twocomponent naming. It can be: name + middle name (Ivan Petrovich, Maria
Ivanovna); name + surname (Vasily Kudryavtsev or Vasya Kudryavtsev, Tatyana
Smirnova or Tanya Smirnova); name + nickname: Olga Ryzhaya, Zhora Homyak.
From 1990th years in Russia in a business and political community the twocomponent naming consisting of the complete form of a name and a surname began
to extend: Galina Starovoytova, Sergey Kovalyov. During prior eras such method of
naming was used only in the artistic environment: Isabella Yuryeva, Arkady Raikin
[7:1].
For an anthroponomical categories of diminutive and affection (in the Russian
grammars they sometimes integrate) are of particular importance. The words
expressing diminutives are called diminutive, and hypocoristic express affection –
when naming the person or any other animated or inanimate objects. For example, the
mountain (big) – a hill (small), and a gorochka, a hillock – caressing words; a bear
(big), medvedik, a bear cub (small), Medvedyushka, Medvedko – caressing names of
a bear or the appeal to a bear. As a result of diminutive names of other objects can be
created: a hand – the pen (doors), a leg – a pinch (beds), an eagle – орлик (a bird of
other group). In the Russian anthroponomy since ancient times the denotative was
used for naming of children: the parent in the diminutive form (a vertical structural of
entitlement) was named them. For example, father Yury Grigoryevich Volk Kamensk
(the first half 15 in) is the son: Ivan Yuryevich Blind Wolf cub Volkov son Kamensk.
The affection– the special category reflecting the relation speaking to named,
irrespective of family and other relations. Numerous caressing suffixes can be added
both to complete, and to sectional bases: Ivan – Ivanushka, Ivanochek; Vanya 11

Vanyushka, Vanechek. In addition to caressing, there can be also other suffixes of
subjective appraisal, for example magnifying устрашительные:Ivanishche,
Varvarishcha; neglectful: Ivashka, Maryashka. But there is no direct dependence
between a suffix and the emotional characteristic of a name. In different parts of
Russia of the Vanka form, Manka can be regarded differently: in the cities they are
perceived rather as neglectful, in rural areas – as normal designation of young hardworking people. With development of documentation reflection of the related
relations in names became optional, and diminutive forms adjoined caressing. All
types of personal and family names belong to anthroponomy. In the different
countries the set of names from which official naming of the person is formed isn't
identical. In the English-speaking countries the system of names is difficult: everyone
has a personal name (first name, given name) and a surname (last name, family name,
surname); but also double personal names, double surnames, a so-called middle name
are frequent. On the contrary, the Russian middle names have no analogs in the
European languages. In case of a transcription of the Russian addresses on a name
middle name into English of a middle name are quite often perceived as surnames.
However in case of all distinctions it developed so that each person in any country
has a personal name and a surname. The English-speaking countries refused the term
«Christian name» as designation of the concept «personal name» distributed earlier
now as in the last decades there the percent of the non-Christian population sharply
increased [7:11].
The middle name is the special personalized word formed on behalf of the father
of this person. Naming on the father is accepted at many people: Serbian. Mikhaylo –
Mikhaylovich, English John John – Johns. At the people of Southern and Western
Europe similar naming’s in the Middle Ages turned into surnames and now are used
as the stiffened heritable words without any of the immediate family was called
Mikhaylo or John.
Russians have a middle name – still live personalized category, indispensable in
case of official naming and in documents. The middle names formed both from
Russians and from non-Russian names, met in the most ancient Russian written
monuments Burchevich, Berendeich (from a Turkic patrimonial name Mutter also
from the breeding name of a berendea). In case of numerous population censuses it
was required to write all «on a name with fathers and a nickname»8[15:36].
The naming formula like Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov was worked out not directly.
Before all middle names were created at representatives of the higher classes of
society: boyar Yury Alekseevich Dolgorukov.They are called sometimes «semimiddle names» as it is not Grigoryevich and not Ivanovich.
In early middle names the yotovy suffix (Vyacheslav the son Yaroslavl (1057), a
posadnik Kostyantin the son Dobryn (1018), Ivanko Vyacheslavl (1127)), afterwards
was involved in middle names not used. Now as relicts forms of some female middle
names on - an inichna remain in case of men's on - ич: Ilyich – Ilyinichna, Kuzmich –
Kuzminichna, Fomich – Fominichna, Lukiç – Lukinichna. In the past of a middle
name with a suffix - nich could be at men: sir Ilyinich, deputy Smolensk (1498),
12

Raguil Prokopyinich, Novgorodian (1200), Ivanko Zakharyinich (1171), Yury
Oleksinich (1216).
Official naming’s of women were especially difficult: Ivanovo wife of Vasilyev
son Korobkin widow Agafya Petrova daughter; Anna Ivanovna daughter
Yakovlevsky wife of Ivanov son Chicherin (17–18 centuries). For naming of wives
there were also special possessive educations on behalf of husbands: Nekrasye,
Davyzhaya, Vasilyevaya, Pavlovaya, and Ivanvaya.
Since the Petrovsky era of the graph «Middle name» becomes mandatory in all
documents 8[31:13].
The word «surname» was included into Russian from Latin without any
essential changes and, according to M. Fasmer, was borrowed through Polish. [4]
The word «surname» at Russians appears during the Petrovsky era at first as
designation of a family or the wife, only later – in 'family name' value. What is called
now a surname in the past was called a family pro-rank. Families were big, and as
naming of all family the name of the head of the family or ancestor was initial:
Kuzma Maximov son Belyaev, i.e. Kuzma, Maxim Belyaev's son; Maxim is the head
of the family, Belyay – the ancestor [9:27].
In historical documents names of the same people could be written differently.
So, I. A. Koroleva found in different lists the tradespeople of the people defending
Smolensk at the beginning of 17 century, the following writing: Mikhaylo Borisov
the son Cherkas and he is Mishka Borisov the son Cherkasov; foreman Volodya
Ignatyev son Prasol and foreman Volod'ka Ignatyev son Prasolov; tradespeople
Trenka Semenav daughter Vysotskaya and Trenka Vysotskya[10:102].
The second and third components in a formula Kuzma Maximov the son
Belyaev yet not a middle name (in the modern understanding of this term which
developed by the end of 17 century) and not a surname, and specifying addressed to
(names) of the father and/or farther ancestor. It is convenient to call them
patronymics (from Greek pater 'father', in the plural of pateres 'parents, ancestors').
The patronymic is the type of an anthroponomy formed on behalf of the father or
farther ancestor named, serving for his indirect (indirect) naming through a name of
other person. Ancient patronymics are a germ of the modern middle names and the
patronymic of surnames.
Standard structures of official passport surnames formed in 15 century when
there was an elevation of the Moscow principality, and the Moscow offices defined
whom and how «to write» though this official record often didn't match really being
heard naming of the person or a family in the live speech. So there was a
decomposition of naming of the Russian people on official and informal (street,
rural). The Moscow offices at discretion added to family pro-ranks of one people
suffixes - ova, - in(Kot– Kotov, the Grass – Traven; the choice between - ov and - in
is defined by type of inducement of a noun) and truncated an ancient all-Slavic
patronymic suffix - ich/-ovich in family pro-ranks of others (Fedorovich – Fedorov).
So there was a standardization of documentary records. The Moscow samples of
record were delivered over all country that promoted unification of writing in
documents [11:118].
13

Some family pro-ranks didn't undergo similar processing and remained as
rarities. Not always standardization the family pro-ranks which had the form of an
adjective was exposed: Alexey Stepanovich Vesely Sobakin (1613); the prince
Afanasy Ivanovich Dolgy Vyazma (the guardsman, is executed in 1570). From some
patronymics which had the form of adjectives surnames on - oho, - oho/-ogo, the
having forms of the stiffened adjectives of a genitive case of singular afterwards were
formed
Boris Ivanovich Dolgovo (1495, Lukh, received Novgorod estate); Ivan
Shemyaka Debt Saburov (1538, Yaroslavl); Vasily Luchaninov Cheerful (1567,
landowner, Novgorod); Ivan Semenovich Hitrovo (1483, Small Resident of
Yaroslavl); Ivanovic Blagovo's Fornication (1555, Novgorod), cf. also of Burago,
Mertvago, Zhivago, Veselago (with the Church Slavonic termination - aha). Over
time pro-ranks of many families of type Dry, Wet, Cheerful, Good were standardized
as Sukhov, Mokrov, Veselov, Blagov.
In the modern surnames all structural types which arose several centuries ago
remain. Surnames prevail on - ov/-ev, considerably concede to them surnames on in/-yn. Restrictedly surnames on - enko, more typical for Ukraine, and on - ich/ovich, more typical for Belarus and Poland are provided. The surnames having the
forms of adjectives and participles (Red, Storming), and also the forms of diminutive
nouns calling the descendant through a name of his ancestor are single and just nouns
without any special design (the Lip, the Duma, Pitch, the Veil, the Band; Forehead,
Horn, Guard, Prut, Full-sphere) [12:119].
Surnames on - skaya coexist parallel with many surnames on - ov/-in or with the
surnames having the form of adjectives with suffixes - ov-y/-in-ovy: MolozhavyMolozhavsky,
Ogneva-Ognevsky,
Nosachev-Nosachevsky,
NeklyudovNeklyudovsky, Punks Pankovsky, Eagles Orlovsky, Mikhaylov-Mikhaylovsky,
Nadezhdin-Nadezhdinsky.
Along with official system in Russia still there is a live system of informal
naming inherited of the remote past, the free from an artificial interference. In the
ancient time, if the head of the family was called the Bull, this patrimonial pro-rank
was transferred to the eldest son in an invariable look. Average sons were called
Bychko or the Bull-calf, and the youngest son or the grandson – Bychonok. The wife
was called Bychikh, the daughter – the Bull-calf. In a family also names Bynya,
Bykonya, Bycha, Bychenya bearing a shade of the tender attitude of parents towards
children were possible. With acceptance of Christianity church names were retracted
in the same system. So, from an orthodox name Stepan (head of the family) the name
of the wife was formed with a suffix - the ikh: Stepanikh. The husband could be
called the reduced Step name, and then the wife was called Styopikh. Children were
called by Stepanko, Stepanok, Stepanets, Stepanchik, and also Styopko, Styopik,
Stets, Stetsko, and the grandson – Stepanchonok. This system was substantially
destroyed by standardization. Nevertheless, many of the listed forms can be found in
composition of the modern passport surnames, and «live» educations remain in the
modern nicknames [13:112].
14

Concept of pragmatics doesn't come down only to a concept of pragmatically
value of language units - it much more widely and includes all questions connected
with various degree of understanding participants of communicative process of these
or those signs or messages and with their various treatment depending on linguistic
and extra linguistic experience of participants of communication. In 7-8 it was
specified that extra linguistic experience (what sometimes is called «background
knowledge» - background knowledge) participants of the communicative act
considerably determines by itself understanding them language and speech units what
has been given concrete examples. In the present section we will consider a question
of how these factors influence process of transformation and in the choice of
translation compliance to these or those units of SL.
As it has been told in noted section of chapter 1, the situation at which extra
linguistic information, available SL and TL carriers, doesn't coincide is quite usual that is «background knowledge the» of people speaking on SL and on TL is various.
As a result of it much, clear and obvious to SL carriers, is obscure or in general
unclear for TL carriers (and vice versa). The translator, naturally, can't but consider it
in the activity - even the most «exact» translation doesn't achieve the objectives if he
remains unclear for those to whom he is intended. Therefore the accounting of a
pragmatically factor is a necessary condition of achievement of full translation
adequacy.
At the same time it must be kept in mind also that circumstance that not all types
of the translated materials to the same extent demand the accounting of a
pragmatically factor. So, famous theorist of the translation And. Noybert [14:3031]divides all types of the translated materials into four groups depending on what
role is played in them by the pragmatically moments: 1) scientifically literature which
is to the same extent focused on carriers both SL, and TL - degree of her
understanding is identical, in general, at the people speaking different languages as
she is designed for the experts expert in the field knowledge; 2) the materials of the
local press and some other texts calculated on «the internal consumer»; though their
contents isn't always easily available to understanding of the foreign-language reader,
practically they are translated into other languages extremely seldom and the account
problem at their translation of a pragmatically factor, as a rule doesn't arise; 3) the
fiction intended, first of all, to people to whom this language is native however it is
often translated into foreign languages and therefore represents for the translator
special difficulties in the pragmatically plan; 4) materials of foreign policy promotion
and advertising of the goods going for export - at their translation the accounting of a
pragmatically factor plays a crucial role.
In general, distracting from concrete types of the translated material, it should be
noted that the accounting of pragmatically aspect is most important by transfer of
those categories of lexicon most of which often are among the untranslatable,
namely, proper names, geographical names and any names of cultural and community
realities. So, translating into Russian place names like the American Massachusetts,
Oklahoma, Virginia, the Canadian Alberta, Manitoba or the English Middlesex,
Surrey and so forth, it is necessary to add, as a rule, the State of Massachusetts,
15

Oklahoma, Virginia (or Virginia), Albert's province, Manitoba, the county
Middlesex, Surrey and the ave., [15:245] as the Russian reader in most cases doesn't
know that is designated by these names. Thus, information which is contained in the
source text implicitly (that is known to the SL carrier as his part of «background
knowledge»), will be expressed in the target text explicitly. Cf.:
«Where you girls from?» I asked her again... «Seattle, Washington...» (J.
Salinger, the Catcher in the Rye, 10)
Where you come from? - From Seattle, the State of Washington.
Cf. also when translating from Russian into English:
Junk dealing, theft of firewood and Teso in forest warehouses on the coast of
Oka or on Sands was more revenue, than. (M. Gorky, ChildhoodXIII)
But I found that the profits from junk dealing were less than from stealing
boards from the lumberyards on the bank of the Oka River or on the Sands.
Any Russian reader knows well that Oka is a name of the river; however this
information isn't supposed surely known for the English-speaking reader therefore in
the target text the word river is added.
In general the additions bearing in it such information which is supposed known
to SL carriers, but not TL are standard practice of the translation which purpose - to
achieve the fullest understanding of the translated text TL carriers. V. N. Komissarov
in the work «The word about the translation» (page 150) gives an interesting and
indicative example of such addition:
It was Friday and soon they'd go out and get drunk. (J. Brain, Room at the Top)
There was a Friday, the pay-day, soon these people will go outside and will get
drunk, (T. Kudryavtseva Lane and T. Ozerskoy)
The words added in translation it was necessary to enter there because the
Russian reader, as a rule, doesn't know what is known by each Englishman: the
wages in England is paid out weekly, on Fridays (on the eve of «weekend»).
We will give two more examples of such additions which need is caused by
pragmatically factors:
For dessert you got Brown Betty, which nobody ate... (J. Salinger, the Catcher in
the Rye, Ch. 5)
On sweet - «red Bettie», a pudding with treacle, only nobody ate it...
Gayev: I am a person of the eightieth years (A. Chekhov, The Cherry Orchard)
I'm a good Liberal, man of the eighties.
In the first example addition red Bettie reveals sense of the name, unclear for the
Russian reader. In the second it is necessary for Gayev's characteristic - the person of
an era when the starry-eyed liberalism which was peacefully getting on with the most
severe political reaction prospered (a connotation, well-known to the Russian viewer
- the contemporary of Chekhov).
In other cases, on the contrary, the accounting of a pragmatically factor is
expressed in omission of these or those words in translation. Cf. the following
example:
There were pills and medicine all over the place and everything smelled like
Vicks' Nose Drops. (J. Salinger, the Catcher in the Rye, Ch. 2)
16

Everywhere there were some bubbles, pills, everything smelled of cold drops.
Here in translation Vicks - the company name of drops, nothing speaking to the
Russian reader is lowered. Though it also leads to insignificant loss of information,
for this context this information is insignificant and she can quite be neglected.
Perhaps, still more often than additions and omissions, in translation practice are
applied replacements as an connection to the reader owning TL, this or that
information which is directly not expressed in the original, but, nevertheless, to the
clear reader - the TL carrier. We will take for an example the following fragment
from the book of the American historian and the journalist U. Shearer of «The Rise
and fall of the Third Reich»:
The jubilant Prime Minister faced a large crowd that pressed into Downing
Street. After listening to shouts of 'Good old Neville'..., Chamberlain spoke a few
words from a second-story window in Number 10. (Ch. 12)
Any Englishman knows well that the Downing Street in London is located in the
house N 10 down the street. The Russian reader, however, cannot know it; therefore
in Russian translation it is necessary to tell: Chamberlain has pronounced several
words from a window on the second floor of the residence'
Similar replacement was made by translators of NPA, translating into English
the sentence It has gone to army on June 22, 1941 as On the day when Germany
attacked Russia, he joined the army.1 the Date memorable for each Soviet person can
is told nothing, to the English-speaking reader and demands disclosure in translation
as in
The example is followed from the edging. L..L. Chernyakhovskoy
«Reorganization of speech structure for transfer of components of semantic
partitioning of the statement at the translation from Russian into English». (M, 1971)
where materials of the translations executed in NPA are widely used.
This case it is important to emphasize that the person about whom there is a
speech went to army in the first day of war.
Often such replacement has character of generalization, which is replacement of
the word with concrete value the word with more general, but value, more clear for
the SL carrier. Cf. the following example:
We will sit down to have dinner at the station and she demands the most
expensive and tips to footmen on ruble. (A. Chekhov, the Cherry Orchard, 1)
We sit down to dinner at a station and she orders, insist on the most expensive
things and give the waiters double tips. (Tr. by S. Young)
To the English or American viewer or the reader it can be unknown what actual
cost of the Russian ruble, therefore in translation instead of the indication of the
concrete sum (that in this case doesn't play a role) is noted unreasonably generous
character of tip which Ranevskaya gave. (In other translation of the same play costs:
gives the waiters a florin each that is quite acceptable, considering that it is about
Ranevsky' stay abroad.)
Here examples of generalization when translating from English into Russian:
A 'swept' yard that was never swept - where Johnson grass and rabbit-tobacco
grew in abundance. (H. Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird, I)
17

The«pure» yard which was never swept and all grew with weeds. (N. Gal Lane
and R. Oblonskoy)
The temperature was an easy ninety, he said, (ib., 18)
The heat is intolerable, he told.
In the first example in the original the names of weeds known to inhabitants of
the southern states where there is an action of the story are given. However, such
plants as «Johnsons a grass» and «rabbit tobacco» therefore translators resort to
generalization here especially as in this context not with what plants the yard grew is
essential, and the fact that it grew with weeds that is that nobody looked after him are
hardly known to the Russian reader. In other context (e.g., in the text of a handbook
on botany) such generalization would be inadmissible and unnecessary.
Celsius is impossible as this system is obsolete in the USA where there is an
action of the story. Translators resorted also here to generalization reception because,
besides in this context not the exact indication of temperature is important, and the
fact that there was a strong heat.
Generalization is often expressed in replacement of a proper name (quite often
company name) with the common noun giving the patrimonial name for this subject,
Compare:
I could see my mother going in Spaulding's... (J. Salinger, the Catcher in the
Rye, 7)
I imagined how mother went to sports shop...
I lit a cigarette and got all dressed and then I packed these two Gladstone’s I
have, (ib., 7)
I lit, put on, and then put both suitcases.
You, the mother, to Pechyory, to Asaph-skhimniku descend..., (M. Gorky,
Childhood, V)
You'd better go to Asaf-the-Recluse at the abbey, my good woman.
Along with generalization, the accounting of a pragmatically factor in
translation is sometimes expressed in application of opposite reception, namely a
specification, that is replacement of the word with a general meaning the word or
words with narrower, concrete value opening an essence of this phenomenon. We
will review the following example:
The British people are still profoundly divided on the issue of joining Europe.
(From newspapers)
To the Russian reader can be not clear in what sense the word Europe is used
here; to the resident of Great Britain, however, familiar with a political situation in
the country on the eve of 1973, the sense of expression of joining Europe is clear
without explanations. Considering this, this sentence it is necessary to translate into
Russian:
In the English people still there are deep disagreements on the entry of England
in European «Common market».
At last, in some cases for an explanation of these or those phenomena, realities
and so forth, clear to the reader on SL, but little-known or unknown to the reader on
TL, the translator is forced to resort to the help of the comment. So, in the play
18

Chekhov «The Cherry Orchard» Epikhodov asks the interlocutor: «Do you read
Boklya? « In English translation to this place of the text the footnote in which it is
told is made: «Buckle's 'History of Civilization' is better known in Russia than here.
To have read it is a sort of cachet of popular erudition...»
As it is possible to judge by the examples given by us, the accounting of a
pragmatically factor when translating demands from the translator of good
knowledge of the objects and situations described in the source text that is profound
extra linguistic knowledge. It demonstrates once again that translation
implementation in principle is impossible without participation of extra linguistic
factors.
On the other hand, application of the translation receptions stated above
demands from the translator of «sense of proportion» as any abuse of replacements in
translation process can lead to semantic or stylistic distortion of the original. The
translator has to explain to the reader the phenomena unclear or unfamiliar to him and
concepts, but he shouldn't substitute them familiar, habitual to the reader for TL for
the phenomena and concepts at all. Otherwise the translation can develop into the
conscious or unconscious distortion of the original which is expressed in
«transferring» of the situations described in him to a situation, habitual for TL
carriers, - what in the history of Russian translation of the 18-19th centuries was
called «inducement on the Russian harmony». The famous translator of the middle of
the 19th century Irinarkh Vvedensky who in Dickens and Thackeray's translations
replaced the English realities with Russians often fell into such mistake (in his
translations such «Russicisms» as the carrier, the salesman, a frogged overcoat, the
clerk, the coachman and so forth abound). [16:119] In this case we deal with the
direct opposite to that abuse of a translation transcription; however it is other extreme
which should be avoided in translation as clearness of the translation shouldn't be
reached at the price of his vulgarization. Numerous translators of «Tale of Igor's
Campaign» into modern Russian who, seeking «to bring closer» this work to -also
fell into the same mistake to the mine reader, in every possible way «modernized»
him therefore «each translator brought those elements which made a basis of an
esthetics urgent at that time» and «any new transfer in the version... I represented the
new distortion of the original caused by tastes of that social group to which the
translator»[In the same place, page 260].
The curious example of such «modernization» of the text caused by
pragmatically installation is provided by the American theorists of the translation
E.Nida and Ch. Taber in the monograph «Theory and practice of
translation».[17:134].
It is about the translation of the Bible into modern English in which text the
translator in some cases allows the deviations from the original caused by
pragmatically factors, aspiration «to bring closer» the bible text to the modern reader.
Here two such places in comparison with earlier translation more precisely keeping
the text of the original:
Old translation
19

Woman who had an evil spirit in her that had kept her sick for eighteen years.
(Luke, 13:11)
Then Satan went into Judas. (Luke, 22:3) New translation
Woman who for eighteen years had been ill from some psychological cause.
Then a diabolical plan came into the mind of Judas.
It must be kept in mind that for modern translators the Bible is not a collection
of ancient myths, but, first of all, the tool of ideological influence on believers;
therefore they quite often go for semantic distortions to make the bible text more
modern for the reader that appears from the given examples. From a point of sight of
translation theory, it is available cases of preference given to pragmatics in
comparison with semantics here. The concept of adequacy of the translation, that is
the requirement of equivalence of the text of TL to the text of SL, assumes, however,
the equal account both pragmatically, and semantic factor - the second shouldn't in
normal conditions be sacrificed to the first. At most what the translator can allow in
this case is a small loss of information, insignificant for this context, examples of
what have been given above (cf., in particular, reception of so-called generalization,
the leader, as a rule, to insignificant semantic «victims»).
«The word «translation» has several various values». So, in «The explanatory
dictionary of Russian» under D. N. Ushakov's edition it is indicated presence at this
word of five values which 1 majority, clear, has no relation to the problem interesting
us (e.g., 'transfer of the manager to other position', 'postal order', etc.). But even when
the word «translation» is used in sense 'the translation from one language on another',
it also in this case has two different values:
The translation as result of a certain process», that is designation of the most
translated text (e.g., in offers: «It is very good translation of the novel of Dickens»,
«The new translation of the poem of Byron «Childe Harold c Pilgrimage» into
Russian was published recently «, « he read this author in the translation», etc.
To transfer «Transfer as process» that is as action from a verb as a result of
which the target text in the first value appears. Mainly in this second value the term
«translation» will be used on further.
However from the very beginning it is necessary to make an explanation
concerning in what sense it is necessary to understand the term «process» in relation
to the translation. It is essential to emphasize that we have no here in a look mental or
cerebration of the translator, which is that psychophysiological process which
proceeds in the translator's brain during implementation of the translation by him. Of
course, studying of this process represents in the psycholinguistic plan great interest,
in particular for the theory of interpretation. However, «not to mention that now we
have still extremely vague idea of the nature of this process (it can be a studying
subject only in the comprehensive psycho-linguistic plan), we are interested here,
first of all, consideration of translation process in the plan linguistic, in derivation
from the physiological and psychological factors defining his realization.
It means that the term «process» in relation to the translation is understood by us
in purely linguistic sense, which is as certain look language, more precisely,
interlingual transformation or transformation of the text in one language in the text in
20

other language. Besides, the term «transformation» can't be taken literally - the
source text or the text of the original «will not be transformed» in the sense that he
doesn't change in itself. This text itself, of course, remains invariable, but along with
it and on the basis of it other text in other language which we call «translation» in the
first sense of this word (the translation as the translated text) is created. In other
words, the term «conversion» (or «transformation») can be used here only in that
sense in what this term is applied in the synchronous description of language
generally: it is about a certain relation between two language or speech units from
which one is initially, and the second is created on the basis of the first. In this case,
having the source text and in language A, the translator, primary to it certain
operations («translation transformations» of which it will be a question below),
would create the text in language B which is in certain natural relations with the text
and. In the set these language (cross-language) AND operations make what we call
«translation process» in a linguistic sense. Thus, the translation can be considered a
certain type of transformation, namely, cross-language transformation.
Adding, one may say, that a subject of linguistic translation theory is the
scientific process description of the translation as cross-language transformation, that
is conversion of the text in one language in the equivalent to it the text in other
language (about what contents invests in the term «equivalent», it will be a question
below.) In other words, the task of linguistic translation theory is process modeling of
the translation in the sense stated above.
So, the linguistic translation theory puts the task creation of a certain process
model of the translation that is some scientific diagram which is more or less
precisely reflecting the essential sides of this process. As it is about theoretical
simulation so far as all that characterizes theoretical models generally belongs to
translation theory. Here it is especially important to emphasize the next two
moments:
The translation theory as any theoretical model reflects not everything, and only
the most essential lines of the described phenomenon. As the famous Soviet
philosopher B. M. Kedrov writes, «the model shall be mandatory more simply than
the modeled process or a subject and shall as it is possible is more convex to display
its side interesting us»[18:175]. Even more sharply this idea the outstanding Soviet
physicist-theorist I. Freckle introduced in due time: «The good theory of difficult
systems shall represent only good «caricature» of these systems exaggerating their
those properties which are the most typical and intentionally ignoring all remaining unessential - properties»[19:80] The translation theory shall consider not any
relations between texts of a pas language of the original and target language, but only
the relations natural, that is typical, regularly repeating. Along with them in the
comparative analysis of the text of the original and the target text a large number of
the relations (compliances) single, the irregular, set only for this specific case is
opened, as a rule
As such single compliances don't give in to generalization, the linguistic
translation theory, naturally, can't consider them in the constructions though it should
be noted that these «irregular» compliances and present the greatest difficulty for
21

translation practice. The creative nature of translation activity also consists in ability
to find the individual, single, «not provided» by the theory compliances just. On the
other hand, in process of development of the translation theory many phenomena
which are represented individual in the beginning irregular, gradually «fit» into an
overall picture, receive an explanation and join in an object of races - watching
translation theory; in other words, as well as in any science, progress in translation
theory is, in particular, that behind a set of seeming «exceptions» and «irregularities»
the certain general regularity operating them and defining their character is gradually
opened.
2) As well as in any other theoretical discipline, in translation theory it is
possible - and really takes place - creation not of one some, but the whole set of the
models which are differently displaying the modeled process and reflecting its
various properties. Complexity of the described object, his versatility exclude a
possibility of creation of the unique «universal» model which would be able to reflect
all parties of the studied phenomenon in all of them a difficult interconnection and
the relations at once. Owing to this fact in modern translation theory there is a
number of so-called «models of the translation», and each of these models reflects
this or that aspect, this or that party of the real-life phenomenon - translation process
as a certain type of interlingual transformation. It would be naive to ask a question:
what of nowadays existing models of the translation is «correct» or «true»? - All of
them are in own way faithful as all of them model the same phenomenon (translation
process), though from the different parties; and, certainly, any of the existing models
can't apply for the absolute validity or universality. Same, clear, treats also that model
of the translation which is presented in the real work and which it is possible to call
«semantic-semiotics model» (the motivation of such name will be stated in hl. 2). On
the other hand, the existing translation models (and also those which can be created in
the future) don't exclude each other at all - they in many respects coincide, partially
block each other and only in the set give an idea of translation process in all its
complexity and variety adapt, partially superimpose each other and only in the set
give an idea of translation process in all its complexity and a diversity.
Thus, we defined translation process as transformation of the text in one language in
the text in other language. When translating, so, always there are two texts
(according to A. I. Smirnitsky [20:8-9],«speech works») from which one is initial and
are created irrespective of the second, and the second is created on the basis of the
first by certain operations - cross-language transformations. The first text is called the
text of the original (or simply «the original)», the second - the target text). We will
call source language in which the text of the original is said or written (in abbreviated
form SL; English, source language - SL). We will call language, a pas which is made
a transfer (target text language) the translating language (in abbreviated form TL;
English, target language - TL).
We need to define most which one is most important: can we consider the target
text the equivalent to the text of the original? For example, what gives to us the
grounds to say that the Russian sentence my brother lives in London is the translation
of the English sentence of My brother lives in London while the Russian sentence I
22

study at university isn't the translation of the above-stated English sentence - in other
words, isn't equivalent to it? Obviously, not any changeover of the text in one
language to the text in other language is the translation. The same thought can be
expressed differently: translation process or cross-language transformation is carried
out not randomly, and by some certain rules, in some strictly certain frames for which
in case of an output we already lose the right to speak about the translation. To have
the right to be called the translation (in the first value); the text on TL shall comprise
something like that that contains also in the text on SL. In other words, in case of
changeover of the text by SL the text on TL some certain invariant shall remain; the
measure of saving this invariant also determines by itself a measure of equivalence of
the target text to the text of the original. So, it is necessary to define, first of all, what
remains invariant in translation process, which is in the course of conversion of the
text on SL in the text on TL.
In case of the solution of this problem it is necessary to proceed from the
following. Translation process directly depends on the fact that in science about sign
systems - a memiotic -calls double-sided character of a sign.
It means that any sign is characterized by existence of two sides or as they are
called still, plans: plan of expression or form and plan of contents or value. Language,
as we know, represents specific sign system therefore language unitsalso both forms,
and values are characterized by two-planned character, existence. At the same time
the crucial role for the translation is played by the fact that different languages
contain units differing in respect of expression that is in the form but matching in
respect of contents that is on value. For example, in the sentences given above the
English word brother differs from the Russian word the brother in respect of
expression, on matches it in respect of contents, that is has the same value. (For
simplicity of presentation we meanwhile distract from that the fact, very important
for translation theory, which this coincidence of units of different languages in
respect of their contents is, as a rule, not full, and the partial. So, for example,
English, brother, in addition to brother value, has also the values put in Russian into
words 'fellow', 'fellow countryman', 'colleague', 'friend', etc., and Russian the brother
in a combination the cousin corresponds in English not brother, a cousin which, in
return, means not only 'cousin', but also 'cousin' etc. As we will see further, this
phenomenon, namely incomplete coincidence of systems of values of units of
different languages, though considerably complicates translation process, doesn't
change its entity.) On this base we can tell that if we replace the English brother on
Russian the brother, then translation process as these words differing in respect of
expression that is in the form, match takes place here or are equivalent in respect of
contents, that is on value. Actually, however, as the minimum text (the speech work)
is the sentence so far as translation process is always carried out within at least one
sentence (more often the whole group of sentences), and in a sentence that mismatch
between units of different languages in respect of contents of which it was talked
above.
Returning to our example, we shall revenge that when translating we not simply
replace the English word brother on Russian the brother or the English lives on the
23

Russian lives, but we replace all English sentence of My brother lives in London with
the Russian sentence my brother lives in London, different from the initial English
sentence in respect of expression, that is in the form, but the equivalent to it in respect
of contents, that is matching it on value.
Proceeding from it, we can give the following specified translation definition
now:
The translation is called process of conversion of the speech work in one
language in the speech work in other language when saving the invariable plan of
contents that is value.
At the same time from the very beginning it is necessary to make two extremely
essential stipulations;
1) The term «plan of contents» or «value» should be understood most widely,
meaning all types of the relations in which it is sign (in this case, language) unit.
Their description will make a subject of the following chapter; now it is enough to
mark that it is illegal to reduce the concept «values» only to what is often called
«object and logical» or «denotative « value (in our operation these values wear the
name «referential»). Thus, the correct understanding of an entity of translation
process requires, first of all, detail development of the theory of language values or
semasiology.
2) It is possible to speak about «saving the invariable plan of contents» only in
the relative, but not in an absolute sense. In case of cross-language conversion (as
well as in case of any other type of conversions) losses are inevitable, that is
incomplete transmission of the values expressed by the text of the original takes
place. So, the target text can never be a complete and absolute equivalent of the text
of the original; the task of the translator is in making this equivalence of completer,
That is to try to obtain convergence of losses to a minimum, but to require «absolute»
coincidence of the values expressed in the text of the original and the target text
would be absolutely unreal. It means also that one of tasks of translation theory is
establishment of what it is possible to call an order of sequence of transmission of
values: considering that there are different types of values, it is necessary to set what
of them take advantage by transmission in translation process and what can be
«sacrificed» semantic losses when translating were minimum. This problem will be
us in details having considered in further presentation.
With these two essential stipulations we can accept the translation determination
offered above as working, having been it the basis for the «semantic-semiotics
model» of the translation developed here.
To finish reviewing of a question of a translation entity, it is necessary to answer
one question which arises in connection with the definition given above translation
equivalence as based on saving the invariable plan of contents, whichare values. It
was already marked that the possibility of saving the plan of contents, that is value
invariances when translating (at least and the relative) assumes that different
languages contain units matching on value. However here it is lawful to ask a
question: this assumption is how fair? If value is how we assume (and how it will be
justified further), an integral part of a sign and, so, language units whether then it
24

means that to each sign system, including each language, the specific values are
inherent? And whether follows from this what in case of conversion of the text in one
language in the text in other language, that is, in translation process not only language
forms, but also values expressed by them inevitably shall change? On what base we
then say that value in translation process shall remain invariable?
This question is very serious and deserves detailed reviewing. Discrepancies in
semantic systems of different languages - the certainty which is a source of the
numerous difficulties arising before the translator in the course of translation
implementation; in further presentation due attention will be paid to these
discrepancies. Many researchers on it a basis - scientific research institutes find it
possible to claim that equivalence of the original and the translation isn't based on
identity of the expressed values. From numerous expressions on this subject we will
quote only one, belonging to the English theorist of the translation J. Ketfordu: «... A
judgment on what the text on SL and the text on TL«have the same value» or that
when translating there is «transfer of meaning», is deprived of the bases. Value, from
our point of view, is property of a certain language. The text on SL matters, peculiar
SL while the text on TL matters, peculiar TL; for example, the Russian text has the
Russian value (just as also the Russian phonology or a graphology, grammar and
lexicon), and the equivalent to it the English text has the English value».
Nevertheless we suppose that given by us translation definition nevertheless is
higher is lawful. In favor of it is possible to adduce the following arguments:
1)In system of values of any language results of human experience that is
knowledge by the person of objectively existing reality are imprinted. According to
K. Marx and F. Engels, «neither thoughts, nor language form in itself a special
kingdom..., they - only manifestations of the valid life»[21:449]. The system of
language values reflects all outside world, and also its own inner world surrounding
the person in any language, which is all practical experience of the collective
speaking this language, is set. In that measure in what this experience it is identical at
the collectives speaking different languages also the values expressed in these
languages (values, but not language units expressing these values) are identical. As
the reality surrounding different language collectives has much more common
features, than distinctions so far as values of different languages coincide much more,
than they disperse. Another thing is that these values (elementary units of sense or
«semantic») are differently combined, grouped and expressed in different languages;
but it already belongs not to the plan of contents, and to the plan of expression of
language. Further we will give rather large number of examples of how values
articulates differently, classifies and unite in different languages (on the example of
Russian and English); however this phenomenon though it also very complicates
translation process, doesn't undermine the principle of the translation at all, that is
doesn't make impossible transfer of these values by means of other language.
3) The translation has been defined as process of transformation of the speech
work in one language in speech above about in other language. Thus, the translator
deals not with languages as systems, and with speech works, that is with texts. Those
divergences in the semantic party, that is in values about which there is a speech
25

belong, first of all, to systems of different languages; in the speech these divergences
are very often neutralized, erased, nullified.
When, speaking about a divergence of systems of values in different languages,
try to prove by it the thesis about impossibility of transfer of SL values means of TL,
usually give examples of the semantic discrepancies or separate words or, at best,
isolated, taken out of a context of offers. However it must be kept in mind that for the
translation equivalence of values not of separate words and even not isolated offers,
but all text being translated (the speech work) in general in relation to all target text is
essential. Concrete distribution of elementary units of sense («this» or «semantic
components») is determined by separate words, phrases and offers of this text by
numerous and difficult factors and, as a rule, doesn't coincide in the text on SL and
the text on TL; but it besides belongs not to the plan of contents any more, and to the
plan of expression and isn't violation of the principle of semantic equivalence of texts
of the original and the translation at all. In confirmation of told we will give only two
examples. The following offer occurs in the story of the famous English writer S.
Maugham «A Casual Affair»:
He'd always been so spruce and smart; he was shabby and unwashed and wildeyed.
This place is transferred in Russian translation so:
Before he was such dandy, such elegant. And now I wandered about streets of
Singapore dirty, in tatters, with a feral look, (M. Litvinova Lane)
At first sight Russian text seems not quite equivalent to English: in him such
words as before and now meet, I wandered about streets of Singapore which don't
have direct compliances in the text of the original. Actually semantic equivalence is
available here though there is no verbal equivalence, of course. The matter is that the
Russian words before and now transfer here values which in the English text are put
not into words, and grammatical forms: oppositions of forms of the verb be - (ha) of d
been and was (on A. I. Smirnitsky's terminology, «the category of a temporary
denotation» [22:189-310] expresses precedence of the first event to the second which
in Russian is expressed lexically, by means of time adverbs. Words I wandered about
streets of Singapore transfer semantic information which also contains in the source
English text, but not in this offer, and in one of the previous offers (Not didn't keep
the job in Sumatra long and he was back again in Singapore). So semantic
equivalence is provided not between separate words and even not between separate
offers here, and between all text on SL and all text on TL in general.
Other example: in the story of the American writer Harper Lee «That Kill a
Mockingbird» is available the offer of Mr. Raymond sat up against the tree-trunk
which is transferred in Russian translation as Mr. Raymond has sat down and has
leaned against an oak. (N. Gal Lane and R. Oblonskaya) Besides can think that the
Russian offer on the values expressed in him not quite corresponds to initial English:
in him there are words and has leaned, absent the original; the English adverb of up
specifies in sat up that the subject of a verb has come to a sitting position from lying
(cf. sat down) while this information doesn't contain in the Russian offer; at last, the
English tree-trunk means not an oak, but a tree trunk. However actually semantic
26

equivalence is available here, only for her establishment it is necessary to consider,
first, lexical and grammatical transformations («translation transformations») taking
place in translation process and, secondly, to be beyond this offer in wider context.
Russian had sat down and leaned corresponds to the English sat up against so
far as one of values of a pretext against is value of contact with something or a
support on something; that information which is transferred by the English up to sat
up in the Russian translation is taken from the subsequent sentence- Earlier he lay on
a grass; at last, a tree, to tory Raymond has leaned, it is mentioned in the previous
context where it is specified that it is about an oak (cf. We chose the fattest live oak
and we sat under it).
Semantic equivalence of texts on SL and on TL and in this case is established
not at the level of separate words or even offers and at the level of all text in general.
So, semantic divergences between languages can't serve as an absolute obstacle
for the translation of N force of that circumstance that the translation deals not with
languages as abstract systems, and with concrete speech works (texts) within which
the difficult interlacing and interaction of qualitatively diverse language means is
carried out, being spokesmen of values - words, grammatical forms, syntactic and
«plurisegmental»means and so forth, in the set transferring this or that semantic
information. That semantic equivalence of texts of the original and the translation
which we consider necessary a condition of implementation of translation process
exists not between separate elements of these texts, and between texts in general, and
in this text not only are admissible, but often and numerous regroupings, shifts and
redistributions of separate semantic elements («translation transformations») are
simply inevitable. When translating, so, the strict rule is the principle of submission
of elements whole, the lowest units the highest in what we will have further an
opportunity repeatedly to be convinced.
1) Told doesn't mean at all that in translation process absolutely full («absolute»)
transfer of all values expressed in the text of the original is always carried out. We
already said that when translating semantic losses are inevitable and that the speech
can go only about the greatest possible completeness of transfer of the values
expressed by the text of the original. Doubts in a possibility of preservation when
translating the values expressed in the text on SLis proved so far as it is about
absolute identity of the expressed values. As, however, we impose requirement not of
absolute, but the greatest possible completeness of transfer of values when translating
with observance of what we call «order of sequence of transfer of values» so far as
these doubts disappear.
As a matter of fact, on it consideration of a question of a possibility of transfer
of the values expressed in the text on SL at his transfer to TL could be finished.
However for final explanation of this problem («a convertibility problem») it is
necessary to dispel one more doubt concerning a possibility of full and adequate
transfer of the values expressed in one language, means of other language. A source
of this doubt is the look - and it is more correct to tell, a prejudice according to which
there is languages «developed», «civilized» and the languages «undeveloped»,
«primitive», «backward». From this point of view which is still occurring in narrow27

minded groups [R. A. Budagov. About a linguistics subject. «News of Academy of
Sciences of the USSR», Series of literature and language, t. XXXI, issue 5, 1972)],
those arguments which were adduced in advantage of convertibility are valid only in
relation to the «developed» languages, but don't relate to languages «primitive» or
«undeveloped» as these last, owing to «primitiveness», are incapable to express all
those values which can be expressed by means of the developed
«civilized«languages.
It is necessary to declare vehemently that the specified point of view in every
respect is absolutely insolvent. Her political insolvency is obvious in the light of the
Marxist-Leninist doctrine about equality of languages:« That not the Marxist», - V. I.
Lenin wrote, -»that even not the democrat, who doesn't recognize and doesn't defend
equality of the nations and languages»[23:125].
But this point of view is insolvent as well in purely linguistic relation. Having
got acquainted with numerous«exotic» languages of natives of Africa, Australia,
North and South America, linguists have come to a conclusion that all of them are
characterized by rather «developed» grammatical system and rich dictionary
structure. In one of languages known nowadays both live, and the dead, it wasn't
succeeded to find any lines which it would be possible to consider with this or that
share of persuasiveness indicators of «primitiveness» or «backwardness».
Really: we will think for a minute - in what the difference between
«developed»and «undeveloped» can be shown languages? Specifics of any language
are defined, first, by his sound (phonologic) system, secondly, grammatical system
and, thirdly, dictionary structure. As for a sound system, to hardly anyone will come
to mind to claim that there is a difference between a «primitive» and «civilized»
sound system. Certainly, in many «exotic» languages there are sounds, unusual for us
(for example, the so-called «clicking» or «soaking-up» sounds in Hottentoticand
Bushman languages), but there are no bases to believe that these sounds in character
are in any relation «primitive» or «uncivilized».So, the speech can go only about
grammar and the dictionary. But also in the analysis of these aspects of structure of
language of supporters of division of languages into «primitive» and «developed»
expects disappointment. Many languages, really, have the peculiar, specific
grammatical system which isn't keeping within schemes of Latin, Russian or English
grammar, habitual for us. But unless it can form the basis to consider their
grammatical system «primitive»?
From the fact that in many «exotic» languages there are no such grammatical
categories as, say, time or number, doesn't follow at all that concepts of time or
number are unusual for thinking of the people speaking these languages. The analysis
of a system of these languages shows that all of them can express and really express
any concepts including the most abstract, such as action time, quantity of objects and
so forth; however these concepts are expressed in these languages not in the
grammatical, but lexical way. To see in it some «primitiveness» of these languages it
would be extremely naive. Languages of any grammatical system are able to express
any thought and any concept - such is an unbiased fact which meanwhile nobody
managed to disprove.
28

It is curious that when in «exotic» languages there is no this or that grammatical
category, supporters of the theory of the «primitive» and «developed» languages see
«diffusion», «indivisibility « of primitive thinking; when, on the contrary, in them
this or that category unusual for the acquaintance for us is found (European, mainly)
to languages, speak about insufficient «abstractness» of primitive thinking, his
«inability» to distract from expression of these or those concrete values and relations.
In other words, the same phenomenon in «the» languages is considered as an
indicator of their development («abstractness» - it is good; «indivisibility» - too it is
good), and in «primitive» - as the testimony of their backwardness («indivisibility» it is bad; «excessive concreteness» - too it is bad). Certainly, all this has nothing the
scientific argument if we are in advance convinced that our own language is the most
perfect than others.
The same is found also in the analysis of dictionary structure of so-called
«exotic» languages. The dictionary structure (lexicon) of language, as we know,
imprints in the most direct and direct way and fixes data of human experience, which
is that reality which is reflected in consciousness of the collective speaking the
published language. Certainly, in languages of the parades which are at the lowest
steps of social and cultural development are absent or such categories of lexicon as
scientific, technical, political terminology, designations of abstract and philosophical
concepts and him similar - for that obvious reason are extremely poorly submitted
that the corresponding objects and concepts in general are absent in practical
experience of the people belonging to these language collectives.
On the other hand, it is worth to remember also that such categories of lexicon
as scientific, technical, abstract and philosophical terminology are absent in active
and even in the passive dictionary at very many people speaking the so-called
«developed» languages. The same treats also the different periods of history of the
same language. Not only in languages of savages of New Guinea or the Central
Africa, but also in Russian of times of Pushkin there are no such words as phone,
radio, the TV, astronautics, the rationalizer, a socialist competition, cultural and many
others, nowadays well-known to each Soviet school student. However will come to
nobody to mind to claim that Russian in which Pushkin who was less «developed»
and «civilized» spoke and wrote than modern Russian.
If to speak about the quantitative party, then in this regard the dictionary
structure of so-called «primitive» languages in general doesn't give way to the
dictionary of the languages «developed» at all because absence in the first scientific
and technical and abstract terminology is compensated by wealth and a variety of
lexicon connected with those areas of life and activity which are characteristic of
human collectives - carriers of these languages. Languages of many uncivilized
people are characterized by existence of a large number of the words and expressions
relating to such spheres of human activity as hunting, fishery, agriculture; in them
such words as names of various animals, plants, instruments of labor and so forth
abound, many of which in general are unknown to the people speaking «civilized»
languages. All talk on the people and languages in which dictionary there are
allegedly only several honeycombs of words, - a continuous invention; though the
29

number of words in a lexicon even of one person and furthermore whole people to
define with an accuracy extremely difficult, nevertheless we can claim quite
definitely that in a quantitative sense between dictionary structure of the so-called
«developed» and «primitive» languages there is no basic difference.
One more argument to which supporters of the theory of inequality of languages
sometimes resort is the statement that in the dictionary of «undeveloped» languages
words with narrow, concrete values allegedly abound and at the same time there are
no words of the generalized, abstract value. Really, sometimes in so-called «exotic»
languages the phenomenon which, at first sight, confirms this situation is
observed: so, in Bushman language, under the recognized professional[24:11], there
is no verb with transfer value in general, but there is a large number of the words
designating various ways of carrying - on the head, on a back, on a shoulder, on the
end of the stick shouldered on hands, etc. However it is illegal to do on this basis the
conclusion about «primitiveness» of this or that language: the same phenomenon,
namely, big extent of differentiation of word meanings in one language in
comparison with another is found also by comparison with each other of so-called
«civilized» languages.
All of them convincingly say that the structure of dictionary structure (as well as
grammatical structure) different languages is various, but not about «superiority» of
one language over another at all. From the fact that in English there is no word with
finger value at all, and there are differentiated names for 'a thumb on a hand' (thumb),
'all other fingers on a hand' (finger) and 'toe' (toe), it is impossible to make a
conclusion about «backwardness» of English in comparison with Russian in any way.
Besides when comparing «primitive» languages with «civilized» also the opposite
phenomenon - not differentiation of a word meaning is so often observed; so, in the
same Bushman language the same word designates not only meat, but also all edible
wild animals in general. However, as we already know, it doesn't confuse at all
adherents of the theory of the «developed» and «undeveloped» languages which in
this case speak about «diffusion» of primitive thinking, following the same principle «that it is good for the language and it is bad for the stranger». [25:26].
At last, sometimes the difference between languages «advanced» and
«primitive» is seen that in the last allegedly there is no stylistic differentiation while
existence of a large amount of the developed functional styles is characteristic of the
first. But also this argument is illegal: in any language there is certain stylistic
differentiation though, of course, not in all languages (and not during the entire
periods of existence of the same language) the same functional styles are
distinguished. So, in languages socially and culturally backward people there are no
such styles, of course, as scientific, publicist and others, but in them, as a rule, stand
out styles religious and mythological, folklore, colloquial and household and some
other clearly. As soon as in this or that language scientific, political and other
literature appears, in it immediately arises both the corresponding functional style and
first of all the corresponding special terminology what we already spoke in relation to
dictionary structure of language about.
30

One is undoubted: division of languages into «highest» and «lowest»,
«progressive» and «backward», «civilized» and «primitive» has on the being racist
character what there were subjective views and intentions of the persons adhering to
this point of view. In rather recent past this theory has received a peculiar refraction
in the Soviet linguistics in the person of bad memory of the so-called «new doctrine
about language» of the academician N.Y.Maher and his followers.If Marist were
right, then it would mean that upon transition from lower level of social development
to higher also the system of language of these or those people would change. History
of parades and languages of the USSR, however, has disproved in the most
convincing way this vulgar-sociological concept. It is known that many people and
tribes living in the territory of the former imperial Russia before revolution were at
the level of a primitive-communal or patrimonial system from which they at once,
passing a feudal and capitalist formation, have passed to socialism. However at the
same time their languages remained in general the same, as before, without having
undergone any special «high-quality» changes neither in the field of a grammatical
system, nor in dictionary structure (in his main kernel). Certainly, their dictionary
was replenished with a large number of the terms of scientific and technical, social
and political and philosophical character (formed both due to loans, and of internal
resources of these languages); but this process as it has been already told, happens
continuously in any language. For years of the Soviet power extensive scientific and
technical, social and political and philosophical literature has been translated into
languages of once backward people of the USSR; however there were absolute
obstacles for such translations anywhere and never. Thus, practice of language
construction in the USSR has given the most evident denial of the concept of not
convertibility in relation to the relation between so-called «primitive» and
«advanced» languages, having shown full insolvency of the most such division of
languages.
Presently not only to the linguists standing on Marxist positions, but also
unscientific nature of division of languages on «developed» and «primitive» is clear
to most of foreign scientists. Here, for example, that the famous American linguist of
R. A. Hall speaks: «All researches which were conducted still in «primitive»
languages have shown» that they have the same type of a structure and the same rich
dictionary, as well as other languages... To put it briefly, at the present stage of
human development there is no such thing as really «primitive» languages.
Obviously, there was a stage at which the human speech has been much less
developed than now, but this period took place at least several hundredthousand years
ago and from him there is no trace left anywhere. All languages which speak now
even languages of tribes of the American Indians, Africans and Australians, have
reached in general same development steps...
Our own language, whether it be English, French, Italian or German and all
other so-called «civilized» languages, are civilized only so far as those groups of
people who speak these languages have done sufficient technical progress in certain
areas to construct «civilization», that is more difficult culture. Many so-called
«primitive» languages... have a grammatical system which symbolizes other and so
31

important distinctions in the world surrounding us, as a system of ours of «civilized
languages». When one popular ezhenedelnik1 has characterized Hindi as «rather
primitive language which, unfortunately, lacks a scientific and technical vocabulary»
his editors have simply found own ignorance and tendency to take on trust walking
estimated judgments, which not the place neither in scientific, nor in the popular
description of distinctions between languages»[26:469].
And here opinion of the American anthropologist prof. Richard Li who has lived
long time among Bushmen: «Conditions of their life furnish the clue to understanding
of last periods of history as problems which they face in the everyday life, the same
which the primitive person could face. I have lived among them several years; have
studied their way of life and their language. I have come to a conclusion that... they
are just the same people as well as we and that their intellectual level isn't lower than
ours at all... I believe, most of us will agree that creation of larger nuclear warheads
brings nobody benefit. Concerning my own specialty I can claim that attempts to find
a difference in mental capacities of representatives of different races won't lead to
anything good»[text of an interview published in the Moscow News 2.X.1971
newspaper].
More clearly, apparently, it is impossible to be expressed.
So, we need to draw a conclusion: as opposition of the languages «developed»
and «undeveloped» is scientifically insolvent as far as the principle of a basic
possibility of the translation which is put forward by us («convertibility) on a basis
Transfer of the values expressed in one language, means of other language
doesn't know restrictions and it is applicable to the relations between any two
languages.
In the previous statement we have several times used the term «linguistic
translation theory». In this regard there is a need to specify, first, on what basis the
translation theory is among us linguistic disciplines; secondly, whether there are
some other approaches to translation theory problems accept linguistic; thirdly, what
place is taken by linguistic translation theory among other branches of science about
language.
In translation process transformation of the text in one language (SL) in the text
in other language (TL) is carried out when saving the invariable plan of contents,
which is value or, more precisely, than set of the values expressed in the source text.
To carry out the task, namely to reflect essential regularities of the translation, the
translation theory has to establish first of all coincidence and divergences in ways of
expression of identical values in SL and in TL and on this basis to reveal the most
typical ways of overcoming these divergences («translation receptions»). Such task of
the being you show linguistic, and the translation theory setting such task for itself
can't be anything else as linguistic discipline.
It would be possible to object to it, at first sight, that the problem of
establishment of coincidence and divergences in ways of expression of values in
different languages enters competence not of translation theory, and comparative
linguistics. Actually the translation theory is closely connected with comparative
linguistics which forms for it direct theoretical base; and still the linguistic translation
32

theory isn't identical to comparative studying of languages. The comparative
linguistics, as well as linguistics in general, deals with systems of languages - his
functions include opening of lines of similarity and distinction between systems of
two languages in the field of their sound (phonologic) system, dictionary structure
and a grammatical system. Therefore for comparative linguistics (as well as for
linguistics in general) essential is differentiation of levels of language hierarchy, that
is reference of these or those units of language (or two compared languages) to a
certain aspect or level of language system. The translation as it has been underlined
above, deals not with systems of languages, and with concrete speech works, that is
with texts. In the speech, as we know, stratification of language system on levels or
aspects is overcome (morphological, syntactic, lexic-semantic and so forth); within
the speech work difficult interaction and synthesis of qualitatively diverse means of
expression of values is carried out.
So, if for linguistics in general and for comparative linguistics in particular the
essential moment is differentiation of levels of language system, for translation
theory, on the contrary, the most important is to consider and to compare the
language phenomena in their communication, in that interaction in which they enter
speeches, in structure coherent text [A. Shveytssarov. To a question of the analysis of
the grammatical phenomena when translating. «Translator's notebooks», issue 1, M.,
1963].
In this regard it should be noted that in modern linguistics in general the
tendency to pass from studying of language as abstract system to studying of
functioning of language into speeches is observed. This tendency is shown also in the
increased interest in the problems of speech activity investigated in respect of
psycholinguistics and in development of the subject connected with so-called «urgent
syntax» and «communicative partitioning of the offer» that is imaginable only at the
accounting of functioning of the offer in a system of the coherent speech, and, at last,
in emergence of new branch of linguistics - «text linguistics»[27:197]. All these
directions of studying of language are very closely connected with translation theory;
it is possible even to claim that the linguistic translation theory is no other than
«comparative linguistics of the text», that is comparative studying of semantic
identical multilingual texts.
At the same time it is necessary to make the following explanation: strictly
speaking, speech per se can't be a linguistics subject because it is always individual,
single and unique, and any science can study only something the general, natural,
typical and regularly reproduced. The speech serves for linguistics only as material
from which it takes the object of a research, namely language [28:19]. If we say that
in modern linguistics the tendency to studying of use and functioning of language in
the speech is observed, then it means only shift in studying of the same object language, expressed in an emphasis not on static, and on his dynamic party, not on
approach to language as to stock of units, and on his studying in operation, in real
functioning. It is possible to tell that the main objective of modern linguistics is
creation of «the working model of language»[29:5-6], the model displaying dynamic
aspect of the language considered in Humboldt's terms as «energy» (activity), but not
33

as «ergon» [30:91] (an activity product). On this way there is one of the main
directions of modern linguistics - the so-called generating linguistics (in the United
States, we have N. Chomsky's school in the Soviet Union applicative grammar and
the similar directions).
Having defined translation theory as linguistic discipline, it is necessary to set its
place among other branches of science about language. In the modern linguistics
division into two primary partitions is accepted: micro linguistics and macro
linguistic[31:81-82]. The first of these sections includes linguistics in the narrow
sense of the word that is a language study, by words F. de Saussure, «in and
for»[32:207], in derivation from the extra linguistic facts, as object, rather
independent of other phenomena. Here such classical disciplines of a linguistic cycle
as phonetics and phonology, grammar, a lexicology and semasiologiya5, considered
in the plan as the general belong and private linguistics, both historically (in a
diachronic), and the comparative-historical and comparative and typological study of
languages is descriptive (in synchronism), and also.
To macro linguistics, that is to linguistics in a broad sense, those directions in
linguistics which learn language in its communication with the extra linguistic
phenomena, that is with the factors lying out of the language belong. Such disciplines
as the psycholinguistics studying psychophysiological mechanisms of speech
activities belong to their number; the sociolinguistics studying interaction of language
and social factors; the ethno linguistics researching correlation of language and
cultural and ethnographic factors; linguistic geography which subject is influence on
language territorial factors; and some other directions in a language study.
In addition to the specified division of linguistics on micro and macro
linguistics, there is also a division of linguistic disciplines on theoretical and
application-oriented. As it was already noted in linguistic literature, the role of extra
linguistic components of the speech act in disclosure of value of these or those
elements of the text consists, first of all, in disambiguation (both lexical, and
grammatical or structural) the language units used in this text and also in completion
of those language text units which can be lowered as a result of the ellipsis caused
situational terms. Generally speaking, any language has all means necessary fully and
unambiguously to express any contents, without resorting to the help of extra
language factors. In practice, however, it turns out that existence of these extra
language factors is almost always taken into account both participants of the speech
act, giving them the chance to eliminate all or many excess elements from the speech
and by that to provide more economical use linguistic resources[33:1]. Full ignoring
of extra language (situational) factors would lead to the fact that from the speech it
should eliminate any ambiguity and «sender» would be forced to reveal completely
and unambiguously through a language context the maintenance of all elements of
the speech that inevitably would result in excessive speech redundancy, to
unreasonable «swelling» of the speech work.
Really, existence in a speech situation of the certain elements helping to open
unambiguously the maintenance of these or those language units gives the chance to
lower (to subject to an ellipsis) those components of the text which value can be
34

taken from the most cash situation. So, the Russian (elliptic) offer Is possible, taken
itself but itself, out of any certain situation it is semantic incomplete. However, if this
offer is said by the person standing on that side of the closed door, and his
pronouncing is preceded by knock at a door, then this offer at once is unambiguously
treated by us as I Can enter? In other situation the same offer will receive other
interpretation. So, if he is said by the child, at the same time giving a hand to the
apple lying on a table, then this offer will be interpreted differently, namely: I can eat
this apple? The elements of the offer (word) lowered as a result of an ellipsis are
restored on a situation, on the situation which is present at present, and only thanks to
what both telling, and listening unambiguously perceive and interpret this situation,
there is possible a phenomenon of an ellipsis, that is elimination from the text of
language units superfluous in this situation.
In the same way in the conditions of a concrete situation there is also a
disambiguation, that is disclosure meaning of the multiple-valued word or
grammatical meaning of a multiple-valued syntactic design.Value of the many-valued
word, generally speaking, reveals usually through a speech context, that is an intralinguistic way; so, value of the English many-valued technical term tube (in Russian
to it there can correspond 'pipe', 'tube', 'camera' (buses), 'electron tube', 'trunk' (tools),
'tube' (microscope) and some other) in a sentence of Such units that use a single tube
for both functions are called transceivers single-digit is defined as the electron tube
thanks to existence in the same sentence of other radio engineering term - the words
transceivers, and also to existence of other terms from area of radio engineering in
other sentences of the same text. However absence of a language context can be
compensated also by existence of a certain extra linguistic situation: the same tube
can be interpreted with very high probability as a radio tube in a sentence of Where
did you put the tube?, if this last is said by the radio technician during an operating
time in a workshop on radio equipment repair. In precisely the same way the English
sentence of Passengers aren't allowed to ride on the platform, in view of (word
platform polysemy, will be clear only if it is read on a cliché in bus [34:21] where
platform is received at once by single-digit interpretation as a bus site.
Not smaller, and perhaps the large role in single-digit interpretation of the
speech work is played by that extra linguistic information which participants (the
speech act, that is their knowledge of the world around, o the facts of objectively
existing reality have. Besides it is shown, first of all, in ability to correctly disclose
value of many-valued units of language whether there is a speech about lexical or
about grammatical meanings. English PEN in a sentence of John is in the PEN is
understood by us as the shelter for the cattle, but not as the pen only that data sizes of
objects are known to us and we know that the person can be in the shelter, but not in
the pen. In the Russian sentence the Spring sun replaced summer - it much more
generous a subject, despite the lack of explicit grammatical indices, is summer (sun),
but it is only clear to us thanks to knowledge of that extra linguistic fact that the
summer replaces spring, and not vice versa. The number of examples of this kind can
be increased easily. So, we will consider the following sentences taken by us from
Ch. Dickens's works:
35

That Rob had anything to do with his feeling as lonely as Robinson Crusoe.
(Dombey and Son, Ch. XXXIX)
«Rome wasn't built in a day, ma'am... In a similar manner, ma'am,» said
Bounderby, «I can wait, you know. If Romulus and Remus could wait, Josiah
Bounderby can wait.» (Hard Tunes, Ch. X). «I don't wonder that you... are
incredulous of the existence of such a man. But he who sold his birthright for a mess
of pottage existed, and Judas Iscariot existed, and Castlereagh existed, and this man
exists!» (Hard Times, Ch. IV)
«Open the door,» replied a man outside; «it's the officers from Bow Street, as
was sent to, to-day.»(The Adventures of Oliver Twist, Ch. XXXI)
Any of these offers can't be completely understood if «recipient», that is the
reader, has no certain data on the objects which are mentioned in them, persons and
the phenomena, fictional or real. To understand the first offer, it is necessary to know
why the name of Robinson Crusoe is associated with concept loneliness and for this
purpose acquaintance to D. Defoe's novel «The Life and Surprising Adventures of
Robinson Crusoe», that is knowledge of the English classical literature is necessary.
The understanding of the second of the provided offers requires knowledge of the one
who were Romulo and Remo that is knowledge of history and mythology of ancient
Rome. The third of the given examples is unclear if listening or reading it bible myths
about Esau who has sold right of precedence for lentil soup and about Judas Iscariot
who has betrayed Christ are unknown; to understand this offer, it is also necessary to
know who such was Castlereagh and why his name is associated with a concept of
bribability and treachery, that is knowledge of certain facts of the English history is
necessary. At last, the last offer becomes clear only in case listening or reading it is
known that the head police department was located on Bowe Street in London. To put
it briefly, in all these (and many others) cases the understanding of sense of the offer
is impossible without knowledge of any facts and the phenomena lying out of
language that is without extra linguistic («encyclopedic») information.
This circumstance is essentially important for theory and practice of translation
not only because the translator for understanding of the text being translated needs to
have a certain stock of extra linguistic knowledge, but also considering the fact that
the translator can't count at all that SL and TL carriers will have identical this
knowledge necessary for understanding of the text. Just the opposite - and usual the
situation at which the volume of extra linguistic information at SL and TL carriers
doesn't coincide - much of what is known is normal and it is clear to readers or
listeners of the text of the original, it is unknown and unclear for readers or listeners
of the target text.

36

II.

TRANSLATION STANDARDS

The general translation theory includes both descriptive and standard
(prescriptive) sections. While descriptive sections studies the translation as means of
interlingual communication, observed phenomenon instandard sections of linguistics
of the translation on the basis of theoretical studies of the translation formulates the
practical recommendations submitted on optimization of translation process,
simplification and improvement of quality of work of the interpreter and
formulatesmethods of an assessment of the translations and a technique of training of
future interpreters. V. N. Komissarov states that, practical recommendations to the
interpreter and an assessment of the translation are interconnected. If the interpreter
has to fulfill any requirements, then the assessment of results of his work is defined
by that, how successfully he fulfilled these requirements.Everybody who evaluates
the translation recognize that correct translation has to respond defined requirements.
Sum of requirements imposed to translation quality is called translation norms
In standard sections of linguistics of the translation quality is defined by degree
of its adequacy to translation norm and character of diversions from this
norm.[35:227-228]
Results of translation process dependsfrom degree of semantic proximity of the
translation to an original, genre and stylistic accessory of texts of the original and the
translation, the pragmatically factors influencing the choice of option of a translation,
the requirement of standard use by the translator of target language, need to consider
the common notions on the purposes and problems of translation activity divided by
an society during a certain historical period. Proceed from this, V.N.Komissarov
[35:229] suggests to distinguish five types of standard requirements, or norms of a
translation:
1. Standard of equivalence of the translation;
2. Genre and stylistic translation norm;
3. Standard of the translation speech;
4. Pragmatically translation norm;
5. Conventional translation norm.
We will sort everyone these standard requirements separately.
The standard of equivalence of the translation means a requirement of perhaps
bigger community of a subject-matter of the original and the translation, but only in
the limits compatible to others standard requirements, providing adequacy of the
translation. Perhaps big community of maintenance of an original and the translation
is what it is necessary to aspire to. But this aspiration shouldn't put excessive pressure
on an interpreter. After all, we should make sure, indispensable translation quality;it
makes«good» translation, the adequacy of it.For achievement of adequacy of the
translation taking into account pragmatically factors of which it was talked in
appropriate section the interpreter is forced to recede from full, exhaust information
transfer, that is forced to endow some part of maintenance of an original. If the
greatest possible semantic proximity isn't obligatory for successful interlingual
communication, then the translation is considered accepted even if the relations of
37

equivalence sets not at optimum level. Another matter if the translation admits
nonequivalent, mistranslate contents of the original at least at the lowest level. In this
case, V. N. Komissarov definition, violation of standard of equivalence is absolute,
and the translation is evaluated as low-quality translation [35:229].
It`s possible to define a genre and stylistic norms of the translation as the
requirement of compliance of a translation of proponent function and stylistic
particularity of a text type to which the translation belongs. It should be noted that the
choice of this kind is defined by character of the original, and stylistic requirements
to which has to answer translation are standard edited, the characterizing texts of
similar type in target language. The genre-stylistic norm in many respects determines
both the necessary level of equivalence, and proponentfunctions [35:229]. In other
words, in a translation process the translator creates the text of the same type, as the
original. If the original represents the technical text, then and the translation will have
all signs of the technical text. At the same time it is necessary to consider the fact that
in the requirementsSL and TL shown to texts of the same type cannot coincide. For
example, language of the English press was always considered as less official, than
language of the Russian-language press (however, these distinctions became not so
recently). In the English-language press headings of articles, as a rule, are under
construction in the form of the two-member offer, and in the Russian press — as the
homogeneous offer. Translating from one language on other similar materials, the
translator has to build the target text as it is accepted in target language.
Respectively, estimating translation quality, it is necessary to consider genre and
stylistic independence of the original and a condition of implementation of the
translation, which is a type of the translation. To translate of written texts other
requirements, than are imposed to the translation of oral. But also written texts are
various. The translation official document is evaluated not as the translation of the art
text. In the first case the main criterion — degree of accuracy of transfer of the
information stock, in the second — literary advantages. But even at an assessment of
literary translations critics carry out distinctions between literatures.
V. N. Komissarov notes, «Would be essentially incorrect use identical criteria
for an assessment of the translation of the fiction and the highly artistic literature
work...»[35:230]. Evaluating results of interpretation, critics convert attention, on
whether the general meaning of an original expression is conveyed. And here some
transgression of usage and norms of target language in an interpretation is considered
quite admissible, especially if it is about the simultaneous interpretation.
For any translated text are mandatory a rules of a norm and usage of TL. At the
same time it is necessary to consider that translated texts are secondary; their
orientation selects such texts among other speech works in the same language for the
foreign-language original. Set of translated texts of any language makes the special
variety of this language crossing its functional styles and other varieties. The
Orientation on the original inevitably modifies the nature of use of language means,
of a language norm and especially usage. The contact of two languages inevitably
carries to the relative likening of language means. Many words and phrases are
significant at first for language of the translations, and only then they penetrate into
38

language of original works. Such combinations as «to make initiatives», «reduction
of military opposition», etc. appeared originally in translations with English
language. The foreign-language origin is guessed and in the phrase «Education shall
help Russia to respond on the calls standing before, it in social and economic
spheres» (from «The strategy of a reforming of education»). All these examples
evident about extension of norms of the Russian speech in language translations.
Thus, the norm of the translation speech can be defined as the requirement to follow
rules of a norm and usage of SL taking into account usual peculiarityof translated
texts on it language [35:231].
The pragmatically translation norm can be define as the requirement of support
of pragmatically value of the translation. The aspiration to carry out the specific
pragmatically task is the some kind of super function subordinating all remaining
aspects translation norms [35:231]. Solving a similar task, the translator can refuse
the greatest possible equivalence, translate the original only partially, change genre
accessory of the text when translating, and reproduce some formal features of the
original, breaking a rules of a norm and usage of TL, to replace the translation
retelling or the paper.
It is necessary to consider that in language collective at a certain stage of
historical development can exist strictly certain views of the purposes and tasks of the
translation. So, at a turn of the 18-19th centuries «inducement on our customs», that
is Russification of the text in translation, was considered as quite regular practice,
that is was a norm. In France the 18th century translators aimed «to improve» the
original, to bring closer it to requirements «good taste». Further in relation to the
translation other approaches began to be used.
It shows that in any historical period in society there is a certain «conventional
norm». In relation to a present stage a development of society the conventional
translation norm can be defined as the requirement of the maximum closeness of the
translation to the original, its ability to fully replace the original as in general, and in
details, carrying out tasks for the sake of which the translation was
accomplished[35:232]
On the practical level between separate normal of the translation there is a
creation hierarchy.First of all, the translation shall have pragmatic value, and it means
that the leading translation norm is pragmatically norm. Further. The nature of
actions of the translator substantially is defined stylistic genre by accessory of the text
of the original. Therefore a genre and stylistic norm — next on the significance. The
genre and stylistic norm defines a speech type selection in translation that allows
delivering a norm of the translation speech on the third place.
The conventional translation norm which defines ways the translator to the
operation is following on the significance. The finite normative requirement — an
equivalence norm. These rules are respected on condition of respect for all remaining
aspects of a translation norm. On V. N. Komissarov's confirmation, «observance of
all normative rules, except an equivalence norm, has more general character and is
something self-evident, and the correctness level to the original is that variable most
39

of which determines the level of professional qualification of the translator and an
assessment of quality of each separate translation» [35:233].
The classification of translation norms offered already known to us Gideon
Touri is of estimate interest. In its judgment, the translator's conclusion in translation
process can determine by three factors: the mandatory rules imposed by language
norms, translatingnorms, which is the main decisions of the translator defining his
strategy and a behavior and a subjective choice (idiosyncrasies). In these triad
translation normstakes central position between objective and subjective [36:128].
G. Touri distinguishes preliminary and operational norms. Preliminary norms
define policy of the translator at the choice of the original and at the solution of a
question whether there will be a translation realize directly from the original or
through some intermediate language. The similar translation policy exists already
because the choice of an original is carried out notrandomly [37:58]. Operation norms
work in the translation process and define distribution of language materials in the
text (matrix norms) and a formulation of contents of the text (textual norms). Textual
norms can be the general, that is use to all translations, and private, that is use only to
certain types of texts or to certain type’stranslation [37:59]. Also refers to operational
norms of G. Touri already called«initial norm» (preliminary norm). It is basic
orientation of the translator to the original or to norms of TL. In the first case the
translator will strives to create adequate translation (we will notice that the concept
«adequacy» of G. Touri puts other sense) as it is possible closer corresponding to an
original and allowing only necessary changes caused by distinctions between
languages and literature. In the second case in the center of his attention providing the
maximum acceptability of the target text from the point of view of language and
literature of TL. Actually in real translations something is created between these two
extreme aspects. [36:128]
Norms can be also main (committed) and minor, shown in a look tendencies and
defining only an admissible supplying. Besides, G. Touri allocates also various
universal behavior of the translator. In an illustration quality he points to tendency of
translators to explicate information which implicitly contains in the original.
In conclusion we will note that an assessment of quality of a translation the
procedure complex. It also taking into account translation norms, more precisely,
than a level of compliance of the translation to requirements imposed to him and
from the point of view of success of an accomplishment by the target text of
functions inherent in him. At the same time some researchers insist on considerable
specification of operations, the realize at a translation quality assessment. It is offered
to estimate also translation quality of words and phrase, both translation quality of
statements, and quality of transfer of elements of an expression and stylistic features
of the original, and force of influence of all translated text in comparison with
original [38:60] It is represented, as in this case the speech first of all goes about
compliance of the translation to standard of equivalence and pragmatically translation
norm or — in other terminological and conceptual system — about degree of
equivalence and achievement of adequacy.Therefore, the criteria for evaluation of
translation quality considered in combination with standard requirements let it in
40

quite exhaustive way to evaluate the translation. And therefore it is hardly possible to
agree with opinions of Anthony G. Hettinger who wrote: «How difficulties of the
translation were big, difficulties of an assessment of translation quality aren't less
difficult. For now in this questions everyone to the judge»[38:61]

2.1 Types of interlingual transformations
The subject of translation transformations (or transformations) is in the center of
attention and domestic and foreign translator, but between scientists still there is no
consensus that is translation transformation. The domestic theory of translation
focuses attention on translation transformations (transformations or methods), foreign
– on translation receptions to which a translation dung and notes belong.
Before analyzing a role of translation transformations in process of conversion
of stories of D. G. Lawrence, we will consider definitions of it I rubbed a mine,
offered by the leading Veda (V. N. Komissarov, L. S. Barkhudarov, Ya. I. Retsker,
A. D. Schweitzer and others). So, according to L. S. Barkhudarov, translation
transformations are various interlingual transformations which are carried out for
achievement of translation equivalence of the translation [39:190]. Ya. I. Retsker
calls transformations receptions of logical thinking by means of which the translator
discloses value of the foreign-language word in a context and finds to him the
Russian compliance which isn't coinciding with dictionary (lexical transformations)
and transformations of sentence structure in translation process according to
standards of the translating language (grammatical transformations). A. D.
Schweitzer believes that the term «transformation» is used in theory of translation in
metaphorical sense and calls transformation «transformation» [40:118].
Speaking about translation transformations, it should be noted lack of uniform
system of classification of transformations when translating. Ya. I. Retsker, L. S.
Barkhudarov, V. N. Komissarov, A. D. Schweitzer, A. M. Fiterman, T. R. Levitskaya
and others offer various divisions of translation transformations from which they
distinguish: 1) shifts, 2) replacements, 3) additions, 4) ommissions [9].
Russian the writer Veda Z. D. Lvovskaya considers that «between different
types of transformations there is no blank wall, the same transformations can
sometimes represent a disputable case, they can be carried to different types» [10].
The author of the textbook «Transfer and Cross-cultural Communication» Alexander
Burak doesn't subdivide transformation on grammatical, lexical and stylistic, and
allocates twelve most general transformations in translation process which are used
by each translator: 1) omission (omission), 2) addition (addition), 3) change of a word
order (transposition), 4) change of grammatical forms (change of grammatical
forms), 5) compensation of semantic losses (less - of - meaning compensation), 6) a
specification (concretization), 7) generalization (or generalization) (generalization),
8) the antonymictranslation (antonymic translation), 9) semantic development
(meaning extinction or sense development), 10) the metonymic translation
41

(metonymic translation), 11) combination of offers (sentence integration), 12)
partitioning of offers (sentence fragmentation)[41:49].
When performing any translation, and in our case it is about the literary
translation, the translator needs to reproduce numerous transformations for the most
exact transfer of the contents of the text of the original in target language.
As illustrative material, we will give a number of both lexical, and grammatical
transformations from some stories of the English writer D. G. Lawrence («The groom
for emergency», «Days і nuke to spring», «Stumble») translated to Ukrainian by the
author of this report [3; 4]. So, in offers: «He gave his luggage to a porter» – «It has
given baggage to the porter» (the possessive pronoun of «his») [42:55]; «He had
forgotten he was tired» – «It has forgotten about fatigue»[42:56] by us has used
lexical transformation «omission». Sometimes omission is used owing to lack of need
of the translation of each word for the English offer because of redundancy of
information in Russian. Such transformation as addition is observed in the following
offers: «Oh, and this is Friday evening, and Winifred is coming just as she used to –
how long ago?»[42:58] – «Oh, today Friday evening, and as always how long «she
comes?»; «nor I you don't have No –» – «, and I didn't expect you to see»[42:59];
«One goes on – remains in office, so to speak …» – «to someone is pleasant to spend
time as if it works at office»[42:62]. This reception of transformation is used because
«compression» is peculiar to English [43:98]. The English text consists generally of
short offers and the use of short words and the compressed designs is peculiar to
British.
For achievement of adequacy of the translated text, the analyzed stories of the
writer, translation reception «specification» is used. The specification is such lexical
transformation as a result of which the word (term) of wide semantics in the original
is replaced with the word (term) of narrow semantics [44:300]. Such way of the
translation is applied when words with «indistinct» value, for example, to thing are
translated, to matter, affair, unit, challenge, range, claim, concern, to go, to get, to
come, to leave, to let, to be and others. We will give examples. «She let Coutts into a
small, very warm room that had a dark, foreign sheen, owing to the black of the
curtains and hangings covered thick with glistening Indian embroidery and to the
sleekness of some Indian ware.» – «She has led Kutts to the small, but cozy room
which had an unusual appearance, thanking we blacken to curtains and curtains
which have been covered with a thick layer of a brilliant Indian embroidery and luster
of smooth Indian ceramic figures»42[42:56]. In this example – «to resolve» the verb
«let» it is replaced with narrower contextual value, the verb «see off», the word
«owing» is translated to value « thanks to», the word meaning of «ware» – «goods,
products» – is translated to narrower – «pottery, figures».
In the following example: «The tone of his question had a challenging twang» –
«Tone to what he has asked a question was provocatively unpleasant»[42:279]. The
word «challenge» has many values at the translation into Russian, but in this context
is translated as «defiant». «The path through the wood, on the very brow of a slope,
ran winding easily for a time» – «A footpath lasted through the wood, coiling, even to
the top of a slope»[42:279]. In this example the verb «run» – «to run, run» has
42

narrower value «last, coil». We will pay attention that in this offers not only the
specification, as well as lexical transformation - «addition» is used. When translating,
at the beginning of the offer we have added the word which wasn't in the original –
«lasted», thereby without having changed sense of the offer of the original.
According to domestic the Veda V. I. Karaban an essence of transformation of
addition of the word consists in «introduction to the translation of lexical elements
which are absent in the original, for the purpose of the correct transfer of sense of the
sentence (original) which is translated, and/or respect for speech and language norms
which exist in culture of target language»[44:308-309]. In our opinion, in the course
of work on the translation, often used transformation is a change of a word order. It is
known that in English, unlike Russian, the word order – fixed and semantic shades
are expressed by other means. For example, «There was silence» – «Has come
silence»; «… for a long time neither spoke» – «… both long were silent»[42:294].
Neither the word «neither» has negative value and is translated as – neither that nor
another, any, nobody (from two). Thus, in this example also such reception as
«contextual replacement», namely the antonymic translation when it is necessary to
replace a negative design on affirmative and vice versa is traced. Such transformation
as change of grammatical forms, (the English passive design), is replaced with an
active Russian design: «Frances was peculiar for these great, exposed looks, which
disconcerted people by their violence and their suddenness» – «This lingering, open
look was peculiar to Frances, he disturbed people»[42:293]; «It’s got to be killed» –
«Need to kill it»[42:296]; «I suppose they have to be killed» – «I think that they
should be killed» [42:297]. As we see, in the given examples, it isn't always possible
to track application only one, the so-called and often used Veda of «pure»
transformation. Translation transformations can be used at the same time, being
combined with each other.
We will note that for adequate translation of texts, us have been used, both
lexical, and grammatical transformations. It is necessary to emphasize that in
translation process, translation transformations in pure form are present, but after all
they have complex character, we observe their combination.
Thus, for the most right or adequate translation, the translator should use
different types of translation receptions, and often the whole complex of
transformations as they perform special function: they are productive from the point
of view of generation of translation discrepancies.
For achievement of adequacy when translating from one tongue on other
translator uses tongue means of other tongue on which the translation, both the
corresponding receptions and methods becomes. Lexical, grammatical, stylistic and
different distinctions of original language and target language cause need of various
transformations (replacements) when translating. Are the most widespread: lexical,
grammatical and stylistic transformations.
1. The lexical transformations used when translating
In each tongue there is the lexical system including a lexicon of this tongue.
Each word, that is a lexical unit, isn't something isolated, and is a part of lexical
system of tongue. Each word bears a certain concept and can be more common in one
43

tongue and have narrower or even terminological value in another. It is possible to
carry international words in the Russian, English and French tongues to such words.
For example, word «debate», dispute (English) and dispute (Fr.). In English the first
dictionary and alternative value completely coincides with Russian:
The third reason causing the necessity in lexical transformations is distinction in
word compatibility. What is possible in one language can be unacceptable in another.
In each language there is a habitual use of the word, peculiar clichés are
developed (standard models of word usage. standard schemes of phrases and
syntactic designs, and also the general models of speech behavior in concrete
situations), as if the ready formulas, words and combinations of words used speaking
this language. They aren't phraseological units, but have completeness. These
combinations aren't broken at introduction to them of additional words.
In the book «Translation Theory and Translation Practice» of Y.I. Retsker
writes: «... Though it isn't always possible to classify accurately anevery example of
the translation because of an interlacing of categories, generally it is possible to
allocate seven kinds of lexical transformations:
1) Differentiation of values;
2) Specification of values;
3) Generalization of values;
4) Semantic development;
5) Antonymic translation;
6) complete transformation;
7) Compensation of losses in translation process.
Quite often separate methods of transformations are combined; especially it is
characteristic of the first two categories.
The differentiation, specification and generalization used when translating.
Broad application of methods of differentiation and specification when
translating from English into Russian has talk abundance in English of words with
wide semantics, which there is no direct compliance in Russian. So, at a translation
from English of such words as meal, drink, walk in anaddiction from a context can be
required a specification or differentiation of a concept of the word meal - a breakfast,
a lunch, a dinner, and drink - whisky, with narrowing of a concept depending on a
context, walk - walk, a way, a walk etc.«... Differentiation without specification is
possible when it is necessary to transfer value of a wide abstract concept without its
specification in the translation. It is wrong to concretize what is intentionally veiled
in the original»[45:41]
Differentiation of values
Many words with wide semantics in the English and French languages have no
complete compliance in Russian. Dictionaries not mo1ut to pledge complete
semantics words of a foreign language. Ya. I. Retsker gives an example with
determination of ruthless which can be used as undifferentiated. He says that in such
cases and in translation it remains the simple amplifier, without specification and
gives the following example. Describing the efforts of newspapers of Hurst and
Pulitzer directed to initiation of war with Spain from - for Cuba, the author of «Social
44

history of the USA» Fernes calls this campaign the orgasmic acme [‘aekmi] (the
Greek highest point), of ruth-less (ruth [ru0] - pity) newspaper jingoism (chauvinism)
where ruth-less, of course, has no dictionary value ruthless. At the same time
orgasmic acme will also demand transferMotion, most likely reception of integral conversion, in result of what we will
receive in translation: bacchanalia of extreme newspaper chauvinism. In this example
differentiation is used without specification. Very often reception of differentiation is
used for transmission of words, the phenomena and processes which aren't transferred
thus in other language.
The bolted racks (English), Les rayons boulonnes (Fr.) - Shelves, bolted.
The participle «rally» is used very seldom.
Specification of values
The big specification, than to the appropriate lexical units of English or French
is peculiar to lexicon of Russian. The specification is always followed by a
differentiation and is impossible without it. We will take for an example the English
floor meal - acceptance of food, food. In case of the translation of the phrase of have
you had your meal? The translator should concretization the word meal depending on
time: You have already breakfast? (Have dinner, have supper?) Specifications are
exposed such words as: to go, to get, to come, to say, bad, nice, good, fine, thing, side
(English); aller, manger, vider (Fr.), etc.
«... The noun of student which in English is used in value the student, the pupil,
scientific (PORPOISE) can be a bright example of the undifferentiated use of words
with wide semantics. However in translation into Russian the value specification is
often necessary. Preparation for college in the United States involves a succession of
choices. The student doesn't have to make a choice at an early age as to whether or
not he will go to college.
Here student, of course, not «student», but pupil of high school.... The context
doesn't give the chance to confuse the scientist or the student with the school student.
Any lexical transformation demands from the translator of sense of proportion
and thorough knowledge of the text being translated and the related situation.» *
Value generalization
Reception of generalization of values is opposite to methods of differentiation
and a specification. It consists in replacement private the general, a specific concept
patrimonial.
The necessity of generalization can be caused by the stylistic norms accepted in
Russian and literature. In Russian it isn't accepted to specify the exact growth and
weight of characters therefore when translating generalization is used in works of art:
high, average or low height. Generalizations are exposed such words as arm and hand
- a hand, foot and leg - a leg etc. In the book «Translation Theory and Translation
Practice» Ya. I. Retsker writes: «The necessity of generalization can be caused also
by danger of distortion of meaning at the translation of the word or phrase its
dictionary compliance. So, during a number of years the English parliament discussed
the bill of abolition of the death penalty. The English newspapers steadily called it No
Hanging Bill. But the bill of hanging cancellation most likely would be understood as
45

replacement of one way of an execution with another, for example, by execution.
Only in this case the generalizing translation is correct: Bill of abolition of the death
penalty».
The same word can be exposed to differentiation (a value narrowing) and
generalization (expansion) of value. For a rendering of the same contents by means of
other language quiet often doesn't matter what form of the word will be expressed
this contents. «The subject can be replaced with his sign, process by a subject, a sign
a subject or process and in t. e....
We will consider the following newspaper phrase: The Liverpool by-election
was an acid test for the Labour candidate. Hardly is it possible to translate: A byelection in Liverpool was test candidate of the Labour Party. Obviously, process to
replace him with attribute - a litmus piece of paper, in accordance with standard of
Russian»[45:45] (Ya. I. Retsker. Page 45).Along with differentiation, a specification
and generalization when translating also other receptions, such as reception of full
transformation and compensation, the antonymic translation are used.
Antonymic translation
Reception of the antonymic translation represents replacement of any concept
expressed in the original, anopposite concept in translation from corresponding by
reorganization of all statement for saving the invariable plan of contents.
Use of an opposite concept of the translation provides replacement of the
affirmative offer with negative and negative - affirmative.
Don’t stop moving! (English) - Continue the movement!
Priere de se faire annoncer! (Fr.) Without report not to enter!
The Antonymic translation is used quite often when translating proverbs and
sayings.
No man is wise at all times (English). II n’y a pas de sage qui ne fasse
rage, (Fr. Even a wise man stumbles.
A word spoken is past recalling (English). Parole jetee prend sa volee
(Fr.). A word spoken is past recalling.
In the first case the negative offer is replaced with affirmative, and in the second
- positive is replaced with negative.
The great value to the antonymic translation was attached by K. I. Chukovsky.
In the book «High Art» he gives a number of the English proverbs translated
antonymic:
Let the sleeping dog lie. - Awake with He dashingly while sleeps quietly.
Every cloud has a silver lining. There's no evil without good. Antonymic
translates sentences of type:
She reads a little. - She doesn't read much, (English) Elle ne lit pas beaucoup (Fr.)*
Some dictionary compliances can be antonymic. Such combinations as to keep
off, to keep out are translated into antonymic Russian: not to come nearer, not to
allow etc.
The Antonymic translation can be the only possibility of the correct transfer of a
thought when the direct translation leads to absurdity.
46

No sooner had he arrived than he fell ill. - Hardly he has managed to arrive as
I have got sick.
We had no end of good time. - We have excellently spent time.
No flies on him. - You won't carry out it (the LEOPARD, page 508).
At the antonymic translation the dictionary of synonyms or the English
explanatory dictionary containing synonyms and synonymic phrases can give
essential help.
The antonymic translation can be as a result not only lexical, but also
grammatical transformation if the translation is considered from the point of view of
grammar.The translation (or adaptation) is the action which always is carried out
consciously, and mediation,carried out by means of decisions or preferences which
eventually become methods or procedures.
Georges Bastin
The role of adaptation and others not «quite» translation the practical in
translation infrequently becomes a subject of the serious analysis of theory of
translation. It is even less works in which adaptation appears the main object of a
research. In this article we will remember that we spoke about adaptation of classics
of the Soviet theory of translation, and also we will analyses that new the researchers
of the translation working in Russia and in other countries of the former Soviet Union
today speak about her.
As the Ukrainian researcher V. V. Demetskaya fairly notes, in theory of
translation of adaptation «the modest part of the stepdaughter» is assigned [46:107].
The low status of adaptation is recorded also in the modern dictionary of translation
terms L.L. Nelyubin [2] in whom adaptation is defined as follows:
1. Reception for creation of compliances by change of the described situation
with the purpose of achievement of identical influence on a receptor.
2. Adaptation is understood as usually various text processing: simplification of
his contents and a form, and also reduction of the text for his device for perception by
readers who aren't prepared for acquaintance to him in his original look.
3. The text device for not enough prepared readers. For example,
«simplification» of the text of the literary and art work for beginners to learn foreign
languages. [2, with. 12-13]
The last two points of this definition precisely reflect traditionally skeptical if
not negative, the relation to this «reception» – not deserving serious studying – in
works of most of classics of the Soviet theory of translation.
In the known work of «Fundamentals of the general translation theory» [3] A.
V. Fedorov completely exclude adaptation from all types of translation activity:
At all originality of requirements imposed on the translator by this or that type
of the translated material at all difference in degree of endowments and a creative
initiative, in the volume and character of the data necessary otherwise, for all types of
this activity by the general two provisions are:
1) The translation purpose — as it is possible to acquaint closer the reader (or
the listener) who isn't knowing SL with this text (or the content of oral speech);
47

2) To translate — means to express truly and fully means of one language what
is already expressed by means of other language earlier. (In fidelity and completeness
of transfer — difference actually the translation from alteration, from retelling or the
reduced statement, from any so-called «adaptations»). [3, with. 15]
R. K. Minyar-Beloruchev develops Fedorov's position about incompatibility of
«any so-called adaptations» with the translation, claiming that when translating there
is «a transfer of the message and any adaptations transfer not the message, but the
general contents of the speech work, i.e. in abbreviated form state, remake, and retell
the message». [4, with. 36]. Ya. I. Retsker in «The theory and the translation and
translation practice» [5] avoids the term «adaptation» at all, being limited to single
use of the term «retelling». But also in his definition of problems of the translation
we hear echoes of the above-stated statements:
The translator's task – to tell by means of other language completely and
precisely contents of the original, having kept his stylistic and expressional features.
In other words, unlike retelling, the translation has to tell not only what is expressed
by the original, but also as it is expressed in him. This requirement belongs as to all
translation of this text in general, and to his separate parts. [5, with. 10]
L. S. Barkhudarov, including the translation by «interlingual transformation» [6,
page 6], reduces all types of transformations (transformations) to «four elementary
types»:
1. Shifts;
2. Replacements;
3. Additions;
4. Omissions. [6, with. 190]
As we see, to neither adaptation, nor even retelling wasn't in this list of the
place.
For the first time adaptation, retelling, the reduced statement and other «not
translation» kinds of activity really come into the view of the Soviet theorists of the
translation only after publications of the end of the 1970th years of the Leipzig
researcher Otto Kada in which works the concept Sprachmittlung has appeared (see,
e.g. [7] – [10]).
L. K. Latyshev defines language mediation as «communication of multilingual
communicants by means of the language intermediary knowing two languages». At
the same time, as the author notes, «the concept language mediation is wider than a
concept of the translation: the translation is only one of his types». He refers to other
types of language mediation retelling, the reduced translation and certain «hybrid»
forms, noting that fact that «language mediation in all his real manifestations is
studied obviously not enough» [7, page 8-9].
V. S. Vinogradov who refers to language mediation «both transfer, and
summarizing, and retelling, and other adapted transpositions» agrees with Latyshev.
[8, page 5]
In his «Translation theory» [9] the concept «adaptation» occurs at the language
mediation of A. D. Schweitzer accepting the idea repeatedly, however, mainly, in the
context of critical evaluation of the existing theories of foreign authors. So,
48

discussing model of translation process to Kada, Schweitzer claims that in the course
of changes which are observed in the final text in comparison with the source text the
happening «readdressing of the text to other recipient can't but influence his
communicative purpose» which is definitely modified. However he notes at the same
time that such «modification is admissible only in the known limits»:
The speech can go only about adaptation of author's intension to other
communicative conditions, but not about her radical revision which is absolutely
inadmissible at least owing to representative mission of the translation. [9, page
73]Full adaptation to standards of other culture, Schweitzer claims, it is impossible
owing to «biculturalism» of the target text which «adapting to culture receptor, never
completely breaks off with initial culture». [9, page 61]
However from all authoritative figures of the late Soviet and Post-Soviet theory
of translation the subject of adaptation has received more or less system lighting,
perhaps, only at V. N. Komissarov.
The translation, according to Komissarov, is «a type of language mediation
which is entirely focused on the foreign-language original», and «a foreign-language
form of existence of the message which is contained in the original» [10, page 43].
However «as the language intermediary the translator can make not only a transfer,
but also different types of so-called «adaptive transcoding» which he defines as
follows:
Adaptive transcoding is a type of language mediation at which there is not only
a transcoding (transfer) of information from one language on another (that takes place
and when translating), but also her transformation (adaptation) with the purpose to
state her in other form determined not by the organization of this information in the
original, and a singular problem of interlingual communication. Specifics of adaptive
transcoding are defined by orientation of language mediation to specific group of
Receptors of the translation or to the set form of transformation of information which
is contained in the original. [10, page 48]
At the same time, the author created as a result of such transformation
(adaptation) the text «claims it isn't intended for full replacement of the original», and
still «the translation is a main type of language mediation». Adaptive transcoding of
the original has «Para translation character and it can be presented as association of
two consecutive transformations: transfer and the set adaptation of the target text».
[10, page 48]
Komissarov refers the reduced transfer and the adapted translation to main types
of adaptive transcoding. And if the first «consists in omission when translating
separate parts of the original for moral, political or other reasons of practical
character», then the second in a partial explication (simplification and the
explanation) of structure and contents of the original in translation process with the
purpose to make the target text to the separate groups of Receptors, available to
perception, which don't have sufficient knowledge and professional or life experience
which are required for full-fledged understanding of the original. [10, page 49]
This definition of the adapted translation, as well as the examples of adaptation
given by the author (the translation of the «adult» text for youth and the difficult
49

scientific text for non-professionals) [10, page 49], send us to dictionary definition in
[2] which we gave in the beginning of article.But Komissarov speaks about two types
of adaptation which, on all signs, don't imply that on the intellectual or professional
grade the reader of the original exceeds the reader of the adapted translation. It is
stylistic adaptation and transcription.
Stylistic adaptation, according to Komissarov, is applied when «some features
are found only in one of languages», and then «specific means of presentation in the
original are replaced with the language means meeting the requirements of this style
in TL». [10, page 127]
Transcription is defined by it as one of varieties of the adapted transcoding, «the
desirable effect oriented on achievement» (for example, the advertising translation):
Change of the addressee requires use pore absolutely other arguments and
different ways of belief that it is connected to essential changes by transmission of
structure and content of advertising. An extreme case of similar adaptation is creation
on TL of the parallel text of advertising (co-writing) connected to the original only
unity of the advertised goods and the general pragmatically task – to induce buyers to
acquire these goods. [10, page 50]
Thus, transcription is beyond «the translation as process of creation of the text,
communicatively equivalent to the original» [10, page 221], but, as well as some
other types «Para translation» the practical, described by Komissarov, can be
executed by the translator in translation process [10, page 225].
The analysis of theoretical operations of the Russian authors who succeeded
classics of the late Soviet period shows, as they have relations between transfer and
adaptation, the concept of language mediation which is going back to Otto Kada
generally defines.
I. S. Alekseeva treats those famous experts who don't use this concept, for
example. She mentions language mediation in the textbook «Introduction to Theory
of Translation» [11] only once. It refers adaptation to category «text processing when
translating» in which also includes stylistic processing, authorized translation and a
co-authorship, the selective translation and the summarizing translation [11, page 2326].
However in the majority of the modern textbooks on the translation the
traditional approaches which are guided by the concept of language mediation are
replicated (see, for example, [12], and [13]). In line with classical tradition also V. V.
Sdobnikov and O. V. Petrova's popular book «Translation theory» is written [14].
So, we find simple merge of typology of Komissarov and Latyshev in their
description of the adapted transcoding [14, page 103-105]. Transcription, as well as at
Komissarov, is discussed by authors separately; after it they select in transcription
such elements as an explicating, omission, generalization and a specification,
marking at the same time that «these methods of transcription don't assume the
considerable change of maintenance of an expression in the translation» [14, page
163-168].Questions of national and cultural and chronological adaptation of art texts
are especially considered by authors. As, by their own recognition, «no theoretical
problem specific to the literary translation, at the same time arises» [15, page 39150

392], it isn't really clear why this type of adaptation couldn't find the place in
typology of adaptive transcoding or, say, transcription.
Nevertheless works in which traditional views of model of language mediation
and, respectively, for an adaptation role in her, begin to be reconsidered meet.
In this regard, small article of the researcher from Kazakhstan R. Z. Zagidullin
with the characteristic name «Criticism of the Concept of the Translation as Type of
Language Mediation» [16] deserves attention.
Zagidullin criticizes one of the central elements of the traditional concept of
language mediation – division of process of transformation in actually «translation»
and «adaptive transcoding»; he doesn't agree and that «the concept «translation»
covers all types of language mediation, including adequate translations so-called
volitive (abstract, segment, aspect, etc.)». [16, page 24]
Zagidullin considers by Basic Element of the translation transformation of
information in the course of communication:
Any texts on TL (including and full translations of the original) are created as a
result of transformations of information, reduction and adaptation (i.e. adaptive
transcoding» in a varying degree); at the same time even the selective translation …
can be for the communicant equivalent according to contents to the text of the
original. [16, page 27]
Therefore, the author believes, the concept of language mediation is narrow as
the translator «quite often performs communicative functions – the informant, editors
or the critic of the original», – that, according to Komissarov, is beyond this concept.
[16, page 27]
On the basis of reflections about the tasks of the translator which are beyond
traditional understanding of language mediation he builds «fuller frame of the
concept «translation»«
One more attempt of revision of the concept of language mediation is offered in
N. K. Garbovsky's work «Translation theory» [17]. Defining the translation as
«public function of communicative mediation between the people using different
language systems» [17, page 215], Garbovsky allocates the central place in the book
to theoretical justification of the interlingual transformations happening in translation
process [17, page 358]. And here, as in these interlingual transformations adaptation
is localized by him:
Adaptation is an extreme form of transformations, admissible in translation, and
consists in substitution of the subject situation described in translation, another.
Adaptation breaks semantic structure of the original speech work and, thus, can't be
considered as means of achievement of equivalence of the translated text to the text
of the original.However adaptation can be referred to means of achievement of
adequacy in translation, i.e. to that boundary level of compliance outside which it is
possible to speak about the translation only conditionally. [17, page 383]
Garbovsky considers all transformations (transformations) at three levels: 1)
pragmatically, 2) semantic (denotative) and 3) semantic (significative). At the same
time the adaptation caused by the requirement of «preservation of pragmatically
value» of the initial message «for achievement of adequacy» the translation appears
51

at the semantic (denotative) level of transformations assuming that in translation
other is described, than in the original, a subject situation. [17, page 392-393]
Besides, Garbovsky refers adaptation to pragmatically caused transformations
which «aim at achievement in the target text of the communicative effect equivalent
to that which can be revealed in the text of the original». [17, page 395]
Garbovsky, thus, shows that adaptation and transfer, being «transformations»
(transformations), represent the phenomena of one order. A basic difference between
them that at adaptation these transformations reach the most admissible depth:
Adaptation is the last step, having passed which, the translator leaves area of the
translation and it turns out in the field of others, similar to the translation, but less
strict forms of interlingual and cross-cultural mediation – papers, alterations,
imitations, etc. [17, page 403]
In translation the Ukrainian researcher V. V. Demetskaya very densely is
engaged in studying of a role of adaptation. She is an author not only sets of articles
on this subject, but also the author of the monograph «The theory of adaptation:
cross-cultural and problems of theory of translation» [18], she has also defended the
doctoral dissertation on the subject «The Theory of Adaptation in Translation» [19].
What new we learn about adaptation and transfer in her works?
In the summary to the thesis it declares intention to refuse a traditional view of
adaptation as by sight the language mediation providing «an extreme form of
transformations, admissible in translation» and to offer approach, «according to
which adequacy of the translation of pragmatically focused text is possible in the
conditions of his adaptation to linguocultural stereotypes of the recipient». [19]
In this formulation the fact that adaptation is considered by Demetska only for a
limited set of texts, namely «pragmatically focused texts» (or «pragmatist») – texts,
«directed to change of behavior of the addressee» [20, page 4] attracts attention. She
carries «the dictionary entry, an educational text type, an oratorical text type (a
political performance, the sermon), an advertising text type» to such texts, at the
same time emphasizing that the main attention is paid by her to texts of «political and
religious discourses» [21, page 3].
The purpose of the translation of a pragmatist, across Demetskaya, consists in «a
reconstruction of pragmatically potential of the text or a discourse in translation from
the accounting of linguocultural stereotypes of native speakers and cultures of the
recipient». [19]
Entering distinction between two types of the translation (translation strategy) –
the «reproductive translation» (focused on «a reconstruction of a linguocultural code
of the sender») and «the adaptive translation» («with proponent installation on
language and cultural stereotypes of the recipient of the translated text»), –
Demetskaya claims that «adequate translation as result of translation activity, is
possible only on condition of the complementary nature of reproductive and adaptive
strategy»; and, therefore, «adequate translation anyway assumes adaptation». At the
same time she notes the following:
Various types of texts are tested different extent of adaptation, namely:
adaptations can be subject elements of semantic, structural and pragmatically levels.
52

Therefore we suggest considering the following types of adaptation: 1) adaptation on
hypertext level (structural and composite); 2) adaptation at the text level (stylistic); 3)
adaptation at the hypo text level (lexico-semantic, grammatical). [22, page 37]
Demetskaya considers that the obligatory characteristic of transfer adaptation
which distinguishes it both from the translation reproduction, and from other kinds of
intertekst (summaries, commenting, transfer based on) is that «translation adaptation
is consciously focused on comparison and check by the text of the original» [22, page
8]. In the adaptation she allocates two strategies: 1) adaptation of a text type and 2)
adaptation of information of a text type, or adaptation of information; and she
considers the last strategy not so much translation how many editorials. [22, page
18].Demetskaya's statements for refusal of traditional definition of adaptation as «an
extreme form of transformations, admissible in translation», we consider as polemic
attack against the classical characteristic of adaptation of Jean Paul Win and Jean
Darlene [23, page 164] or, is closer by today, against already quoted Garbovsky's
formulation in [16]. By the way, between views of the last and Demetska, in our
opinion, it is possible to find much in common. It is easy to notice, for example, that
the typology of levels of adaptation offered Demetskaya has something in common
with classification of translation transformations of Garbovsky. And it shouldn't be to
us surprising because both Demetskaya, and Garbovsky look at adaptation and
transfer as on equivalent kinds of activity and see a main objective of adaptation /
translation transformations in preservation of pragmatically / communicative effect of
the initial message.
Any speech work, except language material, from which is under construction,
demands as a necessary condition of the of existence of three more components:
subjects of the message, a situation in which it is carried out the communicative act
and the participants of this act having both linguistic, and extra linguistic knowledge.
The accounting of not language moments is one of necessary conditions of
achievement of translation adequacy as through them the contents of the text reveal in
many cases. The fact that the volume of these not language factors at the different
people isn't identical therefore the translator shouldn't hope for that described, on - an
example is known, in the source text (ST) an object will be available to the
representative of the translating language (TL) in this connection the translator has to
have all necessary competences to inform of the maintenance of IT in a look, clear
for a translation receptor. In linguistic literature this moment is called pragmatically
aspect of the translation. «Conceptof pragmatists in linguistics (more widely - in
semiotics) at all not amounts only to a concept pragmatically values language (and in
general sign) units. This concept much wider - it includes all questions connected
with various degree of understanding of communicative process of these or those
language units and speech works and with their various treatment depending on
language and not language (extra linguistic) experience of people, learning in
communication»[46:107]. The pragmatics a feather - water is defined by V. N.
Komissarov as «influence on the course and result of translation process of need to
reproduce pragmatic -the sky potential of the original and aspiration to provide the
desirable influence on a translation Receptor» [47:210]. Under pragmatic-the sky
53

potential of the original ability of the text is understood « communicative effect, to
cause in the Receptor the pragmatically relations to reported, in other words, to carry
out pragmatically impact on the recipient of information» [47:31]
On the basis of the definition offered by V. N. Komissarov it is possible to
reveal the following chain of the consecutive processes which are coming to an end
with concrete result: reproduction of pragmatically potential of IT →communicative
effect on the recipient of TL → perception by a receptor of the translation of the
initial message.
Before starting the translation, the translator needs - to wind lips a number of the
essential moments promoting reproduction of pragmatically potential of the original
for achievement of an objective i.e. to reach the desirable effect on the recipient of
the translated text (TT). First, the translator has to understand the communicative
intension of the creator of the text caused by some requirement. In - the second to
establish proponent function of the text. Each text gives proponent function which
purpose is to make definitionpragmatically impact on a text receptor. The given
function is considered by the creator of the text by his drawing up, for example, texts
of social and political character aim impacts on public. Thirdly, in pragmatically
aspects of the translation much attention is paid to a communicative orientation an
outcome - a message leg. A. Noybert allocates four types of texts taking into account
that attraction of the pragmatically moments depends on type a feather - the driven
text [48:197-198].
1) The texts of foreign policy -ideological character aiming to influence external
public, i.e. citizens of other countries. Such texts are formed so that to render defined
influence on certain a receptor. The accounting of the pragmatically moments at the
translation of similar texts is necessary for achievement of the desirable effect.
2) The works of art calculated on SL carriers, but in many cases they are
transferred to others of language therefore Pragmatic factors in them play an
important role.
3) The texts interesting only SL carriers, for example, of newspaper materials.
Texts of this kind are translated in the narrow scale in this connection the
pragmatically moments aren't considered. However when it is necessary to translate,
for example, any newspaper article, destination for reading by TL carriers, it is
necessary to consider pragmatics.
4) The texts of scientific and technical character created for science purposes and
focused both on SL carriers, and on the TL carriers which are engaged in this or that
scientific sphere. Here isn't present necessity pragmatically to adapt ST in connection
with presence at TL carriers of necessary information for understanding and
disclosure of contents the text as in this case there is no need in an
additionalexplanation. And at last, to reach the necessary communicative effect at the
disposal of the translator there is a number of the receptions helping him thread those
moments of IT which can be not understood by a receptors. These receptions make
so-called transcription of the translation. Transcription represents the changes made
to the target text with the purpose to achieve necessary reaction from a translation
receptor. Writes the following about those changes which the translator does in the
54

text being translated A. Noybert «it is obliged - to undertake the translator such
«changes» that the text of B which focuses the recipient of the management about
operation of the car speaking on (TL) the same as the text and - speaking on (SL) has
turned out. As a result there will be admissions, additions, shifts, transferring of
accents etc. which if literally to translate them back, can seem speaking on (SL) a
mangling, distortion, inadmissible addition, verbosity, admissions, change of habitual
classification» [49:195]. This multilevel analytic operation made by the translator
leads to that TL has made the same pragmatically impact on the receptor what was
rendered by SL on the recipient. Here, however, it is necessary to specify the concept
«communicative effect» or «pragmaticallyinfluence «. It isn't limited only to a
concept of influence literally of this word, i.e. to cause concrete reaction in the reader
or to force it to experience some emotions or feelings. It is wider, means also such
moment as understanding the reader of contents of the message. The translator's task
also consists in it. It means that the translator has to retell the matter of the original so
that the receptor of the translation has understood contents of this text as receptor of
the original understands the initial message. As for a concept of effect of the first
value, it isn't always possible to reach it. Even the text focused on the people
belonging to the same society causes different reaction owing to distinctions personal
is given to these people, not to mention people of other culture, another world view.
V. N. Komissarov fairly speaks about this fact: «identical reaction of readers of the
original and the translation isn't necessarily purpose of any translation, and in certain
cases she essential unattainable, owing to features of receptors of the translation,
impossibility to define reaction of receptors of the original and a row of the
reasons»[50:140]. Reactions of recipients of SL and TL can coincide only then if
their personal characteristics of owls - fall, «if we compare a fan of all possible
individual reactions to SL and the same fan of reactions to TL, then those will
coincide individual reactions where coincide individual and personal characteristics
of addressees of SL and TL. It means that archetypes of reactions of individuals,
classes of reactions to SL and on TLcoincide. In this sense of equivalence of
regulatory influence of SL and TL means literally the following: SL and TL give to
the addressees the objective chance to react equally to the message and whether there
will be reactions multilingual addressees equivalent, depends on extent of their
coincidence personal properties» [50:32]. Translation it is intended for other person
having other mentality, belonging to other society so far as adaptation of SL so that
he was available to him, is necessary. Adaptation is carried out by means of extra
linguistic information of the translator. There is some ways of adaptation of SL,
somehow: 1) addition;
2) Omission; 3) generalization; 4) specification; 5) comments. We will give the
following offer as an example of use of addition: «It is impossible to present Russia
without Volga». Any Russian reader know what is Volga, however this information
isn't supposed known for the English reader in this connection it is necessary to add
the word «river» to TL.

55

CONCLUSION
In the real operation the understanding of an entity of the translation as process
of cross-language transformation, treated within what it is possible to call «semanticsemiotics model» is explained in general. The entity of this model, in anormalized
look, is as follows: to the translator the text in this or that language (SL) representing
the sequence of units belonging to this sign system (SL system) constructed by
certain rules and bearing certain information is set. The task of the translator is
conversion of this text to the equivalent to it the text in some other language (TL).
The concept «equivalent» is understood in a sense «bearing the same information»,
that is having the same semantic contents, though differing on methods of expression
of this contents.
As the text is the sequence language, in other words sign units, the semantic
maintenance (value) of these units and all text in general can and shall be opened by
establishment of communications between these units and something, lying out of
them, that is disclosure of the relations between sign units and what they designate,
and also the relations of sign units to each other. The relations of three types are
established by such way: the relations between a sign and its reviewer, between a sign
and «customer» of a sign (language collective) and between signs in this language
system. In other words, values of three types - referentially, pragmatically and intra
linguistic values reveal; and, as the text is not just the sequence of sign units, but the
sequence definitely organized and integrated understanding of value of the text
doesn't come down only to understanding of value of units entering it, but assumes,
first of all, understanding of value of all text as whole,
The task of the translator, having understood value of the source text, to express
the same value (more precisely, system of values) means of other language. At the
same time, as there is a cross-language conversion, that is changeover of one sign
system another (though same), the semantic losses concerning, first of all, system of
intralinguistic values of the source text, but not only them are inevitable. The
translator is obliged to achieve that these losses were minimized, that is to provide the
biggest level of equivalence of the source text and target text (realizing that
achievement of «absolute» equivalence is, in essence, the unattainable task, a certain
ideal at which he shall aim, but reach which he will never manage). It, in turn,
demands from it establishment of «an order of sequence of transmission of values»,
that is determination of what within this text needs to be saved first of all and then it
is possible to sacrifice for the purpose of support of the maximum equivalence.
Though the most general principle of sequence can be formulated as the
sequence «referentially values - pragmatically values - intra linguistic values», this
principle quite often should be broken, especially in case of the translation of the
texts having preferentially pragmatically or preferentially intra linguistic installation.
Thus, translation process from this point of view can be spread out to two
main stages corresponding to two stages in operation of the translator over the text
being translated - an analysis stage and a stage of synthesis. The entity of the first
stage consists in understanding the translator of value (the amount or system of
56

values) the source text; an entity of the second stage - in expression of the same value
(the same amount or system of values) means of other language. The first, that is the
understanding, assumes establishment of hierarchy of language system - from a
morpheme (in certain cases even phonemes or graphemes) to all text in general. The
second, that is expression of the understood value means of other language, requires
finding of appropriate units of expression of the same value at all levels of language
hierarchy in TL. At the same time, owing to a discrepancy in the formal and semantic
structure of units of SL and TL,
numerous and difficult conversions or
transformations are inevitable; however, remembering that any conversion is
accompanied by a certain loss of information, the translator shall aim to reduce these
transformations to a reasonable minimum as far as it norms (lexical, grammatical and
stylistic) TL and extra linguisticpragmatically factors allow. Figuratively speaking
the translator is stimulated to maneuver between Scylla of literalism and Harridan of
free translation all the time, trying to find in between that narrow, but rather deep
pass, going which, he will be able to come to the desired purpose - the most
equivalent translation.
The basic concepts of the semantic-semiotics model of the translation offered by
us are that, in general. It is thought that this model, in principle, can be quite
formalized; however its formalization is imaginable only under certain conditions
which are absent now. The main such condition is development of the adequate
linguistic theory of values which would be rather strict and formalized. In this regard
we are meanwhile very far from the purpose. First of all, problems of semantics were
developed still, mainly, on material only of the lowest levels of language hierarchy,
preferentially at the level of morphemes and words. Of semantic structure of units of
higher order - phrases, sentences and the text in general - we meanwhile have only
very vague idea. Meanwhile for translation theory would be especially important to
develop the principles of «integration» of values of separate discrete language units
within all speech work as single system - the task which execution we only begin to
start.
Further, the theory of semantics (semasiology) was restricted still generally to a
research the referential of values and almost didn't concern other types of values, that
is pragmatically and intra-linguistic. At the same time the concept of equivalence of
the translation implies the completest transmission of all information which is
contained in the source text, and not just the referential of values of the language
elements entering this text. At last, both for understanding, and the account and the
extra linguistic factors defining process of speech communication - a subject
(«subject») of an expression, participants communicative is necessary for expression
of all system of values of the speech work (text) process («sender» and «receiver»)
and an expression situation (time, the place and conditions in which communication
process proceeds). Meanwhile we don't even know whether these extra linguistic
aspects of speech activities of formalization give in and if yes, that in what forms it
can be realized. The adequate translation theory, however, can't be built as
exclusively micro linguistic discipline, in derivation from external, not language
conditions of course of the speech act.
57

All these difficulties getting in the way of creation of exact and strict semanticsemiotics model of the translation are real and very big, but aren't insuperable. We
believe that the specified model not only has the right for existence, but in a number
of aspects it can be stronger, than other models. It is known that attempts to build
translation theory, proceeding from units of the plan of expression («the translation of
lexical units», «the translation of grammatical forms», «transmission of a word
order» and so forth), were though the useful, but, in general, ineffective because for
the translation important, first of all, that expresses, and how it expresses, it shall be
subordinate to the first (as well as generally in any act of communication the
transmitted data is the purpose, and ways of its transmission - means of achievement
of this purpose). Therefore rather adequate and «strong» model of the translation
shall be, first of all, model semantic; and as semantics, that is value, is function of a
sign, it can't but be at the same time model semiotics. It doesn't mean that any other
way to a study of the translation is impossible. The translation - too difficult and
polygonal phenomenon completely to be laid down in inevitably limited frames of
some one model or the theoretical diagram. The more will be such models and
diagrams, the better, the more deeply we will be able to learn a translation entity. We
will hope, in this regard, that the provisions advanced by us in this research and
observations will be reasonably useful.
There is, however, also other aspect of the question - the practical Value of
researches in the field of translation theory. For application-oriented discipline which
the translation theory is this aspect is not of the secondary importance.
As it has been already noted though the translation theory proceeds from
practice and, generalizing the material which is available at her order, draws the
conclusions on its basis, she projects further these conclusions to practice in a look
some of recommendations or standard installations. Relying on practice, the
translation theory at the same time lays her a way. Therefore presently when the
profession of the translator became really mass and when with the translation, as a
matter of fact, it is necessary - in this or that form - acquaintance to basic provisions
of translation theory it is absolutely necessary to deal to all who are anyway
connected with a learning of foreign languages or with the types of work demanding
use of knowledge of foreign languages for everyone who doesn't wish to work in this
area blindly and, so to speak, anew «to peddle old stuff» where she is already opened
by efforts of others. Without evidence-based translation theory nowadays there can't
be a successful translation practice - such is an indisputable truth which is useless to
be challenged. At the same time it is impossible to believe, of course, fondly that
knowledge of provisions and the principles of translation theory can replace with
themselves skill of the translator. Always it is necessary to remember that «... the
translation is something much bigger, than science. It as well ability, and quite highquality translation, eventually, always is also art.

58

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1 Сепир Э. Коммуникация. Избранные труды по языкознанию и
культурологии. М.: 1993. – 655 c.
2 Маслова В.А. Лингвокультурология: Учеб. пособие для студ. высш.
учеб, заведений. - М.: Издательский центр «Академия», 2001. – 203 с.
3 R.H. Robins. General Linguistics. An Introductory Survey. London, 1971
4 Берков В.П. Вопросы двуязычной лексикографии (Словник). - Л., 1973
5 Тер-Минасова С.Г. Язык и межкультурная коммуникация: (Учеб.
пособие) — М.: Слово, 2000. - 624 с.
6 Ермолович Д.И. Имена собственные на стыке языков и культур. — М.:
Валент, 2001. - 200с.
7 Энциклопедия «Кругосвет». www.krugosvet.ru / под. ред. Беккера,
Демидовой, Мельвиля, 2005
8 Веселовский С.Б. Ономастикон / Древнерусские имена, прозвища и
фамилии. - М.: Наука 1974. – 382 с.
9 Жапова. Д.Н. Антропонимы как этноисторическое явление // Бытие и
язык. Новосибирск, 2004. - С. 216-219)
10 Системы личных имен у народов мира. Отв. ред. М.В.Крюков. - М.:
Наука, 1989
11 Калакуцкая Л.П. Фамилии. Имена. Отчества. Написание и склонение. М.: 1994, 256с.
12 Унбегаун Б.О. Русские фамилии. - М.: Прогресс, 1989. – 435 с.
13 Королева И.А. Происхождение фамилий и отчеств на Руси. - Смоленск,
СмолГПИ, 1999. – 174 с.
14 And. Neubert. Pragmatische Aspekte der? bersetzung. Beihefte zur
Zeitschrift, «Fremdsprachen», II, Leipzig, 1968, SS.
15 A. D. Schweitzer. Translation and linguistics, page 245
16 K. Chukovsky. High art. M, «Art», 1964, page 119
17 E. Nida and Ch. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden,
1969, p. 134
18 B. M. Kedrov. Lenin and dialectics of natural sciences of the 20th century.
M, «Science», 1971, page 175.
19 «Science and life», 1972, N 4, page 80
20 A. I. Smirnitsky. Syntax of English, 1957, page 8 – 9
21 A. I. Smirnitsky. Yaza English morphology. 1959, pages 289 – 310
22 V. I. Lenin. Half-N of C.Ed., t. 24, page 125
23 E.Nida. Translation science. «Linguistics questions», 1970, N 4, page 11
24 [R. A. Hall. Introductory Linguistics. Philadelphia, 1964, PP. 13 - 14, 469]
25 «Materials of the scientific conference «Text Linguistics», MGPIIYa of M.
Thorez, M., 197
26 L. I. Smirnitsky. Objectivity of existence of language, page 19
27 A. K. Zholkovsky, I. A. Melchuk. To creation of the working model of the
«sense-the text» language. «Machine translation and application-oriented
59

linguistics», the issue II, M., 1969, page 5 - 6.]
28 V. A. 3vegiitsev. Linguistics history the 19-20th century in sketches and
extraction. P. I. M., «Education», 1964, page 91
29 G. Trager and of N. of Smith. An Outline of English Structure. Washington,
1957, p. 81 – 82]
30 F. de Saussure. Course of the general linguistics. M, Sotsekgiz, 1933, P. 207
31 G.V.Kolshansky. Functions of paralinguistic means in language
communication. «Linguistics questions», 1973, page 1
32 G. V. Kolshansky. Decree, page 21
33 Комиссаров В.Н. Теория перевода (лингивтические аспекты). М.высш.
шк, 1990
34 Комиссаров В.Н. Общая теория перевода (Проблемы переводоведения в
освщении зарубежных ученых). М.: ЧеРо, 1999
35 Toury, Gideon. Descrpitive Translation Studies and Beyond.
Amsterdam/Phiiladelphia: John Benjaminds Piblishing Company, 1995
36 Крупнов В.Н. В творческой лабаратории переводчика (Очерки по
профессиональному переводу) М.: Междунар. Отношения, 1976
37 Бархударов Л. С. Язык и перевод / Л. С. Бархударов. – М., 1975. – 240 с.
38 Швейцер А. Д. Текст и перевод / А. Д. Швейцер. – М.: Наука, 1988. –
216 с.
39 Бурак А. Л . Translation Culture – 1. Words . Перевод и межкультурная
коммуникация – 1. Слова / А . Л . Бурак. – М.: Р. Валент, 2010. – 216 с.
40 Lawrence D. H. Collected Stories / D. H. Lawrence. – L.: Everyman’s
Library, 1994. – 1397 p.
41 Слепович В. С. Курс перевода (английский – русский язык):
учеб. пособ. / В. С. Слепович. – 7-е изд. – Мн.: ТетраСистемс, 2009. – 320
стр.
42 Карабан В. І. Переклад англійської наукової і технічної літератури / В. І.
Карабан. – Вінниця: Нова книга, 2002. – 564 с.
43 Retsker I. Theory of the transfer and translation practice. M, 1974. P. 41.
44 Демецкая, В.В Адаптация в переводе: теоретической аспект Тезисы
докладов. СПб.: Факультет филологии и искусств СПбГУ, 2007 107 с
45 Комиссаров 1990, Теория перевода(лингвистические аспекты М:.
Высшая школа, 1990
46 Ноиберт. Прагматические аспекты перевода. Вопросы теории перевода
в зарубежной лингвистике: Сб.статей М:. Международные отношения,
1978
47 Комиссаров 1999, Современное переводоведение, М:. 1999
48 Латышев 2008, Технология перевода:.М Академия 1998

60