Филологические науки/6. Актуальные проблемы перевода

Сисоєва В.Ф., Любарська В.В.

Східноєвропейський університет економіки та менеджменту,

Черкаси, Україна

Some sociolinguistic, semantic and pragmatic aspects of translation

Sociolinguistic aspect of the theory of translation includes consideration of translation as socially determined communicative process as well as the social norm of translation. This aspect also includes consideration of translation as the reflection of a social world. A. Shveitser points out that the object of description at that is various kinds of socially conditioned pragmatic relations which determine the essence of translation as the communicative act: pragmatics of the source text, which determines its functional type; pragmatics of the target text, which is oriented to other culture [4, 17]. Pragmatics of the language and speech units of the source text and the target text is also involved. The importance of sociolinguistic factors for reaching adequacy of translation can’t be overestimated. The statement may be illustrated by the use of the personal pronoun you which necessitates careful analysis of the situation as the word may be translated as ви and ти. The role of the translator is very essential as he should accurately render all the peculiarities of the source language communications constantly keeping in mind his particular reader [2, 115].

The information conveyed by linguistic signs alone would not be sufficient for adequate translation. Some linguists distinguish between what they call translation based solely on the meaning, expressed by linguistic signs and interpretation, involving recourse to extra linguistic information. The two are very closely intertwined, and in most cases effective translation is impossible without adequate knowledge of the speech-act situation and the situation described in the text. The phrase Two on the isles would hardly make much sense unless it is known that the conversation takes place at a box-office (speech-act situation). Knowing the situation the translation is два місця ближче до проходу.

The role of semantic, syntactic and pragmatic relations for adequate translation can hardly be overestimated. Semiotic (the science investigating the general properties of sign system) distinguishes the following types of relations: semantic (sign to object), syntactic (sign to sign) and pragmatic (sign to man). One of the most essential requirements imposed on translation is that two text (the source text and the target text) should be semantically equivalent. In other words, they should be characterized by equivalent sets of relationship between the linguistic signs and their denotation (referents). The goal of translation is to produce a text bearing the same extra linguistic situation as the original. Semantic equivalent of message does not necessarily imply the semantic identity of linguistic sign. Semantically equivalent utterances include not only those made up of semantically identical signs (as, for instance He lives in London – Він живе у Лондоні) but also utterances comprising different sets of signs which in their totality yield the same type of relationship to the extra linguistic word denotating the same extra linguistic situation, for example: Wet paint! – Обережно! Пофарбовано! Semantic relations affect translation both in the initial stage of analysis and in producing the target language text.

As distinct from semantic relations, syntactic relations are important only at the stage of analysis since relations between linguistic signs are essential for their semantic interpretation [3, 50]. But although they may be occasionally preserved in translation, the translator does not set himself this goal. Very often syntactically nonequivalent utterances prove to be semantically equivalent: He was considered invincible – Його вважали непереможним.

Pragmatic relations are superimposed on semantic relations and play an equally important role in analyzing the original text and in producing an equivalent text in the target language [1, 210].

Semantically equivalent messages do not necessarily mean the same thing to the source and target receptors, and therefore are not necessarily pragmatically equivalent. The phrases He made a fifteen-yard and ran – Він зробив п’ятнадцятияздовий ривок are semantically equivalent for they denote the same situation but the American reader, familiar with American football, will extract far more information from it than his Ukrainian or Russian counterpart who would neither understand the aim of the maneuver nor appreciate the football-player’s performance. The phrase Він розбив бабусю у віконці однією битою – He crushed grandmother in the window with a single bat will be even less understandable for the Englishmen as the game городки is unknown to them. The pragmatic problems, involved in translation, arise from three types of relations: the relation of the source language sender to the original message; the relation of the target language receptor to the target language message and the relation of the translator to both messages.

The first type of relations amounts to the sender’s communicative intent or the pragmatic motivation of the original message. The translator, in other words, should be aware whether a message is a statement of fact, a request, a command, an entreaty or a joke. Very often, the speaker’s communicative intent differs from what the message ostensibly purports: e.g. I don’t know – may be not only a statement of fact in which case it would be translated as Я не знаю but also an expression of hesitation – Подивимось.

Here a psycho linguistic factor which involves experience and competence of the translator plays an important role.

Thus, translating process shows double pragmatic orientation. On one hand, it is being realized within the frames of inter lingual communication having source language orientation. On the other hand, translation is a concrete speech act, which is pragmatically oriented to a certain receptor. Pragmatic goal of the translation lies in the achieving maximal equivalence with the original.

Literature:

1. Комиссаров В.Н. Теория перевода. М.: В.Ш. 1990, 250 с.

2. Влахов С., Флорин С. Непереводимое в переводе. – М.: 1986.

3. Miram G. Translation algorithms. K.: “Trim inter”. 1998, 175 p.

4. Швейцер А.Д. Социолингвистические основы перевода // Вопросы языкознания. – 1985 - №5. С. 15-23.