b. PECULIAR WAYS OF RENDERING THE CONNOTATIVE ASPECT OF THE WORD MEANINGS

A. POSSIBLE DISCREPANCIES IN DENOTATIVE MEANINGS OF EQUIVALENT WORDS IN THE ORIGINAL AND TRANSLATION

Some losses of information, which do not contradict the 5^th level of equivalence, can be observed in all three aspects of the word semantics:

Denotative

Connotative

Intralinguistic

Very often there is a different number of elementary semes in the original and the translation because different qualities of some objects class are reflected in them.

E.g. error, mistake – помилка
kill, assassinate, murder, slay - вбивати

Fixating various qualities of objects in the meanings of words, each language, so to say, creates its own “world image”. E.g. A fly stands on the ceiling.

As a result, the semes that mostly coincide in the meanings of the words in different languages may differ in the character and the number of objects they denote by pointing to the given quality.

Носити – wear a perfume; кип’ячений, варений – boiled milk, boiled eggs

The meaning of every word is a part of the semantic system of the language and depends not only on which qualities of the designated objects they reflect themselves, but also on the presence of other words denoting the same objects. E.g. Пес, собака - dog

As a result of differences in the norm and the usage of SL and TL, the closest equivalent to the original word in meaning is often not used, which hinders the full realization of the 5^th level of equivalence. E.g. She knew that he had risked his neck to help her. Ризикувати головою. The children clapped hands with joy. Плескати у долоні. She slammed the door into his face. По-русски можно лишь захлопнуть дверь у кого-нибудь «перед носом».

Very often it is quite possible to use the closest equivalent, but usage demands a different variant. (wash dishes), «мити посуд» (scrub floors), «мити підлогу» (wash teeth) «чистити зуби».

b. PECULIAR WAYS OF RENDERING THE CONNOTATIVE ASPECT OF THE WORD MEANINGS

The most important role in rendering the connotative aspect of the word semantics is played by its components

- emotional

- stylistic

- figurative

The words may be emotionally colored or emotionally neutral smell – fragrance

A word may also bear additional information about style: conversational, bookish, poetic. It is worth mentioning that a great number of words are neutral, i.e. they may be used in various styles. The word’s neutrality may be an additional component of connotative meaning. For instance there are pairs of words which have the same object-logical meanings, but whose stylistic characteristics are different to end – to terminate

The highest level of equivalence is often achieved in cases when the word in translation that corresponds to the original word in other content components also has a similar stylistic characteristic. Very often it is achieved while translating terms that have terminological equivalents in TL: radiation - радіація, feedback – зворотній зв’язок. However, equivalent words belonging to the same style can be found within the general vocabulary: fraught with - чреватий, afore-said - вищеназваний, bearer - пред’явник, steed – скакун

Often a stylistically marked original word has a stylistically neutral equivalent and vise versa. If we use it we violate the stylistic characteristic of the word in the original. This violation is easily compensated for, because the stylistic component of the meaning, like emotional one, colors not only the word, but the whole expression. Therefore this component may be reproduced in translation of another word within this expression or even in the neighboring expression. This is often used in literary translation.

Equivalency of connotative meanings of the words in SL and TL requires also the reproduction of associative-figurative component of their connotative meanings. The semantics of some words includes additional information connected with some associations in the minds of the speakers. Thanks to figurative component of its meaning, a word exerts a special influence on the Receptor, its semantics is more readily accepted, attracts attention, evokes an emotional attitude. Preserving the figurative nature of the original may be essential for achieving equivalency. There are three levels of similarity in this case:

1. Corresponding words in SL and TL have similar associative-figurative characteristics

White as snow, cold as stone, clear as a day. – The highest level of equivalency

2. Words that are not equivalent have the corresponding associative-figurative characteristics, the reproduction of which is carried out through changing the image. strong as a horse - «сильный, как бык», stupid as a goose - «тупий, як ступа».

3. Feature existing in SL does not exist in TL. Only partial reproduction at a lower level of equivalence is possible:

Want, colder than Charity, shivering at the street corners. Нужда, промерзшая до мозга костей, дрожала на перекрестках улиц.

Sometimes the image is lost in translation:

'Cat'. With that simple word Jean closed the scene.

По-английски cat употребляется для характеристики злой или сварливой женщины. Русское слово «кошка» не имеет подобного компонента значения, и в переводе придется отказаться от образа:

- Злючка, - отпарировала Джин, и это простое слово положило конец сцене.

1. INTRALINGUISTIC MEANING OF THE WORD

It is conditioned by the place the word occupies in the system of the language. It occupies a special place in relations between units of SL and TL in the fifth level of equivalence. Like the word “стіл” – it is semantically connected with other general and concrete names of furniture „меблі, лаштунки, стілець, крісло”. Another type of relations is established between this word and other words that may combine with this word in speech “дерев’яний, круглий, накривати”. The third type of semantic relations reveals common elements of meaning of the word “стіл” with words like “столова, столуватися, застілля”, united by the common root morpheme. There is also a linguistically conditioned relation between the meanings of a polysemantic word (board).

The character of reproduction of the intralinguistic meaning of the word differs from ways of rendering the denotative and connotative meanings described above. First of all, in most cases, equivalence of the SL and TL words does not depend on whether the intralinguistic meaning is preserved or not. This meaning is imposed on the word by the language system and contains information that is considered the element of shaping the thought, but not the thought itself. The necessity of reproducing the components of intralinguistic meaning arises only when this meaning is brought to the forefront, when special attention is paid to it, making it communicatively important.

Components of intralinguistic meaning:

1.) Morphemic (wordbuilding) component of the meaning – reflection of meanings of morphemes in the meaning of the word (woodman, machine-gun, aircraft the meanings of the word is not equal to the sum of meanings of its morphemes). However these meanings may be emphasized and morphemic structure may be a part of the content of the original. Equivalency may be achieved only if the building of the words in SL and TL coincide:

Не looked surprisingly young to Eric, who had always assumed that the nation's elders were really old.

Он выглядел очень молодо к большому удивлению Эрика, который всегда считал, что старейшины страны и на самом деле были стариками.

When word-play based upon the meaning of morphemes within the word makes up the main content of the utterance, to ensure equivalence, they sometimes do it through playing upon the meaning of other units in the TL. This way we lose some other elements of meaning, so equivalency is achieved only for the most important part of the original:

By-and-by, he said: "No sweethearts I b'lieve?" "Sweetmeats did you say, Mr. Barkis?" (Ch. Dickens)

- А нет ли у нее дружочка? - Пирожочка, мистер Баркис? (not root morphemes but affixes)

Sometimes each part of the word is translated separately:

"Do you know anything about books?" "Yes, sir, I'm a good bookkeeper." "Holy Moses! Our job is getting rid of them. My firm are publishers." (J. Galsworthy)

- Вы что-нибудь смыслите в книгах? - Да, сэр, я умею вести конторские книги. - Ах ты, боже мой! Да у нас надо не вести книги, а избавляться от них. Ведь у нас издательство. (Пер. Р. Райт-Ковалевой)

As seen from examples above, reproducing this component of meaning often involves some losses.

2) Usually a word is used in the original only in one of its meanings chosen by the speaker.

The task of reproducing the polysemy of the original word arises only when this polysemy is used by the Source to give additional information:

Не says he'll TEACH you to take the boards and make a raft of them; but seeing that you know how to do this pretty well already, the offer...seems a superfluous one on his part. (J.K. Jerome)

Он кричит, что ПОКАЖЕТ вам, как брать без спроса доски и делать из них плот, но поскольку вы и так прекрасно знаете, как это делать, это предложение кажется вам излишним.

But their united sagacity could make nothing of it, and they went to bed - metaphorically - IN THE DARK. (Ch. Dickens)

Но даже их объединенная проницательность не смогла помочь им в этом разобраться, и они легли спать, - фигурально говоря, - В ПОТЕМКАХ. (Пер. А. Кривцовой и Е. Ланна)

Much less equivalence is achieved in cases when the corresponding word in TL does not have the necessary polysemy. In this case we either give up this component or reproduce it in the semantics of another word, i.e. reproduce the original components less accurately. Mostly happens in literary translations:

Не... said he had come for me, and informed me that he was a PAGE. "Go 'long," I said, "you ain't more than a PARAGRAPH." (M. Twain)

Он сказал, что послан за мною и что он ГЛАВА ПАЖЕЙ. - Какая ты глава, ты одна СТРОЧКА! - сказал я ему.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. SUMMARY

Now we can sum up our findings. We have discovered that there are five different types of semantic relationships between equivalent phrases (texts) in two languages. Thus all translations can be classified into five types of equivalence which differ as to the volume and character of the information retained in each. Each subsequent type of equivalence retains the part of the original contents which includes the information preserved in the previous types.

Every translation can be regarded as belonging to a certain type of equivalence. Since each subsequent type implies a higher degree of semantic similarity we can say that every translation is made at a certain level of equivalence.

Each level of equivalence is characterized by the part of information the retention of which distinguishes it from the previous level. The list of levels, therefore, includes: 1) the level of the purport of communication; 2) the level of (the identification of) the situation; 3) the level of the method of description (of the situation); 4) the level of syntactic meanings; 5) the level of word semantics.

It is worth noting that the information characterizing different levels is inherent to any unit of speech. Indeed, a unit of speech always has some communicative intent, denotes a certain situation, possesses a certain notional structure, and is produced as a syntactically patterned string of words.

Thus, a translation event is accomplished at a definite level of equivalence. It should be emphasized that the level hierarchy does not imply the idea of approbation or disapprobation. A translation can be good at any level of equivalence.

Поиск по сайту: