Translation of phraseological units

Translation is a process of rendering a text, written piece or a speech by means of other languages. The difference of translation from retelling or other kinds of transfer of a given text is that that translation is a process of creating an original unity in contexts and forms of original.

The translation quality is defined by its completeness and value. «The completeness and value of translation means definite rendering of the contextual sense of the original piece and a high-grade functional-stylistic conformity».

The concept «high-grade functional-stylistic conformity» clearly points on two existing ways of rendering the form in unity with the meaning: the first one is a reproduction of specific features of the form of the original piece and the second one is the creation of functional conformities of those features. It means when translating the specific features of an original literature we should rather consider the style inherent for the given genre but than direct copying the form of an original. While translating, we should also remember that different lexical and grammatical elements of an original might be translated differently if accepted by the norms of conformity to the whole original. The translation adequacy of separate phrases, sentences and paragraphs should not be considered separately but along with achievement of the adequacy and completeness of the translating piece as a whole because the unity of a piece is created through collecting the components.

No matter how a translator (interpreter) is talented he should remember two most important conditions of the process of translation: the first is that the aim of translation is to get the reader as closely as possible acquainted with the context of a given text and then second - to translate - means to precisely and completely express by means of one language the things that had been expressed earlier by the means of another language.

A translation can be done:

from one language into another, kin-language, non-kin,

from literary language into its dialect or visa versa

from the language of an ancient period into its modern state

The process of translation, no matter how fast it is, is subdivided into two moments. To translate one should first of all to understand, to perceive the meaning and the sense of the material.

Furthermore, to translate one should find and select the sufficient means of expression in the language the material is translated into (words, phrases, grammatical forms).

There are three, most identified types of translation: literary, special and sociopolitical.

The ways of achieving the adequacy and completeness in those three types of translation will never completely coincide with each other because of their diverse character and tasks set to translator (interpreter).

The object of literary translation is the literature itself. And its distinctive feature is a figurative-emotional impact on the reader, which is attained through a great usage of different linguistic means, beginning from epithet and metaphor up to rhythmical-syntactic construction of phrases.

Thus, in order to preserve figurative-emotional impact on the reader while translating a work of art, the translator (interpreter) will try to render all the specific features of the translating material. That's why, on the first place one should reconstruct the specific features of an original and the creation of functional conformities to the features of the original play the subordinate role.

The objects of special translations are materials that belong to different fields of human activities, science and technology. The distinctive feature of this type of translation is an exact expression of the sense of translating material, which is attained through wide usage of special terms.

Thus, in order to render an exact and clear meaning while translating such materials alongside with the selection of term equivalents, on the first place one has to create functional conformities to the features of an original, and the creation of specific features of the original play the subordinate role.

And finally, the objects of social-politic translations are the materials of propaganda and agitation character, and therefore a bright emotional sense abundant with special terms.

Concerning the achievement of adequacy this type of translation possesses the features of literary and special types of translation as well.

The need for translation has existed since time immemorial and translating important literary works from one language into others has contributed significantly to the development of world culture. So what is translation? Dryden defines it like a "judicious blending of metaphrase and paraphrase" when selecting, in the target language, "counterparts", or equivalents, for the expressions used in the source language. When we talk about the history of translation, we should think of the theories and names that emerged at its different periods. In fact, each era is characterized by specific changes in translation history, but these changes differ from one place to another. For example, the developments of translation in the western world are not the same as those in the Arab world, as each nation knew particular incidents that led to the birth of particular theories. Perhaps the best documented example of translation history is that of the Bible, but the work of scholars and great thinkers from all over the world has also been translated. These translations have permitted the cross-germination and exposure to ideas and values that have then spread across the world because of their availability in other languages. In this chapter it will describe and analyze the theories and the development of the translation as a reality more and more met nowadays discussions of the theory and practice of translation reach back into antiquity and show remarkable continuities. The distinction that had been drawn by the ancient Greeks between metaphase ("literal" translation) and paraphrase was adopted by the English poet and translator John Dryden (1631-1700), who represented translation as the judicious blending of these two modes of phrasing when selecting, in the target language, "counterparts", or equivalents, for the expressions used in the source language:

When words appear... literally graceful, it were an injury to the author that they should be changed. But since... what is beautiful in one language is often barbarous, nay sometimes nonsense, in another, it would be unreasonable to limit a translator to the narrow compass of his author's words: 'tis enough if he choose out some expression which does not vitiate the sense. a b c Christopher Kasparek, "The Translator's Endless Toil", p. 83.

Dryden cautioned, however, against the license of "imitation", i.e. of adapted translation: "When a painter copies from the life... he has no privilege to alter features and lineaments..." a b c d e f Kasparek, "The Translator's Endless Toil", p. 84.

This general formulation of the central concept of translation -- equivalence -- is probably as adequate as any that has been proposed ever since Cicero and Horace, in first-century-BCE Rome, famously and literally cautioned against translating "word for word" (verbum pro verbo).²

Despite occasional theoretical diversities, the actual practice of translators has hardly changed since antiquity. Except for some extreme metaphrasers in the early Christian period and the Middle Ages, and adapters in various periods (especially pre-Classical Rome, and the 18th century), translators have generally shown prudent flexibility in seeking equivalents -- "literal" where possible, paraphrastic where necessary -- for the original meaning and other crucial "values" (e.g., style, verse form, concordance with musical accompaniment or, in films, with speech articulatory movements) as determined from context.²

In general, translators have sought to preserve the context itself by reproducing the original order of sememes, and hence word order -- when necessary, reinterpreting the actual grammatical structure. The grammatical differences between "fixed-word-order" languages (e.g., English, French, German) and "free-word-order" languages Typically, synthetic languages. (e.g., Greek, Latin, Polish, Russian) have been no impediment in this regard. When a target language has lacked terms that are found in a source language, translators have borrowed them, thereby enriching the target language. Thanks in great measure to the exchange of calques and loanwords between languages, and to their importation from other languages, there are few concepts that are "untranslatable" among the modern European languages. A greater problem, however, is translating terms relating to cultural concepts that have no equivalent in the target language. Some examples of this are described in the article, "Translating the 17th of May into English and other horror stories".

Generally, the greater the contact and exchange that has existed between two languages, or between both and a third one, the greater is the ratio of metaphrase to paraphrase that may be used in translating between them. However, due to shifts in "ecological niches" of words, a common etymology is sometimes misleading as a guide to current meaning in one or the other language. The English actual, for example, should not be confused with the cognate French actuel (meaning "present", "current"), the Polish aktualny ("present", "current") a b Kasparek, "The Translator's Endless Toil", p. 85. or the Russian актуальный ("urgent, topical").

The translator's role as a bridge for "carrying across" values between cultures has been discussed at least since Terence, Roman adapter of Greek comedies, in the second century BCE. The translator's role is, however, by no means a passive and mechanical one, and so has also been compared to that of an artist. The main ground seems to be the concept of parallel creation found in critics as early as Cicero. Dryden observed that "Translation is a type of drawing after life..." Comparison of the translator with a musician or actor goes back at least to Samuel Johnson's remark about Alexander Pope playing Homer on a flageolet, while Homer himself used a bassoon. If translation be an art, it is no easy one. In the 13th century, Roger Bacon wrote that if a translation is to be true, the translator must know both languages, as well as the science that he is to translate; and finding that few translators did, he wanted to do away with translation and translators altogether.

The first European to assume that one translates satisfactorily only toward his own language may have been Martin Luther, translator of the Bible into German. According to L.G. Kelly, since Johann Gottfried Herder in the 18th century, "it has been axiomatic" that one works only toward his own language. L.G. Kelly, cited in Kasparek, "The Translator's Endless Toil", p. 86.

Compounding these demands upon the translator is the fact that not even the most complete dictionary or thesaurus can ever be a fully adequate guide in translation. Alexander Tytler, in his Essay on the Principles of Translation, emphasized that assiduous reading is a more comprehensive guide to a language than are dictionaries. The same point, but also including listening to the spoken language, had earlier been made in 1783 by Onufry Andrzej Kopczyсski a b Kasparek, "The Translator's Endless Toil", p. 86., member of Poland's Society for Elementary Books, who was called "the last Latin poet".

The special role of the translator in society is aptly described in an essay that was published posthumously in 1803 and that had been written by Ignacy Krasicki -- "Poland's La Fontaine", Primate of Poland, poet, encyclopedist, author of the first Polish novel, and translator from French and Greek:

"Translation... is in fact an art both estimable and very difficult, and therefore is not the labor and portion of common minds; it should be practiced by those who are themselves capable of being actors, when they see greater use in translating the works of others than in their own works, and hold higher than their own glory the service that they render to their country.” Cited by Kasparek, "The Translator's Endless Toil", p. 87, from Ignacy Krasicki, "O tіumaczeniu ksi№g" ("On Translating Books"), in Dzieіa wierszem i proz№ (Works in Verse and Prose), 1803, reprinted in Edward Balcerzan, ed., Pisarze polscy o sztuce przekіadu, 1440-1974: Antologia (Polish Writers on the Art of Translation, 1440-1974: an Anthology), p. 79.

In short, translation has a very wide and rich history in the West. Since its birth, translation was the subject of a variety of research and conflicts between theorists. Each theorist approaches it according to his viewpoint and field of research, the fact that gives its history a changing quality.

The aim of translation

The aim of translation is to provide semantic equivalence between source and target language. This is what makes translation different from other kinds of linguistic activity, such as adapting, prйcis writing, and abstracting. However, there are many problems hidden within this apparently simple statement, all to do with what standards of “equivalence” should be expected and accepted.

Exact equivalence is of course impossible: No translator could provide a translation that was a perfect parallel to the source text, in such respects as rhythm, sound symbolism, puns, and cultural allusions. Such a parallel is not even possible when paraphrasing within a single language: there is always some loss of information.

On the other hand, there are many kinds of inexact equivalence, any of which can be successful at a certain level of practical functioning. It therefore follows that there is no such thing as a “best” translation. The success of a translation depends on the purpose for which it was made, which in turn reflects the needs of the people for whom it was made. An inelegant, rough-and-ready translation of a letter can suffice to inform a firm of the nature of an enquiry. A translation of a scientific article requires careful attention to meaning, but little attention to aesthetic form. The provision of a dubbed film script will warrant scrupulous care over the synchronization of lip movements, often at the expense of content. Literary work requires a sensitive consideration of form as well as content, and may prompt several t

Main types of translation

Translation is a human activity known since ancient times and a translator is among the oldest professions dating back to the biblical era.

The written translation is an operation performed on the languages: a process of substituting a text in one language for a text in another. Many aspects of translation have been covered by other disciplines such as semantics, semiotics, comparative linguistics, linguistic typology, etc.

The process of the written translating from Russian into English covers regular lexical and grammatical equivalence along with intuitive portion that forms the basis of any good translation. Evident inadequacy of regular equivalence in translation has been clearly demonstrated by the failures of so-called Їmachine-translation.

For the translator the process of encoding and formation of the new text makes him a transmitter of the information by means of language.

Translation is a craft consisting in attempt to replace the written message or statement in one language by the message or statement in other language. Each exercise involves some kind of loss of meaning, due to a number of factors. It provokes a continuous tension, a dialectic, an argument based on the claims of each language. The basic loss is on a continuum between overtranslation (increased detail) and undertranslation (increased generalization).

The people whose office is to convey some written or recorded matter in writing are referred to as translators; the people whose office is to render the meaning of any matter in viva voce are referred to as interpreters.

There is wide but not universal agreement that the main aim of the translator is to produce as nearly as possible the same effect on his readers as was produced on the readers of the original. Translation is a human activity known since ancient times and a translator is among the oldest professions dating back to the biblical era and earlier.

We know about translation as much or as little as our ancestors. By tradition it has been outside the mainstream of linguistic science and philosophy. But it would be wrong to say that research of translation was scarce or the results were futile. There are still vast black areas in translation theory and practice to be addressed by linguists and translators.

Translation is one of the most complex problems that the human intellect may face. Everybody is aware that he hesitates a great number of times when facing the necessity of choice (choosing profession, finance, working place, residence, friends etc.). The opulence of existing opportunities for young resolute people makes the choice of future profession, on the one hand, easier because everyone can find something to his taste, but, on the other hand, far more difficult due to excess of possible answer for the question ЇWhat am I going to be?

Nowadays there exists a number of professions considered as popular and fashionable (lawyer, economist, advertising agent etc.); the profession of a translator is among them.

A translator typically operates on the verbal record of an act of communication between source language writer and readers and seeks to relay perceived meaning values to a group of target language receivers as an separate act of communication.

This is an aspect of texture which is of crucial importance to the translator. The structure of the source text becomes an important guide to decisions regarding what should or should not appear in the derived text. Text analysis is, thus, becoming a promising tool in performing more reliable translations. There are numerous studies done on text analysis, which can have interesting messages for translators. For example, the kind of structure frequently reported for argumentative genres include introduction, explanation of the case under discussion, outline of the argument, proof, refutation and conclusion.

As a final word, we may say that in translation we should first try to reconstruct the macro-structure and rhetorical structure of the source text in the target language and then look for the appropriate words and structures; this is a procedure that skillful translators perform in the process of translation consciously or unconsciously.

We are going to talk about the written translation from Russian into English. Translation can be realized at all levels of the language hierarchy: at the level of phonemes: Клайд - The Clyde; at the level of morphemes: стол - table; столы - tables; at the level of words: поздно - late; приходить - to come; at the level of word-combinations: загореться - to catch the fire; at the level of sentences: Коси, коса, пока роса - Make hay while the sun shines; at the level of text (translating poetry).

The written translation is performed at the different levels according to the Theory of Translation Equivalence Levels (TEL Theory by prof. V. Komissarov). They are: sign level (words and word combinations); utterance level (sentence); message level (phrase, paragraph); situation description level (text fragments) and communication level (the whole text).

It is conventionally believed that familiarity with the source and target languages, as well as the subject matter on the part of the translator is enough for a good translation. However, due to the findings in the field of text analysis, the role of text structure in translation now seems crucial.

Conventionally, it is suggested that translators should meet three requirements, namely: Familiarity with the source language, Familiarity with the target language, and Familiarity with the subject matter to perform their job successfully. Based on this premise, the translator discovers the meaning behind the forms in the source language (SL) and does his best to produce the same meaning in the target language (TL) using the TL forms and structures. Naturally and supposedly what changes is the form and the code and what should remain unchanged is the meaning and the message.

Therefore, one may discern the most common definition of translation, i.e., the selection of the nearest equivalent for a language unit in the SL in a target language.

Depending on whether we consider the language unit, to be translated, at the level of word, sentence, or a general concept, translation experts have recognized three approaches to translation: translation at the level of word (word for word translation); translation at the level of sentence, and conceptual translation.

In the first approach, for each word in the SL an equivalent word is selected in the TL. This type of translation is effective, especially in translating phrases and proper names such as United Nations, Ministry of Education, and so on. However, it is problematic at the level of sentence due to the differences in the syntax of source and target languages. Translated texts as a product of this approach are not usually lucid or communicative, and readers will get through the text slowly and uneasily.

When translating at the sentence level, the problem of word for word translation and, therefore, lack of lucidity will be remedied by observing the grammatical rules and word order in the TL while preserving the meaning of individual words. So, sentences such as ЇI like to swim, ЇI think he is clever, and ЇWe were all tired can easily be translated into a target language according to the grammatical rules of that language. Translation at the sentence level may thus be considered the same as the translation at the word level except that the grammatical rules and word order in the TL are observed. Texts produced following this approach will communicate better compared to word for word translation.

In conceptual translation, the unit of translation is neither the word nor is it the sentence; rather it is the concept. The best example is the translation of idioms and proverbs such as the following, cf.: “He gave me a nasty look”, “Do as

Romans do while in Rome", “Carrying coal to Newcastle”, “He kicked the bucket”.

Such idioms and proverbs cannot be translated word for word; rather they should be translated into equivalent concepts in the TL to convey the same meaning and produce the same effect on the readers.

In addition to word-for-word, sentence-to-sentence, and conceptual translations, other scholars have suggested other approaches and methods of translation.

Communicative and semantic translation

There exists communicative and semantic approaches to translation. By definition, communicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the source language. Semantic translation, on the other hand, attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the TL allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original. Semantic translation is accurate, but may not communicate well; whereas communicative translation communicates well, but may not be very precise. Another aspect of translation experts have attended to is the translation processes. For instance, there are three basic translation processes: the interpretation and analysis of the SL text; the translation procedure (choosing equivalents for words and sentences in the TL), and the reformulation of the text according to the writer's intention, the reader's expectation, the appropriate norms of the TL, etc.

There are two types of translation: communicative translation (reader-oriented) and semantic translation (writer-oriented). Communicative translation attempts to produce on its reader an effect as close as possible to that obtained on its reader s of the original.

Semantic translation attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allowed the exact contextual meaning of the original. One basic difference between the two is that communicative (which might be also called pragmatic) must emphasize the Їforce rather than the content of the message.

Every translator with some practical experience will confirm that this indeed so.

1. Утром Марию разбудил громкий стук в дверь.

In the morning, Mary was woken by a sharp knocking at the door.

The question is to the audience: ЇWhat is the level in the following sample? Yes, you are right it`s a sign level: words, word combinations.

2. Резать курицу, несущую золотые яйца.

To kill a goose laying golden eggs.

The question is to the audience: ЇWhat is the level in this sample? Yes, you are right it`s an utterance level: sentence.

3. Не говори «гоп», не перепрыгнув.

There is many slip between the cup and the lip.

The question is to the audience: ЇWhat is the level in this sample? Yes, you are right it`s an utterance level: sentence.

There are two types of translation: communicative translation (reader-oriented) and semantic translation (writer-oriented). Communicative translation attempts to produce on its reader an effect as close as possible to that obtained on its reader s of the original.

Semantic translation attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allowed the exact contextual meaning of the original. One basic difference between the two is that communicative (which might be also called pragmatic) must emphasize the Їforce rather than the content of the message.

The communicative translation „Злая собака Ї Beware of the dog is mandatory; the semantic translation (собака может укусить) would be more informative but less effective. Let`s translate another sample лавка окрашена - wet paint.

According to the denotative approach the process of translation consists of the following steps:

1. Translator reads a message in the source language;

2. Translator finds a denotatum2 and concept3 that corresponds to this message

1 According to Newmark

2= a fragment of the real word, including the inner word of human beings, that corresponds to a given concept

3 = meaning of a language unit (the mental content of the language unit conventionally related to the sign in the minds of language speakers

3. translator formulates a message in the target language relevant to the above denotatum and concept.

This is the main rule for all types of texts translation.

We follow technical texts translation, translation of belle-letters texts and poetry translation.

The equivalent-effect principle and literal translation

The problem of the adequate translation goes back to the past. The nineteenth-century controversy was about whether a translation should incline towards the source or the target language. It is still a dispute how to make the translation faithful versus beautiful, literal versus free, form versus content. The problem demands a considerable imaginative or intuitive effect from the translator.

The emphasis should be done rightly on communication and on the reader 'Who is the reader?' It must be is the translator's first question. The translator should produce a different type of translation of the same text for a different type of audience. The principle emphasizes the importance of the psychological factor. One would want to know how each reader reacts - how he thinks, feels and behaves.

The text relating to an aspect of the culture familiar to the first reader but not to the target language (TL) reader is unlikely to produce equivalent effect: particularly, if originally intended only for the first reader. The translator, therefore, say, in translating the laws of a source-language country, cannot 'bend' the text towards the second reader.

There is the artistic work with a strong local flavour which may also be rooted in a particular historical period. The themes will consist of comments on human character and behaviour--universals, applicable to the reader of the translation, and therefore subject to the equivalent-effect principle. On the other hand, the work may describe a culture remote from the second reader's experience. Here it is the translator`s problem to introduce the material to non-original reader.

In the case of the Bible, the translator decides on equivalent-effect--the nearer he can bring the human truth and the connotations to the reader, the more immediately he is likely to transmit its religious and moral message.

But if the culture is as important as the message (the translator has to decide), he reproduces the form and content of the original as literally as possible (with some transliterations), without regard for equivalent-effect. As Matthew Arnold (1928) pointed out, one cannot achieve equivalent-effect in translating Homer as one knows nothing about his audiences.

This is literal or maximal translation in Nabokov`s sense, ?rendering, as closely as the associative and syntactical capacities of another language allows, the exact contextual meaning of the original`. Syntax, word-order, rhythm, sound, all have semantic values.

Transformations in translation

Grammatical transformations

The translator`s style is influenced according to its grammatical and lexical deviations from ordinary language. The inevitable source of loss is the fact that the two languages, both in their basic character and their social varieties, in context have different lexical, grammatical and sound systems, and segment many physical objects and virtually all intellectual concepts differently.

The unit of translation is always as small as possible and as large as is necessary - grammatically it is usually the group or phrase, but an advertiser is likely to ignore it, whilst a literary translator may try to bring it down to the word. The more the text uses the resources of language, and therefore the more important its form, the greater the losses of meaning.

Consider the problem: a text to be translated is like a particle in an electric field attracted by the opposing forces of the two cultures and the norms of two languages, the idiosyncrasies of one writer (who may infringe all the norms of his own language), and the different requirements of its readers, the prejudices of the translator and possibly of its publisher. Further, the text is at the mercy of a translator who may be deficient in several essential qualifications: accuracy, resourcefulness, flexibility, elegance and sensitivity in the use of his own language, which may save him from failings in two other respects: knowledge of the text's subject matter and knowledge of the source language (SL).

Lexical transformations

The individual uses of language of the text-writer and the translator do not coincide. Everybody has lexical if not grammatical idiosyncrasies, and attaches

Private meanings to a few words. The translator normally writes in a style that comes naturally to him, desirably with a certain elegance and sensitivity unless the text precludes it. A good writer's use of language is often remote from, if not at cross purposes with, some of the conventional canons of good writing, and it is the writer not the canons that the translator must respect.

The appropriate equivalents for keywords should be scrupulously repeated throughout a text, because theme words are the writer's main Concepts and terms of art; in literary works, the stylistic markers are likely to be an author's characteristic words (Thomas Mann's leitmotivs, ''the fair and blue-eyed ones'); An a non-literary text, there is a case for transcribing as well as translating any key-word of linguistic significance.

In literary translation the hardest task is to catch the pace of the original.

General notions

To avoid ambiguity and misinterpretation of the terms pertaining to the translation theory we are to know at follows:

язык оригинала - Source Language (SL); язык перевода - Target Language (TL);

оригинальный текст - Source Text; текст перевода - Target Text;

переводчик - Translator;

устный переводчик /перевод, интерпретация - Interpreter/interpreting; эквивалентность - Equivalence;

формальная эквивалентность - Formal equivalence; динамическая эквивалентность - Dynamic equivalence;

слова, которые не имеют эквивалентов в языке оригинале - Equivalent-lacking words;

точный перевод - Exact/accurate translation/interpretation; адекватный перевод - Faithful translation/interpretation; адекватность перевода - Faithfulness of translation; адаптация - Free adaptation/free interpretation; свободный пересказ - Free interpretation/interpreting; свободный перевод - Free/loose translation/interpretation;

последовательный перевод - Consecutive translating/interpreting; описательный перевод - Descriptive translation/translating; удачный перевод - Good/successful translation; самостоятельный перевод - Independent translation/translating; устный перевод - Interpretation/oral translating;

буквальный перевод - Literal translation/translating; дословный перевод -Verbal translating/translation; литературный перевод - Literary translation/translating;

художественный перевод - Literary artistic translation/translating; перевод без подготовки - 0ff-hand translation/interpreting;

свободная обработка произведения (в произведении) - rehash;

перевод с листа - sight translation/interpreting at sight; синхронный перевод - synchronous interpreting/interpretation;

стихотворный, поэтический перевод - versification;

рабочий вариант перевода - rough translation;

транскрипция - transcription;

транслитерация - transliteration;

трансформация - transformation.

Analyzing the source and target texts we often see that grammar structures do not coincide:

Я хочу, чтобы вы помогли мне I want you to help me

Она хочет, чтобы он ей помог She wants him to help her

Анна хочет, чтобы я помог ей Ann wants me to help her

You may relatively easily arrive at the conclusion that so-called Complex

Object grammar form in English is conveyed in Russian by an Object Clause. Then having built this analytical model of translation you may use it as a pattern to generate similar structures in translation.

Semantic transformations

You may analyze the semantic context to draw conclusions about different meanings of polysemantic words. For instance, you may derive different meanings and translation equivalents of Їcease? from the following set of translation examples: Советский Союз недавно перестал существовать.” - “The Soviet Union?s recently ceased to exist. Фабрика прекратила производство велосипедов.” - “The factory ceased to produce bicycles. Thus, to model translation you should take into account both the grammatical and semantic aspects of the language units involved.

Rules of translation

There are three main rules of translation:

1. The translation should be as literal as possible and as free as it is necessary, the unit of translation should be as small as possible;

2. a source language (SL) word should not normally be translated into a target language (TL) word which has another primary one-to-one equivalent in the source language (тмний should not be always translated as ?dark` if not in established collocations like ?dark eyes`, these collocations are the exception);

3. a translation is impermeable to interference - it never takes over a typical source language collocation, structure or word-order.

These rules apply to literal as to the much more common equivalent-effect translation. Interference, however plausible, is always mistranslation. The translator`s should do his best to avoid it.

3.2 Phraseological problems of translation

Translating a phraseological unit is not an easy matter as it depends on several factors: different combinability of words, homonymy, synonymy, polysemy of phraseological units and presence of falsely identical units, which makes it necessary to take into account of the context. Besides, a large number of phraseolgical units have a stylistic-expressive component in meaning, which usually has a specific national feature. The afore-cited determines the necessity to get acquainted with the main principles of the general theory of phraseology.

The following types of phraseological units may be observed: phrasemes and idioms. A unit of constant context consisting of a dependent and a constant indicators may be called a phraseme. An idiom is a unit of constant context which is characterized by an integral meaning of the whole and by weakened meanings of the components, and in which the dependant and the indicating elements are identical and equal to the whole lexical structure of the phrase.

Any type of phraseological units can be presented as a definite micro-system. In the process of translating phraseological units functional linguistic are selected by comparing two specific linguistic principles. These principles reveal elements of likeness and distinction. Certain parts of these systems may correspond in form and content (completely or partially) or have no adequancy.

The main types of phraseological conformities are as follows:

Complete conformities.

Partial conformities.

Adsence of conformities.

Complete conformities. Complete coincidence of form and content in phraseological units are rarely met with.

“Black frost” - qora sovuq - silniy moroz

“To bring oil to fire” - alangaga yog' quymoq- podlit maslo v ogon.

“To lose one's head”- (doim) gangib qolmoq - poderyat golovu.

Partial conformities of phraseological units in two languageges assume lexical grammatical and lexico-grammatical different with identity of meaning and style i.e. their figuratively close, but fifer in lexical composition morphological number and syntactic arrangement of the order words. One may find:

Partial lexic conformities by lexic parameters “lexical composition”.

To get out of bed on the wrong foot (idiom) - chap yoni bilan turmoq - vstat s levoy nogi.

To have one's heart in one's boots. (idiom) -yuragi orqasiga tortib ketmoq -dusha vi pyatki ushla

To lose one's temper ( phraseme -sabri tugamoq, g'azablanmoq

Viyti iz sebya, poteryat terpeni.

To dance to smb's pipe. (idiom) - birovning nog'orasiga o'ynamoq - plyasat pod chyi lyubov dudku.

Partial conformities by the grammatical parameters

Differing as to morphological arrangement (number).

To fish in troubled waters. (idiom) - loyqa suvda baliq tutmoq lovit ribu v mutnoy bode

From head to foot (idiom) -boshdan oyog'igacha - s golovi do nog

To agree like cats and dogs (phraseme) - it mushukdek yashamoq - jit kak koshka s sobakoy

To keep one's head (idiom) - o'zini yo'qotmaslik

Differing as to syntactical arrangement

Strike while the iron is hot - temirni qizig'ida bosmoq

Egyptian darkness - qop qorong'u zimiston (go'rdek qorong'u)

Armed to teeth - tish tirnog'igacha qurollangan

All not gold that glitters - barcha yaltiragan narsalar oltin emas

Absence of conformities. Many English phraseological units have no phraseological conformities in Uzbek and Russian. In the first instance this concerns phrseological units based realiae. When translating units of this kind it is advisable to us the following types of translation:

A verbatim word for word-translation

Translation by analogy

Descriptive translation,

A verbatim translation is possible when way of thinking (in the phraseological unit) does not bear a specific national feature.

To call thinks by their true names (idiom) - har narsani o'z nomi bilan atamoq

The arms race (phraseme) - qurollanish poygasi

Cold war (idiom) - sovuq urush

To pull smb's leg (idiom) - mazax qilmoq

Descriptive translation.

Descriptive translation i.e. translating phraseological units by a free combination of words is possible when the phraseological unit has a particular national feature and has no anologue in the language it is to be translated into.

To inter the house (phraseme) - parlament a'zosi bo'lmoq

To cross the floor of the house. (idiom) - bir partiyadan boshqa partiyaga o'tib ketmoq.

Conclusion

Functionally and semantically inseparable units are usually called phraseological units. Phraseological units can not be freely made up in speech but are reproduced as readymade units.

The lexical components in phraseological units are stable and they are non - motivated i.e. its meaning cannot be deduced from the meaning of its components and they do not allow their lexical components be charged or substituted.

In phraseological units the individual components do not seem to possess any lexical meaning outside the word group.

Ex: to get rid of

To lead the dance

A.V. Koonin thinks that phraseology must be an independence linguistic science and not a part of lexicology. His classification of phraseological units is based on the function of them in speech. They are nominating, interjectional and communicative.

V.V. Vinogradov classified phraseological units into three groups taking into consideration their motivation. They are:

1) Phraseological fusions: they are such units which are completely non motivated word groups. Ex: to show the white feather this word group the meaning of the whole expression is not derived from the meaning of the components.

2) Phraseological units : the meaning of such word groups can be perceived through the metaphorical meaning of the whole Phraseological unit or the meaning of which may be seen as a metaphorical transference of the meaning of the word group:

Ex: to show one's teeth

To stand to one's guns

3) Phraseological combinations : They include motivated relatively stable word groups. They have a certain degree of stability:

Ex: To take an interest - интересоваться

To fall in love - в любится.

At present the term “ phraseological unit”, is usually used not to al set expressions but only to those which are completely or partially non - motivated1.

Prof. N. Amasova gives two categories of phraseological units depending on wether just one component or both are used in phraseologically bound meaning.

If all the components have idiomatic meaning such phraseological units are called idioms.

Ex: to toe the line = to do exactly as one is told;

a free lance = a person who acts independently.

Idiomacity of phraseological units is lack of word groups. If a word group does not allow word by word translation it is called idiomatic word groups.

Ex: to kick the bucket = to die = умереть

Under the cloud = in a bad mood = в плохом настроении.

Prof. A.I. Smirnitsky states that a phraseological unit may be defined as specific word groups functioning as a word equivalent.

The phraseological unit are single semantically inseparable units. They are used in one function in the sentence and belong to one part of speech.

According to their semantic and grammatical inseparability we classify phraseological units into:

1) Noun equivalents,

Ex: heavy weather

2) Verb equivalent,

Ex: break the news

3) Adverb equivalents,

Ex: in the long run

Imperative phraseological units,

Ex: Dawn him! Lord loves us! etc.

Prof. A. Koonin does not support Smirnitsky's point of view on the equivalence of phraseological units. A. Koonin points out that the components of phraseological units are mounted separately and therefore they cannot be used in one function in the sentence.

Ex: He gets rid of it.

The vocabulary of a language is enriched not only by words but also by phraseological units. Phraseological units are word-groups that cannot be made in the process of speech; they exist in the language as ready-made units.

They are compiled in special dictionaries. The same as words phraseological units express a single notion and are used in a sentence as one part of it. American and British lexicographers call such units «idioms». We can mention such dictionaries as: L. Smith «Words and Idioms», V. Collins «А Book of English Idioms» etc In these dictionaries we can find words, peculiar in their semantics (idiomatic), side by side with word-groups and sentences. In these dictionaries they are arranged, as a rule, into different semantic groups.

Phraseological units can be classified according to the ways they are formed, according to the degree of the motivation of their meaning, according to their structure and according to their part-of-speech meaning.

A.V. Koonin classified phraseological units according to the way they are formed. He pointed out primary and secondary ways of forming phraseological units.

By the classification of Academician V. Vinogradov phraseological units are divided into three groups: phraseological combinations, phraseological unities and phraseological fusions.

The English language is full of idioms (over 15000). Native speakers of English use idioms all the time, often without realizing that they are doing so. Semantically idioms are divided into three classes:

Pure idioms

Semi idioms

Literal idioms

Pure idioms are those which can't be translated word by word, they are non-literal. For example: “spill the beans” has nothing to do with real beans.

Semi-idioms have one or more literal constituents and at least one with a non-literal subsense, usually special to that cooccurance relation no other. Catch has the meaning at their constituents. For example: “on foot Merry Christmas and happy New Year”. Besides idioms can undergo substitution for their parts the near synonyms. And the idioms which are flexible to some degree to such substitution are called idioms of restricted variance. For example: happy (merry) Christmas. The idioms which are inflexible to such change at all are called invariant and fixed idioms. For example: on the contrary; Happy New Year.

Literal idioms - in variant; on foot, one day, in sum, im the meantime, on the contrary arm in arm, very important person ( VIP ), potato chips: tall, darkand handsome; waste not, want not, happy New Year, etc. and set down.

Form irregular, meaning unclear, as in be at large, go great guns, be at daggers drawn.

Functional types of idioms:

Interpersonal idioms. This type of idioms occur in discourse in pragmatic function: greetings, farewells warnings, disclaims.

Relational idioms. Relational is a general form for an attribute characterizing a diverse number of language forms all of which have a cohesive function in a discourse. Relational or textual idioms can accordingly be grouped along with conjunctions, for example “and but”, “or”, “and so because” “it then” etc, as having a textual function. They may be characterized into those which sequence information integrative.

Translation has played a role throughout history any time there has been an intersection of two cultures and languages. And each time one culture has produced a written text, translators serve as the bridge that allows literate members of one culture to be exposed to the written material the other has produced. A lot of scholars and translators made their contribution in the progress and developing of translation, however, a lot of them, especially ancient translators, have often remained unknown or in the background and the credit due to them have not been acknowledged. They have done their job with painstaking efforts despite many violent conflicts that have dotted throughout history. Because of skilled translators and their ability to bridge two languages, today we have access to texts as varied as the richly detailed novels of Walter Scott, Victor Hugo and of others grate writers, scholarly articles, instruction manuals, and pamphlets for non-native Romanian or other languages speakers about health resources. Each of these examples is made possible because of the craft of translation whose history dates back to the first intersection of two cultures with written texts. To sum up, translation history is rich in inventions and theories. Each era is characterized by the appearance of new theorists and fields of research in translation. It is true that the western history of translation is larger and rich in proportion to that of the Arabs, but we should not deny that the translation history of the latter started to develop year by year, especially with the great efforts of Arabic academia in the domain. So, translators have made important contribution over the centuries in dissemination of ideas and information to a larger audience, in shaping of cultures and in a sense helped unite the world.

The list of used literatures

1. Aмосова Н.Н. Основы английской фразеологии Л. 1963.

2. Алехина А.И. Фразеологическая единица и слово. - Минск, 1991.

3. Арнольд И.В. Лексикология современного английского языка. М. 1959.

4. Виноградов В.В. Об основных типах фразеологических единиц в русском языке // Виноградов В.В. Лексикология и лексикография: Избр. Тр. - М.: Наука, 1986.

5. Кунин A.B. Английская фразеология. M., 1970.

6. Кунин А.В. Англо-русский фразеологический словарь. 3-е изд., стереотип. - М.: Русский язык, 2001.

7. Кунин А.В. Фразеология современного английского языка. - М.: Международные отношения, 1996.

8. Кунин А.В.Англо-русский фразеологический словарь, М., 1956.

9. Литвинов П.П. Англо-русский фразеологический словарь с тематической классификацией. - М.: Яхонт, 2000.

10. Морозова Н.Н. “English lexicology” M - 1983

11. Смирницкий А. «Лексикология английского языка» М., 1996 стр. 23.

12. Смирницкий А.И. Лексикология английского языка. М., 1956.

13. Смит Л.П. Фразеология английского языка. - М., 1998.

14. Arnold I.V. The English Word. M. 1986.

15. Bartlett Jere Whiting, "The Nature of the Proverb" 1932.

16. Collins V. «А Book of English Idioms» 1981.

17. English idioms in: Logan Smith. Words and Idioms. London, 1928.

18. Ginzburg R.S. et al. A Course in Modern English Lexicology. M., 1979.

19. Hornby A. The Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Lnd. 1974.

20. Jaii Fredrik Kindstrand “The Greek Concept of proverbs” 1992.

21. Kunin A.V. English Idioms.3d ed. M., 1967.

22. Potter S. Modern Linguistics. Lnd., 1957.

23. Smith L. «Words and Idioms». 1976.

24. Vinogradov V.V. “ Lexicology and Lexicography” M - 1976.

25. Yoo Yushin. "The Legend of Tan-gun." Golden Pond Press, 1987.

26. http:// www.cogweb.com.

...