This paper is devoted to the research of an important question in translation studies, i.e. the study of syntactic problems of translation from English into Russian. The phenomenon draws much attention because of the reason that the theory of translation is not fully developed in the country, and all the linguistic works devoted to the problem of translation from any foreign language into the Russian language somehow contribute to the solution of the problem.

The active interaction of Republic of Kazakhstan with countries of the world community raised a wide range of issues concerning international business activities. Foreign and multinational corporations as well as domestic companies are involved in international deals all over the world. With rapid growth of international business transactions the problems of specialized translation have acquired a vital importance.

More specifically, translation is the process and result of creating in a target, or, translating, language a text which has approximately the same communicative value as the corresponding text in the source language. A translator makes possible the exchange of information between the users of different languages by producing a text in the target language which has an identical communicative value with the source text. This target text is not fully similar to the source text as to its form or content due to the limitations imposed by the formal and semantic differences between the source language and the target language.

The structure of the translated text should follow that of the original one: there should be no change in the sequence of narration or in the arrangement of the segments of the text. translation syntactic communicative sentence

The choice of the theme is conditioned by the fact that the translation is important because a lot of developed countries use English as a world language. So as to provide the pragmatics of translation we should learn the peculiarities of business text translation. In addition, the study of grammar allows a student, a future translator to acquire a definite grammatical system.

1. Types of translation

1.1 Classification criteria

There are some criteria for classifying translation:

The first one is based on who does the translation. These days translation may be done by a human translator or by computer.

Form of speech: according to this criterion, translation as a written form, sight translation (or translation-at-sight, on-sight translation) as the oral translation of written text, and interpreting as oral translation of oral discourse are differentiated. This criterion also involves subtitling, that is visual translation involving the superimposition of written text onto the screen, and dubbing, or the replacement of the original speech by a voice track which attempts to follow as closely as possible the timing, phrasing and lip movements of the original dialogue.

Source text perception: a translator can see or hear the text.

Time lapse between the source text perception and translation: consecutive and simultaneous interpreting.

Number of languages in translation situation: one-way or two-way translation.

Direction of translation: direct translation, that is, translation into the mother-tongue, and inverse translation, or translation into a foreign language.

Methods of interpreting: note-taking interpretation, phrase-by-phrase interpretation

Functional style and genre of the text: literary works and informative texts.

1.2 Machine translation

The first idea of machine translation is known to have been expressed in 1933 by the Soviet engineer Petr Smirnov-Troyansky but it is not he but Warren Weaver who is credited as the founding father of Machine Translation (MT) research. The first demonstration of an MT system took place in 1954 in Georgetown University, U.S.A., where the experiment of making a computer translate words from Russian into English was conducted.

Machine translation is based on analysis and synthesis operations and has required many years of hard work and frustrations. Sometimes the end-product of the machine translation was so ridiculous (like Out of sight, out of mind. - Слепой идиот), that in the 1960s there happened a machine translation `recession'. However, with third-generation computer systems emerging in the 1970s, interest in machine translation was revived. Word-processors appeared and today's translators cannot imagine their lives without them.

Today, machine translation is often called computer-aided translation (CAT). CAT systems are divided into two groups: machine-aided human translation (MAHT) and human-aided machine translation (HAMT). The difference between the two lies in the roles of computer and human translator.

In MAHT, a translator makes the translation, then uses the computer as a tool for typing, checking spelling, grammar, style; for printing the target text, for looking up words in electronic dictionaries and data bases, for getting references on CD-ROMs and other sources, for consulting about contexts, for discussing problems in the web, for seaching a job, etc.

In HAMT, the translation is automated, done by a computer but requiring the assistance of a human editor. There are two phases of human help: pre-editing and post-editing. In pre-editing, an operator (or a customer) prepares the text for input. A special computer translation program transfers the text from one language to another. Then a translator does the post-editing, mostly by correcting the word usage.

Machine translation has a number of advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is, first and foremost, its fast speed, which saves time, so important these days. The computer is tireless; it can work day and night. Now that there are lap-tops, a computer is a very flexible and convenient tool: it can accompany a translator anywhere. Computers are also of great help to disabled people, especially computers working with a human voice.

On the other hand, computers are restricted to the materials. They can translate only clichйd texts. They cannot translate unpredictable texts, like fiction, for example. Usually they provide `raw translation'. Another disadvantage is that they are still rather expensive. They require constant upgrading, which is usually not cheap. Computer viruses are a serious danger to work. And computers are not absolutely safe for human health, either.

1.3 Translation and interpreting

Difference in written translation and interpreting has been fixed by two international professional associations: F.I.T. (Fйdйration Internationale des Traducteurs) or the International Federation of Translators, the association of written translators; and A.I.I.C. (Association Internationale des Interprиtes de Conferйnce), or the International Association of Conference Interpreters, dealing with oral translation.

As is seen from the name of the professional association, interpreters are often called conference interpreters, though their functions can be much broader. Conference interpreting is known to have started after World War I, at the Conference on the Preliminaries of Peace in 1919. Until then all international meetings had been held in French, the language of 19^th century diplomacy.

The first conference interpreters did consecutive interpreting, i.e. they delivered their translation after listening to the speaker so that there was some time between the source language text and the translation. The interpreters worked in teams of two, each into his mother tongue. At the League of Nations, interpreters went to the rostrum to deliver their translation as soon as the speaker had finished. Occasionally speeches lasted well over an hour, so the interpreters, considering it bad taste to interrupt a speaker, developed a technique of consecutive interpreting with note-taking.

Two Geneva conference interpreters, J.-F. Rozan and J. Herbert, after having reviewed their own as well as their colleagues' writing pads, came to the conclusion that although each interpreter had his or her own manner of writing, there was something common to all the notes reviewed. This brought to life recommendations to would-be interpreters on how to take notes in order to memorize the message and not to interrupt the speaker.

Unlike shorthand, an interpreter's system of note-taking or speedwriting is not a word-for-word recording of speech. It is based on the conceptual representation of the message utterance by utterance and helps to single out the main idea of the speaker. The main principles of note-taking are as follows:

only key-words and the so called `precision' words (i.e. words conveying unique information, e.g., proper names, statistics, etc.) are put down;

words are contracted (vowels are omitted, the so-called Arabic approach);

special symbols are used;

the syntactic structure has a vertical progression:

Subject group

Predicate

Object

Object (homogeneous parts of the sentence are written one under the other).

The `sentence-by-sentence' interpreting often found in liaison and community interpretingб is not regarded now as `true consecutive'. Liaison interpreting takes place in spontaneous conversational settings, while community interpreting is typical of the public service sphere.

These days consecutive interpreting is used mostly in bilateral contacts, to serve only two languages.

Interpreting may take place in two directions when the interpreter has to work for both language participants. This is a two-way, or bidirectional, translation (interpretation) and it requires a special skill of switching the languages to speak to, suppose, a Russian participant in Russian and to an English participant in English and not vice versa. A one-way interpreting means translation from one language only and is usually employed for summit meetings.

There is a sub-variety of the consecutive interpreting, known as postponed consecutive interpreting. This is a translation which is not performed in the presence of the participants, but which is dictated from the interpreter's notes into a dictating machine or typed, in case the participants have understood the speaker but want to think over the discourse to take appropriate decisions on it.

Consecutive interpreters are also called linear interpreters, for their translation is in line with the source text unlike simultaneous translation that overlaps the original speech.

Simultaneous interpreting, i.e. interpreting almost immediately as the speaker produces the text (the interpreter can lag behind the speaker not more than 2 or 3 seconds), came into life much later, at the Nuremberg trials (1945-1946) and Tokyo trials (1946-1948) of war criminals, though some attempts had been made in the late 1920s and the early 1930s. In the USSR, simultaneous interpreting was first introduced at the 6^th Congress of the Communist International in 1928, with the interpreters sitting in the front row of the conference hall trying to catch speakers' words coming from the rostrum, and talking into heavy microphones hanging on strings from their necks. Isolated booths for interpreters appeared five years later, in 1933.

Simultaneous interpreting gained ground at the United Nations Organization that began the era of multilateral diplomacy. Today's simultaneous interpreters, unlike their predecessors, are provided with special equipment. They work in a special booth, listening through a headset to the speaker in the conference room and interpreting into a microphone, while at the same time watching what is going on in the meeting room through the booth window or viewing projections on the TV screen. Delegates in the conference room listen to the target-language version through a headset.

Simultaneous translation is usually employed at multilanguage (multilateral) meetings, so that conference participants can switch their headphones to the appropriate language channel.

Simultaneous interpreting is very exhausting work. It requires extremely concentrated attention. The interpreter should adjust his/her own speech tempo to that of the speaker. Several skills are simultaneously featured: listening, speaking, switching to another language, compressing information. Simultaneous interpreting is possible due to the human ability to anticipate and forecast what will be said in some minutes (вероятностное прогнозирование). To do it, one must have a good command of the subject matter under discussion. Since the simultaneous interpreter's work is so intense and the conditions are extreme, interpreters are usually changed at the microphone every 20 or 30 minutes.

Simultaneous translation may take place not only in the special booth. There is also whispered interpreting (or chuchotage) where the interpreter sits between the participants and whispers his/her translation to them. This type of translation is often used in a business meeting.

The simultaneous interpreter can get the source text in written form, which does not make his/her job easier, since the interpreter has to do simultaneously three jobs: read, listen and interpret. It is a most strenuous task, for the interpreter has to be watchful of the speaker deviating from the text.

Written translation is also divided into sub-varieties. It may be a visual translation (a written text is before the translator's eyes), translation by ear (in this case the translator listens to the text and writes the translation: dictation-translation), sight translation, (i.e. translation of the written text without preliminary reading, usually done orally).

The most obvious differences between written translation and interpreting are as follows:

translators have time to polish their work, while interpreters have no time to refine their output

any supplementary knowledge, for example terminological or world knowledge, can be acquired during written translation but has to be acquired prior to interpreting

translators can re-read their texts, they do not have to memorize big segments, while interpreters are able to listen to the text but once

interpreters have to make decisions much faster than translators

unlike written translation, interpreting requires attention sharing and involves severe time constraints. Following the United Nations norms of six to eight pages of written translation per day, the professional translator typically produces about five words per minute or 300 words per hour. The simultaneous interpreter, in contrast, has to respond instantly at a rate of 150 words per minute or 9000 words per hour.

2. Syntactic changes in translation

2.1 Communicative structure of the English and Russian sentence

It is well known that languages differ in their grammatical structure. Apart from having different grammatical categories they differ in the use of those categories that seem to be similar. This naturally results in the necessity to introduce some grammatical changes in the translated version of any text. These changes depend on the character of correlation between the grammatical norms of the source and target languages. Various as they are, all the possible changes may be classed under four main types: transpositions, replacements, additions, and omissions.

There may appear a necessity to rearrange elements of different levels: words, phrases, clauses or even sentences. Transposition of words and phrases may be caused by various reasons: differences in the accepted word order in the source language and the target language, presence or absence of emphasis, differences in the means of communicative syntax.

Each sentence can be spoken of in different aspects. A syntactic aspect implies the sentence analysis in terms of parts of the sentence (sentence subject, predicate, object, attribute, adverbial modifier). Syntax reveals the relation of sentence parts to each other. A semantic aspect implies the relation of sentence components to the elements of the real situation named by the sentence. This can be done in terms of case grammar or reference theory, or by singling out the agent, object and other semantic roles. A third aspect is pragmatic, or communicative. It implies the relation of the sentence to its users. The speaker makes up a sentence so as to stress logically this or that part of the information conveyed by the sentence. Therefore, this type of sentence structure is called information (communicative) structure, and this type of sentence analysis is referred to as actual division of the sentence, or functional sentence perspective.

Normally, each sentence develops from a known piece of information, called the theme, to a new one, called the rheme. The rhematic component is the information center of the sentence. It is logically stressed. It can be easily singled out in speech by contrasting it to some other word: The early bird catches the worm, not the trap. The early bird catches the worm, not the late one. The rhematic word usually answers a special question: e.g., Whom does the early bird catch? - The early bird catches the worm. What kind of bird catches the worm? - The early bird catches the worm.

In addition to the methods of contrasting and questioning, there are some other signals for the rhematic component. They include:

the indefinite article of the sentence subject: A little evil is often necessary for obtaining a great good.

a long extended part of the sentence; compare: Many people saw it. - People saw it.

negation: Not he who has much is rich, but he who gives much.

intensifiers (only, even, just, such as, etc.): Only the educated are free. (Cf. The educated are free.)

some special constructions (there is; it is… (who); passive constructions with the by-agent expressed): It is human nature to think wisely and to act foolishly.

The sentence communicative structure is different in English and in Russian. In Russian it is more rigid, which compensates a loose word order of the sentence. English fixed word order, on the other hand, is compensated by a free, to some extent, functional sentence perspective. In Russian neutral style, the theme precedes the rheme, which means that a logically stressed part of the sentence is in the final position. In English, the rheme can be interrupted by the theme or even precede the theme: There is an unknown word in the text. (T-R-T) - В тексте есть незнакомое слово. (T-R).

2.2 Word order change due to the functional sentence perspective

Thus, the rhematic subject in English usually takes the initial position, whereas in Russian it should be placed at the end of the sentence: A faint perfume of jasmine came through the open window. (O.Wilde) - Сквозь открытое окно доносился легкий аромат жасмина. A waitress came to their table. - К их столику подошла официантка.

This transformation is evident in comparing the structures with the subjects introduced by the definite and indefinite articles. A sentence that has the definite article with the subject has the same word order: The woman entered the house. - Женщина вошла в дом. On the other hand, a word order change takes place in a similar sentence if its subject is determined by the indefinite article: A woman entered the house. - В дом вошла женщина.

To emphasize the rhematic subject of the sentence, the construction it is … that (who) can be used in English. For example, It is not by means of any tricks or devices that the remarkable effect of Milton's verse is produced. - Удивительный эффект стихов Мильтона объясняется вовсе не какими-то особыми ухищрениями. The rhematic component is positioned at the end of the Russian sentence. Another example: It was the Russian-born American physicist Vladimir Zworykin who made the first electronic television in the 1920s. - Именно Владимир Зворыкин, американский физик русского происхождения, создал электронный телевизор в 20-х годах XX столетия. In Russian, the emphasis on the semantic center of the sentence is made either with the help of the intensifier (именно), or else the meaning can be rendered through a change of word order: Электронный телевизор в 20-х годах XX столетия создал Владимир Зворыкин, американский физик русского происхождения.

Thematic components in Russian are shifted to the initial position, which often happens with objects and adverbial modifiers: It was early for that. - Для этого еще было рано. A typical case is the sentence introduced by there is/are. Here the subject is rhematic and the adverbial modifier of place is thematic. Therefore, the construction is normally translated into Russian with the adverbial in the initial position: There is a book on the table. - На столе лежит книга. Compare this sentence with one of a thematic subject: The book is on the table. - Книга лежит на столе. If there is no adverbial modifier of place in the English sentence (to start the translation), the sentence beginning with there is is rendered in Russian by the verb существует: There are three kinds of solid body. - Существует три вида твердого тела.

Adverbial modifiers of place and time are usually mirrored in translation. Being thematic, they are positioned in the beginning of the Russian sentence, and in English they take the final position: Вчера в Москве состоялась встреча президента России с президентом Франции. - A meeting of the Russian president and the French president was held in Moscow yesterday.

A rhematic component expressing the agent of the action in the passive construction cannot be placed as the initial subject of the translated sentence: The telephone was invented by A. Bell. corresponds to Телефон изобрел А. Белл. (not to А. Белл изобрел телефон.)

2.3 Sentence partitioning and integration

Sentence partitioning means substituting a complex or compound sentence with several simple ones, or a simple sentence with a complex one, containing some clauses.

Sentence integration is the opposite transformation - substituting several simple sentences with a complex/compound one, or a complex sentence with a simple one.

These transformations can occur for the following reasons:

Grammar structure differences between the source language and the target language. For example, there are some special constructions in English that do not exist in Russian. They are translated by a complex sentence (the Complex Object, Complex Subject, Absolute constructions, etc.).

I want you to speak English fluently. - Я хочу, чтобы вы бегло говорили по-английски.

They sat down to supper, Manson still talking cheerfully. - Они сели ужинать, а Мэнсон все еще оживленно говорил.

Sentence integration is necessary when the English sentence starts with the conjunctions or, nor, but, for, since the beginning of this type is alien to Russian written speech: Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to. (Shaw) - Человек -единственное существо, которое краснеет или которому надо бы краснеть.

Semantics. If two or more separate ideas are linked together in the source text (which sometime may reveal bad style), a translator can partition them. For example,

Мы получили очень краткую информацию о Вашем фонде, поэтому не можем точно определиться с порядком направления вам заявок и направляем вам это письмо. - We have received very brief information about your Fund. Therefore, we do not know exactly the requirements for application. That is why we send you this letter.

Sentence integration can take place because of the close semantic bonds between the sentences. For instance, Это хозяйство занимается выращиванием овощей и зерна, имеет молочное стадо. Этой деятельностью хозяйство занимается длительный период времени. - This farm has been growing vegetables and grains and breeding dairy herd for a long period of time.

Genre and style requirements.

English-speaking journalists are known to conjoin several ideas in one sentence (which is especially typical of the lead sentence). When translated into Russian, these sentences are usually partitioned: The 23 foreign ministers are due to meet on May 11-12 at the end of the conference when it had been hoped that they would sign an accord allowing surveillance flights over each other's territory. - 23 министра иностранных дел должны встретиться 11-12 мая, к концу работы конференции. Предполагалось, что они подпишут неофициальное соглашение о взаимных контрольных полетах над территорией своих государств.

Weather forecasts in English newspapers are usually expressed by long sentences. In Russian, the style and genre require short sentences, with the loss of expressiveness typical of an English forecast. For example,

Mist and coastal fog patches over Scotland will also thin to offer a bright start, but with more general clouds, and occasional rain will arrive from the west by late morning. - Туман на побережье Шотландии и морось рассеются. Ожидается солнечный день, временами облачно. К полудню на западе возможны кратковременные дожди.

2.4 Handling equivalent forms and structures

The syntactic structuring of the text is an important characteristic. It identifies either the genre of the text or its author's style.

The bulk of the information in the original text is conveyed by its lexical elements, but the semantic role of grammatical forms and structures should not be overlooked by the translator. Often translator may use parallel forms and structures in TL, as in the following example:

The Industrial Revolution brought into being the industrial proletariat and with it the fight for civil and political rights, trade union organization and the right to vote.

Промышленная революция вызвала к жизни промышленный пролетариат и вместе с ним борьбу за гражданские и политические права, тред-юнионы и право голоса.

However, in most cases there is never an absolute identity between the meaning and usage of the parallel forms in SL and TL. For instance, English and Ukrainian infinitive forms have a number of formal and functional differences - perfect forms, both active and passive, indefinite and continuous, which are absent in the respective grammatical category in Ukrainian. The idea of priority or non-performed action expressed by the Perfect Infinitive is not present in the meaning of the Ukrainian Infinitive and has to be rendered in translation by some other means.

She expected to have been given some flowers.

We should also take note of the Continuative Infinitive which we translate as one more predicate. Parliament was dissolved, not to meet again for eleven years. Парламент был распущен и не созывался в течение 11 лет. Не came home to find his wife gone. Он вернулся домой и обнаружил, что жена ушла. She went to Africa to die.

A similar difference can be observed if one compares the finite forms. In English the passive forms are more numerous and are more often used. As a result, the meaning of the passive verb in the source text is often rendered by an active verb in the translation:

This port can be entered by big ships only during the tide. Большие корабли могут заходить в этот порт только во время прилива. (The sentence can certainly be translated in some other way, e.g. Этот порт доступен для больших кораблей только во время прилива.)

A most common example of dissimilarity between the parallel syntactic devices in the two languages is the role of the word order. Both languages use a "direct" and an "inverted" word order. The English word order in most cases, is direct: subject-predicate-object.

This order of words is often changed in the Ukrainian translation. The elements that convey new information (the rheme) lean towards the end of non-emphatic sentences. Thus if the English sentence "My son entered the room" is intended to inform us who entered the room, its Ukrainian equivalent will be «В комнату вошел мой сын» but in case its purpose is to tell us what my son did, the word order will be preserved: «Мой сын вошел в комнату».

In case of fronting, object -subject-predicate makes the object carry a great communicative load. So the translator has to use some additional words to express the same idea:

Money he had none. Денег у него не было ни гроша.

We may use partitioning or the integrating procedures.

The two boys flew on and on towards the village, speechless with horror.

Мальчики бежали вперед и вперед по направлению к деревне. Они онемели от ужаса.

A parallel form may have a different stylistic connotation. For instance, the English asyndetically (безсполучникова) form is bookish while its Ukrainian counterpart is predominantly colloquial. As a result, it is usually replaced in the target text by a clause with a conjunction, e.g.:

Had the Security Council adopted the Soviet proposal, it would have been an important step towards the solution of the problem.

Если бы Совет Безопасности принял советское предложение, это было бы важным шагом к решению проблемы.

To sum it up, the translator usually finds it possible to make a relatively free choice among the possible grammatical arrangements of TT, provided the basic relationships expressed by the SL grammatical categories are intact.

Replacements or substitutions are also made at different levels. We have already considered the replacements of some grammatical categories and the substitution of one part of speech by another to conform to the demands of the grammatical system of the target language.

We have defined that the so-called notional parts of speech may differ in the source and target languages in the set of syntactic functions that they perform in the sentence. That is why translation should always be based on a thorough syntactic analysis since it is not the grammatical form itself but rather its function in the sentence that predetermines the way of translation. For example, before translating an infinitive it is necessary to state its role in the sentence - to see if it functions as a subject, object, attribute, or adverbial modifier, etc. If it is an adverbial modifier, it is essential to see its type - an adverbial modifier of purpose, of result, of attendant circumstances, etc. After this functional and semantic analysis it is possible to render the infinitive into Russian using any part of speech in the corresponding function (or changing the structure of the sentence in order to express the same idea according to the norms of the target language).

One of the most important syntactic peculiarities of the English is the existence of secondary predication created by various participial and infinitive constructions. These constructions are included in the structure of simple sentences in English while Russian simple sentences have only one predicative center. This way leads to the necessity of substituting Russian composite sentences for simple sentences of the original text, for example, the objective participial construction is rendered in Russian by a simple sentence. The first part of the construction is translated by noun (pronoun) in a genitive case and the second part of the construction is rendered by a verb:

They got the project endorsed.

Они добились утверждения проекта.

In all these cases we observe the change of word or phrase order in the process of English-Russian translation.

There is a considerable dissimilarity in the semantic structure of attributive groups in English and in Russian. The first group of problems stems from the broader semantic relationships between the attribute and the noun. As has been pointed out the attribute may refer not only to some property of the project but also to its location, purpose, cause, etc. As a result the translator has to make a thorough analysis of the context to find out what the meaning of the group is in each particular case. He must be also aware of the relative freedom of bringing together such semantic elements within the attributive group in English that are distanced from each other by a number of intermediate ideas. Thus a resolution submitted by an executive body of an organization may be described as the executive resolution and the majority of votes received by such a resolution will be the executive majority. If a word-for-word translation of the name of the executive body (e.g. the executive committee - исполнительный комитет) may satisfy the translator, the other two attributive groups will have to be explicated in the Russian translation as резолюция respectively.

The second group of problems results from the difficulties in handling multi-member attributive structures. The English speaking people make wide use of multi-storied structures with complicated internal semantic relationships. The tax paid for the right to take part in the election is described as the poll tax. The states where this tax is collected are the poll tax states and the governors of these states are the poll tax states governors. Now these governors may hold a conference which will be referred to as the poll tax states governors conference and so on.

There are some rare cases when an English attribute follows the noun: the man next door - человек живущий по соседству, сосед. Sometimes the position of the attribute changes the meaning of the phrase:

He is a hardworking and responsible employee.

Он трудолюбивый и отвественный сотрудник.

You will be the person responsible if anything goes wrong in the project.

Если проект не будет осуществлен, ты будешь виноват.

One more thing we want to mention is that to translate English grammatical forms and constructions one should not necessarily look for the same forms and constructions in Russian - there may be none. Nevertheless, it is always possible to translate them adequately since it is not the form itself but its meaning and function in the sentence that should be rendered in translation. That is why translation of any such unit should begin with its semantic and functional analysis. It can be illustrated with the problem of rendering the definite and indefinite articles. Unless articles have some special role in the sentence or some additional meaning, they are not translated at all-they are merely omitted. However, there are cases when articles are used to mark the rhyme of the sentence. Here again there is no need to translate the article itself: it is necessary to find the proper word order placing the noun which is the rhyme of the English sentence in a rhematic position in Russian (most often it is the final position). Sometimes, besides their usual meaning of definiteness or indefiniteness articles have some additional meaning, for example, the indefinite article used with personal names has the meaning “some, a certain”, showing that someone is unknown to the speaker. The indefinite article may also coincide in its meaning either with the pronoun “one” or with the numeral “one”. There are many more meanings which the article may combine with its main grammatical function. In this respect translation of articles does not differ from translation of other words-first its meaning should be analyzed and then a proper word of the target language can be chosen.

As for the so-called notional parts of speech, they may differ in the source and target languages in the set of syntactic functions that they fulfill in the sentence. That is why translation should always be based on a thorough syntactic analysis since it is not the grammatical form itself but rather its function in the sentence that predetermines the way of translation. For example, before translating an infinitive it is necessary to state its role in the sentence - to see if it functions as a subject, object, attribute, or adverbial modifier, etc. If it is an adverbial modifier, it is essential to see its type-an adverbial modifier of purpose, of result, of attendant circumstances, etc. After this functional and semantic analysis it is possible to render the infinitive into Russian using any part of speech in the corresponding function (or changing the structure of the sentence in order to express the same idea according to the norms of the target language).

Conclusion

The goal of the paper has been to identify syntactical problems of translation from English into Russian. According to the goal of the investigation we have specified the main features of a text, described the peculiarities of grammar, revealed and studied grammatical peculiarities of transport text translation.

While research done we have come to the conclusion that regarding the grammatical differences of the source language and the target language it can be said that the choice of grammatical units in the target text largely depends on the semantics and combinability of its lexical elements. Therefore there are practically no permanent grammatical equivalents. The variable equivalents in the field of grammar may be analogous forms in the target language or different forms with a similar meaning. As often as not such equivalents are interchangeable and the translator has a free choice between them. The use of occasional equivalents is here more common than in the case of the lexical units.

The difficulties that can of specific difficulty for a translator in the process of translation form English into Russian may the absence of those grammar forms available in English.

One of the most important syntactic peculiarities of the English language is the existence of secondary predication created by various participial and infinitive constructions. These constructions are included in the structure of simple sentences in English while Russian simple sentences have only one predicative center. This way leads to the necessity of substituting English composite sentences for simple sentences of the translation text. Actually, translation of specifically English grammatical constructions consists of two stages: first it is necessary to understand their meaning and then find a corresponding way of expressing it in Russian. For the purpose of translation, grammar does not exist separately. It is not the grammatical form but the grammatical meaning that is of primary concern for a translator or an interpreter. A mistake in grammar (whether it is a misunderstood construction of the source language or a wrong variant in the target language) always tells on the sense and logic of the text. As soon as the sense and logic of a sentence stop to be transparent it is necessary to stop and look for a mistake in the translation.

The next critical point we would like to stress in the conclusion is that all the translational transformations used to render one of grammatical aspects of a business document text is that these transformations must meet all translation norms of the target language and avoid distorting the stylistic value of the text.

We have come to the conclusion that English and Russian languages differ in their grammatical structure. Apart from having different grammatical categories they differ in the use of those categories that seem to be similar. This naturally results in the necessity to introduce some grammatical changes in the translated version of any text. These changes depend on the character of correlation between the grammatical norms of the source and target languages. Various as they are, all the possible changes may be classed under four main types: transpositions, replacements, additions, and omissions.

1. Transpositions involve changing the order of words in the target text as compared to the source text and may appear a necessity to rearrange elements of different levels: words, phrases, clauses or even sentences. Transpositions of words and phrases may be caused by various reasons: differences in the accepted word order in the source language and the target language, presence or absence of emphasis, differences in the means of communicative syntax.

2. Replacements are also made at different levels.

Replacement of word forms to conform to the demands of the grammatical system of the target language;

Replacement of parts of speech - they often have to replace one part of speech by another;

Replacement of parts of the sentence.

Replacement of a complex sentence by a simple one. Here we single out a variety in business document translation, that is, dividing a long sentence into several shorter sentences.

Replacement of subordination by coordination and vice versa.

3. Addition in translation which is a device intended for the compensation of structural elements implicitly present in the source text or paradigm forms missing in the target language.

4. Omission which is reduction of the elements of the source text considered redundant from the view point of the target language structural patterns and stylistics.

All these main types of grammatical transformations have been found in the process of analysis of the original and translation texts of business documents.

Bibliography

1. Ильиш Б.А. О частях речи в английском языке, Сб. вопросы теории частей речи, Москва, 1959. - 141 с.

2. Бархударов Л.С. Структура простого предложения современного английского языка, Москва, 1966. - 296 с.

3. Maclin A. Reference Guide to English: A Handbook of English as a Second Language. Washington, D.C., 1996. - 405 p.

4. Новицкая Т.М., Кучин Н.Д. Практическая грамматика английского языка. Москва, Высшая школа, 1983.- 399с.

5. Стелинг В.А. Структура английского языка, Москва, 1957. - 216 с.

6. Gordon E.M., Krylova I. P. Grammar of Present-Day English. Moscow, 1973. - 336 p.

7. Каушанская В.Л. Грамматика английского языка. Ленинград, 1973. - 319 с.

8. Прошина З.Т. Теория перевода. Владивосток: Изд-во Дальневост. ун-та, 2008. -233 c.

9. Комиссаров В.Н. Кораллова А. Практикум по переводу с английского языка на русский. Москва, 1990, - 127c.

10.Бархударов Л. С. Язык и перевод, Москва, Международные отношения, 1975. - 240 c.

11. Петрова О.В. Введение в теорию и практику перевода. Москва, 2006. - 96 с.

Размещено на Allbest.ru