Importance of lexical transformations in translation realities

In translation studies there is an idea that the main guiding principles of equivalence in text are communicative and functional features, which are composed of equal communicative effect produced by the recipients of the original and translated texts. With this postulate, one would agree with some reservations and requests. However, the interpretation of communicative and functional equivalence claims that, creating a text in the language B, the translator builds it in such way that the recipient of language B perceived it as well as the recipient of the language A. In other words, ideally the translator himself must not contribute the messages or elements of his own perception into the text, e.i. different from the perception by the recipient to whom it was addressed this message. In fact, the perception of an interpreter and any other recipients of the speech cannot be the same due to a variety of personal, cultural and social reasons. For instance, translator of fiction doesn't see the text as an average native speaker, but as receptor of a specific servant of “high art of translation”. And of course, he did not push his translation under the perception of the two abstract entities: foreign reader X's and native Y-book lover. Because all these X's and Y-perceptions cannot be cloned. They are certainly different in something. And the true meaning of the work of art never exhausted completely and the approach to this - is never-ending process.

Latyshev in his book says about the term of "linguistic norm" - which is a linguistic system following the factor that controls speech production. It is a kind of filter, which seemed to miss or delay something that is capable to produce the language system: miss that really exists, functions in language and recognized by society as correct, and "filters" those products of the system that really do not exist in the language, and aren't used in speech. But if they are used, they are recognized as incorrect. In the words of the famous linguist E.Koseriu “the norm” - is a "collective realization of the system."

"The norm" in Latyshev's opinion - is collective notion of speakers that is right and wrong in language and speech. This norm as existing objectively in language is reflected in grammars, dictionaries, reference books. These products of possible linguistic system as "writer", "reader", "information would help to ...", etc., are examples to illustrate the capabilities of the system, contrary to the linguistic norm. The norm is not something inviolable. It has variants, there are variations, deviations from the norm. Another factor that regulates the origin of speech (the text) is the rate of speech. It has another, more concise name - "Usus (Language Usage)", which for the sake of convenience we will mainly use in the future.

Usus (Language Usage) is considered as another kind of filter that follows the filter formed by the language norm. Filter formed by the linguistic norm, eliminates these types of irregularities, which are absolute, because what contradicts the linguistic norm is always wrong. And the incorrect utterance in the linguistically normative attitude in one case, can't be correct in another. For instance, if the phrase "This indicates a great danger" is wrong, being delivered from the podium of a large meeting, it would be equally wrong if pronounced in the company of friends at the table. In common parlance it is called as illiterate.

Another case of "Language Usage" - it "filters" products of the language system not by criterion “this is right or wrong”, but by the notion as more preferred or less preferred. The term was derived from the Latin - “usus”, which means "the use, consumption, custom." There are own customs and traditions in language, and in verbal communication of people. At the same situation about the same subject could be said in different ways. Let us say, about the price in market we can ask, "How much cucumbers?" or "How much are the cucumbers?" or "How much do cucumbers cost?". All of these variants are correct not only because of Russian language norms, but also because of the common usage, i.e. usus match, as they are typical in Russian to communicate on the subject of prices. You might be understood and answered to your question, if you ask about the price in another way, such as "What is the price of your cucumbers?" or "How much do you want for your cucumbers?" or "Are your cucumbers expensive?". All these phrases are also correct from the point of Russian standards view, but they are less common in usage, i.e. less typical for the situation of communication, where they are used.

So, usus (Language Usage) - these are the rules of the situational use of the language. It reflects the speech habits and traditions of the language community. The use of usual options of speech contributes to the success of speech communication and vice versa. One of the main reasons that we sometimes understand hard foreigners speaking in Russian, is that they use an excessive amount of non-usual phrases and expressions. To learn how different the usus of different language groups, could be judged by the standards of Russian and German inscriptions and signs:

Берегись автомобиля! - Achtung Ausfahrt!- Beware of the Car!

Справочное бюро-Auskunft - Reference Bureau

От себя (надпись на двери) - Drьcken -Push (the inscription on the door)

К себе (надпись на двери) - Ziehen - Pull (the inscription on the door)

Осторожно, окрашено! - Frisch gestrichen - Wet paint!

Камера хранения-Gepдckaufbewahrung - Luggage storage

Руками не трогать! - Nicht berьhren - Do not touch!

Запасной выход -Notausgang Emergency - Exit

Стоп-кран- Notbremse - Stop-cock

Открытое... до... - Цffnungszeiten von ... bis.- Open ... to ...

Служебный вход -Zutritt nur fьr - Service entrance

Translator must always take into account the factor of different uses

Purpose of the transfer is not fitting the text under someone's perception but to preserve the content, features, style, communicative, stylistic and artistic values of the original. If this is achieved, then the perception of translation in the language environment of translation is relatively equal to the perception of the original in the original language environment. Exaggeration of the role of communicative and functional factors in translation leads to the erosion of the inner content; the essence of the informative text and translation; to the replacement of the object essence by reaction to it from the perceiver's side. The text's communicative function and conditions of implementation become the defining factors and not the text itself.

Communicative and functional equivalence is a relative concept, it is one of the important, but not the main component of the concept of translation equivalence.

It should be strongly emphasized that the main thing in any translation - is the transfer of semantic information of the text. All other species and their functional and stylistic (emotional), socio-local characteristics, etc. cannot be transferred without semantic information. Because the rest of the message content components are stratified on the semantic information or extracted from it, suggested by it and transformed into figurative associations, etc.

It is known that the translation is materialized in 2 forms, oral (interpretation) and written. The level of equivalence of oral and written texts translation is very different. First, we consider the scope of interpretation, which is usually divided into consecutive (including paragraph-phrasal) and simultaneous. The most difficult to achieve equivalence is the simultaneous translation. The very nature of this type of translation does not allow getting the highest degree of equivalence. Because, with simultaneous translation oral translated speech comes from the verbal message almost at the same time with the perception of oral communication in the original language. Only temporal (time) factor affects primarily at reducing equivalence level. Simultaneous interpreter is always late in transferring the point compared with the original speech, and so-called "in-phase", the phase shift comes up. On the other hand, the translator must complete the translation in the same time period as the speaker. The inevitability of the phase shift and temporal (time) limiter requires an interpreter to explore the possibility for linear (horizontal) syntactic transformations for verbal seals (compressing, folding) of the transmitted information and the reduction of semantic excess, if it is in the message of the speaker. For instance, under linear syntactic transformations we understand using a word instead of idiom or verbal phrase and the conversion of complex sentences into separate sentence, or removing repeated pronouns and etc. This allows you to get the necessary reserve time for simultaneous translation. For these purposes, we use sealing techniques of information, i.e. the transfer of the smaller volume of lexical units and reducing semantic excess, if the speaker suffers from typical words and expressions clogging his speech. Of course, simultaneous interpreter saves time with the help of so-called probable prediction, i.e., the ability to predict the meaning of the phrase in its initial lexical units, keywords, and also by increasing the pace of his speech over the speech of the speaker. This is an important appointment, although has a certain risk. The researchers calculated that if the interpreters have to speak in the rhythm of 150-200 words per minute, the inevitable errors and omissions will appear. It should also be mentioned that in simultaneous translation we may lose the personal characteristics of the speaker's speech, tone and modulation of voice, expressive intonation, etc.

According to Retsger equivalents are mostly terms, proper names, place names in another language. After analyzing dozens of pages of the English-Russian dictionary, we conclude that the equivalent matching in it is about 30% of all words. Here are typical examples of equivalents from the dictionary of prof. V.K. Mueller: abolitionism аболиционизм; A-bomb атомная бомба; above-class надклассовый; absent-minded рассеянный; absent-mindedness рассеянность; absolutism абсолютный; acropolis акрополь; Alaska Аляска.

However, as we see further, the rule of inviolability of equivalents, as well as any other rule has exceptions. In some cases, the context and situation can make their own adjustments and require from interpreter refusal of using equivalent.

You also need to take into account well-known shortcomings of bilingual dictionary, which may not completely cover all equivalent correspondences. And in some cases they may have imaginary equivalents, but in fact there are several parallel correspondences between words of different languages.

Vinogradov V.S. also mentions that, in contrast to oral the written translation is done, with constant addressing to the original. Verification of translation with the original can be multiple. If the translator is not limited in time, he may be assisted by various dictionaries, reference books, encyclopedias, etc. In translation process the interpreter creatively liberated. It is only limited by the obligation to translate foreign language text with the most accurate information[13,p.172].

Taking into account the proposed working classification of texts let's attempt to describe briefly the degree of relative equivalence proper in different types of texts. In everyday communication as usual you do not need the translation of spoken texts. In the field of business communication the level of relative equivalence of interpretation has the parameters, which were discussed above. All officially business texts are fully focused on transferring the content. Most of the time their form is stereotyped. Petitions, introduction of the text, a sequence of presentation, the ending of documents in each language are submitted to strict rules of rhetoric and linguistic clichйs abound.

The original composition always remains in the language of translation, but the language stamps may be different on the internal form, matching the content. In European languages, the culture and standardization of written correspondence is high. There are more well-established rhetorical cliches in modern Russian language. Therefore, in translation sometimes it is necessary to refer to a literal narration. Method of literal translation is often used in diplomatic documents, where each word is especially important. Careless use of the word may increase different interpretations and even diplomatic complications.

The relativity of equivalence of mentioned texts according to Vinogradov is determined by the differences in language clichйs in rhetorical structures, by possibility of occurrence of literal and stylistic elements of translated text neutralization, and by the mismatching between the characteristics of a neutral style in different languages.

Komissarov V.N. gives a colorful description of the type and levels of equivalent words in his work. For instance, he tells about the equivalence translation of the FIRST type in detail. It is about to keep only the part of the original content, which is the purpose of communication:

(1) Maybe there is some chemistry between us that doesn't mix. Бывает, что люди не сходятся характерами.

(2) That's a pretty thing to say. Постыдился бы!

(3) Those evening bells, those evening bells, how many a tale their music tells.

Вечерний звон, вечерний звон, как много дум наводит он.

In the example (1) the purpose of communication was to pass figurative meaning, which is the main part of the content of the quotation. Here is the communicative effect achieved by peculiar artistic image of human relation, likened the interaction of chemical elements. Such an indirect description of the information found unacceptable by translator for TL and replaced by other less figurative statement, providing the necessary communicative effect[14;p.241].

In the example (2) the purpose of communication is to express the speaker's emotions, which disturbed by the companion's previous quotation. The translator used one of stereotyped phrases expressing outrage in Russian language to reproduce this goal in translation, although its language means do not correspond to the units of the original.

And finally, in example (3) the common function of the original which interpreter tends to save by all means is poetry effect based on sounds, rhyme and size. The initial message is replaced by another to reproduce the original information with all necessary qualities of poetry.

As you can see from these examples, the purpose of communication is the most general expression of the content proper to the quotation in general and determining its role in communicative act.

The specificities of the relationship between originals and translations of this type are as follows:

1) inconsistency of lexical structure and syntactic organization;

2) inability to link the vocabulary and structure of the original and the translation by the relationships of semantic paraphrasing or syntactic transformation;

3) absence of real or direct logical link between the messages in the original and in translation that would confirm about report of the same information in both cases;

4) the lowest common content of the original and translation compared to all other translations that are recognized as equivalent.

Thus, in this type of equivalence translation as if it says "not exactly what" in the original. This conclusion is valid for the entire message, even one or two words in the original have direct or indirect compliance with the translation. For instance, the translation of the sentence “She lifted her nose up in the air” - « Она смерила его презрительным взглядом", can be attributed to this type, even the subjects of these sentences are directly correlated.

The translation of this type of equivalence level is performed in cases when more detailed content reproduction is not possible, and when such reproduction will lead a receptor to incorrect conclusions. Receptor will have quite different association than the original receptor, and thereby disturb the proper transmission of communication purpose.

An English proverb “A rolling stone gathers no moss” describes a situation easily transmitted in Russian translation, such as: "Катящийся камень мха не собирает» (или: «мхом не обрастает»). However, receptor can't get the real purpose of communication from this situation, which is contained in the original. The situation itself does not specify clearly enough how to treat, "good", or "bad", there is no "moss". At the same time, the English receptor understands that "moss" symbolizes wealth, kindness and that their absence - is a negative phenomenon. Thus, the situation described by the English proverb implies the conclusion that we should not roam about the world, but sit at home and save up property. The Russian equivalent to the translation would be having the same emotive installation and maximum reproduction of stylistic (poetic) function of the original (form of proverbs). Since the description of the same situation does not provide the desired results, it is necessary to use a message describing another particular situation. There is a rough translation to try to satisfy all these requirements: “Кому на месте не сидится, тот добра не наживет” (Who can't sit still in one place, he will not end up well)".

In the second type of equivalence the common part of the content of the source and target texts does not only convey the same goal of communication, but also reflects the same extralinguistic situation. The situation is a collection of objects and relationships between objects, described in the statement. Any text contains information about something that is correlated with a real or imaginary situation. The communicative function of the text can't be implemented differently as through situational-oriented messages. It is impossible to imagine a coherent text, which would be "nothing", as there can be no idea without any matter[15;p.160].

More complete reproduction of the original content in the second type equivalence compared to the first type, where the purpose of communication was retained, doesn't mean transferring of all original semantic elements. The indication saving to the same situation is accompanied in translation of this type of significant structural and semantic discrepancies with the original. The fact is that the situation denotes a complex phenomenon which can't be described in a statement entirely, in a variety of its properties and characteristics. Each statement describes the appropriate situation by pointing to its some specific features. The same situation can be described through different combinations by its possessing characteristics. The consequence is the possibility and the necessity of identifying situations that are described from different angles. In language there are sets of statements, which are perceived by native speakers as synonymous ("mean the same thing"), despite of the complete mismatch of components of their linguistic resources.

According to this situation there is a necessity to distinguish the fact indication of the situation and the method of description, i.e. part of the statement content, pointing to signs of the situation, through which it is reflected in the statement. The language users can find out the identity of the situation described in many different ways. This means the content of any comment has information that allows you to judge like what kind of situation it describes, and what attributes are used to describe it.

The second type of equivalence translation contains semantic proximity to the original which is also not based on the common values of the used language means. Here are a few examples of this type of translation:

“He answered the telephone” - Он снял трубку. (He picked up the phone)

“You are not fit to be in a boat” - Тебя нельзя пускать в лодку. (You should not be allowed on the boat)

“You see one bear, you have seen them all” - Все медведи похожи друг на друга.

(All bears are similar to each other)

In these examples, most of the words and syntactic structures of the original does not have direct equivalents in the translated text. However, it can be claimed that between originals and translations of this group there is a larger content community than the equivalence of the first type. For instance, let's compare these translations:

(1) That's a pretty thing to say - Постыдился бы! (Should be ashamed!)

(2) He answered the telephone. Он снял трубку. (He picked up the phone.)

In (1) it is a completely different phenomena, there isn't any real connection between original and translation. In both cases the generality of the origin and the translation is only making the same conclusions about the speaker's emotional attitude to the previous remark of his companion, In (2) disparate linguistic means of original and translation texts actually describe the same act, pointing to the same reality. Because you can talk on the phone, just by lifting the handset. In both texts it is about various things, but "one and the same." These statements in use are often said that they "express the same idea with different words."[16;p.72].

1.2 What are realities in translation

translation equivalence lexical transformation

The oldest and most complicated problem of translation is, of course, the ability to adequately transfer the content of a text from one language to another. In assessing the adequacy of the translation, analytics often do not allow themselves to think about in what case, the findings of this analysis can be considered reliable, nor about the reliability of the proposed conclusions. Grammar-translation method of learning foreign languages implicitly inspires us to think that in translation everything has to be reproduced - the words and grammatical constructions and verb tenses, phrasal expressions and even morpheme, so it could be a perfect translation. Meanwhile, a careful study of translated texts shows that the final adequacy, i.e. the adequacy of the entire text translation excellently corresponds to some private "inaccuracies" in translation units of the same text. The very concept of the accuracy / inaccuracy of translation in relation to the elementary units and integrity of the text depends on many factors. One thing is clear: the translator must do everything in his power to "reproduce" what was expressed by the author.

Translation of realities - is a part of a large and important issue of national and historical identity transferring that goes back probably to the very birth of the theory of translation as an independent discipline. Realities as indicators of culture flavor were discussed only in the early 50'sby many linguists. In 1952 L.N. Sobolev used the term "reality" in its modern sense, and even gave very sustained definition. G.V. Chernov also writes about the realities, however, he primarily uses the term "non-equivalent vocabulary". A.E. Suprun considers the realities as "exotic" vocabulary, and V. Rossels outlines some of the main features of the realities as translation category. Thus, we can surely claim that this problem was studied and discussed in various degrees, by many linguists and theorists of translation. [17, p.138]. The word "reality" comes from the Latin adjective, neuter and plural form “realis - e, realia” - «вещественный», «действительный», which has become a feminine noun under the influence of similar lexical categories. This word denotes the materially existing or existed subjects, often linking it within the meaning of "life", for instance, "the realities of European life." But according to the dictionary definition, “reality” - is every artifact", "in the classical grammar variety of factors ... such as the state structure of the country, the history and culture of the people, the native language speakers of the language and etc. from the point of their reflection view in the this language"," objects of material culture, providing the basis for the nominative meaning of the word". Thus, the term of "reality" in translation means words, naming the above-mentioned objects and concepts. The notion of "translation realities" is twice conditional: reality is usually not translatable (in dictionary order) and again as a rule, it is not transmitted through translation (in context). A.V. Fedorov in his work writes that "there is no such word, which could not be translated into another language, at least descriptively, i.e. the common combination of words in a given language».

Typically, translators face with two major challenges of transferring realities: no equivalent in the target language because there is no referent of the referred reality and necessity along with the substantive meaning (semantics) realities, and to transfer color (connotation) - its national and historical color. To select the most appropriate methods of reality translation it is necessary to pay special attention to the place, supply and understanding unfamiliar realities in the original. A foreign reality is often unknown. The author puts it into the fiction to describe the new media of reality, for instance in the novel of the life of such country and such people, narrating the life of someone else for the reader in a particular episode. Those unfamiliar original words to the reader require such supply, which let him perceive the description, at the same time feel that particular "flavor of otherness", typical to local or national historical flavor.

Therefore, we can conclude that the most successful introduction to the text of unfamiliar realities is effortless perception of the reader without any author's special resources for understanding, which would ensure it quite natural. But there are some realities familiar to readers that do not require an explanation. And regional realities also don't require any explanation. However, in doubt cases, the translator should carefully check whether the word exist in a target language, whether it corresponds to the meaning transferred in the original language and what is its phonetic and graphic appearance in the target language[18;p.292].

The writer and translator often take into account the contextual interpretation, because the reader will understand the supplemented reality "within the meaning of." There are also frequent cases of overestimating the reader's background knowledge, the author does not explain the foreign or native reality, but obviously unknown to the reading public. It concerns many authors who write historical texts. Obviously, the reader, who met unknown reality of the original, is in a better position compared to the reader of translation. Some writers hope that the reader will inquire about the meaning of an unfamiliar word in the dictionary, but as Vlakhov and Florin say, it is unlikely that the reader (not a scientist or researcher), who took a book for pleasure, would rummage in the dictionary. Submission and interpretations of some realities in special dictionaries, comments and glossaries at the end of the book, parts, and chapters significantly makes difficult reading, interrupting the reader from the narrative. The methods of reality transferring are possible mainly by two ways: transcription and translation. According to A.A. Reformatsky, these two concepts can be contrasted with each other: the translation aims to make maximally the "foreign" as "native", and transcription seeks to preserve the "foreign" by means of "native". Thus, "in terms of the practical translation and transcription should be seen as opposites". Actually transcription of realities involves mechanical transfer of the realities from the source language to the target language by graphic means, and the latter with the closest approximation to the original phonetic form. Translation of realities as the method of transferring to the target language is usually used in cases where the transcription is impossible or undesirable. It may be a neologism, roughly translated realities or the "contextual translation." Thus, the realities always make translator put an alternative: to transcribe or translate? Path selection depends on several assumptions: the nature of the text, the realities significance in the context, the reality's character itself, the languages themselves and depends on the reader of translation (compared to the original reader).

As a rule, the translation of historical realities makes a particular challenge. It should be remembered that the historical realities are not usually discussed as a specific group of vocabulary, but rather with historical correlation of realities to particular era, without losing sight of their objective content, which connects them to the appropriate headings of the subject classification. So the translation of historical realities - is essentially the transfer of historical coloring of the words in addition to their material content and other types of connotations. Many of the realities become historical. For instance, the historical realities are often found among the military realities: the words of military installations - either term. For instance, historical Kazakh military terms ... Translator can find historical realities in old works (relatively speaking, in the archaic works), and in the works of contemporary writers, but depicting a close or distant past life with archaic words. The differences between contemporary and old works are in using different approaches in translating realities. A.V. Fedorov very clearly defines the purpose of the translation of a truly archaic work as "acquainting the contemporary reader with literary monument, which at the time of its creation was also modern". Another purpose that involves the use of modern language in translations, even though a selection of vocabulary and grammatical elements, which in certain cases would allow to observing the correct historical perspective.

So, the preservation of (transcription) too many historical realities in translation of archaic work would be deliberate, inconsonant with the general tone of the narrative and would not meet the intent of the old masters, describing their reality. In contrary, the author of archaic work adds historical realities deliberately into the text and their (archaic words) replacement with more neutral correspondences may destroy his intentions. It is clear that translator can include in his arsenal many different types of "linguistic weapons" in translation of historical realities from transcription to obsolete words of their language. One of the main tasks of the translator is to fully transfer the content and the differences in the systems of the original language and the target language. Some peculiarities of text creation in each of these languages in various degrees can limit the ability to maintain a full translation of the original content. The task of the translator -is to extract the information contained in the original text as much as possible. And translator must have background knowledge which the native speaker posses. Therefore, a successful execution of an interpreter functions involves a comprehensive introduction to the history, culture, literature, traditions and modern life, and other realities of the people who speak the original language. In other words, the basic requirement of transferring is a full knowledge of specific realities of the lives and living conditions of the country. In conclusion, let's quote a well-known translator A.L. Andres: "The art of translation, as in any other art, there aren't any ready standards, set of rules and defined decisions[19;p.143].

According to Levitskaya T.R. and Fiterman A.M. every interpreter must study literature, history, culture of other countries, including the country which language he is going to translate. The interpreter needs to know the phone knowledge, manners of the people, i.e. to know so-called “realities”. Reality means features of life, every country's government, mode of life, customs and beliefs, everything that makes the nation distinctive and may have its own traditional image. “The ignorance of realities leads to the mistakes in translation or destroys the whole image, depriving its national color. It also may lead to blunder making false image of the country or nation”, defines Levitskaya T.R. In the book “Untranslatable in translation” the Bulgarian linguists Vlakhov S. and Florin S. tried to put in order different explanations of “reality” and give their own one. The term “reality” given by Sobolev A.N. means “everyday, common or specified national words, phrases, objects, phenomena of one country that don't have any equivalents in the second country, consequently in the country's language as well.” And according to the definition by Barhudarov L.S. “realities are - the words denoting objects, notions and situations not existing in practical experience of people speaking in another language”. A.F Fedorov's opinion shows that “realities are words defining realities of social and material life” i.e. such words of purely local phenomena that don't match in life or mentality of another country.

It should be noted that many local and foreign researchers paid sufficient attention to these lexical units. The problems of studying the language lingua-didactic presentation were highlighted in the works of such researches as Barhadurov L.S., Tomahin G.D., Shweizar A.D., Sobolev L.N., Chernov G.V.

The problems of relation between language and culture were discussed in the books of Vereshagina Y.M., Kostomarov V.G. and Vinogradov V.S. They tell about importance of culture in translation process. How it is significant to have some phone knowledge about this or that country. Culture and pace of life change everyday, that's why the language may change everyday. In the text books on the theory of translation written by Barhudarov L.S., Komissarov V.N., Krupnov V.N., Latyshev L.K., Levitskaya T.R., Fiterman A.M., Fedorov A.V. We can find complete information about cultural-labeled words. The actuality of this topic is that the problem of origin, types of realities and ways of translating them haven't been solved yet. During the translation an interpreter faces language realities of some countries and their socio-cultural features. For instance, in Kazakh language there are many realities that don't have any equivalents in translation. They are «??рт, ?ымыз, ?азы, л??гі, киіз ?й, бет ашар, т?сау кесер, бесік and etc.». All of them are translated by transcription and need some more explanation.

Realities are language units that can not be distinctly classified. Different authors give varieties of reality divisions which depend on correspondence to the lexical or phraseological units.

The realities grouped by subject could be found in the work of Repyna B.I. [20, p.205] His classification is as following:

1. Lifestyle realities: accommodation, cloth, jewel; food, drink; relationship, customs, games, songs; names of musical instruments.

2. Ethnographic realities: birth names, tribe names.

3. Mythological realities: a) evil spirits; b) pray

4. Religious realities.

5. Onomastics.

Reformatsky A.A. combines realities by subject and linguistic concept as following:

1. Proper names

2. Coins

3. Position and designation of people

4. Details of costumes and jewelry

5. Food and drink

6. Address and names with titles

General scheme of reality classification defined by Vlakhov S. and Florin S. is:

1. Subject division

2. Positional division (according to national and linguistics belonging)

3. Temporary division (in synchronic and diachronic terms, by the feature of familiarity)

Vinogradov V.S. creates his own classification on the basis of subjective division suggested by Vlakhov S. and Florin S. They are:

I. Lifestyle realities

1.1 Accommodation, property.

1.2 Clothes, hats.

1.3 Food, types of labor and employment, bank notes, units and measures, musical instruments, folk dances and songs, artists, national holidays, games.

1.4 Address

II. Ethnographic and mythological realities

2.1. Ethnic and social communities and their representatives of God.

2.2. Fabulous creatures, legendary places.

III. The world of nature realities

3.1. Animals.

3.2. Plants.

3.3. Landscape, scenery.

IV. Realities of State - administrative structure and social life

4.1 Administrative units and state institutions, social organizations, parties, etc.

4.2 Industrial and agricultural, trade enterprises.

4.3 Basic military and police departments, rank.

4.4 Civilian positions and professions, titles and degrees

V. Onomastic realities

5.1 Anthroponomy:

- common names and surnames

- individual names and surnames

5.2 Toponyms

5.3 The names of literary characters

5.4 Names of companies, museums, theatres, places, restaurants, shops, beaches, airports

VI. Associative realities

6.1 Vegetative characters

6.2 Animalistic characters

6.3 Color symbolism

6.4 Folk, historical and literary allusion books, linguistic allusions.

If there is no unified opinion in defining the term “reality”, then we don't have any specific divergence relatively to the ways or methods of transferring them. The difference is limited only by the completeness of coverage techniques. Most of the researchers highlight lexical transformations as the most common and appropriate ways of translating realities. “Transformation is the base of the most methods of translation. This notion is about changing formal (lexical and grammatical transformation) or semantical (semantical transformation) components of the source text by saving the information intended for transferring”. Retsger Y.I. defines transformation as “methods of logical (critical) thinking, and with its help discloses the meaning of foreign words in the context and finds the Russian equivalent words not corresponding to the dictionary ones”. The main types of lexical transformations defined by Retsger Y.I. are :

1. Transcription

2. Transliteration

3. Calque

But some researches give other ways of transferring the meaning of realities. So Komissarov N.V., Retsger Y.I., Tarhov V.I. identify four ways of transferring “words that don't have any proximate lexical correspondence in the Russian language”.

1. Transfer of English words by means of transcription and transliteration translation.

2. Transfer by means of calque.

3. Descriptive translation.

4. Using explanation and notes in translation.

Much more comprehensive and convenient classification of methods transferring realities are given by Bulgarian linguists Vlakhov S. and Florin S. [6, p.342] They are as follows:

I. Transcription /transliteration/

II. Translation/replacement/

1. Neologisms

a) calque

b) semi-calque (trasing)

c) familiarization

d) semantical neologisms

2. Approximate translation

a) genus-species line

b) functional analogue

c) descriptive, clarification, interpretation

3. Contextual translation

The usage of each given above method depends on context. Interpreter must choose the method according to a definite case. That's why, any of given methods shouldn't be considered as potentially excluding specific situation.

The methods of transferring realities given below by Latyshev L.K. do not differentiate between the notion “vocabulary with no equivalent” and “reality” but there used the term of “reality with no equivalent”. Besides, he also uses the term “transliteration” in cases where it should be better to speak about transcription. This researcher highlights four methods of transferring vocabulary with no equivalent:

1. Transliteration (corresponds to methods “transcription” by Vlakhov S. and Florin S.). The fact is that time there was a tradition of transliteration which later was replaced by transcription (“Translation course” by Latyshev L.K., “The translation equivalent and methods of achievements”; 1981). Although there have already been some preconditions. Latyshev L.K gives example of transferring “know-how” as “ноу-хау”, what is essentially a transcription not transliteration

2. Descriptive (explanatory) translation.

3. Approximate (expository) translation (“Functional analogue” by Vlakhov S. and Florin S.)

4. Creation of new term (essentially identical with idea of semantical neologism by Vlakhov S. and Florin S.

But the most effective and most used methods of translation realities are considered by Tomahin G.D. He emphasizes “some methods of transferring foreign realities”:

1. Transliteration (transferring on the level of graphemes) and transcription (transferring on the level of phonemes)

2. Calque

3. Descriptive and explanatory translation

4. Approximate translation (by its “analogue”: drugstore - аптека)

5. Transformational (contextual) translation

Transcription (transliteration) mostly is used in cases, when we speak about proper names, states, institution names, educational institutions and etc. Serious disadvantage of this method is that it leads to emergence of unfamiliar and incomprehensible new words in translation. On the other hand by using methods of expanded information (reality explanation in the context) foreign realities could be used by interpreter to save the national color in language translation.

There are 2 variants of the most typical interrelation between realities and context:

1) realities are cognate words, thematically grouped with context and can be considered as its significant components. In this case there is abundance of realities in the text, and content serves as a good background for comprehension and memorization;

2) realities are dissimilar, thematically unrelated to the context. Additional difficulty is using realities in figurative meaning.

The meaning of realities, thematically combined by language semantic units in text is expressed by means of the context. There are three main types of normative usage of realities restricted by stereotyped, explanatory, or situational context.

Table 1

1. Words or word combinations denoting realities in stereotyped context are used without any comments.	2. There is a peculiar comment or detailed reality definition in explanatory context.
3. Reality can be used in figurative meaning which could be implemented only in situational context.

Apparently, there should be retained expedience of connotation as critical factor when choosing between descriptive foreign reality translation, or its transliteration (transcription): retaining connotation is important to describe the referent peculiar for one country; using transliteration could be justified by necessity of saving local color; by accurate content transferring in essays, country descriptions, and itinerary.

The calque -a literal translation of words or word combination - is widely used for transferring realities to another language. While using calque the cultural components of the word must be considered and they shouldn't be lost or replaced by the components of another culture.

Descriptive or explanatory translation has an advantage that eliminates incomplete understanding, which might have transliteration and calque. However, its disadvantage is that realities aren't translated by typical structural language units but by dimensional explanation[21;p.304].

1.3 Translation transformations as a way to achieve the right equivalence

It is impossible to say that translation is a purposeless activity and has certain evaluation criteria, whatever conflicting requirements might it have. One of the requirements given by the theory and practice of translation is the equivalence of texts -in the source and target languages. Equivalence has importance in the theoretical description of the translation and revealing his identity. No wonder we have discussed in the previous chapter in different translation definitions there is often present the concept of equivalence, which many theorists have always considered one of the most important features of ontological translation.

As the various definitions of translation corresponded to different stages in the development of the science of translation, different understandings of equivalence reflected the evolution of views on the nature of translation. Thus, the theory of regular correspondences is thanks to the developments which belong to one of the pioneers of linguistic translation studies Retsker Y.I. The notion of equivalence applies only to the relationship between micro units of the text, but not to the inter-textual relationships. In this case, the equivalent is understood as a constant correspondence to those usually not dependent on context.

We think that such a narrow understanding of equivalent is due to the place of this category in the used theory of regular correspondences system concepts. In fact the original notion of this system is the "correspondence", and viewports are "equivalent" and "variant matching". They were installed between the words in the case there are multiple target language words to for transmit the same meaning of the original word. For instance we have equivalents these words “doctrinarianism” - “доктринерство”, “dodder” (bot.) - “повилика”, “dodman” (coll.) - “улитка”, “dog-bee” (ethno.) - “трутень” , “dog-bolt” (tech.) - “откидной болт”, “dog-collar” - “ошейник”. These given correspondences are in the category of complete equivalents, as they cover fully the meaning of the word, not a part of its meaning. The word “shadow” has a partial equivalent of the Russian word «тень», corresponding to its base meaning (alternative meaning corresponds to the Russian words of «полумрак» and «призрак»). When a word is polysemantic, such as noun “pin”, and even in the mechanics it has a number of meanings of 'палец', 'штифт', 'шпилька', 'шплинт' and another set of special meanings of 'шкворень', 'ось', 'цапфа', 'шейка' none of them according to Retsker Y.I. can't be considered as equivalent. These all are called variant matching.

Of course, every author has the right to use a particular term in accordance with the conceptual mechanisms used to him.

The term "process" in the opinion of Barkhudarov L.S. in relation to the translation is understood by us in a purely linguistic sense, as a certain kind of language, to be exactly inter-language conversion or transformation of a text in one language into text in another language. Again, the term "transformation" can't be understood literally. The source or original text are not transformed by itself. The text of course remains the same, but along with it and on the basis of it we create another text in another language. We call it "translation" in the first meaning of the word (translation as the translated text). In other words, the term "transformation" (or "conversion"), may be used only in the description of the synchronous language at all. We are talking about a certain relation between two languages or speech units, one of which is the source and the second is created on the basis of the first one. In this case, interpreter has “A” text in the “A” language which he will translate using certain operations to the “B” text in the “B” language, which is found in a certain regular relations with the text of “A”. These languages (cross-language) operations make up the process that we call the "translation process" in the linguistic sense. Thus, the translation could be considered as certain type of transformation, namely inter-lingual transformation[22;p.148].

Previous chapters have been devoted primarily to the description of differences between the systems of the two languages (SL and TL) and their effects on the process of translation. Meanwhile, we have repeatedly emphasized that the object of translation is not the system of language as an abstraction, but a concrete verbal product (original text), on the basis of which the other speech is created in a different language (the translation). The achievement of translation equivalence ("adequate translation") despite of discrepancies in the formal and semantic systems of the two languages, requires first of all interpreter's ability to produce numerous high quality and variety of inter-language conversion - the so-called translation transformations - so that the translated text transmitted all information contained in the original text with fullness, by strict compliance of TL norms. we In the beginning we said about understanding the right term "conversion" or "transformation".

2. Classification peculiarities of translation transformations

The transformations that can help you make the transition from original language units to the units of the translation are called translation (inter-language) transformations. Since the translation transformations are carried out with linguistic units that have a plan of the content and of expression and have formal-semantic characters, transforming both the form and meaning of the original units. In translation process translation transformations are considered as a translation techniques that can be used by interpreter to translate various texts, in cases there are no correspondences in dictionary or can't be used in the given context. According to the nature of linguistic units, which are regarded as the source to make the transformation, translation transformation can be divided into lexical, grammatical and lexical and grammatical (these transformations affect both lexical and grammatical units of the original, or they are considered as inter-level, i.e. the transition from lexical units to grammatical and vice versa).

Currently, there are many classifications of Translational Transformations (TT) proposed by various authors. Let us consider some of them.

L.K. Latyshev gives a classification of TT by deviations from inter-lingual correspondences in which all TT divided into:

* Morphological - the substitution of one categorical form to another or more;

...