Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Министерство образования и науки Республики Казахстан

Костанайский социально технический университет имени академика З. Алдамжар

Thesis

On discipline: «Translation studies»

On the topic: «Interpretative position of translator as a course of variety of translation»

Выполнила: Имаканова Алия Казихановна

Научный руководитель: ст. преподаватель

Н.М. Алибекова

Костанай 2014

Content

Introduction

1. Cut translation paradigm how update priorities translation activities

1.1 "Literalism" and "liberty" as the main opposition translation

1.2 "Adequacy" and "equivalence" in the linguistic theory of translation

1.2.1 Terms "value" and "equivalence"

1.2.2 "Formal equivalence" and linguistic theory of equivalence

1.3 "Adequacy" and "equivalence" in lingvoculture theories of translation

Chapter Summary 1

2. Translation position in activities

2.1 Interpretation of the text as one of the causes of the variability of transfer

2.2 Interpreting position in activity

2.3 Positions associated with the orientation of the transmitting transfer culture

2.4 Positions associated with the orientation of the translation on the host culture

2.5 Neutralization of sense

3. Sales translation X position J in translations poetry R. Bernsa

Chapter Summary 3

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

This work is devoted to the study of translation products causing Variability s translation as the universalization of the Translation: the original is always one, and transfers can be really happens, especially in the case of texts a lot. Variability translation in this paper is considered as a manifestation of conscious and unconscious translation products.

This study is based on the hypothesis that the conscious or translation from are preset positions are one of the reasons for the emergence and existence of multiple translations texts, ie the variability of translation.

As used in the key concepts such as variation in translation, interpretation, translation position equivalence translation adequacy s translation.

Object of research are interpretive positions interpreter activities and resulting changes that occur in the translated text.

The subject of this study is the variability of the translation, which determines the position of translation.

The relevance of this study is due to the need to explain the reasons for the existence of different s translation of the same text in the host culture, and to establish criteria for comparing different translations. The notion of "translation position" allows received numerous lingo culturalogical into account the circumstances and avoid axiological categorical when evaluating translations.

Scientific novelty of this study we see that for the first time introduced the concept of "translational position" as a tool for explaining I Justification I variability translation as translation universals. This eliminates the interpretation of translation as a commitment to the ideal of "equivalence", when all transfers were seen as more or less close to the original. Because of this study was the first subject variability of translation, which is seen from the point of view clear and translational position. Study variability translation is performed not axiological point of view, but as a manifestation of variation in the activity of an interpreter positions due to various socio-cultural and interpretive circumstances.

And purposes of this study - identification and typology on the basis of activity-translation products, defining variability translation.

In connection with the target in the following tasks:

· consider the notion of "equivalence s" as the foundation variant concept of linguistic theory of translation;

· explore lingoculturalogical translation theory in explaining the reasons for the variability of translation;

· describe the variability of translation as Interpreter universal;

· determine the composition and nature of the most common positions in translation literary translation;

· produce a gradation of basic translation products based on the orientation of translation convey extending or receiving culture;

· verify the resulting typology for example translating s poetry R. Burns.

Translation should be evaluated in relation to the position at which the translator comes up to him. However, in the works of Russian and foreign scholars question of translation positions remains unexplored and the term "translational position" is not entered. Linguistic theory of translation uses the term "equivalence" and "value", which by their nature suggest that any translation is a more or less perfect approximation to the original. Such a position does not involve transfer of variability, considering it as just one of the ways to perfection. This position deserves attention and respect, but it is not possible to investigate all the real diversity of translation, which are made from different positions and are in various respects to the original and at each other.

Few researchers, among them B. Hohel and Popovich, isolated characteristics change text translation with respect to the original (exoticization, naturalization, adaptation, etc.), which we call translation positions. It should be noted that the term "translational position" allows in different aspects to consider translation as a way of implementing the guidelines interpreter.

By translation we understand your conscious or customer transfer from are preset setting translator to create a translated to a greater or lesser extent corresponding to the original.

Under variability understood parallel coexistence e e several translations of the same text, made with the perspective of different translation positions.

Plurality translation emerges as one of the factors of the host culture, in this respect, their conformity with the original and the original itself is not considered, as is customary in linguistic theory, as the sole determining factor, a greater interest in this aspect are the causes of discrepancies and translation of the original.

Although some scholars: B. Hohel [Hohel 1988] and Popovich [Popovic 1980] considered some changes in translation relative to the original (exoticization, naturalization, historicization, etc.), but they treated them as "local" changes unique to the specific texts, and not applicable to the translation of literary texts at all. We introduce the term "translational position" that occur when translating literary texts, which were subjected to repeated transfer.

We create our own typology of translation products, and its typological character is due to the fact that its foundation is laid the essential criterion for characterizing any translation: translation orientation to "embed" a culture of transfer or transmission of cultural characteristics of the original, that is, on the one hand orientation transmitting the culture or, on the other hand, the orientation of the original.

The study used the following methods: comparative, interpretative analysis of the text, as well as elements of stylistic analysis.

Material research are poetic texts Goethe, Robert Southey, A. On at na, Rudyard Kipling, T. Moore, DG Byron, Poe, D. Mallett (14 poems) novel C. Dickens 'David Copperfield' and their Russian translations made by various authors (20 orders). Verification of research results produced by the analysis of poems by R. Burns (117 poems) and 280 Russian translations.

The theoretical significance of the work associated with the introduction of the concept of "translational position," with the development of a typology of translation products, showing that the variability of translation is universal, not problematize in translation science. All this allows us to take a fresh look at the essential problems of literary translation and add significantly to the scientific understanding of them in lingvokulturologicheskom aspect.

The practical significance of this study is that its results can be used in lecture courses and special courses on translation theory, the theory of intercultural communication can be used in the practice of teaching translation, editing and translation criticism, in practical translation work.

1. Cut translation paradigm how update priorities translation activities

1.1 "Literalism" and "liberty" as the main opposition translation

Historically, the variability in the translation described by the opposition "literalism - freedom." These t endentsii translation succeeded each other, and the liberty of literalism or transfer is largely dependent on the genre of the original. There are genres in which can only be a literal translation: official documents, forms, correspondence, etc., otherwise the genre requirements are violated. P reimuschestvenno literally translated sacred texts, although there are cases of arbitrary interpretation of Scripture.

More translators of the ancient world were discussing the question of the degree of closeness to the original translation. In earlier versions of the Bible prevailed literal adherence to the original at. At the time it was thought that the translation must accurately transfer "original letter" and the translator must always follow the original, h is sometimes led to ambiguities of translation. Literalism early translations of the Bible stemmed, as the AV Fedorov, not so much of a conscious theoretical principle but of piety, of "awe" before the biblical texts [Fedorov, 1983: 25].

Later, some interpreters n reimuschestvenno secular texts tried to justify theoretically the right to greater freedom in relation to the original, do not need to play the character, and the meaning or even the overall impression of the original. Even in those early statements about what goals should be pursuing a translator, you can find the beginning of theoretical debates of our time on the admissibility of the literal or free translation [Semenets, Panas, 1989: 256]. At the time of formation of the Roman Empire Roman authors "copied" the Greek texts exposing them to significant changes and adapting them as they saw fit. However, later in the patristic era to the center of translation problems put forward the problem of "equivalence", as translated in the main religious texts [Venuti 2004: 14]. Meanwhile Cicero translated into Latin speech secular Greek authors as follows: "I have translated these texts not as a translator and as a writer, keeping ideas and forms, but in a language that can be understood by my readers (students). However, I did not translate every word, and kept the overall style of the game and the language "[cf. by Venuti 2004: 14].

St. Jerome (St. Jerome) - the most famous of all the translators, the "father of Translation", describes its strategy in the translation of the Old Testament into Latin from the Greek as follows: "in Greek I translate word for word, and conveys a sense of" [cf. by Munday 2001: 20], suggesting that in the sacred translation derogated from strict adherence to the "letter" of the original. St. Jerome believed that translate literally impossible and unacceptable as close adherence to the letter of the original leads to absurd translations distorting the meaning. If transfer, focusing on the transfer of meaning (sense-for-sense), then the content of the original will not be distorted on. However, St. Jerome, who talks about the transfer of meaning, just became the ancestor of equivalent translation.

E. Hang and D. Pollard use the concept of "literal» (word-for-word) and "semantic translation» (sense-for-sense) to describe the translation of the Chinese tradition in translating the texts from Sanskrit. During the so-called first phase (Han dynasty) made mostly of literal translations, just passed the syntax of the original. The main trend of the time was transliteration, as a result of transfers were completely incomprehensible to readers without a theological education. In the second phase dominated by a reverse trend: the tendency of a free translation - the original text "polished" the translator to make it more artistic. As a result of translation processing and the original greatly different from each other. In the third phase (Tang Dynasty), much attention was paid to the style of the original, and was used as a free and literal translation, depending on the type of text [Hung and Pollard 1997: 368].

Thus, "literalism" and "liberty" are formed in the practical translation work as a generalized manifestation of the basic translation products, these trends were not unique to the European, but also for the Eastern culture that allows us to treat this as a basic opposition Interpreter universals.

In West th culture literal questions and a free translation for 1,000 years after St. Jerome were inextricably linked to the translation of the Bible and other religious and philosophical texts. The Roman Catholic Church demanded transfer interpreter transfer "right": the church-sanctioned sense. Any translation deviates from the conventional "correct" interpretation, was considered heretical and censored or banned. Such transfers were considered crimes against the church [Munday 2001: 22].

Tendency to focus on the original was described as "accuracy" of translation («accura cy»), «loyalty» («faithfulness») or later - "equivalence". However, the concept of "loyalty" of translation has changed somewhat over time. In antiquity, the term "faithful translator» («fidus interpres») and meant to, by assumption A. Lefebvre, "fidelity" to the initiator of translation, ie pragmatic adaptation [Ibid: 23].

In the XV century. in Europe at the forefront trend adaptation or "domestication» («domestification») translation, ie assimilation yatsiya foreign text and the linguistic and cultural and values, and the host culture. Over the years, this trend is becoming more and more dominant smiling.

In the XVI century. It has become fashionable to translate secular texts, "improving" them "for the sake of the enlightened public." When this all cleaned or edited excerpts of the original, do not suit interpreter. For example, in the translations of Shakespeare into French were allowed not only a change of subject, composition, but also the names and locales, which became French [Galeeva 1997: 5]. At the same time the translator takes a position in the original adaptation of their culture, the criteria of "acceptability" ("acceptability" - G. Toury). However, there is also the opposite position of the translation associated with the desire to transmit and display translator national identity script, pass it to the "national spirit", to acquaint the reader with a different, his new cultural situation [Galeeva 1997: 5].

Only to the XVII century. "Fidelity" translation ceased to understand how each word is a literal translation of the original and was seen as the best possible transfer of the original meaning [ibid: 23]. In the XVII century. England made mostly of free translations of Greek and Latin classics. Translation method that prevailed in this era, was named the term "imitation» [Amos 1920/1973: 151]. The purpose of the interpreter is not to surpass the original author, but rather to convey the "spirit" of the original in translation (its energy and inspiration from the author). This approach to translation theory can be regarded as a prerequisite D. Dryden, who followed the English tradition of poetry and translation formulated the basic translation trends. D. Dryden considered himself a supporter of free translation, or so-called "paraphrase", the purpose of which is to transfer the meaning of the text.

D. Dryden identified three types of translation, leading to different results, which is why these types of translation can recognize translation positions:

· Metafraz - literal or a literal translation;

· Paraphrase - Translators should not the transfer of individual words, and the transfer of meaning. At the same time allows for different changes compared with the original, the main thing - the transfer of meaning (sense-for-sense), basic ideas, but the interpreter does not follow every word of the author;

· Imitation - "translator forget about words, and about the meaning of" is, in fact, and is an adaptation. Translator takes from the original idea of the text only, sometimes not even transmits all the meanings of the original. Imitation - it is an attempt translator living in a later period, to write as would write on the same topic the author, who lived up to it, ie not translate literally and not to transfer all copyright sense, but to write as the author would have written if he was a contemporary of the translator.

In the future, many translators have tried to formulate the principles of translation is not yet scientifically and empirically based, among them E. Dole. Trying to define the requirements for translation and interpreter activity, E. Dole formulated the following principles of translation:

· Translator must understand the meaning of the original, but the translator may also explain the fact that, in his opinion, would be incomprehensible to readers;

· The translator must know perfectly the original language and the target language;

· The translator must avoid a literal translation;

· The translator should avoid unusual shapes;

· The translator must possess eloquence, the translation should be natural [Dolet 1540/1997: 14].

With requirements for translation, developed E. Dole echo "transfer rules" put forward by A. Tytler at the end of the XVIII century. [Tytler 1797: 15]:

· The translator must fully convey the meaning and original ideas;

· The style and manner of writing in translation must match the style of the original;

· The translator should be as natural and easy to read as the author of the original.

A. Tytler believed that "a good translation for readers produces equivalent communicative effect, by which to overcome the differences between languages and cultures" [ibid: 16]. Agreeing with J. Dryden, A. Tytler recommends that translators use "paraphrase", since this translation simulates ideas and styles of foreign language text, but the text does not appear explicitly translated.

It should be noted that in XVIII. the main trend in the translation was the transfer of the "spirit" of the original - a term perceived by St. Jerome, who knew them under Mr. sacredness. Alno D interpretations have been deprived of this information and become a simple metaphor. In the XIX century. attention has focused on the discussion of transferability [Munday 2001: 27]. F. Schleiermacher believed that the translator should translate into German is not so, as the author would have written if German was his mother tongue, and so that the reader after reading the translation appeared the same impression as the German reader from reading the original on native language [Schleiermacher 1813/1992: 42]. F. Schleiermacher believed translation process improvement and improvement of the host culture and language and even the method of forming the first: if the translation from German sounds like a German text, ie culture enriched by "foreign". To achieve this result, the translator must focus primarily on the original language and the content of the original text. The more accurate the translator conveys speed and norms of the source language, the more "foreign" the text will appear to the reader. F. Schleiermacher proposed the idea of " inostranizatsii »(foreignising) text translation. In this reader translation closest to the original reader. The reader W German translation should feel that it reads exactly translate from German th and not from any other language. Sometimes a foreign language translated not only texts, but the whole literature of transmitting culture genres can be borrowed, but this is possible only if the readers are "tuned" to the perception of foreign text, and if the culture there is a need for translated literature [Ibid: 43] . However, in the same era (XIX c.) In Britain believed that translation can never surpass not only original, but also "to reach a height of the original", so it is always preferable to read the original work, and not in translation [Bassnett 1991: 69 -70].

Many Russian scientists and writers also addressed the issue of sexual and letters free translation (VA Zhukovsky, PA Vyazemskij, AA Fet, Karamzin). The problem of literal and free translation viewed from antiquity to the present day and is still relevant and interesting (AV Fedorov, Schweitzer AD), although it needs to be clarified, since fl and the opposition have never met in a pure e ed form, but functions as a trend.

All major Russian writers of the XVIII century. in varying degrees, have been associated with translations. B Moreover, as a rule, translation began their literary activity, as translated text's authoritative source of authoritative culture easier logged into the host culture than his own. Translation in this situation becomes a way of creating a literary name.

While formed Russian literature, and it was formed, including through contributions through borrowing plots tekstopostroeniya ways, sometimes entire genres. Therefore, writers often started its activities with the translation and tried to justify theoretically the greater freedom interpreter. These viewpoints can be attributed to "pre-theoretical period" as translation theory as such at the moment has not yet emerged [Russian writers ..., 1960: 242]. These are the writers and poets like VK Trediakovskii, MV Lomonosov, AD Cantemir, AP Sumarokov VV Kapnist, GR Derzhavin AN Radischev, DI Fonvisin, NM Karamzin, VA Zhukovsky. VK Trediakovskii wrote that "the translator of the creator name differs only", that is equivalent to an interpreter as the original writer. The implication here is not the desire to achieve creative consonance with the author of the script, and the desire to compete with him, beat him, to do better than he did, to make the text interesting own culture, which is characteristic of the time translations. According to VK Trediakovsky, while translating the principle: "If the creator was convoluted, the translator should be convoluted" [Trediakovskii 1849: 493], thereby recognized the unacceptability of literal translation and is given by one of the leading translation positions the nineteenth century. - Adaptation onnaya translation position. Pushkin wrote about the inadmissibility of literal translation examples poetry translation into French of Milton: "There is no doubt that trying to convey in words Milton word Chateaubriand could not keep in his translation of the meaning of fidelity and expression. The literal translation can never be true. Each language has its own pace, in their own way conveys a sense, has its rhetorical figures, which can not be translated into another language literally "[Pushkin 1937-1959: 144]. AS Pushkin thought expressed by the author of the original should be perevyrazheno translator [Russian writers ..., 1960: 242].

I. Vvedenskii, translated works of Charles Dickens and William Thackeray, allowed very free treatment of the original text: up to make it as much as inserts "from themselves" Russification details of everyday life (what we later called adaptive your translation ). I. Vvedenskii deliberately tried to be intricate original authors - Ch Dickens and Thackeray W. [Fedorov 1983: 98]. And it's probably not a coincidence and not a lack of the translation, and a manifestation of conscious translation position, which finds its place in a number of translations.

NV Gogol sometimes offered to move away from the words of the script in order to be closer to his spirit. AK Tolstoy believed that one should not translate words, and sometimes even make sense, and most importantly convey the "impression" that is difficult to determine. Transfers while usually precede the preface, which explained his translator Interpreter position because each translator pursued a definite purpose, which could rarely be described in terms of equivalence [ibid: 245]. Position of the authors and interpreters in an environment where culture was sectarian in nature, literate people were few, and the reading audience is usually made available the original and translation, was the fact that on the basis of the original to create their own "experience." Accuracy of the translation to the original (ie, the equivalence of the original and translation) was not considered as a precondition that the transfer is successfully logs into the host culture, the translation was considered initially as a Variation activities. We can assume that at the time there was just the greatest variety of options as a result of various translation, express translation products associated primarily with improving trends in translation.

However, the opposition "literal - free "is not always productive, as it does not cover the entire space of translational activity, largely determined by cultural factors and traditionally limited discussion actually t ranslation, ie Values literalism and liberties, and ultimately transfer as replacement text in one language text in another language. Everything else here is called "extra-linguistic factors", without considering that these factors and determine the nature of translation [Galeeva 2004: 22].

Currently, the ratio of the translation inevitably changed since the dissemination of culture texts went beyond the narrow circles of educated people and become widespread. On the other hand, due to the expansion of cultural contacts and fewer people reading original texts, translations will inevitably began to perform in the culture of the original function, as a substitute for the original, and not parallel to it in the text of the host culture. Accordingly, the requirement of equivalence or adequacy became a staple of the theory of translation.

Opposition "literal - free" opposition "semantic - communicative" introduced P. Newmark, characterized in that it clarifies the nature of the position: a translation in this case is not simply just a formal, ie clearly following the "letter" of the original, and semantic, ie transmitting meaning and focused on outbound / transmitting culture, on the one hand; translation and performing in the host culture specific function required of the host culture, on the other hand. orientation when translated to transmit culture, on the one hand, and on the receiving culture, on the other hand, coincides with two trends that underpin lingvokulturologicheskij translation theory, as well as the typology of translation products described in the second chapter of our work.

Another opposition, embracing the diversity of translation products is introduced A. Lefebvre opposition «translatio / traductio» [Lefevere 1998: 5].

Extremes of variation, multiple transfers of the same text, made with different translation positions are "Broadcast» (translatio) elements like a faithful reproduction of the original text, the embodiment of the ideal of "faithful translation" and "traduktsiya» (traductio), ie the maximum free reproduction of the original text, amounting to malouznavaemogo hidden borrowing cultural shift [Pavlov 2005: 176].

"Broadcast» (translatio), correlated with a literal translation, prevailed in the transmission of sacred texts, and perhaps it is this, and what is needed to get the exact equivalent of the original text, replacing him in the host culture, explains the widespread translation of this principle in intercultural interaction. On respect for the principle insists domestic linguistic theory of translation [ibid: 177]. Broadcast (translatio) regulates the linguistic components of the translation process, not too oblivious to other significant aspects of translation. A. Lefebvre, who coined the term, noted that translatio impossible in principle, since the exchange of signifiers in the intellectual vacuum, ignoring the cultural, ideological and poetic content is doomed to failure [Lefevere 1998: 7]. This seems to be some limitations of formal literal approach to translation, which has long stuck in lingvistichekoy translation theory.

When translating literature until the twentieth century. was spread throughout traduktsiya (traductio), ie cultural shift that due to the relatively small number of languages in circulation, lack of copyright m, a relatively small number of consumers of translation, which are also largely owned by foreign languages. A. Lefebvre believed traduktsiyu (traductio) main culture-Translation phenomenon. Traduktsiya attaches equal importance to both linguistic and cultural-ideological component of the translation, which comes to the fore in a meaningful lyrics culture. The question of how to translate, due to the fact the language of culture which the transfer is and how this culture is authoritative for the host culture. Traduktsiya due to various kinds of deviations of the original text to create your own culture without reference to the authority of the previous crop, declaring all these texts their [Galeev, 2006: 135].

The term "traduktsiya» (traductio) broader than the term "free translation" because it includes within its scope are, in essence, the phenomenon of translation as borrowing genre and its individual elements, a shift in culture tekstopostroeniya methods, motives, archetypes, values and other cultural phenomena. Therefore, the opposition «translatio / traductio» seems close, but more preferred and capacious than "literal / free" translation. This allows the opposition to consider the whole set of translation products, which are located in the space specified by it, and causes variability of translation as a multiplicity of different translations of the same text.

In A. Lefebvre talking primarily about cultural conditioning and translatio traductio: Variability translation reduced to three Lefer A. Translation of model: Model Jerome, model and model Horace F. Schleiermacher (Lefevere, 1998). A. Lefebvre notes that the modern notion of equivalence, consider the equivalent mainly from a linguistic point of view and is not expected variability can be reduced to the principles of translation Jerome (331-420 AD), the chief of which is that "there is a text, and this text you want to move in a different language as accurately as possible. " This model arose from the translation of the Bible (as the central cultural text) that needs to be translated very precisely, and Ranney sama m m ideal ohm precision was word for word translation, in which a word is replaced by another and the translated word is written directly by the word of the original, t . e actually created a pony. Translation of this model will inevitably be reduced solely to the linguistic level [Galeev, 2006: 136]. But Jerome himself, whose name is called this model in his letters discussed what is called in modern translation theory semantic translation , namely, transmission of the "spirit" (divine inspiration) Bible. What different content called by one name "spirit", made some uncertainty in the discussion of translation: desakralizovanny "spirit" became uncertain and unproductive metaphor, which, nevertheless, used by many writers on translation.

Another translation model released A. Lefebvre, is the model of Horace (65 BC-8 BC), pragmatic in nature. These include inaccurate translation, taking into account the wishes of the customer (originator of). Pragmatic model assumes orientation when translated into the recipient host culture and adapting the text in relation to the requirements of the initiator / client transfer. Historically model Horace preceded Jerome model, but she was in her shade as much as fourteen centuries, since it was mainly in her interpretation of the situation, and it was not an authoritative sacred text. Frequently cited statement of Horace "faithful interpreters» (fidus interpres), but it should be clarified that the interpreter was not faithful to the text and its customers or initiators of translation. Model Horace associated primarily with the pragmatic aspects of translation, with specific settings and tasks that put the translators [Lefevere, Bassnett 1998: 3].

The third model in the concept of translation A. Lefebvre called hermeneutic model translation F. Schleiermacher (Lefevere, 1998). F. Schleiermacher pays great attention to the orientation of the translation to the original culture. He believes that the translations from different languages to be different and wear characteristics of the original culture, it enriches the host culture. F. Schleiermacher argues that translations from different languages into German and sound should be read in different ways: the reader should see the Spaniard in Spanish and Greek in Greek. If all translations read and sound the same (as it was with Victorian translations of classics), lost the identity of the original, blurred in translation. Model F. Schleiermacher notes the need for "inostranizatsii» (foreignising) translation. At the same time denied the privileged position of the host language and culture and affirms the need to preserve "otherness" of the original text [Galeev, 2006: 137]. In our study, this correlates with a number of translation products, namely, from a position she exoticization, ie pass the elements typical for transmitting culture and unknown, unusual in the host culture. REMARK with even this "German translation will be perceived in the host ku lture as translated from the German," as well as her istoriziruyusch Translation th position it - text sounds " now "as" then "made a deliberate archaism old texts.

In this model, covers the development of strategies by which the text of one culture could penetrate the "text" and "conceptual lattice» (textual and conceptual grids) another culture and operate in this culture. The most obvious form of relationship between text and conceptual grids - this analogy, which leads to a blurring of the differences between cultures and the texts they produce. Analogy - a simple way of relations between cultures, as it adapts to the original culture of the host culture, whose prestige is perceived as superior.

A. Lefebvre offers a multidimensional approach to translation, which in itself explains the diversity of translations of the text in the culture and the fact that these translations are often absolutely different with respect to each other and to the original text: first, the text can be translated with different positions, i.e. in the host culture can arise equally from uschestvovat practically limited translations of the same text; Secondly, if we are talking about the adequacy, it is likely to be determined by not only the linguistic circumstances, and adequacy of translation solutions [ibid: 138].

Thus, under lingvokulturologicheskij translation theory, which is opposed to the linguistic theory of translation, it is assumed and expected explained the possibility of the existence and equitable in the host culture of several translations of the original text by different interpretations of the translators of the original text. On the one hand, and may be explained by the variation in translation - as the availability and functioning of almost equal in the host culture of the various translation options, which may differ significantly from both the original and from each other, and on the other hand, may be explained and positionality as a manifestation of conscious translator otreflektirovannoy and translation position and the translation from the point of view of this position.

1.2 "Adequacy" and "equivalence" in the linguistic theory of translation

1.2.1 Terms "value" and "equivalence"

The fact is the possibility of translation activity of many different translations. One reason for this is that each translator not only understands his own text, but also takes a position and, from this position, translates the text. Variability translation is often a consequence of an express position that the translator takes in activity.

Since the presence of any translational position ay be defined relative to some basis for comparison , it is necessary to introduce such a foundation. In linguistic theory of translation, which occupies a leading position in the domestic tradition of translation, as a basis for comparison and evaluation of the original texts and their translations favor the concept of "equivalence", which in itself does not suggest variability. H By contrast, postulates the existence of a single optimal and equivalent text translation, and all translations of the text are considered in terms of more or less closer to the ideal. The fact that the translations of the same text can be and very often fundamentally different E is ignored and is not included in this paradigm, so many centuries of translation activities simply fall out of the theory. In our study, the idea of "equivalence" or "literal" translation corresponds with your exoticization and orientation and transfer to the transmit culture. The idea of "equivalence" for many years, dominates the domestic theory of translation. However, in most cases, the transfer of "equivalence" and exists as elusive ideal for translators, which aspire to. In the host culture coexist and operate the translations of the same original text, made from the perspective of different translation products that are the object of study in this paper.

After centuries of debate about what the literal translation is better or free, in the twentieth century. perevodovedy more clearly tried to systematize the issues of translation and appealed to linguistic issues [Munday 2001: 35].

Rea dy for one of the major challenges of modern times was the question of equivalence as a measure of assessing the proximity to the original translation. 1960, 1970 g g. marked the heyday of linguistic theories. At that time there equivalence theory, a hundred Bill and e normative principles that guided E translators for many years.

In 1959 Jakobson began to consider questions of value equivalence of words in different languages. He noted that between words in different languages can not exist complete equivalence [Jakobson 2000: 114]. Jakobson believed that translation involves the replacement in another language is not of individual words and entire messages. As a result, we should obtain two equivalent messages in different languages. However, their elements different in different languages, as they belong to two different sign systems (languages), which are variously reflect reality. Equivalence problem of word meanings in different languages based on differences in the structure and terminology of different languages, and not on the inability of language to convey a message written in another language. Thus, Jakobson laid the foundations of linguistic theory and the second equivalence in translation.

Interlanguage (linguistic) equivalence - basic and rather complex concept of the theory of translation. When comparing texts in different languages invariably raises the question of equivalence and translation [Leonardi 2000: http://accurapid.com .: 2000]. At the moment, especially in the domestic translation theory widely held view that it is the degree of equivalence of the two texts - in the original language and the language transforms - an indicator of the success of the translation [Vasin 2000: http://accurapid.com .: 2000] while the question of the variety or translation position arises. From this position with The path of the translation process is to find and transfer the closest equivalent of the source language into the target language [Pym 1992: 38].

In the science of translation at the moment is not clear to the understanding of equivalence. Some, mainly foreign linguists hold extremely negative views on equivalence (A. Chesterman, G. Toury), and called equivalence empty concept, explaining that many perevodovedy determined by translation equivalence and the equivalence through translation, so you can do without this notion, and instead explore a set of relations that exist between the initial test and the translation [Chesterman 1997: 10].

According to G. Turi, the notion of equivalence is not significant for the theory and practice of translation [Toury 1995: 86]. It only needs to make a general notion of translation. Given the fact that linguistically equivalent translation can not always be considered a success in terms of conveying meaning, it is difficult not to agree with this statement. A. Lefebvre believes that full equivalence does not exist and all they can count on interpreters and readers, this kind of "optimal approximate equivalence» [Lefevere 1980: 30]. It should be noted that, given the differences between the languages, with this statement is hard to disagree.

In general, the equivalent is called "unit of speech, with the matching function with others, the ability to perform the same function as the other unit of speech" [Akhmanova 1966: 132], although this structural unit is not defined, and unproductive debate about the translation unit is still underway in domestic theory of translation. In the most general case, you can cheat amb that "elements of the two languages that are functionally relevant to each other within a given context, act as equivalents used in translation" - this is the approach to functional equivalence [Gak, Lwin 1980: 234]. Thus, the "equivalence" - it ootnoshenie equivalence between primary and secondary texts or individual segments.

A number of scientists believe that p onyatie adequate translation is broader than the concept of equivalence in translation [Mikhailov, 1990: 125]. " Equivalence "category more specific and narrow, generally means close enough match those two KSTOVO [Chesnokov 2003: 109]. M. Mikhailov allocated adequate translation as an intermediary between the literal and free translation [MI Mikhailov 1990: 126]. According to TA Kazakova, fully equivalent translation is impossible, since different languages differ in grammatical structure, word count, not to mention the cultural differences, which also affects the method and result of the conversion [Kazakov 2002: 153].

"Equivalence" as axiological characteristic transfer while presented as something perfect, then why should strive translator, but can not always achieve this. "Equivalence" itself suggests movement in only one direction - to the ideal, "to how it should be", and does not take into account the fact that the translations can be fundamentally different from the original phenomenon and otreflektirovannoy your interpreter and associated with this position of s changes in the translation. In this huge translation heritage almost until the twentieth century. linguistic paradigm remains outside evaluation as translators while not sought nor equivalence or adequacy.

Based on the foregoing, A. Pym considers the category of "perfect equivalence" and "less than ideal equivalence" with the help of quantitative relations (=,>, <, #, ~). In this case there are p Various types of equivalence: "absolute equivalence" - TT = V, "the relative strong equivalence" - TT ~ Y, weak relative equivalence "- TT ~ Y," conflicting equivalence "- CT1 ~ Y ~ Y CT2, but CT1 CT2 #) [Pym 1992: 70].

AV Fedorov advises the issue of distinguishing the concepts of "adequacy" and "equivalence" to abandon the foreign-language terms, and offers the following terms: The term "value" means "match", "respectively," "proportionality". However, this term can be replaced by a lengthy and Russian term "usefulness", which applied to the translation means:

· Compliant with the script for the function (the usefulness of transfer)

· pravdannost of choice of means in translation.

"Usefulness" translation means exhaustive transfer semantic content of the original and full functional stylistic conformity him [Fedorov 1983: 125-127]. However, this term is not stuck in a modern translation studies and more common and are developed by the terms "value" and "equivalence".

AD Schweitzer also recognize the concept of "value" and "equivalence". He relates these two concepts based on the dichotomy of translation as text and translation as a process. Both categories are evaluative-normative. " equivalence "results-oriented translation, correspondence generated as a result of metalinguistic communication text definiteness original parameters. " And dekvatnost ", in turn, is connected with the flow conditions interlingual communicative act, with a choice of translation strategy that meets the communicative situation. Thus, if " equivalence "answers the question as to whether the final text of the original text, the" value "answers the question as to whether the process of data transfer communicative conditions [Schweitzer, 1988: 95]. AD Schweitzer summarized all the above differences of these concepts in the form of a table:

Thus, most scholars believe the concept of "equivalence" and the concept of "value" close enough, while most agree that the concept of "value" is more general and broad, and the notion of "equivalence" more specific and narrow.

1.2.2 "Formal equivalence" and linguistic theory of equivalence

Qualitatively new step in the development of the concept of "equivalence" is considered the introduction of Eugene th th Neid (Nida, 19, 64) The concept of th " dynamic equivalence "and" functional equivalence . " Introducing the concept of " dynamic equivalence "was due to the fact that the formal equivalence, accuracy, literalism is not always provide high quality translations, especially literary translation of the text. Theory Yu Naida based on his practical work on translating the Bible into various exotic languages. The main idea in theory Yu found - the transition to a functional definition of words I value (unlike conventional while the allegation that the word has a fixed value). With Lovo acquires meaning only in context and can cause different reactions from readers, depending on which culture they belong [Nida 1964: 107], which is consistent with the structuralist ideas, under whose influence was always Yu found. Yu Naida replaced traditional notions of "literal / free" transfer to the concept of "formal equivalence" and "functional equivalence." " formal equivalence " is focused on the structure of the original language, which determines the accuracy of the translation. The message is in the target language should match as closely as possible the different elements of the message in the original language [ibid: 159]. "Functional equivalence" implies the possibility of variability, because in order to transfer to the host culture performs the same function as in the original culture, often require significant restructuring and processing text, change many of its components. However, this does not involve any new positions translator, excellent second position of the author of the original text. If changes are compared with the original text, they are made to the text, it became clear the host culture media. In this regard, the translator is definitely focused on the host culture and the host culture on the reader.

In the author's concept of talking about the coincidence imple tion to the recipient of the source text, one language support with the reaction of the recipient of the translated text, speakers of other languages or a similar communicative effect. Really talk about such coincidences in contact cultures far removed virtually impossible. This is possible only in conditions of close contact of cultures, speaking related languages. Thus, the concept of dynamic equivalence, in fact, is its actual negation: equivalence "dynamically" shifted to the side, is its absence.

The notion of equivalence is considered from different points of view: from the linguistic, cultural, etc. lingvokulturologicheskij Introduction Yu found the concept of "formal equivalence" actually marked the rapid development of linguistic theory of equivalence, which prevailed in the domestic theory of translation. P onyatie "dynamic equivalence", on the other hand, provided a basis for theories lingvokulturologicheskih equivalence.

It should be noted that the concept of Yu Naida correlated and complementary to the concept of equivalence MA K. Hellideya. Through the notion of equivalence he defines translation as text and translation are the two mutually equivalent text in different languages. "Translation - a relationship between two or more texts that play the same role in the same situation" [Halliday 1978: 44]. MAK Halliday believes that equivalence is a contextual concept that is not associated with the use of some grammatical or lexical Sgiach phenomena, so it can not be measured. In view of this, it is impossible to accurately determine the threshold of equivalence and give a strict definition of this concept [Halliday 1966: 125].

This conclusion can be considered fair, this is what suggests variability translation. However, later in the national linguistic translation theory was an attempt to determine the extent of equivalence and give its definition from a linguistic point of view. D THIS concept considered VN Komissarov, Popovich, AD Schweitzer, VS Vinogradov, R.-Beloruchev Mignard, I. Left and O. Kade.

The early ideas Yu Naida the functional equivalence was close O. Kade German linguist, who in search of equivalence criterion focuses on assessing the impact of the translated text in a particular communicative situation. However, in his early works he considered equivalent from a purely linguistic point of view, and mostly considered formal correspondence texts to each other [Kade 1979: 57].