Interpretative position of translator as a course of variety of translation

In general, O. Kade notes that the lack of absolute identity between the two texts in different languages is not the only obstacle to understanding, especially that one and the same text can exert different effects on different recipients. The intention of the sender is never completely identical to the recipient and the effects of impacts on different recipients can never be identical [Kade 1978: 72].

The notion of "equivalence" in theory VN Komissarov and considered from a linguistic point of view, with virtually no etsya takes into account cultural factors. In addition, the data being transmitted, according to VN Komissarov, WMO DIT only the content - that is only part of the meaningfulness of the text. H e is taken into account the diversity of goals that may be put before a translator ignored the functional adequacy of the text. hile X stated equality of contents, and dekvatnost translation in this theory is assessed by formal rather than substantive grounds, as they are obvious and manifest in the text, while while the content of elusive. Highest quality while delivering one translation, which has the highest affinity - the proximity of morphemes, which is absolutely unacceptable and often even more absurd in many kinds of translation. Thus, this theory is rather speculative and not to judge the activity interpreter.

VS Vinogradov also examines the notion of "equivalence" from a linguistic point of view, and in connection with the translation of th. Given the equivalence of the original translation VS Vinogradov identifies six models of translation: Situational th (th denotational) model, semantic model th, th transformational model, th communicative model infor th model, language correspondence [Vinogradov 2001: 25-29]. However, in these models is considered purely a translation from a linguistic point of view, that does not imply and does not account for substantial variability s translation.

Also in line with the linguistic approach to equivalence worked R. Mignard-Beloruchev. He believed that "is equivalent translation" is impossible, and therefore developed the concept of "unit malfunctioning." In terms of mistakes, as suggested by P. Mignard-Beloruchev can express quantitative information loss in translation. As such units only he understood the level of components [Mignard Beloruchev-1980: 23]. Of course, when assessing proposed by P. Mignard-Belorucheva criterion of "mistakes" any translation position is automatically displayed beyond adequacy, and such transfer can not be considered adequate or equivalent, although its substantive quality will be high.

Somewhat different, more tekstoorientirovanny approach observed in theory A. Popovich. He believes that the equivalence in a general sense should be considered at the language level, so the equivalence should look at the structure of the text, ie in style. According to A. Popovich, only at this level product passes from one language to another as a uniform education. At the same time transfer can never be an exact copy of the original. When the translator starts to work with the original text, it must first understand the original interpretation, and then translate. Specificity translation by A. Popovich, lies in the unity of the theme and language. Thus, Popovich proposes to consider a text equivalent, primarily as a stylistic STI [Popovic 1980: 84].

In the theory of equivalence established Popovich, linguistic and stylistic considered factors (which was not included in other theories), but does not take into account cultural factors, although it is in our opinion, is of great importance in the translation and plays a crucial role in the equivalence translation and original, as well as issues of variability translation. Text translation, equivalent to the original language (phonetic, morphological, lexical-semantic, syntactic) level is often unclear to the reader receiving culture because of the large difference in the system of concepts, the reader may be incomprehensible to those or other realities, etc. , So that you may need to "re-writing" of the text, and can appear and coexist in parallel several translations of the same text.

In order to simplify may be to achieve a positive result of linguistic. Simplification, neutralization and explication yayut combined under the umbrella term "standardization". "Standardization" is read from the norm in translation to / from major European languages [Ulrich, 1999, April 3]. This is seen as a prerequisite for the presence of positional variation: No translation is reduced to only one possible option, since along with the explicit transfer, neeksplitsitny possible and easy transfer.

Summarizing all the above, it should be noted that in the foreign and domestic translation studies there are many theories of equivalence, but there is no single and its exact definition, measurement criteria are not selected measures of equivalence. Within each equivalence approach is considered from different points of view, some theories little correlation with each other, but some of them complement each other. W ith their synthesis e can try to build a more complete definition of equivalence.

The complete equivalence, encompassing both semantic and pragmatic level, as well as all relevant types of functional equivalence is an ideal construct, while all researchers claim to objectivity and consistency of their results [Olomskaya, Patukova 2002: http://depfolang . kubsu.ru.]. The fact that various different languages share semantic space theoretically even eliminates the possibility that multiple elements may be equivalent to [Pym 1992: 40]. The very notion of equivalence contradicts the nature of language as a system, because if the same system two elements are equivalent, one of them is doomed to extinction [Vendryes 1968: 381]. Equivalence - is not a natural relationship between the systems of the two languages, ie equivalence - is an artificial concept, but need equivalence as a criterion for the correctness, translation efficiency [Pym 1992: 49]. When the question arises, how many kinds of equivalence exists, and what kind of species, many supporters of the linguistic theory of equivalence are at an impasse in the first place because of the complexity of the term [Snel Trampus 2002: 48]. Perhaps linguistic equivalence theory into account not all the factors that affect the process of translation.

Linguistic theory of equivalence, the foundations of which were laid Yu found, focusing on the "formal equivalence and oh," ignores the dynamic component of the theory of Yu found. Due to this, the concept of "equivalence" in the framework of the linguistic theory of translation becomes too rigid and somewhat one-sided, not taken into account cultural factors, and is possible only a single translation closest "to the ideal." P oetomu beyond linguistic theory of equivalence is set translation options, which in terms of formal equivalence could not bring s smiling "to the ideal."

It should be noted that as the basis for judgments of equivalence in linguistic theory of translation was always understood the original, and this attitude towards it in this paradigm is quite natural. However, the relationship to the original as "sacred" text pledged translated sacred texts is not always there, especially in the secular translation. Attitude to the original as a base incentive for interpretive activities based on it was spread widely and at least provided a basis for a large variation in the content transfer.

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

Questions and equivalence ktualny mainly for European translation theory, working with the Indo European languages. When translated into Asian languages, all these concepts do not work, because the culture is organized fundamentally different, and for the transfer culture understands what he wants to see and take [Lefevere 1998: 23].

The concept of "equivalence" and "value" are considered in the European tradition, not only in linguistic theories, since historically it is the most relevant to the concept of translation theory, they are currently under discussion in the broader context, taking into account not only linguistic, but also many other factors.

In this perspective, performed Started researchers such as A. Neubert, Yu Naida, MA K. Halliday, S. Ross, G. Jaeger, J. Catford, J. House, G. Turi, and A. Lefebvre.

Lingvokulturologicheskij translation theory takes into account not only the language, but also cultural factors that have a significant impact on the translation. Itself account of these factors allows interchange of a broader approach to equivalence, in which the possibility of different measure of variability translation.

And Story concept of "equivalence" began with Yu activity was found, but first developed linguistic aspect of the term associated with the formal equivalence. That equivalence, understood from this perspective, does not explain all of manifolds I translation of the long history of translation, let researchers pay attention to the dynamic component of the theory of Yu found. Translation, understood dynamically, and dynamic equivalence suggest the variability and establishing criteria and dynamic equivalence for each translation in connection with the dynamic conditions under which this translation was created.

Introducing the concept of dynamic equivalence is obviously connected with the fact that in real activity Translation sacred texts for rare languages Yu Naida faced with situations where formal equivalence translation does not lead to the desired communicative effect. Formal equivalence, as defined by Yu Naida, "focused on orig Inal," where the aim is to allow direct comparison of multilingual texts. When formal equivalence is mandatory to save a part of speech in translation, lack of articulation or rearrangement of the original proposal, the preservation of punctuation, splitting into paragraphs, and the application of the principle of concordance (ie translate a specific word is always the same correspondence). In addition, all idioms kalkiruyutsya, any deviation from the original letters are explained in the footnotes, etc. In this case we are talking about the literal word for word translation, which is applicable for a number of translation purposes.

Dynamic equivalence, in turn, "is focused on the reaction of the receptor" and seeks to ensure equality impact on the reader and the translation of the original. Thus there is an adaptation of vocabulary and grammar to translate sounded "as the author would have written in another language." Translation, which aims to create a dynamic equivalence is based on the principle of "equivalent effect". Translation on the principle of dynamic equivalence aims at complete naturalness means of expression, and the recipient is invited to a mode of behavior, the relevant context of his own culture [Nida 1978: 119].

Translation between the two poles (between strict formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence full) there are a number of intermediate types, representing different kinds of literary translation [ibid: 12 0]. And the same time the idea and allows for the possibility of variant solutions, depending on the chosen translation positions and explains the emergence of several different translations of the same text.

Inadmissibility literal translation Yu Naida proves using the concept of "information load." He believed that the literal translation of the first message egruzhaet information with a high degree of th th neo distributions, unusual forms, making it difficult to decode. To achieve its objective the translator must constantly focus on the reaction of the recipient, although it is worth noting that this is not always the reaction can be predefined.

It is assumed that the necessary impact on the translation of the recipient can be achieved only under the condition that the translation will not be alien to their cultural and ethnic facts or based on these facts associations. That is, the principle of dynamic equivalence supplemented by the requirement to transfer a significant adaptation of the host culture. However, this requirement seems to us too hard, and in this case, the translation is not sposobstvovat s enrichment culture translation when "foreign" is taken as "own", although this position is quite common translation in translation activities, and such transfers are often found in fiction.

Obviously, the formal equivalent translation may not be natural, and the greatest affinity is defined in the concept Yu found, first of all, equality recipients reaction that is possible only when dynamic equivalence [Nida 1978: 119]. Apparently have the term "formal equivalence" means that a certain kind of equivalence unnaturalness, and even some inferiority when compared with dynamic equivalence. However, the dynamic equivalence of the author of this concept is understood in a very broad sense, and its criteria are not well defined.

The concepts of "formal" and "dynamic" equivalence actually correspond orient ation and the outcome ing and receiving culture, adhered by th perevodovedov majority, which in itself is already a Translation positioning. In fact, it is not about choosing which position is preferable as the only possible translation for this text "either / or" and the possibility of coexistence of the position of "both / and", and hence the origin and parallel coexistence of the host culture several different translations, performed with different translation positions.

Most clearly expressed in this orientation is often repeated thesis: traditional question - "true if the translation?" - Needs to be clarified - "for whom?" [Nida 1978: 129]. However, it is not clear that Yu Naida understands the "receptor-oriented." T his is a position on a very broad and vague, as the audience translation heterogeneous.

Permission Yu found the concept of "dynamic equivalence" e metaphorical in nature and representing an alternative e "formal equivalence" meant, in fact, the rejection of the principle of linguistic equivalence as such, and the transition to other lingvokulturologicheskie position where the so-called "extralinguistic factor "and it turned out to be decisive in this case was about oppositions Culture 1 - 2 Culture, audience 1 - 2 audience." dynamic equivalence "that take into account all factors dichotomous, in fact, constitute a waiver of linguistic equivalence as such, understood as equality of one text to another as the replacement of one text to others. "Dynamic equality" texts - the essence of their inequality, because the speaker itself does not establish clear criteria for comparison [Galeeva 2005: 17]. The transfer of the rules of the original language is minimized, the host culture reader does not feel that it is a translation [Nida 1964: 166].

Introduction Yu I found the concept of "dynamic equivalence" theory of translation in marked orientation to the reader, or the orientation of the receiving culture in translation. However, achieving an equivalent effect often seems impossible, then it is very difficult to measure and describe, especially if the rules of the original language and the target language are very different from each other [Lefevere 1992: 6-7].

P. Newmark denies approach Yu found, based on the orientation of the host culture to readers. He emphasizes that too large differences between the language and culture of the original and translation language and culture will always be a difficulty in translating [Newmark 1981: 38]. To overcome these differences, P. Newmark proposes to replace the traditional terms "literal / free translation" on the terms "semantic" and "communicative translation". Communicative translation is that the translator tries to make the reader a translation of the same effect as the original author to the reader. Semantic translation is that the translator tries to pass as close as possible the semantic and syntactic structure of the original language, as well as contextual meaning of the original. It should be noted that the notion of "communicative translation" is similar to the concept of "dynamic equivalence" Yu found, and the notion of "semantic translation" with the term "formal equivalence." However, P. Newmark believes that in most cases it is impossible to achieve an equivalent effect and criticizes the concept of "dynamic equivalence", because he believes that in this case the reader "all presented on a silver platter and everything is explained in detail" [ibid: 40].

In fact, the history of translation theory can be represented as the changing relations following two categories: "equivalence" and "function fessional." However, it should be noted that they may co-exist as equal possibilities, depending on various factors, not mutually exclusive. "equivalence" is understood as "accuracy", "value", "correct", "correspondence", "identity" or "fidelity to the original." "The function of fessional" - the potential to produce a translated text different effects (social, cultural, etc.), as well as contribute to the development of language and culture [Venuti 2000: 5]. The notion of "function fessional" wide enough, it shows how the translated text associated with the host language and culture, it is here overcome the narrowness and rigidity of the linguistic approach. In the 1960s and 1970s, the possibility of different versions of the translation has been limited by the requirements of linguistic equivalence, and functionalism was seen as the solution to exit the theoretical impasse, since it was impossible to describe the equivalence relation for each type of text and translation of each situation, and 1980s and 1990s, the dominance of functionalism, the concept of "equivalence" has been revised, and it included those factors that were previously considered deviations of the original text [Ibid: 6].

Subsequently, the concept of "equivalence" was considered not only linguistic, but also cultural, and pragmatic point of view, although "different equivalence" concept is not quite logical, because the variability of equivalence is only the presence of translation products.

German translation theorist and e, A. Neubert and G. Jaeger, pushing th t the idea of "communicative equivalence" and communicative significance of the text [Jaeger 1978: 149], which takes into account the concept of linguistic equivalence, but A. Neubert unlike G. Jaeger puts "communicative equivalence" in the broader context of social interaction, implemented by means of a text interaction [Neubert 1985: 143]. Communicative equivalence - a characteristic of the target text, suggesting the presence of a communicative value, which, if not completely identical communicative value of the original text, the common expectations and awareness of the recipient's carrier target language. Communicative equivalence is historical and is associated with verbal interaction, as well as - with targeted transfer.

Based on the concept of "equivalence" A. Neubert distinguishes two types of transfer (not adhering to the traditional classification literal and free translation): "the exact modeled" and "accurate to term." "Accurate modeled" (or pragmatically adequate) reconstructs aimed pragmatics "A" means the IL in pragmatics "B". In this new text on the IL created not just by the grammatical and semantic substitutions, but by pragmatic reconstruction. The translator should strive for a pragmatics that best serves the purposes of translation. "The exact term for translation" (translation or fully adequate in relation to PCOS) directly takes over all the relationships and all the rules that are typical DICE [Neubert 1978: 196]. In essence, this approach gives the possibility of variant relations in translation.

Depending on the type of pragmatic relations A. Neubert distinguishes four types of translation:

· t Type 1 - the texts of Linguistics and PYA similar goals, which are based on common or potentially common consumers. Text DICE not specifically designed for the audience IL (scientific, technical Lita eratura, advertising texts, etc.);

· u t 2 - t The text DICE contains information that meets the specific requirements of DICE audience in a particular situation, the specific text Linguistics (legal texts, leaflets, local press, the literature on social, political, economic issues);

· u t 3 - t The text of fiction. These texts appear and are interpreted in a particular social situation, they are timeless and gain value for all people, while not lost national characteristics DICE and its specificity;

· t Type 4 - e ti texts stem from the need to inform the audience about the events of the IL in DICE or in PCOS, but in terms of audience DICE (literature for foreign countries) [Neubert 1978: 197 - 198].

This classification is based on the type of transfer and type of text it is stated that each type of text should be translated differently, taking into account its specificity. This idea was put forward by A. Neubert, suggests the presence of variability and translation position, which is specified depending on the type and genre of the text. However, this approach does not provide and does not describe the situation of variation of transfer and the presence of translation products within a particular type and genre of text and, furthermore, does not explain the fact various translations of the text.

A. Neubert tightly binds with equivalent behaviors, social environment and social functions: the text and its translation appear in the form of a complex field of social interaction in the cat Oromo each translated text "reflects a new version of the social life of Noah ...» [Neubert 1985: 145 ]. This approach is largely sociological and applicable to discourse in general and not only to literary translation, with the original text relies factor host culture and is seen with her points of view, the grounds and criteria.

Equivalence criterion texts according to J. Catford, is the equivalence of the situation, often to be found in its culture. A comparison of the original and the translation should be done at the level of broad thematic connections in view of similar realities and turns similar themes, similar psychological attitudes, associations, writer and translator approach to the same situation and so forth. Thus, it is not about the actual linguistic and the socio-cultural context. This approach to equivalence means nothing else, as a justification for the existence of variability as possible in the culture sets are often very different translations of the same text. Thus, J. Catford defines an equivalence with cultural products, taking into account the psychological factors. It should be emphasized that the notion of equivalence in J. Catford too broad, with this understanding too difficult to identify its criteria and replace them to specific texts.

Considering the problem of equivalence of the original and the translation and causes several different translations of the same text, S. Ross (Ross, 1981) indicates that it is insufficient to convey the author's intention in the translation, as in this case would have to admit that there can be only one correct translation. Actually translation reflects the original understanding of the interpreter, and all understanding - this is one of the possible interpretations of the text is based on external factors. We can only speak of the similarity to the original translation, which allows four different treatments:

· There is a single work, and concluded in the text output from text or from the author's intentions. If the interpreter interprets it correctly, then the translation can be objectively true - this approach captures the essence of the theory of equivalence.

· Translation - is a complex process that takes place under the influence of many factors. Transfer all equivalent contained in the original is impossible. Choices are needed, and hence the fundamental multiplicity of solutions as sets and positional variability, and the presence of several different translations.

· Translation - this heuristic process, an attempt to build a bridge between different worlds and eras. Therefore, the objective of translation does not happen, at best achieved successful disclosure differences worlds. From this perspective, the translation is one of the possible worlds , which can be set as many different versions of the art text translation. According to this provision may be explained by the presence and sets the text and translations that coexist in the host culture, and the global translational activity in the field of artistic text shows that the translation of the same, especially kulturoznachimogo text can be really happen much.

· Translation - these are different forms of the original statements that stand against him "many-to-one." There is no perfect translation, but the translation can be great or bad according to certain criteria [Ross 1981: 15].

S. Ross uses only the concept of "equivalence", but does not work in the linguistic, and activity-related paradigm. The author of this concept offers to compare the equivalence of the translation with the relationship between an object and its picturesque image. Image, such as a person depends on the choices an artist makes of many factors, so it is infinitely multiply [Ibid: 17].

As well as J. Catford, Started under the functional approach, J. House, believes that when translating text in one language is replaced functionally equiv entnym text in another language [House 2002: 97]. In his theory of J. House takes into account cultural factors and introduces the concept of "cultural filter and th."

Functional equivalence includes two types of translation: "hidden» (covert) and "open» (overt) contributions that stand out in the typology of text-oriented source code [Ibid: 98].

Public transfer functions in the host culture, in its structure, it is very reminiscent of a quote, it is equivalent to the original e n at all levels of language, and genre to register [Ibid: 99]. Hidden translation has in the host culture status of the original, pragmatic he is not considered transfer. Original is not considered unique to transmit culture. To achieve this "originality" in a hidden translation, the translator uses "cultural filter" (a concept introduced by J. House). Thus, the "cultural filter" - is the means by which the translator compensates missing in the host culture, especially the culture of the original. Translator in this case looking at the original text reader's eyes the host culture.

Working within the framework of cultural approach and the maximum given in his theory of cultural factor, G. Turi argues that the rules determine the type and degree of equivalence, expressed in actual text translation. Equivalence can relate to any type of relations that characterize the transfer under certain circumstances [Toury August 19 of 5: 74]. This statement implies either that equivalence does not exist at all, or that it is a very vague concept. G. Turi defines as functional equivalence is a relative concept, namely that set of relations that can be used to distinguish between appropriate and not appropriate for a given culture methods of translation. The entire set of possible relationships is the potential equivalence, then there is something purely theoretical at chityvaya the fact that the concept of linguistic equivalence does not always work in practice, as even when the criteria of equivalence translation is not always clear to readers of the host culture.

In addition, G. Turi uses the term "equivalence" within the meaning of the text is also invariant, this approach allows multiple translations of the same text.

A. Lefebvre (A. Lefevere), one of the founders of her widespread in Western European translation studies linguistic and cultural approach to translation («Translation Studies»), adheres to an entirely different perspective. He believes that the translation - it is rewriting the original text (http:www. Anukriti). Asking Translation Studies cultural and historical perspective, A. Lefebvre emphasized that the translator is the doer, and translation - it is not supporting (and therefore inferior) and nesamotsennaya activities, and activities that lead to the formation and enrichment of cultures [Galeev, 2006: 131]. Indeed translation - is a form of creating new texts, ie, rewriting. Each rewriting, for whatever purpose it had been taken, reflects a certain ideology and poetics of the original author, moreover, functioning in the literature, and through it in society, translation as rewriting controls literature, it affects the choice of the new trends. Translated as "rewriting literature makes function as defined in a particular society" [ibid: 132]. While on the equivalence of the translation and the original on the linguistic level are not talking. literalism translation transfer culture

One of the first definitions of "translation as rewriting" still belongs to St. Augustine. When Augustine was faced with the fact that some of the pages of the Bible, not quite correspond to the patterns of behavior that required its followers to the church, he suggested that these paragraphs should be interpreted simply, "rewritten" and then they will match the teachings of the church. In a similar situation are many modern interpreters. Their activities affected by the fact that they occupy a certain position in a certain public institutions. According to A. Lefebvre, translation as rewriting may have ideological incentives or produced in the framework of a particular ideology, depending on whether the translator agrees with the dominant ideology of his age or not, or poetic incentives and be produced within a certain poetics [Lefevere 1992: 7] .

On the translation process, which resulted in a literary work or not to accept a different culture, influenced by the following factors (also can be called factors that allow and explaining the variation in translation): power, ideology, institutions, poetics. Rewriting occupies among these factors is not unimportant place. "Rewriting" have always existed: From the Greek slaves, who collected an anthology of classical Greek literature to modern translators trying to enter the original in the host culture. Their role has changed for two reasons: at least in Western civilization ends with a period when the book was central to the teaching and transmission of values, and the gap between the literature of "high" and "low" level, which began in the middle of the XIX century. That led to the rewriting I "high" and "low" [Ibid: 2]. Unprofessional or not very educated reader does not read literature written by the original author, it reads the translation done as rewriting [ibid: 4].

Authors rewrite translation-create for the reader an image of the writer, the work, the genre, sometimes even of literature in general. These images exist side by side with real images, and even compete with them. With the help of translation, rewriting can be projected image of the author and / or his work in another culture, bringing the author and / or his work beyond the transmission of culture [Ibid: 9]. contained in these statements as a prerequisite for explaining the positional translation activities.

Translators - rewriting to some extent adapt original texts and manipulate them, mainly in order to better fit these texts in a dominant ideological or poetic flow era. Writer (author of the original) is often in opposition to the dominant ideology in the culture of translation, and the translator (rewriting) adapts the work within the dominant ideology [Lefevere 1992: 15].

There are also other approaches to the problem of adequacy when it is not considered at all, and this view is developed within the framework of the ideas we variability translation. Can not assert unequivocally that the translation must be radically different from the original, this is not always the best approach, but centuries of experience in translation work and new translations of the text suggests that the variability of the translation and interpretation from the point of view of translation conscious position, and not only striving for adequacy, are motivated resume translation and the emergence of new variants of the same text. In some cases, especially in literary translation, s The problem of translation is not to pass unchanged the original text in the target language, and that to be the original text expander, develop it. A. Chesterman believes that the translator can change the text of the original, is in this case Yas figure [Chesterman 1997: 2].

In linguistic theories are not always considered or relied not very important extralinguistic factors. Since these factors were "extra" in the framework of linguistic linguistic theory of translation, they were not provided and were treated as "noise" and not as a significant factor in translation work organization. However, often it is from these factors and determines how will transfer. This situation is due to the fact that the linguistic theory of translation originally emerged and developed as a theory to consider translation as a substitute for one another text, and the path to that is through the replacement of text fragments in one language corresponding fragments of text in another language. Where you can not find sufficient and optimal equivalents proposed system transformations [Galeev, 2006: 130]. Overall AN Kryukov calls this approach vicariously transformational ontology translation, thus emphasizing its mechanistic and countering them with activity-based ontology translation, where the translator acts primarily as a figure [Kryukov, 1989: 55].

Chapter Summary 1

As a basis for comparison of different translations of the same text we selected the notion of equivalence. Generalized his approaches to the problem of equivalence discussed in the ne rvoy chapter of this study:

1. B ost theories equivalence considers mainly linguistic factors, as a result of the narrow definition of equivalence is obtained. However, the approaches A. Neubert and S. Ross are, in our view, more complex, and comprising bo lshinstvo factors (culturally curious, social, linguistic factor s).

2. Very important and affect the translation factors (cultural, social, etc.) in the linguistic theories of equivalence called extralinguistic, so they are not given proper attention, they are considered in the overall series as minor. However, translating this phenomenon, especially the socio-cultural and these "extra-linguistic" f actors define his character.

3. That translation position, including a translator and as I figure with reflection and interpreter and the original text, and each translation as a one of the possible interpretations in the original text and translation determines the possibility of variation, which is itself a translation universals. vicariously In transformational ontology concepts dominate adequacy and equivalence in translation. In the syakaya variability seen as more or less successful approximation to the original, I do not tolerance content and / or interpretive variability.

4. In our study, the idea of "equivalence" or "literal", which for many years dominated in Russian translation theory, translation corresponds with your exoticization and orientation when translated to transmit culture. However, the translation of "equivalence" and exists as elusive ideal for translators, which aspire to.

2. Translation position in activities

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

Linguistic theory of translation does not provide enough objective explanations variability translation, as part of its transfer was considered as a replacement for another one text, and the path to that is through the replacement of parts of the text in one language corresponding fragments of text in another language. Selection exact equivalents translation of the original text was considered key to a successful translation.

Considering the translation process as the transformation of the original text in the target text, II Revzin and VY Rosenzweig find it necessary to distinguish between two ways to perform this conversion: "proper translation" when there is an immediate transition from one language units to units of another language, and "interpretation" when the interpreter first clarifies what the reality is behind the units of language in the original, and then describes this reality by means of language translation [Rosenzweig 1983: 93].

In linguistic theory of translation and nterpretatsiya considered a form of translation, based on the address to the extra-linguistic activity, in contrast to the translation itself, carried out according to the rules of the transition from the means of expression belonging to the same linguistic system, to the means of expression belonging to another language system [Parshin 1995: 13].

Interpretation is often, in fact, personal experience writer or translator of it make sense, which is incorporated in the text [Barsht 2003: 16]. From the point of view of the problem of understanding and interpreting text translation problems also considered K. Cohn: "Depending on how you understand the lyrics, you will reflect it in his translation. This is especially true of texts containing a equivocation, that is, in most cases, literary texts »[Round-table Discussion 2003: 22]. With this possible ama st determines the emergence of multiple translations of the same text, depending on how the translator understands the source text. Linguistic theory of translation makes the necessary assumptions regarding the interpretation of the text, it does not define, but refuses to allow b, determined that the translation also conscious and installing a certain result or that due to your installation or from are preset pragmatic change in the text of the translation with respect to the original text.

When the object of translation becomes x udozhestvenny and cultures of significant text, it always contains a set of all existing and potential interpretations (interpretations) and can not have one only true interpretation: "understanding of the whole text tends to Freedom: no two are exactly alike understandings the same work "[Bogin, 1996: 2]. T The text of another culture, like any culture texts, in general, can get very different interpretations, as soon as these interpretations are performed by different people. Any text, as well as its semantic and syntactic structure, allows e t give almost unfettered many interpretations, and artistic text can not in general have only a one oh oh only true interpretation and, theoretically infinitely number of interpretations and is not limited [Pause 1983 385].

Artistic text translation from one language to another is always an interpretation of the original text and leads necessarily to a particular understanding of the schemes tekstoobrazovaniya, perevyrazhayuschih a schema author smyslopostroeniya [Bogatirev 2003: 13]. process of re-translation and the emergence of different interpretations of the same text is almost infinite character, forming a kind of continuum of text translations made from the point of view, as interpretive readiness interpreter and translation priori different positions.

The interpretation of the text by the translator always affects its belonging to a different culture, a means of understanding which may be quite different than in transmitting culture.

Translation as a secondary activity, "not only because playback reproduces once already reflected the reality of the original author, but also because the generative, creative, synthesizing activity of the translator is always a second stage, following the first - stage receptive activity, analyzing, interest rpretiruyuschey" [ Bogin, 1999: 63].

Among the factors that impede adequate understanding and perception of T1 include: differences communicative situations producer / recipient and the sender / recipient, and differences in their systems of codes, types of cultural time, transmitting norms, values, beliefs and social and cultural system of the source and the target language, Availability Linguo-ethnical barrier comprising, in addition to purely linguistic barriers (differences in source system and the target language, the language of their rules and regulations), also extra-linguistic knowledge, ie specific components of the national culture, textual gaps caused by the specification of the text itself (its content, form, poetics and tricks website, genre and type of reader for whom it is intended.)

On mismatch interpretations-translation and misunderstanding affects "the difference between the point of view of the author's contemporaries, which includes accounting literary and social background, and the point of view of" offspring ", entitled this background do not know", ie historical, social, cultural contexts, as well as cultural space, the differences between the original culture and the culture of translation [Zholkovsky, Goldfinches 1975: 153].

Thus, different interpretations or "different understanding" interpreters of the same source text can be considered one of the major causes of variability translation and appearance of several variants of translation and the original text. Variability of the translation may be caused by two main reasons:

· difference in the interpretation and understanding of the meaning of the original translator;

· revealed and realized your translation, ie translator intentionally alters, adds or omits any sense in his translation.

The object of our study is the variation due to the presence of conscious phenomena and translation position from which depend on changes in the translation from the original.

2.2 Interpreting position in activity

Absence clear criteria for equivalence can be explained by the nature of the transfer and, with s transfer may be performed with different yatsya clearly otreflektirovannyh, as well as customer specified transfer position.

The original text is created for a specific purpose and for a specific readership. Translation in turn also created for a specific purpose and for a specific audience, featuring e ysya from the original audience. Translation - it's kind of a bridge between cultures, which the translator seeks to "transfer" [Bukhtoyarov 2004: 48]. A number of researchers believe that p erevodchik in its activities should be guided by this target audience [Newmark 2003: 47]. Another common approach to understanding the role of translation in the activity - a functional approach, in which it is believed that the translation must be performed in the host culture, the same function as the original in transmitting culture.

If the interpreter is not from are preset setting to create a certain type of translation, and he's not on intact ene specific audiences host culture, he must decide what he wants to achieve the goal his translation.

Translation capabilities can be schematically summarized into a scale, which are the extreme points of equivalence or literal translation and free translation or rewriting. Between these extremes are placed different interpretations or different understanding of the translator of the original text and translation various positions with a focus on transmitting or receiving culture.

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Linguistic equivalence has been considered by us in the first chapter, the various interpretive possibilities in the first paragraph of the second chapter, and the focus of our study is on Translation positions that are sufficiently far removed from lingvistichekoy equivalence and gravitate toward rewriting th. Extreme manifestation of translational position can be considered as a transfer consideration of "rewriting" (A. Lefevre.) In this case n To translate - a "rewriting" of the original, allowing various changes with respect to the original text. The number of "rewriting" of world literature in translation is very large, since the language as an expression (and storage) culture is merely an element in the cultural exchange, known as translation. The main factor contributing to "rewrite" is the lack of actual need to be converted into certain periods [Galeev, 2006: 132].

A. Lefebvre wrote that e he European culture with 500 g. n. e. to about 1800 was predominantly bilingual or even Multilingual. There was a recognized "language of power": first Latin, then French. These languages were known to all who claim to be scientists, priests, or cultural community. Of course, these people are also owned by their native languages, as well as in many cases, and a few others. That is, European culture between 500-1800 years. was bi (multi) lingual culture circles. Therefore, until the XIX century. the original is often considered only as a starting point for the work, and as a way to improve the translation of the original; interpreter tried to create a work that surpasses the original, different from it. In this case, the translation becomes a kind of rivalry between translators: Who can translate better, who can surpass the original author, as well as competition with the author of the original [Lefevere 1992: 16]. Therefore, the question of equivalence while almost did not get up. Chief at the time was not equivalent to the original creation of the translation, and the creation of a translation, surpassing the original and developing original or others made earlier translations in some meaningful way. In this case you would not actually translations and texts - analogs in one way or another approaching to the original and to develop a culture of translation.

Breakup of sectarian culture occurs about 1800 After a start to differ different potential audience translations that serve the needs of different consumers. Those who do not know the original language, but are able to read texts in their native language, read the translation for information and reflection. Those who know the language of the original, at least theoretically, read transfer, treating it as an intellectual and aesthetic game.

In the XX century. due to the fact that the turnover of the translation includes new languages, and the number of people who speak foreign languages is reduced, ie, decreases the ability to read the original, there was interest in AET accuracy of translation equivalence, since the translation inevitably functions instead of the original, and, consequently, increasing interest in the translation and the original correspondence.

In our opinion, translation principles underlying T. Savory, can be considered the basis for the allocation of various translation products and the possible appearance of a variety of options translations of the same text, especially if the text kulturoznachimy logged into the host culture. When translating translator chooses for himself one of these principles and in accordance with them n performs translation.

F. Schleiermacher noted that in translation there are two opposing trends: "as far as possible translator leaves the author alone, and the reader brings to it" and "translator leaves the reader in peace and closer to it's original» [Schleiermacher 1813/1992: 43] . P erevodchik should combine these two trends and find a point between them, and it will position the translator. However, this process is complicated by the fact that the system of ideas and values and ways of expression may be different in the target language and in their original language. Different translations of the same source text can coexist harmoniously, and sometimes hard to tell which of them is superior to the other translations. Only the combination of all of these options will allow foreign language translation of the text log to the host culture. However, there are things that can be expressed in only one language, so do not raise the issue, as the author would have written this work in the target language [Op. cit.: Schleiermacher 1813/1992: 44].

The presence of translation products is closely linked with the concept of "Ord azchik" or "initiator translation» - initiator of translation (K. Nord), which often determines what will transfer. Customer, or initiator of translation, has always played an important role in the translation of the text and its entry into the host culture. Customer may transfer the reading public, publishing, social organization, etc., but sometimes it becomes and the translator himself, in that case if he elects the text for translation. A. Lefebvre (Lefevere, 1998) believes that the way in which children will transfer, influenced by three factors; and it can be assumed that these factors also affect the position of the translator:

· Needs and expectations of the audience - depending on the needs and expectations of the audience translator elects its strategy and selects the text for translation.

· Strategy, which selects a translator when making the transfer, formed akazchik s s s translation or initiator . Customer meters may be about the church (this trend was observed mainly in the Middle Ages), the reading audience with their requirements and expectations, various community organizations, etc. M very important controlling factor m ohm m funktsioniruyuschi is fiction, is patronage (patronage). This l eople, institutions, public institutions, etc. Nourish can perform individual persons, groups, religious and social organizations, political parties, social classes, publishing and media. Patrons trying pref esti system fiction in line with their ideology. Ideology limits the choice and development of the form and content of a work of art [Lefevere 1992: 15]. P okrovitelstv of implies that writers and translators work with the requirements set out in someone from outside interests. For example, in India, in the XVIII century. Many poets allow their patrons for n isyvat authorship of their works.