Ipsocentrism, alterocentrism, linguocultural transfer in translation

The general rule to translate Russian abstract/deverbal nouns and genitive combinations is to verbalize them, to make them into verbal phrases and sentences (since English is verbocentric, when describing processes it prefers verbs, and the use of the infinitive, participle, gerund is restricted by the rules of syntactic compatibility).

Verbal-nominal abstract cliches with the weakened meaning of the verb are common in Russian literary styles (оказывать содействие “render help”; оказывать сопротивление “offer resistance”; предоставлять поддержку “extend support”; принести благодарность “express gratitude”; возбуждать иск, подавать жалобу “lodge complaint”, выражать удовлетворение “express satisfaction”, находить применение “find employment”; принимать меры “take steps”). They are also recommended to be verbalized in Rus- sian-English translations.

Along with abstract names, Russian journalese is characterized by a wide use of bookish verbs -- borrowings and calques from the Greek and Latin languages: реалгоовывать(ся) “realize”, констатировать “constate”, гарантировать “guarantee”, обеспечивать “procure”, предназначать(ся) “design”, предусматривать “envisage”, посвящать “devote”, etc.

As for syntax, in Russian written styles long complex sentences, participial and adverbial phrases are normal, speech figures and emphatic constructions are common. The syntax of information materials is bookish with frequent use of complex sentences, participial and adverbial clauses. Complex sentences predominate over compound ones [7].

Typical of Russian is high frequency of complex denominative prepositions and conjunctions in all literary styles (nomenocentrism), while in English they are confined within the domain of officialese (в области; в сфере; на ниве; на поприще “in the field of”; насчет, в части, по поводу, в аспекте, в смысле, в отношении, по отношению, с точки зрения “as regards”; на основе, в контексте, с учетом, в свете, сквозь призму, ввиду “in the light of”; с намерением, с целью, с прицелом, в целях, с перспективой, с расчетом на, в надежде, в расчете на, на предмет, в рамках, для реализации “with a view to”, “for the purpose of”; в связи с, в части, касающейся, по вопросу, в применении к, по поводу, на фоне “in connection with”; посредством, в соответствии с, в силу, за счет, по причине, вследствие, согласно, на основании, опираясь, руководствуясь, благодаря “by virtue of”, в наличии, в отсутствие).

Theorist of interpreting T. A. Kazakova writes: “.. .Inherent in the Russian literary styles are many linguistic features that are not inherent in similar English domains. Appurtenance of a text to the high functional style imposes special requirements on an interpreter and influences the course and result of the translation process. a peculiar stylistic adaptation should take place: language means of the original are replaced by language means that meet the requirements of this style in the target language” [Ibid.].

Now let us focus on literary styles in English. In the Anglo-American historical development of literature the Puritan trend played a great role. Since the 17^th c. in England matter-of-factness, austerity, and lack of pretence superseded the artificial rhetorical-stylistic ornateness and euphuism This revealed itself even more sharply later in the USA, cf. James Russell Lowell's collection of objectionable meaning-adumbrating phrases like a great crowd -- a vast concourse; came to see -- was assembled to witness; great fire -- disastrous conflagration, etc.. So the English language solves the problem of expression in a different way than Russian: persuasiveness is achieved not through elevated tone and abstract concepts, but through a personal address to the recipient, to their reason and emotions. In the journalistic and stylistic methodology, pathos is castigated as artificial and officious. It is recommended to avoid bookish lexicon and turns of speech but use lexical units and expressions inherent in conversation -- idioms, metaphors, phrasal verbs.

Less frequent than in Russian, is the occurrence of emotional expressive, abstract or “moralistic” words.

Bookish and abstract words, for example, essence, sphere, course, provision, consciousness, task, spiritual, conscience, do not evoke in English-speaking recipients the elevated stylistic effect, they are perceived as too formal and abstract. The emphasis in English journalistic phraseology is on sensory perception, intimacy, emotional impact. This is achieved using short dynamic words of the Germanic origin, assimilated Romance words, idiomatic phrases, metaphors, etc.

Among them noticeable there are verbs with postpositives: turn down (reject), look up to (admire), put up with (tolerate), make up for (compensate), stand behind (support), stand by (defend), give up, hand in (surrender); “body verbs”: back out (withdraw), stand up to (oppose), head off (prevent), bow to (accept), sniff at (ignore); image-carrying verbs: hound, roar, hammer out, iron out, curb etc.

English is characterized by the predominance of concise sentences with contracted and dense meaning, logical links between parts of utterances are less explicit than in Russian. Simple sentences constitute over 50 % of the total number of sentences.

Translation methodologists, as a routine rule, recommend to observe the stylistic canons of languages concerned. With the translation pair Russian-English it is recommended to “raise”, i. e. make more abstract and sophisticated the style in the English > Russian translation and to “lower”, make more concrete and colloquial the style in the Russian > English translation. The former means frequent impersonal and indefinite-personal sentences, abstract and deverbal nouns, bookish vocabulary, Latin and Greek origin words, rhetorical pathos, complex syntax, the latter -- personal sentences, idiomatic, vivid vocabulary, concrete figurativeness, actional predicates, few gerundial and participial phrases.

Stylistic maladaptation may result in a communicative failure. Subjectively, a stylistically maladapted translated English text may seem to Russian recipients as not serious, subjective, “lightweight”, superficial or factoid. Conversely, a stylistically maladapted translated Russian text may seem to English recipients as abstract, pompous, stilted, non-essential, not to the point.

However, let us emphasize that in changing styles there should be no “hamming up” and downright familiarization; balanced adaptation, sometimes moderation and neutralization should be the main strategy and tactics.

Fifth opposition: LT while translating into dominant linguistic code vs. LT while translating into less prestigious linguistic code

One more opposition is the linguocultural transfer due to the social status of the source and host languages and cultures, because the status largely determines the type of adaptation. In broad-brush terms, we can deduce two opposite strategies caused by two different attitudes:

1) loose translation from a less prestigious source language into a more prestigious target one, involving explanatory verbiage and free use of target-language functional substitutes for the realia of the source language;

2) precise or overrefined translation from a more prestigious source language into a less prestigious target one, literalism -- translating nearly word- for-word, continuous calque, including idioms and specific cultural turns of speech of the source language, leaving some units not transliterated or not pronounced according to the phonetics of the target language (esp. proper names, toponyms, names of brands or organizations).

These trends reflect themselves in all functional styles and genres, including the belles-lettres language. The linguocultural transfer English > Other Languages often makes translations foreignized, anglicized. As it stands, given the English-language dominance, the world literature is slowly but surely transforming along the English verbal expression and linguocultural concepts. Standardized anglicized vernacular is now found in written-style translations from English across the board, generating non-native sounding of fiction and journalistic prose.

The written English styles are generally less explicit and logically unravelling. Peculiar to English are compressed syntax, semantic contraction, implicitness of logical subordination, specific collocation and frequency of words. All of this is often overlooked by translators, and English texts are rendered in other languages, including Russian, by means of the above-mentioned continuous calque, which causes an artificial ring of text, missing of connotations or even downright meaninglessness.

Compare some “wooden” translations of J. K. Rowling's “Harry Potter”: “The Prime Minister had stood there, quite motionless, and realized that he would never, as long as he lived, dare mention this encounter to a living soul, for who in the wide world would believe him?” -- “Премьер-министр стоял неподвижно и понимал, что, пока он жив, ни одна живая душа не узнает об этом случае, потому что никто во всем мире ни за что ему не поверит”; “A little tufty-haired man in plain black robes had got to his feet and stood now in front of Dumbledore's body. Harry could not hear what he was saying. Odd words floated back to them over the hundreds of heads. `Nobility of spirit'... `intellectual contribution'... `greatness of heart'... it did not mean very much. It had little to do with Dumbledore as Harry had known him.” -- “Маленький человечек в обычной черной мантии встал со стула и подошел к телу Дамблдора. Он не слышал, что он говорил. Странные слова доходили к ним через сотни голов: “Благородство духа. умственный вклад. величество сердца.” это все ничего не значило. Это мало относилось к Дамблдору, которого знал Гарри”.

According to our hypothesis, currently the translation reveals a tendency to prefer the actualization of deep (and often superficial) structures of the English linguoculture, regardless of the direction of translation: English > Other languages or Other languages > English. This is due to a frequent perception of English as a dominant code in comparison with native languages.

Let us clarify the above. Say, in English > Russian translations adaptation tends to occur through “gentri- fication” (improvement) and often complication of deep structures of the original. As for surface structures, they frequently reveal anglicization in translation.

In Russian > English translations basic is the adaptation along the line of simplification, the deep structures of the original are formulated in accessible forms, the content and meaning of the original are adapted according to the deep structures of English-speaking recipients. As for surface structures, they also reveal anglicization: the surface structures of national languages are transformed according to the rules of English, in any case, translation methodology dictates so.

Thus, in both directions there is again anglicization of a resultant translated text. In the first case, the Russian audience is sort of placed in the English-speaking culture, in the second, the Russian author is placed therein.

The translator may flaunt their knowledge of English idioms, which produces an effect of exaggeration, “hamming it up”, or “sounding more English than the English themselves”, and in the long run it often misleads recipients. It must be borne in mind that idioms, proverbs, allusions retain their internal form, usage, culture connotations, place and time associations.

That is why linguists and translation methodologists advise against translation using characteristic language idioms. The tactic often recommended by the Russian school of translation is to pick neutral words and phrases if there are no ready substitutes for some idioms, allusions, imagery. a transparent and less affected interpretation will be better understood by the reader. For example, to translate the phrase “Экономика до сих пор пробуксовывает” as “The economy is still hamstrung” will be too expressive and negative-evaluative, moreover, it involves deliberate degradation of meaning (hamstring -- “maim”). The adequate translation will be “The economy is still slow (is still in bad shape, not working properly)”And it is perhaps too flowery to translate the neutral “матч 1971 года -- самая яркая страница в шахматной истории города” as “the 1971 match was the most quicksilver page in record logs”, but preferably as “Your match of 1971 is the brightest page in the chess history of the city.”

A recommended translation of the sentence “Спортивный комплекс `Мои' назван в честь того самого диктатора, чуть не доведшего страну до ручки.. would be “The Moi International Sports Centre was named after that very politician, during whose rule the country was close to debacle”, and not the options “who nearly ruined the country”, “plagued the life out of the country”, “took the country down the drain”, “ran the country into the ground” or even “nearly screwed up the whole country.”

Then, the translator sometimes rather loosely manages the cultural realia of their native language and applies modifications that, in their view, adequately describe the situation “as seen by the foreigner.” Such kind of substitution of national realia by the realia of a reference (“etalon”) linguoculture often causes an undesirable comic effect. C.f. the translation of such terms unmatchable in the scope and content as Russian образование, обучение vs. training or instruction, колледж (техникум, училище) vs. college. Similarly inadequate seems the translation of positions, academic titles and degrees differently created and awarded in different countries. E.g. the dictionary multitran. ru suggests several variants for the Russian university position “старший преподаватель” -- senior lecturer, associate professor, senior instructor, and nearly the same variants for the academic title “доцент” -- senior lecturer, docent, adjunct lecturer, assistant professor, associate professor.

The translation methodologist Jane Povey analyzes the translation into English of the following Russian sentence: “Высшее образование было у 8 тысяч, из них -- 42 кандидата и 11 докторов наук” -- “8,000 had higher education and those included 42 candidates of science and 11 people with doctorates.” The author believes that this interpretation leads to a communication failure: foreign students, unfamiliar with the Russian system of education, may not understand this information. In the absence of exact equivalents the author proposes to resort to cultural adaptation, “42 people were with the equivalent of a PhD and 11 with advanced degrees” (Visson, 2011). However, it is more accurate to translate this sentence with the preservation of the Russian realia and English explanations: “8,000 had higher education and those included 42 candidates of science (the equivalent of a PhD) and 11 people with doctorates (the equivalent of PhD advanced degrees).”

Conclusion and implication

The notion of linguocultural transfer is connected with globalization, and to a large extent, standardization and unification of linguocultures. Although these factors may also condition the enrichment of all languages and cultures with each other's accomplishments, provided they share some language of international communication as a common code, this does not happen. The point is that to become an adequate cross-cultural communication tool this universal code should be subordinate and neutral in relation to national languages and cultures.

In reality the situation is different: the proliferation and dominance of English-language culture in the world entails that English is often perceived as the dominant code and the English-speaking cultures are often perceived as reference cultures, while other world codes and cultures -- as subordinate. In fact, intercultural communication today prevalently takes place with the help of the deep and surface structures of the dominant language. These structures may replace relevant structures of other languages of the world. In its turn, this can lead to the decline of national languages/linguocultures and their gradual oblivion We argue that the best solutions to the problem would be either the international adoption of a widespread artificial language as a universal auxiliary language or an agreement upon the conventions on the teaching and use of English as a language of international communication (we elaborate on the issue in [28]). The conclusion and implications of the present article fit into the second solution..

For the sake of balance and preservation of diversity the best approach for national translators will be balanced adaptation with the ipsocentric bias. It means that when translating from the national languages into English it is necessary to largely preserve the realia and syntactical structures of national languages and transfer them freely to the translated text, and when there is interpreting from English as a language of international communication into national languages the English linguocultural transfer should be precluded and the text should be either culturally neutralized or familiarized for the target culture.

Ipsocentric approach should also be central for poly- glottic international translators, meaning that they should be focused on the national/ethnic linguocultures in both directions of translations, rather than on the linguoculture of the language for international communication.

Sources of illustrations

Translators forums: http://www.proz.com/kudoz/; http://foram.lingvo.ra/actualtopics.aspx?bid=18; http://www. trworkshop.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=25; http://forum.study.ru/; http://www.vavilon.ru.

References

1. Barkhudarov LS. On the surface and deep structure of the sentence. Voprosy iazykoznaniia = Questions of linguistics. 1973;(3):50-61. (In Russ.).

2. Borisenko A. Selindzher nachinaet i vyigryvaet = Salinger starts and wins. 2009. Available from: http://mag- azines.russ.ru/inostran/2009/7/bo16.html (In Russ.).

3. Breus EV. Osnovy teorii i praktiki perevoda s russkogo iazyka na angliyskiy = Fundamentals of the theory and practice of translation from Russian into English. Moscow: URAO; 2004. (In Russ.).

4. Visson L. Praktikum-2 po sinkhronnomu perevodu s russkogo iazyka na angliyskiy = Workshop-2 on simultaneous translation from Russian into English. Moscow: Valent; 2005. (In Russ.).

5. Gasparov M. Ne zasloniat' soboy podlinnik ot chitatelia = Not to obscure the original from the reader. 2001. Available from: http://old.russ.ru/krug/20010626_kal-pr.html (In Russ.).

6. Kazakova TA. Teoriia perevoda (lingvisticheskie aspekty) = Theory of translation (linguistic aspects). St. Petersburg: Soyuz; 2001. (In Russ.).

7. Komissarov VN. Teoriia perevoda (lingvisticheskie aspekty) = Theory of translation (linguistic aspects). Moscow; 1990. (In Russ.).

8. Leontieva KI. Vernost' interpretatcii vs. “neytralizatciia” pri perevode poezii = Fidel interpretation vs. “neutralization” in the translation of poetry. 2012. Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=23190602 (In Russ.).

9. Lorie MF. Ulovki perevodchikov = Interpreters' ruses. In: Masterstvo perevoda = The skill of translation. Iss. 7. Moscow: Soviet writer; 1970. (In Russ.).

10. Markovina IY, Sorokin YA. Kul'tura i tekst. Vvedenie v lakunologiiu = Culture and text. Introduction to lacunae study: study guide. Moscow: GEOTAR Media; 2010. (In Russ.).

11. Marova ND. Dialogi o perspektive teksta (na materiale nemetckoiazychnykh hudozhestvennykh tekstov) = Dialogues on the text perspective (based on the German-language literary texts). Almaty: Publishing House of the Kazakh University Press; 1989. (In Russ.).

12. Puchkov D. Professional'nyy perevod kh/f Snatch -- Tynu40k Goblina = Professional translation of the feature film Snatch. 2004. Available from: https://www.oper.ru/news/read.php?t=1051601005 (In Russ.).

13. Sorokin YA, Markovina IY. Opyt sistematizatcii lingvisticheskikh i kul'turologicheskikh lakun: Metod- ologicheskie i metodicheskie aspekty = Systematization of linguistic and cultural lacunae: Methodological and methodical aspects. In: Leksicheskie edinitcy i organizatciia struktury literaturnogo teksta = Lexical units and organization structure of the literary text. Kalinin; 1983. Pp. 35--52. (In Russ.).

14. Antipov GA, Donskikh OA, Markovina IY, Sorokin YA. Tekst kak iavlenie kul'tury = Text as a cultural phenomenon. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Sib. Div.; 1989. (In Russ.).

15. Chistova IS (compilation, comments). Lermontov M. Yu. Compositions: in 2 vol. Moscow: Pravda; 1988--1990. (In Russ.).

16. Chukovsky KI. Vysokoe iskusstvo. Printcipy hudozhestvennogo perevoda = The high art. Principles of literary translation. St. Petersburg: Avalon, Azbuka-classic; 2008. (In Russ.).

17. Schweitzer AD, Nikolsky LB. Vvedenie v sotciolingvistiku = Introduction to sociolinguistics. Moscow: Higher school; 1978. (In Russ.).

18. Schweitzer AD. Teoriia perevoda: status, problemy, aspekty = Theory of translation: status, issues, aspects. Moscow: Nauka; 1988. (In Russ.).

19. Jung CG. K voprosu ob izuchenii psihologicheskikh tipov = The question of the study of psychological types. Available from: http://www.yourdreams.ru/biblio/pages/carl-gustav-jung-spt-1.php (In Russ.).

20. Yakhnina YY. Kazhdyy perevod -- interpretatciia = Every translation is interpretation. 2001. Available from: http://www.elkost.com/authors/kostioukovitch/media/51-russkiyzhurnal2001yulianay (In Russ.).

21. Yakhnina YY. Tri Kamiu = Three Camus. 1997. Available from: http://www.vavilon.ru/noragal/yahnina. html (In Russ.).

22. Bassnett S. Translation Studies. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press; 2012.

23. Berman A; Venuti L (ed.). Translation and the Trials of the Foreign. In: The Translation Studies Reader. Routledge; 2000.

24. Eco U. Saying Almost the Same Thing: Experiences in Translation. Milan: Bompiani; 2003.

25. Fishman J. Language modernization and planning in comparison with other types of national modernization and planning. Language in society. 1974;(2-1):79-102. [Ed. by J. Fishman. Hague: Mouton].

26. Hingley R (ed. and trans.). The Oxford Chekhov. Vol. III. London, New York: Oxford University Press; 1964.

27. Lefevere A. Translation: Its Genealogy in the West. In: Bassnett S, Lefevere A (eds.). Translation, History and Culture. London, New York: Pinter; 1990.

28. Shelestyuk E. Exercising Eco-Linguistic Approach in Teaching English: Proposed Conventions for TESOL/TEFL Pedagogy. In: The Third International Conference on Current Issues of Languages, Dialects and Linguistics, 31 January -- 1 February 2019, Iran, Ahwaz. Vol. 2. Book of Full Articles. 2019. 1--21. ISBN: 9786008873877.

29. Shuttleworth M, Cowie M. Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester, UK: St Jerome Publishing; 1997.

30. Venuti L. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation. London, New York: Routledge; 1995.

31. Venuti L. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation (2nd ed.). Abingdon, Oxon, U.K.: Rout- ledge; 2008. ISBN 978-0-415-39453-6.

Источники иллюстративного материала

Форумы переводчиков: http://www.proz.com/kudoz/; http://forum.lingvo.ru/actualtopics.aspx?bid=18; http://www.trworkshop.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=25; http://forum.study.ru/; http://www.vavilon.ru.

Список источников

1. Бархударов Л. С. О поверхностной и глубинной структуре предложения // Вопросы языкознания. 1973. № 3. С. 50--61.

2. Борисенко А. Сэлинджер начинает и выигрывает. URL: http://magazines.russ.ru/inostran/2009/7/ bo16.html.

3. Бреус Е. В. Основы теории и практики перевода с русского языка на английский. М.: УРАО, 1998. 240 с.

4. Виссон Л. Практикум-2 по синхронному переводу с русского языка на английский. М.: Валент, 2005. С. 15.

5. Гаспаров М. Не заслонять собой подлинник от читателя. URL: http://old.russ.ru/krug/20010626_kal- pr.html.

6. Казакова Т. А. Теория перевода (лингвистические аспекты). СПб.: Союз, 2001. 320 с.

7. Комиссаров В. Н. Теория перевода (лингвистические аспекты): учеб. для ин-тов и фак. иностр. яз. М.: Высш. шк., 1990. 253 с.

8. Леонтьева К. И. Верность интерпретации vs. «нейтрализация» при переводе поэзии. URL: http://rgf. tversu.ru/node/642.

9. Лорие М. Ф. Уловки переводчиков // Мастерство перевода. Вып. 7. М.: Совет. писатель, 1970. 542 с.

10. Марковина И. Ю., Сорокин Ю. А. Культура и текст. Введение в лакунологию: учеб. пособие. М.: ГЭОТАР-Медиа, 2010.

11. Марова Н. Д. Диалоги о перспективе текста (на материале немецкоязычных художественных текстов). Алма-Ата: Изд-во Казах. ун-та, 1989. 84 с.

12. Пучков Д. Профессиональный перевод х/ф Snatch -- Tynu40k Goblina. URL: https://www.oper.ru/ news/read.php?t=1051601005.

13. Сорокин Ю. А., Марковина И. Ю. Опыт систематизации лингвистических и культурологических лакун: методологические и методические аспекты // Лексические единицы и организация структуры литературного текста: сб. науч. тр. Калинин, 1983. С. 35--52.

14. Текст как явление культуры / Г. А. Антипов, О. А. Донских, И. Ю. Марковина, Ю. А. Сорокин. Новосибирск: Наука. Сиб. отд-ние, 1989.

15. Лермонтов М. Ю. Соч. в 2 т. Т. 1 / сост. и коммент. И. С. Чистовой; вступ. ст. И. Л. Андроникова. М.: Правда, 1988. 720 с.

16. Чуковский К. И. Высокое искусство. Принципы художественного перевода. СПб.: Авалонъ, Азбука-классика, 2008. 442 с.

17. Швейцер А. Д., Никольский Л. Б. Введение в социолингвистику: учеб. пособие. М.: Высш. шк., 1978. 216 с.

18. Швейцер А. Д. Теория перевода: статус, проблемы, аспекты. М.: Наука, 1988.

19. Юнг К. Г. К вопросу об изучении психологических типов. URL: http://www.yourdreams.ru/biblio/ pages/carl-gustav-jung-spt-1.php.

20. Яхнина Ю. Я. Каждый перевод -- интерпретация. URL: http://www.langinfo.ru/index.php? sect_id=1540.

21. Яхнина Ю. Я. Три Камю. URL: http://www.vavilon.ru/noragal/yahnina.html.

22. Bassnett S. Translation Studies. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2012.

23. Berman A. Translation and the Trials of the Foreign. The Translation Studies Reader / ed. by L. Venuti. Routledge, 2000.

24. Eco U. Saying Almost the Same Thing: Experiences in Translation. Milan: Bompiani, 2003.

25. Fishman, J. Language modernization and planning in comparison with other types of national modernization and planning // Language in society. 1974. Vol. 2, no. 1. Р 79--102. [Ed. by J. Fishman. Hague: Mouton].

26. The Oxford Chekhov. Vol. III / ed. and trans. by R. Hingley. London; New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1964.

27. Lefevere A. Translation: Its Genealogy in the West. Transaltion, History and Culture / ed. by S. Bassnett, A. Lefevere. London; New York: Pinter, 1990.

28. Shelestyuk E. Exercising Eco-Linguistic Approach in Teaching English: Proposed Conventions for TESOL/ TEFL Pedagogy // The Third International Conference on Current Issues of Languages, Dialects and Linguistics, 31 January -- 1 February 2019, Iran, Ahwaz. Vol. 2. Book of Full Articles. 1--21. 2019. ISBN: 9786008873877.

29. Shuttleworth M., Cowie M. Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester, UK: St Jerome Publ., 1997.

30. Venuti L. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation. London; New York: Routledge, 1995.

31. Venuti L. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation. 2nd ed. Abingdon, Oxon, U.K.: Rout- ledge, 2008. ISBN 978-0-415-39453-6.

Размещено на Allbest.ru