Translation strategies in English-Ukrainian rendering of dual-number quantifiers

Размещено на http://allbest.ru

Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

Foreign Languages Department of Faculties of Chemistry and Physics

Translation strategies in English-Ukrainian rendering of dual-number quantifiers

Oleksandr Lytvynov PhD in Philology, Associate Professor



Анотація

Стратегії перекладу англо-українського перекладу двозначних кванторів

Стаття присвячена розгляду стратегій перекладу англійських квантифікаторів двоїни both, either, neither українською мовою у сучасному художньому дискурсі.

Метою роботи є виявлення локальних і глобальних стратегій та прийомів перекладу квантифікаторів на етапі узагальнення результатів перекладацького досвіду. Завдання включають встановлення типів перекладацьких трансформацій, прийомів і стратегій, застосованих для досягнення еквівалентності й адекватності українського перекладу.

Еквівалентність розуміється як співвідношення між текстами оригіналу та перекладу зі збереженням семантичної (референційної, конотативної), стилістичної та прагматичної (функціонально-комунікативної) інформації при передачі змісту оригіналу. Адекватність трактується як якість перекладу, що дозволяє вважати його загально прийнятним або задовільним і передбачає відтворення змісту оригіналу з урахуванням прагматичної мети та без порушення мовних норм. Дослідження виконано на матеріалі роману Дж. Роулінг «Гаррі Поттер і в'язень Азкабану» та його авторизованого перекладу, здійсненого В. Морозовим, із яких методом суцільної вибірки було відібрано 96 квантифікаторів двоїни.

Методи і процедури дослідження наступні: 1) повна вибірка; 2)Аналіз одномовних і двомовних словникових статей; 3) Аналіз безпосередніх складових; 4) контекстуальний аналіз; 5) трансформаційний аналіз перекладу; 6) синтаксичний аналіз пропозицій і процедури кількісного розрахунку.

У результаті аналізу словникових дефініцій виявлено функціонально-семантичні властивості та прямі перекладні еквіваленти даних одиниць. За допомогою аналізу за безпосередніми складниками та контекстуального аналізу ідентифіковано 17 семантичних ролей референтів даних лексем у тексті оригіналу, найчастотнішими з яких є агенс (36,4%), локатив (14,6%), експерієнтив (11,4%). Виявлено 19 комбінацій семантичних ролей і синтаксичних функцій квантифікаторів у тексті оригіналу, серед яких найчастішим є агентивний підмет (37,5%); частота решти становить приблизно по 10%. Аналіз перекладацьких трансформацій дозволив установити основні прийоми перекладу квантифікаторів українською мовою, що включають опущення (62,5%), буквальний переклад за допомогою еквівалентів еквіваленти (21,9%) та лексичні заміни (15,6%). Доведено, що основними стратегіями перекладу, включаючи по дві «на оригінал» і «на читача», локальними стратегіями при відтворенні даних одиниць українською мовою є 1) комунікативний переклад (термін П. Н'юмарка) (68,8%) за допомогою опущення (компресії) зі зменшенням опущення, компресії, зменшення емфази, парафрази із синтаксичними змінами та зменшенням експліцитності, а також за допомогою еквівалентів із синтаксичними змінами, включаючи додавання, та зміною емфази; 2) буквальний переклад (15,6%) із використанням прямих (чистих) (4,2%) і непрямих (змішаних) еквівалентів (11,4%) зі зміною емфази та/або синтаксичними змінами; прямих і непрямих еквівалентів, 3)семантичний переклад (15,6%), включаючи синонімічні заміни, зміни емфази, парафразу синтаксичні зміни, модуляцію, усі з яких застосовано спільно з 4) глобальною стратегією «одомашнення» (100%), що забезпечують еквівалентність та адекватність англо-українського перекладу даних квантифікаторів.

Ключові слова: стратегія перекладу, прийом перекладу, квантифікатор, семантична роль, еквівалент, опущення, заміна, буквальний переклад, семантичний переклад, комунікативний переклад.



Introduction

Translation is a complex process that involves combinations of global and local strategies applied at every stage to attain equivalence and adequacy of the target text. Local strategies (translation procedures) “relate specifically to the translation of particular language structures and lexical items [Kearns, 2009. p. 283], to “individual expressions in the source text, such as words, grammar constructions, idioms, etc.” [Romaniuk; Zapotichna, 2020, p. 127]. Global strategies (or translation methods) “operate at a more general level and pertain to broad questions of textual style and the choice between suppressing or emphasizing specific aspects of the source text [Kearns, 2009. p. 283]; being “applied to a text as a whole” and aimed at “reproduction of the whole conceptual image of the source text,” and “the global translation strategies involve the local ones” [Romaniuk; Zapotichna, 2020, p. 127].

Equivalence is “a central concept in translation theory, but also a controversial one,” commonly defined as “a relationship between a source text (ST) and a target text (TT)...or parts of STs and TTs... that allows the TT to be considered a translation of the ST” based on their referential or denotative, connotative, text-normative, formal, pragmatic aspects etc. [Kenny, 2009, p. 96]. P. Newmark (1988) claims that the overriding purpose, and a desirable result, of any translation, should be “to achieve 'equivalent effect,' i.e. to produce the same effect (or one as close as possible) on the readership of the translation as has been obtained on the readership of the original,” called the 'equivalent response' principle” [Newmark, 1988, p. 48], also referred to by E. Nida as “dynamic equivalence” based on “the ST and TT words having the same effect on their respective readers” [Nida, Taber, 1969]. Adequacy of translation is viewed as its quality of being satisfactory or acceptable. According to Bakker et al., “adequate translation is a reconstruction of source text textemes and consists of an explicitation of the textual relations and functions of the source text [Bakker, Koster, Van Leuven-Zwart, 2009, p. 272].

Translation strategies are classified differently in modern translation studies; for instance, Catford (1965) proposes the term 'translation shifts' (level shifts & category shifts, structural & class shifts, unit shifts & intra-system shifts), defining translation as “the replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another language (TL),” the term 'equivalent' being used as 'a key term,' [Catford, 1965, pp. 20-21] and, based on the extent, levels and ranks of translation, he distinguishes such types as full, partial, total, restricted, rank-bound and unbounded translation etc. A. Chesterman (1997) differentiates 'comprehension strategies' relating to the cognitive analysis of the ST and 'production strategies' relating to the production of the TT, dividing the latter into (mainly local) ten syntactic/grammatical, nine semantic and five pragmatic strategies, with subcategories in each group and no obvious distinction between them [Chesterman, 1997, pp. 92-112], describing strategies as 'ways in which translators seek to conform to norms . . . not to achieve equivalence, but simply to arrive at the best version they can think of' [Kearns, 2009, p. 285].

According to Chesterman (1997), translation strategies are text-manipulating, process-oriented, goal-oriented, problem-centered, consciously applied and inter-subjective. In regard to global translation strategies, L. Venuti (2001) distinguishes between 'foreignization' and 'domestication' strategies based on the translator's 'moving the reader towards the author or the author towards the reader' [Venuti, 2001].

These strategies involve translation methods, 'determined by cultural, economic, and political factors,' serving as the means of coping with translation problems [Venuti, 2008, p. 240]. P. Newmark (1988) equates global strategies to translation methods, which refer to the whole text, and local strategies to procedures regarded as a translator's options applied for sentences and smaller units, thus differentiating eight translation types based on the source text (language) focus and the target text (language) focus, the first including 'word-for-word, literal, faithful and semantic translation,' the second being 'adaptation, free, idiomatic and communicative translation' [Newmark, 1988]. L. Kyrychuk (2018) differentiates between “two basic, directly opposite in character, translation strategies, namely: the strategy of imitative, direct, ST-oriented translation and oblique, indirect, target receptor-oriented or functional translation” [Kyrychuk, 2018, p. 74]. E. Davies (2003) distinguishes seven strategies, namely: localization, globalization, addition, omission, preservation, transformation and creation (which, in particular, were used by W. Dukmak (2012) to describe the translation of culture-specific references in the Harry Potter books into Arabic). M. Baker (1992) proposes the eight most frequent strategies employed by professional translators in dealing with translation problems, namely, translation by: a) a more general word, b) a more neutral / less expressive word, c) cultural substitution, d) a loan word or loan word plus explanation, e) paraphrase using a related word, f) paraphrase using unrelated words, g) omission, h) illustration [Baker, 1992, pp. 26-42].

Generally, translation strategies are regarded as a long-term set of rules, approaches and actions, methods and procedures aimed at adequate rendering of an original text into a foreign language in accordance with “the communication goal, cognitive needs and interests of the target audience” [Romaniuk, Zapotichna, 2020, p. 127], with cultural, linguistic and extra-linguistic factors taken into account. Moreover, they are the means of overcoming translation problems that arise from the inappropriateness of literal translation. According to Z. Owji (2013), provided that literal translation is acceptable, “the strategies may not be needed” [Owji, 2013]. translation ukrainian semantic language

Besides, every stage of the translation process involves translation tactics, which are different from local strategies, since, according to Romaniuk and Zapotichna (2020), they are 'directed to different objects,' i.e. local strategies are intended to 'reproduce conceptual meaning or the function of a certain piece of text,' while tactics are aimed at determining 'which semantic or formal characteristics of the language units of the original text are subject to reproduction in translation to achieve the specified strategy' [Romaniuk, Zapotichna, 2020, p. 127]. Local strategies are based on 'logically interrelated translation tactics' regarded as 'specific speech actions aimed at implementing a strategy and achieving the goal of translation at each stage' [ibid, p. 127]. The impossibility of adhering to one translation strategy solely leads to combinations of global and local strategies, including related methods all depending on the type and genre of the text being translated.

To summarize various theories, translation strategy is herein defined as a long-term systematic plan of explicit mental and behavioural actions to render the semantic, pragmatic and cultural aspects of the original text semantic, pragmatic and cultural aspects of the original text or text segment (translation unit, i.e. a sentence, clause, phrase or word as a lower unit) by foreign language means, preserve its style, genre characteristics and imagery to ensure therefore equivalence and adequacy of the translated text or unit.

According to P. Newmark (1988), translation units are divided into higher units (paragraphs and texts) and lower units (sentences, groups, clauses and words). “The largest quantity of translation in a text is done at the level of the word, the lexical unit, the collocation, the group, the clause and the sentence [Newmark, 1988, p. 54].

The subject of this study is translation strategies employed in rendering the English dualnumber quantifiers (DNQs) both, either & neither into Ukrainian in modern fiction discourse. The aim is to analyze and identify the strategies and methods of adequate English-Ukrainian translation of the DNQs at the post-translation stage, as well as the post-translation strategy of generalizing the translator's experience.

The objectives are: 1) to compile a register of English DNQs based on the novel by J.K. Rowling “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban;” 2) to determine their functional-semantic characteristics and direct translation equivalents; 3) to identify their semantic roles and syntactic functions in the source text; 4) to specify the types of grammatical shifts translation shifts and methods of their rendering into Ukrainian; 5) to identify and analyze the respective translation strategies applied. The research methods and procedures are: 1) entire sampling; 2) monolingual and bilingual dictionary entries' analysis; 3) immediate constituents' analysis; 4) contextual analysis; 5) translation transformational analysis; 6) sentence parsing and quantity calculations procedures.

In recent years, English quantifiers were investigated within translation studies in various aspects, including, to name a few, contrastive studies of non-numerical quantificational NPs produced by English speakers and Mandarin & Korean learners of English [Crosthwaite, Choy, Bae, 2016], distributive quantifier scope in English-speaking learners of Japanese on “the syntax-semantics interface” [Marsden, 2009]; corpus-based cross-linguistic analysis of English and Lithuanian non-numerical quantifiers for practical applications in translation, lexicography and language teaching [Ruzaite, 2009]; corpus study of determiners in English quantificational expressions used by Korean learners of English and native English-speakers [Yoo, Shin, 2019]; English lexical equivalents of Thai quantifiers based on English-Thai parallel corpora [Wijitsopon, 2021]; linguistic attributes of English numerals and denumerals [Kobyakova, Shvachko, 2019]; quanti-

fication in human languages “to build Natural Language Generation algorithms that mimic humans' use of quantified expressions” [Chen, Deemter, Pagliaro, Smalbil, Lin, 2019]; semantic, cognitive and pragmatic meanings of quantifiers [Knowlton, Trueswell, Papafragou, 2023] etc. Concerning translation difficulties, S. Finn and O. Bueno claim that quantifier variance in natural languages “faces a number of difficulties and... is not compatible with charitable translation” [Finn, Bueno, 2018]. At the same time, little attention has been given recently to analyses of translation strategies and methods employed in rendering the DNQs both, either & neither in contemporary fantasy fiction.

Applicable to this investigation are the following global and local strategies elaborated by different researchers: 1) domestication [Venuti, 2004] an ethnocentric approach wherein the emphasis is laid on the linguistic and cultural values of the target language, and “the author approaches the reader;” 2) communicative translation [Newmark, 1998] a target text-oriented strategy aimed at reproducing the exact message of the source text content into the target language with emphasis on naturalness and comprehensiveness of the target text readership; 3) semantic translation [Newmark, 1998] a source text-oriented strategy aimed at preserving the meaning of the original text with emphasis on naturalness; 4) literal translation [Newmark, 1998; Chesterman, 1997], i.e. converting the original-text individual words and grammatical structures into the nearest equivalents in the target text, which according to Chesterman [1997], is a “default” strategy.

Besides, relevant to this research are the following direct (literal) and oblique translation strategies proposed by Chesterman [1997]:

to local strategies, semantic strategies: 1) synonymy selecting the closest synonym, which is not the first literal translation of the source text word or phrase; 2) antonymy selecting a word with the opposite meaning, mostly combined with a negation; 3) emphasis change increasing, decreasing or changing the emphasis of the translated text items in comparison to the original; 4) paraphrase paraphrase creating a liberal approximate translation wherein some lexical items may be ignored, which corresponds to Davies' and Baker's omission, as well as related or unrelated-word paraphrase [Baker, 1992];

syntactic strategies: 1) literal translation following the source text form as closely as possible without following the source language structure, which, according to Venuti [2004], is an oblique method of rendering a source language text into the appropriate idiomatic or grammatical equivalent in the target language; 2) transposition changing one part of speech into another, which corresponds to Venuti's modulation, i.e. changing in viewpoint (e.g. changing a part of speech); 3) phrase paraphrase structure change changing the internal structure of the noun phrase or verb phrase, although the source language phrase itself maybe translated by a corresponding phrase in the target language, which correlates with transformation [Davies, 2003, p. 86] totally changing the text in a way that could be considered distorting to the original, i.e. substitution (replacement) of a reference with another one; 4) clause and sentence structure change changing the organization of the constituent phrases, clauses or sentences;

pragmatic strategies: 1) cultural filtering concrete realization, at the level of language, of the global strategy of domestication universal strategy [Venuti, 2004] or target culture-oriented translation; 2) explicitness change adding or deleting some information to make the text more or less explicit, which also corresponds to Davies' addition preserving the original reference but supplemented with additional information judged necessary by the translator and omission deleting an item “so that no trace of it is found” [Davies, 2003, pp. 77, 79]. The above strategies correlate with such translation methods as direct or oblique literal translation (i.e. by equivalent), equivalent translation, lexical substitution and omission or compression.



Results

By entire sampling at the first stage of the investigation, a total of 96 lexemes (100%) were selected from the source text, namely: both 62 (64.6%), either 31 (32.3%), neither 3 (3.1%). According to monolingual dictionary entries, the following lexico-semantic variants of the lexemes under study exist:

Both: 1) predeterminer, determiner, pronoun, quantifier: used to refer to two people or things, regarded, identified and considered together; 2) conjunction: used in the structure both... and..., wherein both precedes words, phrases, or clauses joined by the coordinating conjunction and, to refer to two facts or alternatives and emphasize that each of them is true or possible, to indicate that not just one, but also the other of the joined elements is included and that the statement being made applies to each of the alternatives. The phrase to have it both ways means “to benefit from two incompatible ways of thinking or behaving”.

Either: 1) conjunction: used before the first of two (occasionally more) given alternatives, the other being introduced by 'or' in the structure: either...or...; 2) adverb (with negative): a) used to indicate a similarity or link with a statement just made; b) “for that matter; moreover”, used to add an extra piece of information, and to emphasize that both are equally important; 3) determiner, pronoun, quantifier: a) “one or the other of two people or things”; b) “each of two” or “both”; c) used with a broad negative to refer to each of two things, people, or situations to indicate that the negative statement includes both of them. The phrase either way means “whichever of two given alternatives is the case”.

Neither: 1) determiner, pronoun, quantifier: “not the one nor the other of two people or things; not either”; 2) conjunction: used before the first of two (or occasionally more) alternatives, the others being introduced by 'nor' in the structure: neither...nor...; to indicate that they are each untrue or each does not happen: 3) adverb: used to introduce a further negative statement and/or to emphasize another negative statement. Syn: nor. The phrase neither here nor there means “of no importance or relevance”.

The source text contains DNQs that pertain to such functional-semantic classes as: the quantifier proper, determiner, predeterminer, pronoun, emphasizing (emphatic) emphasizing pronoun, pronominal adverb and conjunction. Immediate constituents' analysis revealed the most frequent types, which are the emphatic pronoun and determiner (more than 20% each), less frequent are the conjunction, adverb and quantifier proper (12-19%), the least frequent being the pronoun and predeterminer (less than 10%). These functional-semantic types influence the choice of local translation strategies with the corresponding translation methods and determine the types of grammatical shifts.

In this paper, the DNQs are analyzed in terms of semantic roles (SR), which are defined as “the underlying relationships that a participant has with the main verb in a clause”, i.e. the actual roles a participant plays in some real or imaginary situation, apart from the linguistic encoding of those situations, also known as case frames [Fillmore, 1968] and thematic roles [Dowty, 1991]. In this paper, SRs are assigned not only to arguments in predicate-argument structures but also to adjuncts.

As a result of contextual analysis, the following semantic roles of the DNQs are identified: 1) agent (Ag), 2) experiencer (Ex), 3) patient (Pt), 4) recipient (Rc), 5) instrument (In), 6) locative (Lc), 7) event (Ev), 8) quality (Ql), 9) state (St), 10) source (Sc), 11) time (Tm), 12) goal (Gl), 13) manner (Mn), 14) theme (Th), 15) quantity (Qn), 16) similarity (Sm), 17) addition (Ad). The most frequent are Ag (35-36.4%), Lc (14-14.6%) and Ex (11-11.4%) in the source text, while all the other roles are found in less than 10% of cases each. Ag and Ex jointly constitute almost 48% of cases as they refer to human beings who are the characters and active participants of the plot. These semantic roles also have a significant impact on the choice of translation strategies and methods in their rendering into another language.

Grammatical shifts in rendering the DNQs are, for the most part, conditioned by their syntactic functions in the source text. As a result of the sentence parsing procedure, the DNQs are found in five surface syntactic functions (SF) in the source text: 1) subject (48-50%), 2) object (11-11.5%), 3) predicate predicative (6-6.25%), 4) attribute (2-2.1%); 5) adverbial modifier (2930.2%). Generally, the most numerous are the subject and adverbial modifier (50% and 31.3%, respectively); while the object is much less frequent (11.5%), the predicate, predicative and attribute being the least frequent functions (less than 7% each). The procedure of detailed parsing revealed three deep SFs of the DNQs, namely: 1) determiner (22-22.9%), 2) subject & object complement compound (21-21.9%), 3) connector (19-19.8%). Distributed almost equally, the deep SFs are registered in 62 cases (64.6%), whereas in 34 cases (35.4%), the DNQs perform solely surface SFs.

Besides, 19 combinations of the DNQs' semantic roles and surface syntactic functions are registered in the source text, among which the most frequent is Ag subject (more than 35%); while Ex subject and AM of place and similarity are less frequent (more than 10% each), the other 16 combinations being considerably less frequent (less than 10% each). These combinations of semantic roles and syntactic functions determine the types of grammatical shifts in rendering the DNQs, as well as the translation methods incorporated in the local and global translation strategies.

Translation methods of English DNQs into Ukrainian include equivalent translation, lexical substitution and omission. According to bilingual dictionary entries, the following direct (pure) translation equivalents of the DNQs are available:

Both: 1) predeterminer, determiner, pronoun, quantifier: a) обидва (masculine and neuter gender), обидві (feminine gender) Ukrainian collective numerals that denote “each of the two mentioned or known persons, things, objects, phenomena etc.”, syn. обоє; b) той і другий; і той, і другий pronominal phrases comprised of the indicative pronoun той [that] and the ordinal numeral другий [second], which corresponds to the cardinal numeral one, linked by the coordinate conjunction і [and]; 2) adverb: теж, також Ukrainian adverbs [also, too, likewise, as well]; 3) conjunction both... and...: як... так і...; і... і...; [and... and...], не тільки... а (але) й... [not only but also] compound coordinate conjunctions that link homogeneous members of a sentence.

Either: 1) determiner, pronoun, quantifier: a) той чи той indicative pronouns linked by the disjunctive conjunction [that or that]; один з двох numerals [one of two]; кожний attributive pronoun [every, each; any]; b) обидва collective numeral [both]; on either side з обох боків, обабіч; c) будь-який (з двох) indefinite pronoun [some, any; whichever, (of two)]; either will do перший-ліпший підійде; 2) adverb: також, теж adverbs that mean also, too, likewise used with negative; 3) conjunction: або disjunctive conjunction [or]; either ...or. або ... або ... [or...or...].

Neither: 1) determiner: ні той, ні інший; (iterative negative particle with the indicative pronoun той [that] and attributive pronoun інший [other, another, different] [not that, not other]; жоден negative pronoun used with the subject or object in negative sentences to express absolute negation; ні один, ніякий [no one, not any, none, nobody]; 2) pronoun, quantifier: ніхто a negative pronoun to express absolute absence of the animate subject or object of action [nobody, no one, none]; жоден [no one, not any, none, nobody]. 3) adverb: також не adverb [also, too, likewise] with the negative particle не [not]; 4) conjunction: neither... nor ні ... ні... (negative emphatic coordinating conjunction comprised of the negative particle ні [no, not, not any] preceding each alternative); neither here nor there ні до ладу, ні до прикладу; не до речі.

In this research, these equivalents are classified as pure equivalents that in translation practice can be blended, or mixed, with other elements, thus leading to modulation, emphasis change, grammatical shifts, etc.

Translation transformational analysis revealed the following local strategies applied in rendering the DNQs: 1) literal translation, which, borrowing Chesterman's idea, is regarded as a default strategy, 2) source text-oriented strategy of semantic translation, 3) target text-oriented strategy of communicative translation each implemented alongside the target text-oriented strategy of domestication. Correlating with the above strategies are the following main translation methods: 1) equivalent translation, 2) lexical substitution and 3) omission.

Rendering 'both' into Ukrainian involves such methods as equivalent translation (10 of 62 cases (16.1%)), lexical substitution (3-4.8%) and omission (49-79%), which correlate with Chesterman's syntactic, semantic and pragmatic local strategies incorporated in literal, semantic and communicative translation strategies..

In particular, literal (equivalent) translation direct literal translation strategy of both is registered in 10 cases of 62 (16.1%), with both being a quantifier proper (1-1.6%), pronominal quantifier (i.e. pronoun) (5-8%), including a pro-form (1-1.6%), and a determiner quantifier (i.e. determiner) (4-6.4%).

As a quantifier and a pronoun, both is rendered into Ukrainian by means of the dual-number collective numerals обидва, обоє [both, the two] in the following phrases: both of them, sitting вони обоє сиділи (quantifier); both very bright обидва розумні (pronoun); they both turned away to hide their laughter відвернувшись, обоє пирснули сміхом; they both grinned обидва усміхнулися (emphasizing pronoun).

As a determiner both is rendered by the dual-number collective numeral обидва / обидві in the attributive function in the following word combinations: both teams -- обидві команди; both Bludgers -- обидва важкі бладжери; both hands -- обидві руки; from both wands з обох чарівних паличок.

The following fragment illustrates a direct literal translation strategy involving equivalent translation of the determiner both in the syntactic function of a recipient (malfactive) object:

(E) Madam Hooch awarded both teams penalties.

(U) Мадам Гуч покарала обидві команди штрафними ударами.

The following case is equivalent translation of both as a pronoun in the syntactic function of experiencer subject in an elliptical sentence by the dual-number collective numeral обидва associated with literal translation strategy:

(E) Both very bright, of course exceptionally bright, in fact.

(U) Обидва розумні... блискучий розум...

Equivalent translation of both as a source object determiner is as follows:

(E) A flash of blue-white light erupted from both wands.

(U) З обох чарівних паличок вистрілило сліпуче блакитно-біле світло.

In this case, equivalent translation of both is affiliated with the local syntactic strategy of sentence structure change, resulting in word order change by shifting the prepositional object to the initial position followed by the predicate, with the subject in the final position, which is norm in Ukrainian whereby the theme of an utterance precedes the rheme in actual division. This syntactic strategy, in its turn, suggests the application of the target reader-oriented communicative translation strategy.

Below is equivalent translation of both as Ag subject by means of the dual-number collective numeral обоє in the syntactic function of a postpositive attribute:

(E) They were there, both of them, sitting outside Florean Fortescue's Ice Cream Parlor.

(U) Вони обоє сиділи біля «Кафе-морозива Флореана Фортеск'ю».

This case illustrates the application of the communicative translation strategy incorporating the syntactic strategy of sentence structure change by compression of the phrase “they were there, both of them, sitting." reducing it to (literally) *they were both sitting, which results in explicitness change on the pragmatic level and a slight decrease in emphasis. This, in turn, implies the application of the pragmatic strategy of explicitness change and the semantic strategy of emphasis change.

Equivalent translation of both as an emphatic quantifier in the function of Ag subject by the collective dual-number numeral обоє is as follows:

(E) [...] they both turned away to hide their laughter [.]

(U) [.] відвернувшись, обоє пирснули сміхом.

In this fragment, the syntactic strategy of clause structure change is applied involving, firstly, the predicate's shift to the initial position (before the subject) and its converting into a nonfinite form (adverbial participle) and, secondly, deleting the first part of the subject they both, i.e. rendering the emphatic pronoun both by its neutral, emphasis-free equivalent, which leads to emphasis decrease, thus resulting in literally *turning/having turned away, both burst out laughing. These transformations suggest implementing the target reader-oriented communicative translation strategy.

The following fragment illustrates equivalent translation of both as a pro-form in two simultaneous syntactic functions, namely Ev object and Ev predicate connector, in an elliptical nominative sentence:

(E) Did you check the lunar chart and realize that I was always ill at the full moon? Or did you realize that the Boggart changed into the moon when it saw me?" "Both," Hermione said quietly.

(U) Ти перевірила місячні фази і зрозуміла, що я завжди хворію під час повного місяця? Чи, може, помітила, що ховчик, коли мене бачить, завжди перетворюється на місяць? І те, і те, І те, і те, тихо відказала Герміона.

In the above case, the pronoun both is rendered by the iterative coordinating conjunction і [and] comprising the structure і., і., whose pure (direct) equivalents is both. and..., with the addition of the iterative demonstrative pronoun те forming the phrase і те, і те [*and that, and that] with reference to the options expressed in the previous two interrogative sentences.

In the function of Ev object, the reconstructed two-member sentence is *I did both, which suggests applying the syntactic strategy of phrase structure change in communicative translation.

In the further reconstruction of this pro-form's referent, its function can also be defined as Ev predicate connector in the sentence *I both checked... and realized..., which makes it possible to classify this case as a blended equivalent (with addition) employed in literal translation.

There is one case of equivalent translation of both as a conjunctive adverb in the structure both. and in a mixed locative-temporative semantic role and the syntactic function of adverbial modifier of place and time, whereby literal translation strategy is realized, e.g.:

(E) “I knew your father very well, both at Hogwarts and later, Harry”, he said gently.

(U) "Я дуже добре знав твого батька і в Гоґвортсі, і пізніше”, м'яко вимовив він.

Thus, in the target text, the Ukrainian pure equivalents of both include the dual-number collective numerals обидва, обоє [both, the two], the iterative coordinating conjunction і., і. [and., and.], and the compound conjunctive phrase і те, і те [*and that, and that], which is herein regarded as a blended equivalent. As a result of the analysis, the following strategies have been identified: the syntactic strategy of sentence/clause structure change, which includes, in particular, word order change, addition and compression, the semantic strategy of emphasis decrease and the pragmatic strategy of explicitness change. Besides, they are found incorporated into communicative translation strategy (5-50%) and literal translation strategy (4-40%), with 10% of cases displaying ambiguous, mixed characteristics, which is evidence of certain overlap as to their differentiation.

Lexical substitution of both is found in three cases, wherein it is substituted for the adverbs of time двічі [twice] and водночас [simultaneously; at the same time], and the numeral два [two].

In these contexts, both explicitly manifests its genuine dual-number nature, which makes it logical to render them by numerals. Such cases illustrate the oblique semantic strategy of modulation and the semantic strategy of synonymic translation.

The sentence below shows lexical substitution of the quantifier both as an experiencer subject by the numeral two:

(E) "You're nutters, both of you”, said Ron shakily.

(U) "Ви якісь... два психи”, тремтячим голосом озвався Рон.

The syntactic strategy of phrase structure change can be observed in the following case of lexico-grammatical substitution of the conjunctive adverb both in the structure both. and. in the St predicative function for the adverb of time водночас in the function of adverbial modifier of time:

(E) Harry turned around to see Professor Lupin, who looked both shaken and pleased.

(U) Гаррі озирнувся й побачив професора Люпина, що здавався враженим і щасливим водночас.

Below is lexico-grammatical substitution wherein the Ev subject determiner both is substituted for the temporal adverb двічі [twice] in the function of adverbial modifier of time, which is reiterated in the target sentence to produce the stylistic effect of emphasis in accordance with the semantic strategy of emphasis change and paraphrase combined with the syntactic strategy of phrase structure change:

(E) The fact remained, however, that it had now appeared twice, and both appearances had been followed by near-fatal accidents.

(U) Та хоч би там як було, а Ґрим з'являвся уже двічі, і двічі Гаррі ледь не загинув.

In the above case, semantic and syntactic changes are incorporated into the target reader-oriented communicative translation strategy, whereby the translation is to a great extent distorting to the original.

Thus, the target text contains one lexical substitution of both for the cardinal numeral два [two] (33.3% of 3 cases) and two lexico-grammatical substitutions of both as a determiner and a conjunctive adverb for the adverbs of time двічі [twice] and водночас [simultaneously; at the same time] (66.7%). These cases exemplify the semantic strategy of modulation synonymic translation incorporated in semantic and communicative translation strategies.

Omission of both is registered in 49 of 62 cases (79%): as a quantifier proper (6-9.7%), emphatic quantifier (18-29%), determiner (5-8%), predeterminer (1-1.6%), pronoun (5-8%), conjunction (14-22.6%).

The use of this translation method is evident in applying the communicative translation strategy combined with the syntactic strategy of clause and sentence structure changes, semantic strategies of paraphrase and emphasis change, and the pragmatic strategy of explicitness change.

Omission of both as a quantifier proper occurs in such contexts as teachers, both of whom had lasted only one year; both of them had their eyes open; both of them looked up at the ceiling; Ron edged away from both of them; confounded, both of them; both of you. Below is omission of both as an Ag subject:

(E) Both of them had their eyes open too, reflecting the starry ceiling.

(U) Вони лежали з розплющеними очима і розглядали зоряну стелю.

In this case, the phrase structure change and paraphrase lead to explicitness change on the pragmatic level, which conveys the overall message in communicative translation.

However, such changes distort the source sentence, altering it to (literally) *they were lying with open eyes / their eyes open...

The following case is omission of Ex subject in an elliptical verbless sentence:

(E) Confounded, both of them.

(U) Їх цілком збили з пантелику.

In the above fragment, the phrase structure change causes explicitness change by deleting the reference to dual number, accompanied by word order change and paraphrasing by adding the adverbial modifier of degree цілком [entirely, absolutely, completely, totally], which, nonetheless, suffices to efficiently express the message in communicative translation, albeit in violation of the original, translated back literally as *they are entirely confounded.

Omission of locative object is as follows:

(E) Ron edged away from both of them, dragging his leg.

(U) Рон, притримуючи ногу, почав від них відповзати.

This is a similar case of explicitness change on the pragmatic level, resulting from deleting the reference to a dual number, combined with word order change and substitution of the participle dragging for the adverbial participle that literally means *holding back (unrelated-word paraphrase) to provide communicative translation with a certain disregard for accuracy of the information contained in the original.

Omission of both as an emphatic quantifier is registered in such contexts as: he and Hedwig were both asleep; he poked them both awake; they were both abroad; they were both wide and muscley; I want to see you both; they both opened their books; they both had to stifle their laughs; Harry and Ron, who both staggered away; Ron and Hermione had both placed hands on the top of Harry's head; they were both staring at him; Harry and Ron both made furious moves; they both glared at Hermione; you're both mental; Black and Lupin were both out of their minds; Black and Lupin both looked staggered; Black and Lupin both gone; they both burst into speech; they both took a fourth piece of chocolate. Such cases suggest applying the semantic strategy of emphasis decrease in communicative translation. For instance, omission of the emphatic quantifier both as an Ag subject is as follows:

(E) "Right," said Ron as they both opened their books at pages five and six.

(U) "Так", сказав Рон, коли вони розгорнули книжки на п'ятій і шостій сторінках.

This fragment illustrates the decrease in the semantic strategy of emphasis and the change in the pragmatic strategy of explicitness by deleting the reference to dual numbers in providing communicative translation.

The next case is omission of both as an experiencer subject:

(E) Black and Lupin both looked staggered.

(U) Блек і Люпин були приголомшені.

This exemplifies the application of the semantic strategy of emphasis decrease and the pragmatic strategy of explicitness change in combination with unrelated-word paraphrase by substituting the link verb look in the compound nominal predicate for the verb of being, which is a more general word, literally translated back as * Black and Lupin were staggered.

The following two are similar cases of emphasis decrease and explicitness change in communicative translation, e.g. omission of both as a patient object:

(E) Harry sighed, then poked them both awake.

(U) Гаррі зітхнув, а тоді поштурхав їх, щоб розбудити.

Below is omission of both being a goal object complement:

(E) I want to see you both!

(U) Ви мені потрібні!

Despite the fact that the latter case presents a scarce opportunity for valid word-for-word translation, the target sentence is transformed into (literally) *I need you by means of word order change and paraphrasing with omission of the verb to see.

Omission of both as a determiner occurs in the following word combinations: both hands, both arms, both sets of front claws, and as a predeterminer in one case both its rotting hands. The fragment below contains omission of both as an agentive instrument object determiner:

(E) Harry threw himself forward, took both hands off his broom.

(U) Гаррі метнувся вперед і випустив з рук мітлу.

This illustrates explicitness change by shifting the reference to dual number into implication, with the noun hands used in the plural implicitly indicating “a pair” in the target sentence.

Similarly, the dual number is implied in the following two fragments where the strategy of explicitness change is observed, e.g. omission of both as an agentive instrument subject determiner:

(E) Crookshanks had joined the fray; both sets of front claws had sunk themselves deep into Harry's arm.

(U) У битву встряг Криволапик його пазурі вп'ялися в Гарріну руку.

Omission of both as a predeterminer in an agentive instrument object group is shown in the following sentence:

(E) Then it raised both its rotting hands -- and lowered its hood.

(U) Тоді підняв своїзогнилі руки... і відкинув каптур.

Omission of both as a pronoun is found in the following contexts: both waving frantically at him, both very pale, both smirking in a satisfied sort of way, both holding the Firebolt, both raised their wands.

For example, omission of both as an agentive subject is as follows:

(E) He and Hermione paused, gasping for breath, edging forward. Both raised their wands to see what lay beyond.

(U). Вони з Герміоною [...] Вони з Герміоною, відсапуючись, на хвильку зупинилися, підняли чарівні палички й зазирнули всередину.

This case illustrates explicitness change in combination with sentence structure change involving deletion of the phrase edging forward as well as the DNQ both in communicative translation, which is to some extent a distortion of the source text.

Below is omission of both as an experiencer subject in a verbless clause:

(E) Ginny and Neville looked back at him, both very pale.

(U) Сполотнілі Джіні з Невілом дивилися на нього.

This communicative translation fragment contains clause structure change resulting from omission of the DNQ and the adverb of degree very, with word order change, which leads to changes in emphasis and explicitness.

The conjunctive adverb both in the structure both. and occurs in the following phrases: both Harry and Ron; both Harry and Hermione; both Lavender and Parvati; both Ron and Hermione; both excited and apprehensive; both boring and useless; both inside and outside; both stunned and impressed; both the Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff tables; both Black and Lupin. In such phrases omission of both causes emphasis decrease, e.g. the case below illustrates omission of both integrated into the agent subject that consists of two homogeneous members of the sentence expressed by proper names:

(E) Both Ron and Hermione had tried to disarm Snape at exactly the same moment.

(U) Одночасно з ним Снейпа обеззброїли Рон і Герміона.

Similarly, omission of both being part of an experiencer subject is as follows:

(E) Both Ron and Hermione seemed to be much more frightened of Black than he was.

(U) Вони злякалися Блека значно більше, ніж він.

In this case, omission of both results in a decrease in emphasis and is combined with replacement of the proper names by the personal pronoun вони [they], thus reducing the target sentence subject to they, which manifests a concise way of presenting information with disregard for details in communicative translation.

Below is omission of both incorporated in an adverbial modifier of place:

(E) There was a stunned silence, both inside and outside the common room.

...