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

(U) Запала приголомшлива тиша.

(E) The whole common room listened with bated breath. "Sir Cadogan, did you just let a man enter Gryffindor Tower?” "Certainly, good lady!” cried Sir Cadogan. There was a stunned silence, both inside and outside the common room. "You you did?” said Professor McGonagall.

(U) Уся вітальня затамувала віддих. Сер Кадоґан, чи впускали ви щойно у ґрифіндорську вежу якогось чоловіка? Авжеж, милостива пані! вигукнув сер Кадоґан. Запала приголомшлива тиша. Ви... ви це зробили?

In this fragment, the entire adverbial modifier of place is omitted, resulting in sentence structure change and explicitness change, which is presumably caused by an effort to focus more on the dynamism of the events being described, as well as on the characters' feelings and behavior, rather than on the details of the external surroundings in accordance with the global strategy of domestication, which directly correlates with the pragmatic strategy of cultural filtering in providing a target reader-oriented communicative translation.

The following is omission of both in a compound nominal predicate expressed by two homogeneous participles participial adjectives that denote emotional state:

(E) "Hermione!” Ron said again, sounding both stunned and impressed.

(U) «Герміоно!..» не знаходив слів приголомшено-захоплений Рон.

The above fragment displays the semantic strategy of emphasis decrease and the syntactic strategies of phrase structure change and modulation, as it contains a 'predicative'predicate^a ttribute' grammatical shift wherein the separate participles stunned and impressed are replaced by a synthetic form, namely the equivalent compound adjective приголомшено-захоплений used in the attributive function in the agentive subject group.

Omission of the conjunction both incorporated in homogeneous patient objects is observed in the fragment below:

(E) He grabbed both Harry and Ron and pulled them into a bone-breaking hug.

(U) Він притулив до себе Гаррі й Рона і так їх стиснув, що аж затріщали кості.

The overall message in the communicative translation above is not affected by a slight decrease in emphasis caused by omission of both in the object group.

Thus, the most frequent method of rendering both into Ukrainian in the target text is omission (49-79 %), which in some cases is not entirely justified with respect to the accuracy of translation but is widely employed in the implementation of the target reader-oriented communicative translation strategy that correlates with the semantic strategies of paraphrase and emphasis change, the syntactic strategies of phrase, clause & sentence structure change and modulation, as well as with the pragmatic strategy of explicitness decrease.

The vast majority of cases contain omission of both as a conjunctive adverb in the structure both... and... (14 of 16 cases (87.5%)) and an emphatic pronoun (18 of 21 cases (85.7%)). Omission of both as a quantifier proper is registered in 6 of 8 cases (75%), as a pronoun in 5 of 7 cases (71.4%), and as a determiner and predeterminer in 6 of 10 cases (60%). Equivalent translation of both is found in 10 cases of 62 (16.1%), namely: as a pronoun 5 (50% of 10), including a pro-form (1-10%), determiner 4 (40%) and conjunction 1 (10%), which suggests implementing the “default” literal translation strategy. Substitution of both as a determiner, quantifier and conjunction occurs in three cases (4.8% of 62), among which lexical substitution one case (1.6%) and lexico-grammatical substitution two cases (3.2%), which is evident in the application of synonymic translation strategy the syntactic strategy of modulation combined with phrase structure change and emphasis change in rendering both into Ukrainian in line with semantic translation.

Rendering 'either' into Ukrainian includes such methods as equivalent translation (9-29%) of 31 cases, lexical substitution (12-38.7%), and omission (10-32.3%) in accordance with literal, semantic, and communicative translation strategies.

Literal translation strategy is observed in the cases of equivalent translation of either, in particular with either as a pronominal adverb in negative sentences by means of the Ukrainian adverbial phrases також не [neither; not either], теж нічого /нікого [literally: *also nothing /nobody] [also nothing /nobody], теж ніколи [literally: *also never] [also never] in the syntactic function of adverbial modifier of similarity and addition; adverbial modifier of manner that expresses similarity or addition. In this function, although the lexeme either cannot be classified as a DNQ proper, it nonetheless retains its dual-number nature as, according to monolingual-dictionary entries [John Sinclair, John M. Sinclair, 2008], it is used as an adverb at the end of the second negative statement to indicate “a similarity or link with a statement just made”, to add “an extra piece of information and to emphasize that both are equally important”. For this reason, such cases are also analyzed in this research.

For instance, below is equivalent translation of either as an adverb in the function of adverbial modifier of manner that expresses similarity in a negative sentence by the adverb також, which shifts to the position before the verb:

(E) Harry's other best friend from Hogwarts, Hermione Granger, hadn't been in touch either.

(U) Ще одна добра Гарріна приятелька з Гоґвортсу Герміона Ґрейнджер, також не озивалася.

The next case is equivalent translation of either in the function of adverbial modifier of addition, adverbial modifier of manner whose semantic role is the addition of another fact expressed in the negative statement: another object of the action performed by the agent:

(E) "Your father didn't set much store by rules either”,

(U) "І правила твій батько також не зневажав”

(E) "My dad didn't strut,” said Harry, before he could stop himself. "And neither do I”. "Your father didn't set much store by rules either,” Snape went on, pressing his advantage, his thin face full of malice.

(U) "Мій тато не задирав носа!” не стримався Гаррі. "І я також”. "І правила твій батько також не зневажав”, не вгавав Снейп, а його худе обличчя спотворювала злоба.

The following fragment illustrates equivalent translation of either by the adverb теж, whose function is adverbial modifier of manner expressing similarity is adverbial modifier of similarity:

(E) "Harry! I forgot you weren't going to Hogsmeade either!”

(U) "Гаррі! Я й забув, що ти теж не їдеш у Гоґсмід!”

As an adverb in negative sentences either also occurs in the following contexts: Hermione Granger, hadn't been in touch either Герміона Ґрейнджер, також не озивалася; Ron, who wasn't eating either Рон, який теж нічого не їв; nothing there either там теж нікого; she's never missed one of them either вона теж ніколи не пропускає; you weren't going to Hogsmeade either ти теж не їдеш у Гоґсмід; I haven't done it either я теж його ще не написав.

Equivalent translation of the determiner either by the collective numeral обидва is found one time (3.2%) of 31 in the following case:

(E) They seated themselves on either side of Harry and didn't talk to each other for the whole class.

(U) Герміона з Роном сіли по обидва боки від Гаррі і не розмовляли до кінця уроку.

Equivalent translation of either as a conjunction in the structure either... or... is registered one time (3.2%) by means of the iterative conjunction або...або..., e.g.:

(E) "It was either a very big cat or quite a small tiger”, said Harry.

(U) "Або величезний кіт, або маленький тигр, відповів Гаррі”.

The above case illustrates literal translation combined with sentence structure change by compression, i.e. deleting the subject it and the linking verb was, resulting in an elliptical sentence, which can be regarded as oblique literal translation.

Thus, equivalent translation of either includes 9 cases of 31 (29%), with either being a pronominal adverb, determiner and conjunction, of which one case is direct literal translation (3.2%), and 8 cases (25.8%) contain pure equivalents accompanied by clause / sentence structure changes (mainly word order changes) that occur due to structural differences between the two languages. One blended equivalent (with substitution). It should be noted that no cases of equivalent translation of either as a quantifier proper have been found in the analyzed text.

The semantic strategies of synonymic translation, phrase structure change, emphasis change and modulation are observed in the cases of lexical substitution of either registered 12 times (38.7%) out of 31, with either being a determiner (6-19.3%) and an adverb (6-19.3%). It should be noted that the above strategies are implemented in line with the global strategy of domestication and the local target text-oriented strategy of semantic translation.

Lexical substitution of either as a determiner occurs in the locative phrase on either side, where it is rendered into Ukrainian by the adverbs of place (locative adverbs) поруч [near, close by, side by side, beside], пообіруч [on both sides], обабіч [on both sides; on each side], the adverb of manner обіруч [with both hands]; and in the adverbial phrase either way -так чи інакше [in either case, anyhow, somehow or other, by some means or other, right or wrong].

(which, in fact, are equivalents blended with substitution).

These cases are evidence of implementing the semantic strategy of related and unrelatedword paraphrase. For example, lexical substitution of the locative phrase on either side with the adverb of place поруч is illustrated below:

(E) They went to sit down on either side of her. Harry prodded her awake.

(U) Вони посідали поруч і Гаррі легенько її штурхнув.

The following is contextual lexical substitution of the phrase on either side for the adverb of place пообіруч [on both sides, on all sides]:

(E) Without warning, twelve-foot wings flapped open on either side of Harry.

(U) Зненацька пообіруч від Гаррі розгорнулися десятиметрові крила.

Lexical substitution of either as a determiner of a locative noun in the function of adverbial modifier of place for the Ukrainian locative adverb обабіч is as follows:

(E) As the carriage trundled toward a pair of magnificent wrought iron gates, flanked with stone columns topped with winged boars, Harry saw two more towering, hooded Dementors, standing guard on either side.

(U) Коли диліжанс підкотився до розкішних кованих залізних воріт, обабіч яких стояли кам'яні колони з крилатими вепрами угорі, Гаррі побачив ще двох дементорів у каптурах, що височіли біля воріт на варті.

The context gripping on either side of his neck обіруч міцно обхопив шию, where обіруч is an adverb of manner that means that translates `with both hands' (unrelated-word paraphrase strategy).

These substitutions are caused by the differences in the grammatical structures of English and Ukrainian; in particular, analytical forms in English correspond to synthetic forms in Ukrainian. On the other hand, such cases could also be classified as omissions with compensation by unrelated-word paraphrase (gripping on either side обіруч обхопив [gripping with both hands]) and compensation by synonymy (related-word paraphrase), e.g. the metonymic lexicogrammatical substitution of the locative phrase on either side with the adverb of manner обіруч [with both hands] is as follows:

(E) “Get on there's not much time,” said Harry, gripping Buckbeak firmly on either side of his sleek neck to hold him steady.

(U) “Швиденько... мало часу!” сказав Гаррі. Він обіруч міцно обхопив лискучу шию Бакбика, утримуючи його на місці.

In the above case, the local strategy of semantic translation involves unrelated-word paraphrase strategy with noun structure change.

Lexico-grammatical substitution of either as a determiner of the action noun way in the function of adverbial modifier of manner is in the following sentence:

(E) “It all depends on the points -a margin of a hundred either way.”

(U) “Все залежатиме від очок так чи інакше усе вирішить якась сотня"

This case contains a substitution of the noun phrase either way for two adverbs of manner linked by an alternative conjunction to form a phrase that literally means [*so/like this (that) or otherwise].

As an adverb either occurs in the syntactic functions of adverbial modifier of manner whose semantic roles are addition and similarity. In the former case, either is rendered into Ukrainian by means of the adverbial phrases до того ж [besides; moreover; in addition], а ще [more, in addition, as well, too] and coordinating connective conjunctions й [and], і [and]. In the latter case either is rendered by the emphasizing interrogative particle чи [is that so?, really?] and the negative compound coordinating conjunction ні... ні... [neither... nor...].

Below is lexical substitution of either as an adverb in the function of adverbial modifier of addition for the adverbial phrase до того ж [literally *to that], whose pure equivalents are besides; moreover; in addition:

(E) Harry was still an underage wizard, and he was forbidden by wizard law to do magic outside school. His record wasn't exactly clean either.

(U) Гаррі й досі був неповнолітнім чарівником, якому за чаклунськими законами заборонялося вдаватися до магії поза школою. До того ж минулого літа Гаррі вже отримав офіційне попередження.

This fragment illustrates unrelated-word paraphrase with sentence structure change, which is a distortion of the original presumably resorted to in implementing the communicative translation strategy.

Lexical substitution of either in the function of adverbial modifier of addition for the adverb ще [more, in addition, as well, too] with the coordinating connective conjunction a [and] in the phrase а ще [literally *and more] is as follows:

(E) [.] they were both abroad, and with Hedwig gone, he had no means of contacting them. He didn't have any Muggle money, either.

(U) [.] вони були за кордоном, а без Гедвіґи він навіть не міг з ними зв'язатися. А ще він зовсім не мав маґлівських грошей.

In this case, the local semantic synonymic translation strategy is combined with the paraphrase strategy, which is realized through the addition of a connective conjunction a [and] at the beginning of the sentence.

The following case illustrates lexical substitution of the synonymic translation strategy combined with emphasis change and sentence structure change, e.g. contextual lexical substitution of either as an adverb in the function of adverbial modifier of addition for the coordinating connective conjunction й [and], which is close in meaning to the particles теж, також [also, too, likewise, as well]:

(E) But Hermione didn't turn up all lesson. Hermione wasn't at lunch either.

(Uj Але Герміона так і не з'явилася на уроці. Герміона не прийшла й на обід.

Lexical substitution of either in the function of adverbial modifier of addition in a negative sentence for the coordinating connective conjunction і [and] is below:

(E) It wasn't a horse. It wasn't a unicorn, either. It was a stag.

(U) То був не кінь. І не одноріг. То був олень.

Lexical substitution Antonymic translation strategy with paraphrase and sentence structure change can be observed in the following case of either being an adverb in the function of adverbial modifier of similarity in a negative sentence for the negative compound coordinating conjunction ні. ні. [neither. nor.]:

(E) The Dursleys didn't sign my permission form, and Fudge wouldn't either.

(U) Ні Дурслі, ні Фадж не підписали мені дозволу.

The next case illustrates unrelated-word paraphrase strategy combined with emphasis change via lexical substitution of either as an adverb in the syntactic function of adverbial modifier of similarity in a negative sentence for the emphatic interrogative particle чи, which is used for emphasis at the beginning of rhetorical questions with the meaning is that so?, really? to express confidence or certainty about a contrary answer:

(E) "Don' listen properly, do they? Don' look properly either”.

(U) "А хіба вони взагалі щось чують? Чи бачать?”

On the whole, the target text contains cases of lexical substitution of either as a pronominal adverb or as a determiner, with no cases of either as a quantifier proper, pronoun, or conjunction.

Omission of either is found in 10 cases (32.3%), where either is a quantifier (3-9.7%), determiner (5-16.1%), adverb (1-3.2%) and conjunction (1-3.2%). The main translation strategies in these cases are domestication and communicative translation with clause / sentence structure changes. In these cases, the meaning conveyed by either is not necessary in adequate comprehension of the target text and in many a case the translation is, to a great extent, target reader oriented.

Omission of the quantifier either as Ex subject is shown in the following fragment, wherein the subject you employed alone suffices in the target sentence:

(E) "Have either of you ever seen anything in a crystal ball?”

(U) "А ви бачили хоч що-небудь у тій кришталевій кулі?”

The following case illustrates omission of the quantifier either as Ag subject accompanied by clause structure change:

(E) Before either of them could say another word, something ginger streaked past Harry; Crookshanks leapt onto Black's chest and settled himself there, right over Black's heart.

(U) Тієї миті щось руде метнулося повз Гаррі Криволапик стрибнув Блекові на груди, мовби захищаючи йому серце.

In this case the temporal clause before either of them could say another word is rendered into Ukrainian by means of the temporal phrase тієї миті [at that moment; in an instant, in a flash], whereby the translator resorts to compression, replacing the entire adverbial clause with an adverbial temporal phrase, presumably focusing on providing only essential details relating to the duration of the events being described in the dynamically unwinding situation, with disregard for other details in communicative translation.

Omission of either as a determiner is registered in the locative phrases on either side of him / her / them from either side. on either side of the window frame in the syntactic function of adverbial modifier of place, e.g.

(E) Black placed a hand on either side of the window frame.

(U) Блек ухопився за віконну раму.

(E) Black placed a hand on either side of the window frame and heaved his head and shoulders out of it.

(U) Блек ухопився за віконну раму і висунув надвір голову й плечі.

The above target sentence contains predicate paraphrase with compression of the locative object group, resulting in *Black gripped / seized the window frame.

Omission of either as an adverb in the function of adverbial modifier of manner expressing similarity in a negative sentence is as follows:

(E) “Neville, I believe you live with your grandmother?”<...> "But -1 don't want the Boggart to turn into her either”.

(U) "Невіле, здається, ти живеш з бабусею?” <...> "Але... я не хочу, щоб ховчик перетворився на бабусю”.

In the above target sentence, the adverb також / теж is omitted without affecting the overall message in communicative translation.

There is one case of omission of either as a conjunction within a compound verbal double predicate compound nominal predicate of state in a negative sentence:

(E) To his great surprise, Hermione did not appear either excited or intrigued by the news. On the contrary, her face fell, and she bit her lip.

(U) На його превеликий подив, Герміона спохмурніла й закусила губу.

In this case, the original fragment "did not appear either excited or intrigued by the news. On the contrary” is deleted from the target text, which implies an unjustified blending of partial translation with communicative translation.

Generally, omission is predominantly observed in the cases of either being a quantifier proper and a determiner in the locative phrase `either side', whereas in the cases of either as an adverb and a conjunction omission is much less frequent.

Thus, the analysis has shown that literal translation, lexical substitution and omission are almost equally employed in rendering either into Ukrainian around 33% respectively.

The most frequent method is lexical substitution, found in 12 out of 31 cases (38.7%); slightly less frequent are translation by equivalent and omission, registered in 9 (29%) and 10 cases (32.3%), respectively. It should be noted that in some cases omission does not appear completely justified. is omission These translation methods correlate with the local strategies of semantic, literal and communicative translation.

The most recurrent semantic translation strategy (38.7%) incorporates synonymic translation, phrase structure change, emphasis change and clause /sentence structure changes. Less recurrent are literal translation via pure and/or blended equivalents (29%) and communicative translation (32.3%) that involves relatedand unrelated-word paraphrase, emphasis change, clause / sentence structure change and explicitness change all of these being an inseparable part of the global strategy of domestication.

Rendering 'neither' into Ukrainian involves the methods of equivalent translation (266.7%) and omission (1-33.3%), which primarily correlate with literal and communicative translation strategies.

Direct equivalent translation of neither is shown in the following fragment, wherein neither is a conjunctive adverb in the negative structure neither... nor with reference to two homogeneous experiencer subjects:

(E) Neither Ron nor Hermione felt like going, however.

(U) Але ні Рон, ні Герміона не палали бажанням туди їхати.

The following case illustrates the application of the local literal translation strategy using direct equivalent translation method combined with omission of the negative particle не, i.e. a blended equivalent. In this case, neither is an adverb in the syntactic function of adverbial modifier of manner in a negative sentence used in the character's informal speech:

(E) "My dad didn't strut,” said Harry, before he could stop himself "And neither do I”.

(U) "Мій тато не задирав носа!” не стримався Гаррі. "І я також”.

The fragment above involves the syntactical strategy of sentence structure change, namely: word order change and the grammatical shift: (SL) “two-member sentence with inversion and negation” ^ (TL) “one-member (nominative elliptical) sentence with no negation, i.e. omission of the negative particle не,” which is caused by differences in the grammatical structures of the source and target languages.

Omission is observed in the following case with neither as the first component of a compound experiencer subject whose meaning is not necessary to reproduce in accordance with the target-reader oriented strategy of communicative translation:

(E) The day was fine and breezy, and neither of them felt like staying indoors, so they walked past the Three Broomsticks and climbed a slope.

(U) День був ясний, повівав легенький вітерець, тому вони проминули `Три мітли» і вирішили прогулятися ще.

In the above fragment, the rendering of the phrase neither of them is reduced to the usage of the personal pronoun вони [they] in the syntactic function of the subject in the target sentence. In this case, omission can possibly be explained by the universal tendency towards minimizing the use of language means to avoid redundant wordiness in the target text.

In the above fragment, the clause neither of them felt like staying indoors is omitted, which is distorting to the original. Such clause structure change can be clarified by the translator's focus only on essential information, which is a rather subjective approach, in an effort to concisely convey the overall message in the target text to comply with communicative translation and domestication strategies.

Thus, the dominant translation strategy (66.7%) in rendering neither into Ukrainian has been proved to be a literal translation, involving the method of equivalent translation by direct (pure) equivalent (33.3%) and blended equivalent, i.e. with sentence structure change (33.3%).

In particular, these equivalents include the pure equivalent ні. ні. (as a conjunction in the structure neither. nor.) and the blended equivalent також with omission of the negative particle не (as an adverb) in an elliptical sentence, which is typical of Ukrainian colloquial speech. The second local strategy has been found to be communicative translation (33.3%) by omission, with neither being the first component of the pronominal ofphrase neither of them, whose meaning is not expressed in the target text, which results in explicitness decrease on the pragmatic level. In addition, these strategies are implemented alongside the global strategy of domestication, which is herein regarded as an integral part of the local strategies.

As a result of the investigation, three principal local strategies in rendering the English DNQs both, either & neither into Ukrainian have been identified, namely: the source text-oriented strategies of literal and semantic translation as well as the target text-oriented strategy of communicative translation all integrated into the global strategy of domestication regarded herein as an integral part of the local strategies.

The latter include three subtypes, in particular, 1) semantic strategies (synonymic translation, emphasis change and paraphrase), 2) syntactic strategies (phrase / clause / sentence structure change and modulation), 3) pragmatic strategy (explicitness change). Besides, all of the above strategies are closely linked with the main translation methods, such as equivalent (literal) translation, substitution and omission. The results are summarized in Tables 1, 2 and 3 below, which show the translation methods and strategies applied in rendering the English DNQs into Ukrainian.



Table 1

Translation methods in rendering English dual-number quantifiers

№	DNQ	AF	Translation method
			equivalent	substitution	omission
			AF	RF	AF	RF	AF	RF
1	both	62	10	16.1%	3	4.8%	49	79%
2	either	31	9	29%	12	38.7%	10	32.3%
3	neither	3	2	66.7%	-	-	1	33.3%
Total AF & RF	96	21	21.9%	15	15.6%	60	62.5%

Hence, the main translation methods employed in rendering the English DNQs into Ukrainian are equivalent translation, lexical substitution and omission. The most recurrent is omission, which occurs in 60 out of 96 cases (62.5%) due to the application of the communicative translation strategy aimed at concise presentation of the target readeroriented message, notwithstanding a certain degree of imprecision compared to the source text. Equivalent translation is found in 21 cases (21.9%) and lexical substitution in 15 cases (15.6%). The combinations of translation methods and strategies are shown in Table 2:

Table 2

Translation strategies & methods in rendering English dual-number quantifiers

#	Strategy	Translation method
		equivalent	substitution	omission
1	semantic	emphasis change	synonymy; emphasis change	emphasis change; paraphrase
2	syntactic	clause / sentence structure change; addition	phrase structure change: modulation; clause / sentence structure change	clause / sentence structure change
3	pragmatic	-	-	explicitness change
4	ST-oriented	literal	semantic	-
5	TT-oriented	communicative domestication	domestication	communicative domestication



The semantic strategy of emphasis change was used with all three methods, i.e. translation by equivalent, lexical substitution and omission. Synonymic translation was found combined with substitution, and paraphrase with omission.

The syntactic strategies of phrase structure change and modulation were applied in translation by lexical substitution, whereas clause / sentence structure change was used in translation by all three methods.

The pragmatic strategy of explicitness change was implemented with omission.

Besides, it is to be noted that equivalent translation by pure or blended equivalent was found in two types of strategies: literal and communicative. In contrast, substitution and omission were found in semantic and communicative strategies, respectively.

Generally, the most frequent strategies have been proved to be syntactic (88-91.7%), less frequent being semantic (62-64.6%) and pragmatic (60-62.5%) ones.

The data obtained are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3

Translation strategies in rendering English dual-number quantifiers into Ukrainian

#	Strategy	both (62)	either (31)	neither (3)	Total
1	Semantic: 1. Synonymy	-	1	-	62-64.6% 1-1%
	2. Emphasis change	40	4	-	4445.8%
	3. Paraphrase	8	9	-	17-17.7%
2	Syntactic: 1. Phrase structure change	25	6	-	88-91.7% 31-32.3%
	2. Clause / sentence change	29	23	2	54-56.3%
	3. Modulation	3	-	-	3-3.1%
3	Pragmatic: 1. Explicitness change	49	10	1	60-62.5% 6062.5%
4	ST-oriented: 1. Literal:	4	9	2	30-31.2% 15-15.6%
	1.1) direct	2	1	1	4-4.2%
	1.2) oblique	2	8	1	11-11.4%
	2. Semantic	3	12	-	15-15.6%
5	TT-oriented: 1. Communicative	55	10	1	66-68.8% 66-68.8%
	2. Domestication	62	31	3	96-100%

As a result, the most frequent syntactic strategy has been found to be clause and sentence structure change (56.3%), the less frequent is phrase structure change (32.3%), and the least frequent one is modulation (3.1%). Within the semantic strategies, the most recurrent is emphasis change (45.8%), the least recurrent one is synonymic translation (1%), with paraphrase being in the middle (17.7%). The pragmatic strategy of explicitness change has been registered in 62.5% of cases.

Thus, the source text-oriented strategies of literal and semantic translation of English DNQs into Ukrainian have been identified in 15 cases (15.6%) each, whilst the target readeroriented strategy of communicative translation has been found in 66 cases (68.8%), thus being the most frequent strategy applied. Direct literal translation has been registered in 4 cases (4.2%), while oblique translation, i.e. by equivalent with emphasis change and clause / sentence structure change, mainly word order change and/or addition, has been found in 11 cases (11.4%). The global strategy of domestication is observed in 100% of cases. These strategies are combined with translation methods local strategies, such as 1) equivalent translation, i.e. via pure equivalent or blended equivalent (with emphasis change and clause / sentence structure change and/or addition) in both literal and communicative translations; 2) lexical substitution in semantic translation by synonymy, phrase structure change, emphasis change, modulation and clause & sentence structure change; 3) omission in communicative translation involving, related and unrelated-word paraphrase, emphasis decrease, clause & sentence structure change and explicitness decrease.



Conclusion

In conclusion, the analysis has revealed the following global and local translation strategies that include two ST-oriented and two TT-oriented ones in rendering the English DNQs both, either & neither into Ukrainian, which jointly ensure equivalence, adequacy and naturalness of the target text:

1) literal translation (ST),

2) semantic translation (ST),

3) communicative translation (TT), applied alongside the global strategy of domestication (TT)

1) domestication in correlation with three main translation methods, namely: equivalent translation, lexical substitution and omission.

The obtained results can be explained by several factors.

First, recurrent application of communicative translation strategy in combination with the global strategy of domestication, which involves omission in rendering the DNQs into Ukrainian, is caused by

a) the intrinsic features of the Ukrainian language structure,

b) the translator's efforts to convey the message concisely by creating a target reader-friendly text with focus on the most essential details contained in the original notwithstanding the violation of the source text;

b) the universal tendency towards minimizing excessive use of language means to avoid unjustified wordiness;

c) stylistic peculiarities of the target text typical of the genre of imaginative fiction.

Second, the literal translation strategy, employing pure and blended equivalents, is implemented as a default strategy using corresponding target language means that adequately convey the meanings of source language units.

Third, semantic translation strategy that involves lexical substitution through synonymy, emphasis change, phrase structure change, as well as clause and sentence structure changes.

It is applied as the second (after literal translation) most suitable ST-oriented strategy alongside the global strategy of domestication to attain due adequacy and naturalness of the target text.

The research prospects include investigation into translation strategies implemented in rendering English paucal quantifiers into the Ukrainian language for the purpose of further applying the obtained data in academic practice.



Bibliography

Балла, M.I. (2004). Новий англо-український словник. Київ: Чумацький шлях.

Бусел, В.Т. (Ред.). (2005). Великий тлумачний словник сучасної української мови. Київ, Ірпінь: Перун VIII.

Кобякова, І.К., Швачко, С.О. (2019). Лінгвістичні атрибути англійських числівників та денумеративів. Записки з романо-германської філології, 2 (43), 136-148. DOI: 10.18524/23074604.2019.2(43).186298

Роулінг, Дж.К. (2002). Гаррі Поттер і в'язень Азкабану. Київ: А-БА-БА-ГА-ЛА-МА-ГА.

Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words: A coursebook on translation. London: Routledge.

Bakker, M., Koster, C., Van Leuven-Zwart, K. (2009). Shifts. M. Baker & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp. 269-274). London, New York: Routledge.

Catford, J.C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. An Assay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chesterman, A. (1997). Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Crosthwaite, P., Choy, L.L.Y., Bae, Y. (2016). 'Almost People': A Learner Corpus Account of L2 Use and Misuse of Non-Numerical Quantification. Open Linguistics, 2, 317-336. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1515/opli-2016-0015

Davies, E.E. (2003). “A goblin or a dirty nose? The treatment of culture-specific references in translations of the Harry Potter books”. The Translator, 9 (1), 65-100. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1080/13556509.2003.10799146

Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language, 67 (3), 547619. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/415037

Dukmak, W. (2012). The Treatment of Cultural Items in the Translation of Children's Literature. The case of Harry Potter in Arabic. Leeds: The University of Leeds.

Fillmore, Ch. (1968). The Case for Case. E. Bach & R.T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory (pp. 1-88). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Finn, S., Bueno, O. (2018). “Quantifier Variance Dissolved”. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 82, 289-307. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s135824611800005x.

Guanyi, Ch., van Deemter, K., Pagliaro, S., Smalbil, L., Lin, Ch. (2019). QTUNA: A Corpus for Understanding How Speakers Use Quantification. Ch. Lin, K. van Deemter, H. Takamura (Eds.), Proceedings of The 12th International Conference on Natural Language Generation (pp. 124129). Tokyo: Association for Computational Linguistics.

Kearns, J. (2009). Strategies. M. Baker & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp. 282-285). London, New York: Routledge.

Kenny, D. (2009). Equivalence. M. Baker & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp. 96-99). London, New York: Routledge.

Knowlton, T., Trueswell, J., Papafragou, A. (2023). Keeping quantifier meaning in mind: Connecting semantics, cognition, and pragmatics. Cognitive Psychology, 144, Article no. 101584. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2023.101584

Kyrychuk, L. (2018). Translation Strategies, Methods and Techniques: In Pursuit of Translation Adequacy. Research Trends in Modern Linguistics and Literature. International Journal, 1, 64-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29038/2617-6696.2018.1.64.80

Marsden, H. (2009). Distributive Quantifier Scope in English-Japanese and Korean-Japanese Interlanguage. Language Acquisition, 16 (3), 135-177; DOI: https://doi. org/10.1080/10489220902967135

McKean, E. (Ed.). (2005). New Oxford American Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translat.. New York, London: Prentice Hall.

Nida, E. Taber, Ch. (1969). The Theory and Practice of Translat. Leiden: E.J Brill.

Owji, Z. (2013). Translation Strategies: A Review and Comparison of Theories. Translation Journal, 17 (1). Retrieved from https://translationjournal.net/journal/63theory.htm

Romaniuk, O.M., Zapotichna, R.A. (2020). The Notion of Translation Strategy: The Main Principles. International Humanitarian University Herald. Philology, 45 (1), 125-128. DOI https:// doi.org/10.32841/2409-1154.2020.45-1.30

Rowling, J.K. (1999). Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Ruzaite, J. (2009). Corpora for Applied Purposes: A Case Study of Quantifiers in English and Lithuanian. Estonian Papers in Applied Linguistics, 5, 239-250. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5128/ ERYa5.16

Sinclair, J., Sinclair, J.M. (2008). Collins Cobuild Advanced Learner's English Dictionary. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Soanes, C., Stevenson, A. (Eds.). (2005). Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Venuti, L. (2001). Strategies of Translation. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp. 240-244). London & New York: Routledge.

Venuti, L. (2008). The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation. London: Routledge.

Venuti, L., Baker, M. (Eds.). (2004). The Translation Studies Reader. London & New York: Routledge.

Wijitsopon, R. (2021). A Corpus-based Study of Thai and English Quantity Word Equivalents: 'Laay', 'Several' and 'Many'. rEFLaction, 28 (2), 188-207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61508/ refl.v28i2.252502

Yoo, I.W., Shin, Y.K. (2019). Determiner Use in English Quantificational Expressions: A Corpus-Based Study. TESOL Quarterly, 54 (1), 90-117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.539



Abstract

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

Oleksandr O. Lytvynov, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (Ukraine)

The article deals with translation strategies implemented in English-Ukrainian rendering of dualnumber quantifiers 'both,' 'either,' 'neither' that occur in modern fantasy fiction. The study aims to identify local and global translation strategies and methods of their adequate rendering at the post-translation stage of generalizing the translator's experience. The research objectives are: 1) to compile a complete register of the lexemes under investigation based on J.K. Rowling's “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” and its authorized Ukrainian translation produced by V. Morozov.; 2) to determine their semantic and functional 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 and methods of their rendering into Ukrainian; 5) to identify and analyze the translation strategies applied by the translator to reach equivalence and adequacy of translation. The research material comprises 96 dual-number quantifiers used in the original text and their translations in the corresponding Ukrainian text fragments. In the course of the study, the following methods were employed: 1) entire sampling to compile a register of the lexemes and accomplish the source and target text levelling; 2) dictionary entries' analysis to establish the lexical-semantic and functional properties of the quantifiers and their direct Ukrainian translation equivalents; 3) contextual analysis and immediate constituents' analysis to identify their semantic roles and syntactic functions in the source text; 4) comparative-contrastive translation transformational analysis to specify the translation methods and types of grammatical shifts applied in their rendering; 5) to identify and analyze the translation strategies implemented by the translator; 6) quantity calculations to determine the frequencies of the analyzed phenomena. As a result, based on dictionary entries' analysis, the main functional-semantic classes of the quantifiers have been found to be the determiner, pronoun, conjunction and pronominal adverb. By means of immediate constituents' and contextual analysis, 17 pure and blended semantic roles of the lexemes' referents in `state of affairs' situations have been identified, the most frequent being the agent (36.4%), locative (14.6%) and experiencer (11.4%). By way of sentence parsing, 19 combinations of the semantic roles and syntactic functions have been established, the most frequent one being the agent subject (37.5%), the others showing frequencies around 10%. With the aid of translation transformational analysis, the most common methods of rendering the dual-number quantifiers into Ukrainian have been found to be omission (62.5%), equivalent (literal) translation (21.9%) and lexical substitution (15.6%). Correspondingly, the main translation strategies, including ST-oriented and TToriented ones, have been proved to be 1) communicative translation (68.8%) by omission with emphasis decrease, related and unrelated-word paraphrase, clause/sentence structure change and explicitness decrease, and by equivalent with emphasis change and clause/sentence structure change and/or addition; 2) literal translation (15.6%) including direct translation (4.2%) by pure equivalent and oblique translation (11.4%) by blended equivalent. i.e. with emphasis change and/or clause/sentence change; 3) semantic translation (15.6%) involving synonymy, emphasis change, phrase structure change, modulation, clause/ sentence structure change and explicitness decrease, 4) domestication (100%) incorporated in the above three strategies, all applied to ensure equivalence and adequacy of the translation.

Key words: translation strategy, method, quantifier, semantic role, equivalent, omission, substitution, literal translation, semantic translation, communicative translation.



References

Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words: A coursebook on translation. London, Routledge, 317 p.

Bakker, M., Koster, C., Van Leuven-Zwart, K. (2009). Shifts. In M. Baker & G. Saldanha (eds.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London, New York, Routledge, pp. 269-274.

Balla, M.I. (2004). Novyi anhlo-ukrainskyislovnyk [Modern English-Ukrainian Dictionary]. Kyiv, Chumatsky Shlyah Publ., 668 p.

Busel, V.T. (ed.). (2005). Velykyi tlumachnyi slovnyk suchasnoi ukrainskoi movy [Large Explanatory Dictionary of the Modern Ukrainian Language]. Kyiv, Irpin, Perun VIII Publ., 1728 p.

Catford, J.C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. An Assay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 103 p.

Chesterman, A. (1997). Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 219 p.

Crosthwaite, P., Choy, L.LY., Bae, Y. (2016). `Almost People': A Learner Corpus Account of L2 Use and Misuse of Non-Numerical Quantification. Open Linguistics, vol. 2, pp. 317-336. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1515/opli-2016-0015

Davies, E.E. (2003). “A goblin or a dirty nose? The treatment of culture-specific references in translations of the Harry Potter books”. The Translator, vol. 9, issue 1, pp. 65-100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13556509.2003.10799146

Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language, vol. 67, issue 3, pp. 547619. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/415037

Dukmak, W. (2012). The Treatment of Cultural Items in the Translation of Children's Literature. The case of Harry Potter in Arabic. Leeds, The University of Leeds, 317 p.

Fillmore, Ch. (1968). The Case for Case. In E. Bach & R.T. Harms (eds.). Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 1-88.

Finn, S., Bueno, O. (2018). "Quantifier Variance Dissolved”. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, vol. 82, pp. 289-307. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s135824611800005x.

Guanyi, Ch., van Deemter, K., Pagliaro, S., Smalbil, L., Lin, Ch. (2019). QTUNA: A Corpus for Understanding How Speakers Use Quantification. In Ch. Lin, K. van Deemter, H. Takamura (eds.). Proceedings of The 12th International Conference on Natural Language Generation. Tokyo, Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 124-129.

Kearns, J. (2009). Strategies. In M. Baker & G. Saldanha (eds.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London, New York, Routledge, pp. 282-285.

Kenny, D. (2009). Equivalence. In M. Baker & G. Saldanha (eds.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London, New York, Routledge, pp. 96-99.

Knowlton, T., Trueswell, J., Papafragou, A. (2023). Keeping quantifier meaning in mind: Connecting semantics, cognition, and pragmatics. Cognitive Psychology, vol. 144, Article no. 101584. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2023.101584

Kobyakova, I., Shvachko, S. (2019). Linguistic Attributes of the English Numerals and Denumerals. Writings in Romance-Germanic Philology, vol. 2, issue 43, pp. 136-148. DOI: 10.18524/23074604.2019.2(43).186298

Kyrychuk, L. (2018). Translation Strategies, Methods and Techniques: In Pursuit of Translation Adequacy. Research Trends in Modern Linguistics and Literature. International Journal, vol. 1, pp. 64-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29038/2617-6696.2018.1.64.80

Marsden, H. (2009). Distributive Quantifier Scope in English-Japanese and Korean-Japanese Interlanguage. Language Acquisition, vol. 16, issue 3, pp. 135-177. DOI: 10.1080/10489220902967135

McKean, E. (ed.) (2005). New Oxford American Dictionary. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2096 p.

Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. New York & London, Prentice Hall. 292 p.

Nida, E., Taber, Ch. (1969). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden, E.J Brill, 218 p.

Owji, Z. (2013). Translation Strategies: A Review and Comparison of Theories. Translation Journal, vol. 17, issue 1. Available at: https://translationjournal.net/iournal/63theory.htm (Accessed 05 May 2024).

...