The place of TT among other branches.

This problem has several aspects: the position of translation studiesin relation (a) to macro- and micro-linguistics, (b) theoretical (fundamental) and applied sciences, (c) descriptive and prescriptive (normative) studies.

L.S.Barkhudarov LTT should be qualified as a macrolinguistic science for which he gives several reasons: 1) an act of translation like any other act of communication refers to a speech event which involves apart from the language a number of objective and subjective non-linguistic phenomena. 2) translator should know a broader background exceeding the boundaries of a speech situation which embraces a translator's background knowledge between theoretical and applied sciences. A.V.Fedorov: in terms of applied disciplines TT can be qualified as a descriptive-prescriptive science as, on the one hand, it describes and analyses materials drawn from translation practice and, on the other hand, it formulates normative recommendations and rules

V.N.Komissarov: in a broad sense TT ='translatology' embracing linguistics of translation, psychology of translation, ethnology of translation; in a narrow sense TT is a theoretical part of translatology which is concerned with the study of matters which are of practical interest and a translator in the centre.

Dif-ce between theoretical (descriptive)- the investigation of translation as a means of interlingual communication which should be described and explained- and normative (prescriptive) sections of LTT- practical recommendations, requirements set for measuring the quality of translation.

Translation studies can be divided into pure and applied- concerned with practical tasks of translator training, various translation aids, translation criticism. Pure translation studies are further subdivided into theoretical and descriptive. Theoretical translation studies include general and partial branches the difference between which is conditioned by a wider variety of problems of general character considered in the former that refer to any translation, and a restricted character of the latter (cf. medium, area, rank, text type, time, problem restricted translation studies). Descriptive translation studies focus on the three main aspects of translation: product-oriented (analysis of target texts aimed at establishing their differential features), process-oriented (the study of mental processes in a translator's mind) and function-oriented (analyzing the functioning of a TT in another socio-cultural environment accepting this text).

(4) History. Steiner. “After Babel” 1)empiristic approach (40BC-19cent)– sensus per sensus (Sokrat) instead of the principle of translation " verbum pro verbo" (word-for-word) Alexander Fraser Tytler's " Essays on the Principles of Translation" (London, 1792).

2)hermeneutic app.(beg19-mid50sXX)-philosophic-poetic. Translation process was analysed in terms of a general model of meaning and understanding a piece of written and oral speech. The interchange between theory and practical need continued and the activity of the translator and relations between languages were discussed in the works by Goethe, Matthew Arnold

3)LTT (mid50s-late80s)-Russia: semantical, situational, denotational, communicative, transformational theories) In 1954 an International Federation of Translators (FIT) was set up which published its own translators' journal " Babel". hist background – WW2 end – new contacts, new types of T., new training.

4)functional TT(late80s-today) – based on findings of psychology, anthropology, sociology, ethnoling-cs & cultural studies. They study translation as 'the process of life between languages' and look upon a TL text as the 'after-life" of a SL text. The best known translation theories are cognitive, cultural, and those based on the idea of intertextuality. The first attempt to estimate the contribution of Russian translationists into the development of linguistic translation theory was made by V.N.Komissarov who wrote an overview of the findings and research into this field by the twelve major investigators of translation beginning with Ya.I.Retsker.. In 1918 M.Gorky founded the Vsemirnaya Literatura publishing house and made the first step towards creating the theory by writing several sketches on literary translation. The book " Principy khudozhestvennogo perevoda" (1919) (" Principles of artistic translation") with contributions from K.Chukovsky, F.Batyushkov and N.S. Gumilev was followed by major publications in this field: A V.Fedorov " Techniques and tasks of artistic translation", K.I.Chukovsky and A.V. I'edorov " The art of translation", K.I. Chukovsky " The High art"

History of translation bears out that scholars abroad also debated a lot Whether translation is an art (skill) or science. E.Nida and C.Taber stressed that " translation is far more than a science. It is also a skill, and in the ultimate analysis fully satisfactory translation is always an art"

(5) Catfold think TT should be considered as a branch of CL

there are three major areas in which issues of contrastive linguistics and translation theory overlap: 1)TT draw upon result of CL; 2)T. – is a part of bilingual experiment in which major problems of general ling-s are tested, compared and verified on the basis of 2 or more langs.; 3)T is used as a method of research of the CL as many conclusions made in regard to languages compared are drawn on the basis of translation regularities

V.N. Komissarov points out various aspects of the method of comparison used in contrastive linguistics and translation studies: (a) comparative linguistics compares systems of the two languages bringing together language units belonging to the same levels whereas comparison in translation studies is based on speech utterances in SL and TL which may involve units that belong to different language levels (b) in comparative linguistics comparison of any two languages is considered valid no matter which of them is chosen as a starting point depending on a researcher's aims and tasks, while in translation studies of a SLT and a TLT the result of comparison is believed to be a description of a SL lexis from the translation point of view (c) comparative linguistics aims at creating exhaustive systemic level-by-level descriptions of the two languages investigated, whereas translation comparative studies aim at building a system of complex correspondences between a SL and a TL

6. 1) lexico-phraseological:

a)connected with rendering w-s and establish sem strctures.

b)with pecularities of translating var lex-sem groupings that share translation problems(terms, neologisms, proper names)

c)problems of translating free & stable w-groups including ph.u.

d)with the use of special translation procedures & techniques on this level

2 )grammatical level

a)gram pecularities of a word, problems of rendering dif. parts of speech, non-verbal froms, articles, linking elements.

b)w-groups incl gerund.compl., inf-val, comparative str-s.

c)on the level of sentence & related to rendering sent-s of dif. communicative type., w-order, restructuring.

3) genre & stylistic level

a)rendering expressive means & styl.dev. located on lex, grammatical, phono-graph level

b)problems arising when t-g texts of dif functional types, sub-styles, genres.

(7) When text translated it is segmented in a smaller parts – UOT. No universal accepted definition. Комиссар. – переводема; transleme;

According to S.B. Tyulenev, unit of translation should be termed translateme (транслатема) and defined a combination of a linguistic unit of the source language expressing a cert contextual meaning and the minimal corresponding linguistic unit of the tar language with the same meaning.

I) with reference to a SLT, 2 ) with reference to a TLT, 3) with reference to both a SLT and a TLT.

Vinay – UOT is a u. of sense.

1)Komis – UOT is a min lang u. in SLT which is chosen as an independ object of T. process. 2)supporters of machine translation – a combination of certain lexemes and gramemes which correspond to a certain lex and gram cat. in TLT.(Revzin).

3) Barkhudarov – a min lang u. in SLT which taken as a whole has a certain correspond. in TLT, but the constituent parts of which taken separately don’t have a correspondence with a similar meaning in TL.

Main features: 1) UOT – sh.alws be found in SLT, not TLT.

2) established from T-rs point of view and don’t correlate with the existing lang levels.3) min unit in a sense that it cant be segmented further without determent to its sense.

(8) 1. Resker, Komis – it’s cant be a word. Can be a sentence or a clause, paragraph, text; 2. Komis – Sentence is chosen more often as it provides microcontext necessary for T. He also admits lower units an introduces an hierarchy; 3. Reiss – level of text as it helps to overcome contextual ambiguity and ambivalence of words and sents. That arise from differences in cultures.

Phonemes – proper, geogr names, some terms – Challenger – Челенджер, bobsleigh – бобслей.+ Graphemes–off-shore – оф-шор.Transcription(-literation).

Morphemes – самореклама – self-promotion. Loan translation – method of segmenting words into components which are further translated.

Words – 1. semantic peculiarities the correlation of denotational and connotational components of meaning and some other features, 2. dependence on context; context-free – names, precision lexis; context-bound – polysemantic words. (assault – штурм, оскорбление, выступление против)

Word-group s – esp. important in E-R T. bc E word being an analytical lang is more dependant on its environment

Sentence – 2 cases 1. when same utterance is used in own idiomatic way(Auth personnel only – служ вход). 2. proverbs and sayings which have dif. Images + to retain proper styl. effect.

Text – esp. poetry. Ye.V. Breus who defined units of translation in connection with a text which is viewed as a matrix («сетка») of translation problems. This matrix covers problem translation ureas and problem-free translation areas. In the former case a translator deals with units of translation which he has to translate creatively and of his own accord, while in the latter case he transcodes a text using regular correspondences according to Ya.I. Retsker's theory.

Stages in the text-segmentation procedure:

1) segmenting to the minimal units of sense or expression

2) analyzing all contextual modifications of sem and formal features(ман ципации – мун ципации).

3) considering all situational and background factors

4) socio-ethno-cultural factors

5) enlarging, diminishing, dropping of those ling units (старухи сидели)

6) applying the principle of interchangeability (wrong number – ошиблись номером)

7) consider addressee factor

8) choose proper T strategy (w-for-w, literal, adequate; Бог с вами – Never mind about them)

(9) Trad-ly 2 criteria: Communicative f-n: literary – aesthetic impression(prose, poetry, drama) & informative – convey info(scientific, diplomatic, official, business);

Form of speech: written (full, abridged-synopsys, pré cis, express-info T.) & oral (consecutive, simul, whispered, sight, over-the-phone)

Barkhud: acc to degree of adequacy: adequate, literal (retains not only the spirit, but also the letter of the original text often to the detriment of the content and the norms of TL), free (perfecting the original text than its adequate rendering). For the practical purposes it is possible to sum up the most important criteria that apply to evaluate the adequacy of translation: 1. it fully and correctly renders the sense of an original text, 2. it follows the rules and norms of TL, 3. it retains stylistic peculiarities of a SLT, the functions of expressive means and stylistic devices used in it, peculiarities of the author' individual language and style, 4. it conveys the author's message and intent, 5. it arouses a reaction on the part of a TLT reader similar to that of SLT reader.

Chebotarev: Types: 1)full(the full volume of information expressed in SLT) 2)abridged(selects some passages for translation or reduces the information retained in a TLT only to the most important points and leaving out less important) 3)enlarged(includes various comments, explanations, etc by a translator which contribute to a better understanding of an original text) 4)modified(refers to synopsis and precis translation)

Kinds: 1)oral 2)written 3)combi(lecture, abridge sight T.)

Genres: 1)political, publicistic 2)technical 3)military 4)fiction 5)legal 6)commercial 7)religious.

(10) absolute translatability or untranslatability?

Humboldt – language is a spirit of a nation

Sapir – langs equated to thinking, so impossible.

Leibnitz – dif langs – variants of lingua universalis which express the same common notions that are easy to translate from language to language

Adequate translation is quite possible and the long history of the practice of translation is a good proof of it. The assumptions used by the authors are as follows: a) thinking of many people is based on common logic b) basic units are notions that are universal for all human beings c) all langs posses not only culturally specific features, but also universals d) reality exists by itself and only expressed, embodied in human language e) whatever is expressed in lang can be rendered in another lang as langs are rich on resources.

Scweizer – 2 interpretations notions 1) general basic underlying principles of T as a activity(positive) 2) referring the notion to the concrete lang points and discover a lot of things that are hard or impossible to translate.

Barkhud – way out – to translate on the lev of text. He claims that though there may be units which are difficult to translate they should not undermine the principle of translatability established on the level of a text.

Lado - " Linguistics across Cultures", developed the notion of 'cultural untranslatability' [Ладо 1989]. He uses this term to refer to culturally unique terms such as cultural concepts, barbarisms, some terms, etc.

Catfold – ling and cultural untranslatability: linguistic untranslatability is defined as a failure to find a TL equivalent which is due entirely to differences between the SL and the TL; cultural untranslatability occurs when a situational feature, functionally relevant for the SL text, is completely absent from the culture of TL

Torop – 3 types depending on dominant: SLT(case the source text dictates its own optimal translatability), translator(the translator as a creative person realizes himself through the choice of the translation method which itself determines the degree of translatability), receiving culture(the translator takes into account a would-be reader or cultural norms, i.e. determines the degree of translatability by conditions of acceptance of a translation text).