The achievement of equivalence at the level of semantics of words is limited by the lack of coincidence of the meaning of words in the different languages

The third approach to determination of translating equivalence can be called empiric one. The essence of it supposes not to try to decide, what the commonness of the source language text and the target language one must consist in, but to compare the great number of translations really accomplished with the original texts in order to find out what their equivalence is based on. The extent of the semantic closeness to the source language text at different translations is different, and their equivalence is based on saving the various parts of the content of the original text.

And, vice versa, there are a lot translations, where the equivalence is stored, however, they are not able to accomplish their function as the equivalent to the source language text. In such cases a translator faces the difficult choice: either to deny a translation as such or to admit that the invariance of the given part of the content is not the obligatory sign of translation.

The second approach to the decision of the problem of translating equivalence supposes the attempt to find out some invariant part saving of which is necessary and enough for achievement of equivalence of translation in content of the source language text. The most frequently the function of the source language text or the situation described in this text is offered at the role of such invariant. In other words, if translation can accomplish the same function or describes the same reality, it is an equivalent. However, whatever part of the content of the source language text was chosen as a basis for achievement of equivalence, the great number translations that were really accomplished and provide the interlingual communication or where the given part of initial information is not stored is always found.

Such approach to translation gave the grounds for appearing the so-called theory of untranslatability according to which translation is impossible generally. Undoubtedly, the uniqueness of dictionary composition and grammatical system of each language, not to mention the distinction of cultures, allows asserting that the complete identity of texts of the original and its translation is impossible in principle. However, the assertion that the translation itself is impossible is very disputable.

When the term «full value» replaces the term «equivalence» it is supposed that this «full value» includes the exhaustive transmission of the semantic content of the original text. However, this assertion does not find confirmation. It is possible to speak about invariability in relative sense only as the losses are inevitable in the process of translation that means that the incomplete transmission of the meanings expressed by the source language text takes place. The text of translation never can be the complete and absolute equivalent of the source language text.

The task of any translation is to pass the content of the source language text by the devices of the target language exactly and faithfully with saving its stylistic and expressive features. Translation must pass not only what is expressed by the original text, but also, as it is shown in it. This requirement is related to both all translation of the given text and its separate parts. The notions of equivalence and adequacy were introduced for the determination of the extent of content integrity or semantic closeness. The notion of equivalence exposes the major feature of translation and is one of the central notions of the modern science of translation.

The equivalent is a permanent correspondence of the same meaning to the word or word-combination in the target language that does not depend on the context in most of cases.

In modern science of translation the different approaches to determination of equivalence exist. However, the most widespread is the theory of levels of equivalence according to which the relations of equivalence between the corresponding levels of the source language text and the target one are set in the process of translation. The units of the original text and its translation can be equivalent to each other at all the existent levels or only at some of them. The final goal of translation intends establishment of maximal extent of equivalence at every level.

The study of levels of equivalence is very important not only for the theory of translation, but for practice of translation as well, as it allows to define, what extent of closeness to the source language text a translator can attain in every concrete case.

The specific character of translation, that distinguishes it from all the other types of linguistic mediation, supposes that it is intended for competent replacement of the source language text and that the receptors of translation consider it fully identical to the original text. At the same time, it is obviously that the absolute identity of translation to the source language text is unattainable and that it does not prevent from realizing the interlinguistic communication. The point does not only concern the inevitable losses at the transmission of features of the poetic form, cultural and historical associations, specific nationally biased lexicon and the other nuances of the literary exposition, but the lack of coincidence of separate elements of sense in the translations of the most elementary utterances.

As a result of the absence of identity of the relation between content of the source language text and its translation a term «equivalence» that defines the integrity of the content or the semantic closeness of the original text and the target language one was introduced.

As the importance of maximal coincidence between these texts appears to be obvious, the equivalence is usually considered as a basic sign and condition of existence of translation.

The consequence of it is the following:

1) The condition of equivalence must be included in the determination of translation.

Thus, the translation can be defined as the replacement of the text material in one language by the equivalent text material in the other one. Translation supposes the creation of «the nearest natural equivalent» to the source language text in the target language.

2) The notion «equivalence» acquires evaluative character when the equivalent translation is acknowledged to be the «good» or «correct» one.

3) As the equivalence is the condition of translation, its task supposes to define this condition with indicating what the translating equivalence consists in or what must be necessarily stored in translation.

There are three basic approaches to the determination of the notion «equivalent».

Till recently in the science of translation the leading place belonged to the linguistic theories of translation, where the traditional conceptions prevailed. These conceptions suppose that the languages play the main role in the process of translation. At such approach the tasks of a translator are reduced to maximally exact transmission of the source language text by the language of translation in its complete volume. Some definitions of translation actually substitute the equivalence by the identity, asserting, that translation must fully save the content of the source language text.

The description of the equivalence of the source language text and translation at the different level of content implies:

1) Translation is intended for competent replacement of the source language text. Actually the absolute identity of translation to the original text is not attainable and even undesirable.

For example:

The boy is skating

Хлопчик катається на ковзанах

If the word-for-word translation is used then the word «катається» can be translated as «кататися або катати себе» as «to roll oneself», but the translation «The boy is rolling himself on the skates» is wrong.

2) The equivalence of purpose of communication intends that the closeness of translation and original text is minimum, but a verbal function is stored. Several speech functions were distinguished in the practice of translation:

a) The emotive function that expresses feelings and emotions of a talker.

b) The consultative function that intends the orientation on the content of report.

c) The actual function has an aim to check the presence of a contact.

d) The metalinguistic function concerns the organization of a language properly.

e) The poetic function supposes the setting on the aesthetic effect of a report.

For example:

That’s a pretty thing to say!

Посоромився б!

The emotive function is kept in this example.

3) The equivalence at the level of description of a situation supposes that there are no correspondences in the vocabulary and grammar of the source language text but the same situation is described. Describing a situation, people never name all its signs but name some of them only. Situation can be described variously by choosing different signs.

For example:

The telephone rang and he answered it

Задзвонив телефон, і він зняв слухавку

There are situations that are always described by one and the same method in the given language. These situations intend using standard speech formulas, preventive inscriptions, and generally accepted wishes.

For example:

Wet paint	Обережно, пофарбовано
Fragile	Обережно, скло

There are a lot of cases when a situation is described in one language but is omitted in the other one.

4) The equivalence at the level of report means that not only the description of a situation is kept, but a method of its description as well, in spite of the different types of semantic variation at which the different things are:

a) The extent of working out description in detail as the English utterances are often more implicit than the Ukrainian ones.

b) The method of uniting the described signs or situation in the utterance. It is connected with the different possibilities of compatibility of the signs in the different languages.

For example:

He climbed into the gig behind the horse

Він сів в коляску позаду кучера

But if to say this sentence in Ukrainian the utterance will be thus:

Він сів в коляску позаду коня

Therefore, it will turn out that a horse also sat in a gig.

c) The change of direction of relations between signs. The situation can be described from the different points of view.

For example:

They had their backs to the sunshine now

Тепер сонце світило їм в спину

But the sentence will be too high-flown if it sounds in such a way:

Тепер їх спини були звернені до сонця

5) The equivalence at the level of utterance supposes that an aspiration to keep the part of meaning of the syntactic structures of the source language text along with a verbal function or communicative purpose, pointing on the same situation and method of its description.

For example:

The house was sold for eighty thousand dollars

Дім був проданий за 80 тисяч доларів

If the complete parallelism is not always is attainable, then the synonymous varying is possible.

For example:

The boy entered the room

Хлопчик увійшов в кімнату (або: В кімнату увійшов хлопчик)

In English the order of words is fixed but in Ukrainian it changes depending on the thematic relations.

6) The equivalence at the level of the linguistic signs supposes that closeness to the source language text will be the most one, as a translator aspires to reproduce the meaning of words of the source language text by word-for-word translation as completely as possible.

For example:

I saw him at the theatre

Я бачив його у театрі

1) The lack of coincidence of the denotative meanings or the difference in the volume of meanings.

For example:

Swim, sail, float, drift	Плавати
Мeal	Сніданок, обід, вечеря

2) The lack of coincidence of the connotative or stylistic meanings.

For example:

Earlier the word «businessman» had the negative connotation in Ukrainian, that’s why it was translated as «представник ділового кола».

For example:

The words «sleep» (the neutral one) and «slumber» (the poetical one) can be translated as «сон», but then the stylistic meaning will be lost.

3) The lack of coincidence of the interlinguistic meanings.

For example:

The translation of the sentence «Не said he was a page. Go long, you ain’t more than a paragraph» can be a pun as the word «page» has two meanings such as «сторінка» and «паж». So the sentence can be wrong translated as «Він сказав, що він паж. Який же ти паж, ти один рядок з твору».

There are five substantial levels in the content of the source language text and the target language one:

Дата добавления: 2014-12-23