Ambiguity can be defined as the property of language units to bear several different meanings (semantic as well as grammatical)

Let us look at some examples:

· In the Ukrainian sentence “Ви бачите голову?” the ambiguous word is “голова”: a chairperson and a head;

· “Шёл дождь и два студента, один в пальто, другой – в институт ”. In this Russian example we observe two cases of ambiguity – that o f “шёл” (It was raining vs. Students were walking) and that of the preposition “в”: in vs. to.

· In another Russian example, Boulat Okoudzhava’s line “Какие женщины на нас бросают взоры…” the ambiguity is expressed in the relation of the attribute ‘какие” to the nouns “ женщины” and “взоры”: What women cast looks or What looks do the women cast?

Not only is the meaning of the words ambiguous but also the relations between them.

To explain why the language units are ambiguous it is necessary to recollect that any language unit consists of the three indivisible components:

1. a sign – i.e. form, expression of a language unit.

2. a concept – i.e. meaning of a language unit which implies the mental content of the language unit conventionally related to the sign in the minds of language speakers;

3. denotatum – a fragment of the real world, including the inner world of human beings, that corresponds to a given concept.

According to common scientific opinion there may never be a direct link between the sign and the denotatum. It is shown by a dashed line in the famous triangle of Ogden and Richards:

CONCEPT

SIGN DENOTATUM

The most important fact to be born in mind in translation is that the relation between words (language signs) and parts of the extralinguistic world (denotata) is only indirect and going through the mental concepts.

1. Thus, ambiguity in translation arises first of all due to the fact that concepts – mental images of the similar denotata – are strongly subjective and largely different in different languages.

The peculiarities of the conceptual fragmentation of the world by the language speakers can be illustrated by the following example: L.Zgusta reports that there are only three colours in some African languages and four in some languages in northern Brazil as opposed to the seven basic colours we Europeans are used to

2. Another source of translation ambiguity is the polysemantic nature of the language signs: i.e. the ability of a single word or expression to have different meanings.

For example, one and the same language sign bay corresponds to the concepts of a tree or shrub; a part of the sea, a compartment in a building, room, etc; deep barking of dogs and reddish-brown color of a horse. It is evident that polysemy is an obstacle in the way of translation.

3. Apart from these discrepancies in meaning and perception translation is also hampered by such an innate feature of a language as connotation. According to L.Zgusta it consists of all the components of a meaning that add some contrastive value to the basic concept of a word.

This value may be positive (e.g. “ eagle” – a connotation of freedom, courage) or negative (e.g. “ fox” – cunning, deceptive).

Naturally, the number of regular, well-established connotations accepted by the entire language speakers’ community is rather limited – the majority of them are rather individual, but what is more important for translation is that the relatively regular set of associations is sometimes different in different languages. The latter fact might affect the choice of translation equivalents.

Thus, in the translation process we observe different factors causing ambiguity. At the same time there exist some disambiguation tools clarifying the meaning of the linguistic units. These are:

· linguistic context

· situation and

· background information

For instance, if we take the ambiguous examples given above in a broader linguistic context they will become quite clear:

1. Ви бачите голову зборів?

2. Какие жешщины на нас бросают одобрительные взоры.

In all of these examples the context elements shown in bold type clarify the meaning of ambiguous words.

Situation is another factor that makes the meaning of the ambiguous word clear.

For example, if somebody asks you at a meeting: “ Ви бачите голову?” you will undoubtedly understand that what was meant had been a chairperson rather than a head – the situation of a meeting prompts you for the correct decision.

However, neither the context nor the situation alone will lead you to the correct answer, unless you already have the relevant background information – common sense, knowledge of the way the things are in life.

To sum it up, individual/ national perception, polysemy and connotation are features of a language which hamper the solution of the translation problem. Whereas context environment, situation and background information make the translation possible.

II. The problem of faithfulness in translation.

One of the main concepts of the general theory of translation is the concept of faithfulness in translation, which has recently been defined as the concept of functional faithfulness (функціональна адекватність). The essence of this concept lies in the following: the text is not just an erratic set of formally united elements that can be rendered one by one into the TL.

Every text represents an integral entity, a complex unity where each ingredient element has a certain communicative and stylistic function.

These functions manifest themselves and are fully realized at text level. They may be identified only by way of thorough analysis of the original text. The task of the translator is, first of all, to perceive these functions (on the basis of the thorough analysis) and only then to convey them faithfully by adequate means of the TL.

A faithful translation of the text, therefore, is not conveying the meaning of separate language units making it up. It represents a complex process, a profound analysis of the textual planes (semantic, structural, stylistic) and involves apart from context also the pragmatic toning, orientation of the text.

Дата добавления: 2014-01-11