? When a text is being translated it is normally segmented into smaller parts which are easy and convenient to interpret. Such sections of a text are known as units of interlingual rendition. V. N. Komissarov uses the term “ïåðåâîäåìà” to mention to this impression. One of the foreign innovators of the theory of interlingual rendition J. Catford introduced the term ‘rank of translation’ in his book “A Linguistic Theory of Translation” ( London 1965 ) which was used in a similar significance.
Harmonizing to S. B. Tyulenev. the unit of interlingual rendition should be termed translateme ( òðàíñëàòåìà ) and defined as a combination of a lingual unit of the beginning linguistic communication showing a certain contextual significance and the minimum corresponding lingual unit of the mark linguistic communication with the same significance. The term ‘unit of translation’ was foremost used by J-P. Vinay. J. Darbelnet who claimed that its size may be variable as it serves merely practical intents. In this connexion P.
Torop who investigates interlingual rendition in close connexion with linguistic communication and civilization points out that for a translator/interpreter it is necessary to operationally distinguish elements of civilization and linguistic communication both on the degree of a text and the degree of linguistic communication units.
it sensible to maintain apart three facets of the unit of interlingual rendition that should be discussed individually and non confused as they arouse their ain peculiar jobs: ( 1 ) theoretical: its apprehension and definition which should take into history the most of import characteristics of a unit of interlingual rendition ; ( 2 ) size-of-the-unit: relation of a init of interlingual rendition to linguistic communication degrees ; ( 3 ) operational: standards applicable in the procedure of their designation in a SLT. i. e. sectioning a SLT into textual elements that are convenient to interpret.
The definition of the unit of interlingual rendition may be given from three points of position: 1 ) with mention to a SLT. 2 ) with mention to a TLT. 3 ) with mention to both a SLT and a TLT. Within the above three attacks bookmans may take into history assorted standards: ( a ) content. or ( B ) signifier. or ( degree Celsius ) both content and signifier. The first facet of the unit of interlingual rendition is connected with its definition. The most well-known definition of the unit of interlingual rendition based on the standard of content with mention to a SLT was suggested by J. -P. Vinay and J. Darbelnet.
Harmonizing to them. a unit of interlingual rendition is a unit of sense. The standard of signifier is really of import in form-oriented interlingual rendition when formal distinctive features serve as an extra channel of conveying some information. e. g. English favor initial rhyme as a stylistic device which it is possible to render in interlingual rendition frequently at the disbursal of its content ( californium. Papa. murphies. domestic fowl. prunes and prism are all really good words for the lips ( Ch. Dickens. Little Dorrit ) . – Ïàïà . ïðÿíèêè . ïàëèñàíäð . ïåðñèêè è ïðèçìû – ïðåêðàñíûå ñëîâà äëÿ ãóá ( Å. Êîíàøåâà ) .
The definition which takes into history both content and signifier in Russian interlingual rendition surveies was suggested by prof. Komissarov V. N. who defined a unit of interlingual rendition as a minimal linguistic communication unit in SLT which is chosen as an independent object of interlingual rendition procedure. With mention to a TLT. definitions of the unit of interlingual rendition foremost appeared in the plants of bookmans who tackled the jobs of machine interlingual rendition. A unit of interlingual rendition was understood as a combination of certain lexemes and grammemes which corresponds to a certain lexical or grammatical class in TLT ( I. I. Revzin. V. Yu. Rozenzweig ) .
Definitions of the unit of interlingual rendition which are formulated with mention both to a SLT and a TLT are besides legion. The most wide-spread definition based on these standards was given by prof. Barkhudarov L. S. It runs as follows: It is a minimal linguistic communication unit in a SLT which taken as a whole has a certain correspondence in TLT. but the constitutional parts of which taken individually do non hold a correspondence with a similar significance in a TL [ Áàðõóäàðîâ 1975: 175 ] .
To sum up the treatment of the apprehension of this class of LTT it is necessary to emphasize its chief characteristics which are as follows: ( a ) a unit of interlingual rendition should ever be found in a SL text. non in a TL text. ( B ) it is established as a particular class relevant from a translator’s point of position and therefore it has no correlativity with the bing linguistic communication degrees. ( degree Celsius ) it is a minimal unit in a sense that it can non be segmented in interlingual rendition into smaller parts without hurt to its sense.
The 2nd facet of the unit of interlingual rendition has to make with its relationship with linguistic communication degrees. At present there are assorted attacks to the solution of this job. 1. Some bookmans believe that the unit of interlingual rendition is ever larger than a separate word. It may be a sentence or a clause. a group of sentences. a paragraph or even a whole text. This point of position is supported by Ya. I. Retsker. V. N. Komissarov. etc. They claim that a word can non be chosen as a unit of interlingual rendition for several grounds: 1 ) its boundaries are non ever clear-cut ;
2 ) words blend together in address organizing assorted semantic and structural composites. the elements of which must be viewed together by a transcriber in order to retain in interlingual rendition the significance of a whole unit ; 3 ) the outer ( formal ) facet of a address event to be rendered in interlingual rendition may be frequently more of import than the semantic 1. E. g. in existent address stylistic consequence is frequently due to particular devices that are based on the formal facet of address units repeating in a sequence of words in a address twine ( repeat of some sounds. sound symbolism – e. g. the consequence of the sounds [ 500 ] . [ one ] . [ ing ] recurrent within one or even more than one vocalizations.
2. V. N. Komissarov points out that a sentence is normally chosen as an operational unit of interlingual rendition since it provides a microcontext necessary and sufficient to grok its intending decently [ Êîìèññàðîâ 1999a ] . True. he admits the possibility of taking other units of interlingual rendition within a sentence which are of a lower rank. and associated with a word-level or a word-group degree.
In other words. the writer introduces the thought of hierarchy of units of interlingual rendition which may be chosen on different degrees ( higher and lower ) . 3. K. Reiss and H. Vermeer hold that a unit of interlingual rendition should be chosen on the degree of a text as it may assist to get the better of contextual ambiguity and ambivalency of words and even sentences that arise from differences in linguistic communications and civilizations ; a text realizes the speaker’s purpose ( ‘scopos’ ) ( K. Reiz. H. J. Vermeer and others ) .
Translation pattern testifies that the unit of interlingual rendition can be chosen on assorted linguistic communication degrees: ( a ) phonemes which is normally the instance in covering with proper and geographic names. athletics. infinite. computing machine and other sets of footings. etc: Challenger – ×åëåíäæåð . bobsleigh – áîáñëåé . minority involvements – ìèíîðèòàðíûå èíòåðåñû . premier clip – ïðàéì-òàéì . trading – ìåð÷àíäàéçèíã . The method of reproducing SL phonemes by matching phonemes in TL is called written text.
It is regarded as one of the types of borrowed interlingual rendition and underlies adoption of the alleged international words. Since words have non merely a sound signifier. but besides a in writing signifier. characters may besides function as units of interlingual rendition. In pattern it may be a combination of both phonemes and characters chosen as units of interlingual rendition: off-shore – îôøîð . Waterloo – Âàòåðëîî . posting – ïîñòåð . The method of reproducing characters of SL by similar characters of TL is known as transliteration and it is really popular today alongside written text when interpreting neologisms. footings. etc.
( B ) morphemes may be chosen as units of interlingual rendition when interpreting bymorphemic and polymorphemic words: ñàìîðåêëàìà – self-promotion. âíåâåäîìñòâåííàÿ îõðàíà – non-departmental security guard. îòêàçíèê — refusenik. The method of sectioning words into morphemes which are farther translated into TL which reproduces the morphological construction of a word is called loan interlingual rendition. It is besides qualified as a sort of borrowed interlingual rendition because the transcriber non merely reproduces the morphemes. but besides retains the morphological construction of a word and agreement of morphemes.
( degree Celsius ) words are frequently chosen as units of interlingual rendition. Their proper interlingual rendition depends on two chief factors: 1 ) semantic distinctive features. i. e. whether a word is monosemantic or polysemous. the correlativity of denotational and connotative of constituents of significance and some other characteristics ; 2 ) the grade of dependance on a context and a state of affairs of discourse. From this point of position words are divided into context-free and context-bound words. In the former instance the interlingual rendition does non depend on a context. e. g. here refer units of preciseness lexis. proper and geographical names. inch – äþéì . New Zealand – Íîâàÿ Çåëàíäèÿ .
In the latter instance the context plays a great function. particularly when interpreting polysemous words. e. g. to do an assault upon a fortress – øòóðìîâàòü êðåïîñòü ; some music is an assault on the ears – åñòü ìóçûêà . êîòîðàÿ îñêîðáëÿåò ñëóõ ; assaults upon the privileges of Parliament – ðåçêèå âûñòóïëåíèÿ ïðîòèâ ïðåðîãàòèâ ïàðëàìåíò ( vitamin D ) word-groups as units of interlingual rendition are particularly of import when interpreting from English into Russian because in analytical ( lexical ) languages like English the dependance of a word on its environment is much greater than in synthetical ( grammatical ) languages like Russian.
E. g. Three hundred workers went on work stoppage over a fillip claim. – Òðèñòà ðàáî÷èõ çàáàñòîâàëè . òðåáóÿ âûïëàòû ïðåìèàëüíûõ . vitamin E ) sentences serve as units of interlingual rendition in two chief instances: 1. when interpreting vocalizations used to depict indistinguishable state of affairss in the two linguistic communications in their ain idiomatic ways. californium. Authorized Personnel merely – Ïîñòîðîííèì âõîä çàïðåùåí / Ñëóæåáíûé âõîä 2. when interpreting Proverbss and expressions which are based in different linguistic communications on different images. though they are related in sense. californium. Still Waterss run deep. – Â òèõîì îìóòå ÷åðòè âîäÿòñÿ .
Apart from these two instances the unit of interlingual rendition may be chosen on the degree of a sentence to retain a proper stylistic consequence. E. g. Their organic structures were covered with pelt. – Îíè áûëè îäåòû â ìåõà . ( Èõ îäåæäà áûëà ñøèòà èç ìåõà . – ïåð . Í. Âîëæèíà ) . Word-for-word interlingual rendition of the sentence would sound deceptive. californium. Èõ òåëà áûëè ïîêðûòû ìåõîì . degree Fahrenheit ) a text. The term ”text” itself needs some elucidation since linguists are non at one refering its apprehension and definition. O. I. Moskalskaya. for case. qualifies any stretch of address that expresses a complete idea as a text.
It may be a individual word in a telegram message. Harmonizing to I. R. Galperin a communicative address unit merely so turns into a text if it possesses a figure of text-forming characteristics such as the class of information. mode. coherence. and some others. Without traveling into inside informations on this complicated affair we confine our apprehension of a text for the intents of interlingual rendition as a combination of several sentences which forms a affiliated stretch of address possessing as a whole unit certain content and formal characteristics.
Practitioners of interlingual rendition claim that the unit of interlingual rendition on the degree of a text is frequently chosen when interpreting poesy. In covering with prose it is difficult to overrate the importance of a text to accomplish an equal interlingual rendition. Though a matter-of-fact text as a whole can non function as a unit of interlingual rendition it influences to a great extent right interlingual rendition of its parts. This influence can be easy observed in interlingual renditions of rubrics of books. The rubric of the celebrated novel by J. Braine “Room at the top” was translated by several discrepancies from word-for-word to more equal. californium. «Ìàíñàðäà» & gt ; «Ìåñòî íàâåðõó» & gt ; «Ïóòü íàâåðõ» .
For this ground interlingual rendition of the rubrics of books really frequently undergoes varied transmutations. «Íà âñÿêîãî ìóäðåöà äîâîëüíî ïðîñòîòû» ( À. Í. Îñòðîâñêèé ) – “Even a Wise Man Stumbles” . “Even the Wise Can Err” . “Scoundrel” . Therefore. in decision it must be stressed that the unit of interlingual rendition should non be tied in with any peculiar linguistic communication degree since every bit has been shown above it can be located on assorted degrees on status that it satisfies the standards and demands stated in the quoted definition.
The 3rd of import facet of a unit of interlingual rendition is connected with standards on which a transcriber may trust in order to place it in the procedure of sectioning a hSL text. The analysis of assorted attacks testifies to diverging solutions to this job. Most translatologists contend that such standards do non include the standard of the size of a unit of interlingual rendition as it is variable in this regard in assorted interlingual rendition Acts of the Apostless. Some linguists connect the size of the unit of interlingual rendition non with a SLT. but with the capacity of the TL to show the same impression that is expressed in the original [ Òþëåíåâ 2004 ] .
Harmonizing to L. S. Barhkudarov. we should depend in this affair on the being of TL correspondences for certain sections of a text. In hunt of dependable standards some linguists associate units of interlingual rendition with interlingual rendition jobs. hence the lone standard of a unit of interlingual rendition is claimed to be connected with its being sufficient for doing proper interlingual rendition solutions ( californium. «Âåëè÷èíà îòðåçêà òåêñòà íå ìîæåò áûòü êðèòåðèåì åäèíèöû ïåðåâîäà . Òàêèì êðèòåðèåì äîëæíà áûòü âîçìîæíîñòü ïðèíÿòü ðåøåíèå íà ïåðåâîä» [ Ìèíüÿð-Áåëîðó÷åâ 1999 ] ) .
In other words. units of interlingual rendition call for an single interlingual rendition solution. Such an attack to the standards of a unit of interlingual rendition was elaborated by Ye. V. Breus who defined units of interlingual rendition in connexion with a text which is viewed as a matrix ( «ñåòêà» ) of interlingual rendition jobs. This matrix covers job interlingual rendition countries and problem-free interlingual rendition countries. In the former instance a transcriber trades with units of interlingual rendition which he has to interpret creatively and of his ain agreement. while in the latter instance he transcodes a text utilizing regular correspondences harmonizing to Ya.
I. Retsker’s theory. Therefore apart from the theoretical facets of apprehension and specifying a unit of interlingual rendition there originate practical troubles associated with sectioning a SLT into minimum interlingual rendition units. It is obvious that the cognition of SL and TL systems entirely is non sufficient to get by with this undertaking. In fact. the procedure of sectioning a SL text into units of interlingual rendition should be viewed as a multi-stage process the success of which depends to a great extent on both lingual and extra-linguistic factors.
As a regulation. translatologists set up three phases in this procedure: 1 ) sing lingual units of a certain degree ( normally words ) . 2 ) measuring their contextual mutuality and 3 ) modifying it in assorted ways ( enlarging ab initio chosen lingual units to the size of word-combinations. sentences and even full paragraphs and texts ; or decreasing them and taking on a lower degree or uniting several into one ; or dropping in translationl.
We believe that it is non adequate to take into history merely lingual factors ( systemic and contextual ) . but it is besides necessary to pay attending to such of import facets of translator’s activity as interlingual rendition norm. situational and broader cultural parametric quantities which determine the sense and deductions of a SL text impacting the pick of proper units of interlingual rendition on a given juncture.
Therefore. in connexion with these factors and parametric quantities of a SLT it is possible to individual out the undermentioned phases in the text-segmentation process: 1 ) sectioning a text. depending on our cognition of the linguistic communication. into minimum units of sense ( in respect to meaningful linguistic communication units ) or minimum units of outer look ( phonemes or characters ) which can non be farther segmented into smaller parts without hurt to either sense or signifier.
( californium. This is a new edifice – I’m fond of new murphies. where new for interlingual rendition intents should be singled out on a word-level in the first sentence ( íîâîå ) and a word-group – degree in the 2nd instance ( ìîëîäîé êàðòîôåëü ) ; 2 ) analysing all contextual alterations of established semantic and formal characteristics of those units ( californium. … Íå ïðîñè . ìèí õåðö . ñåé÷àñ è íå äóìàé îá Ìîíñèõå ( À. Òîëñòîé . 102 ) – Don’t ask for that. myn Herz. You mustn’t even think of the Mons miss now… ( A. Miller )
3 ) sing all situational and background factors which determine peculiar utilizations of the established units ( californium. I made out your verifier ( W. Saroyan. Selected short narratives ) – ß âûïèñàë òåáå ðàñ÷¸ò ( ïåð . Ë. Íàòàí ) ; 4 ) enlarging. diminishing or dropping selected units of interlingual rendition under the influence of interlingual rendition norms as a confirmation of their right pick in a given context ( californium. In a terror he shoveled hay over the puppy with his fingers. – Â èñïóãå îí áûñòðî çàðûë ùåíêà â ñåíî ( Õàéðóëëèí 1997 ) . 5 ) using the rule of exchangeability. e. g. Don’t bend over – Íå êàíòîâàòü .
6 ) taking into history the addressee factor ( californium. recycling – ðåöèêëèðîâàíèå/âòîðè÷íàÿ ïåðåðàáîòêà ) . 7 ) taking a proper interlingual rendition scheme. californium. Áîã ñ íèìè ! – God with them! ( word-for-word interlingual rendition ) God is with them! ( actual interlingual rendition ) Never mind about them! ( equal interlingual rendition ) . Therefore. it is evident that sectioning a SLT into units of interlingual rendition is a complicated process of its reading which is the decisive factor of equal rendition in a TL and at assorted phases the SLT analysis and cleavage into parts depend upon both lingual and non-linguistic factors.
We may reason that the treatment of the unit of interlingual rendition should convey to illume its chief facets: theoretical ( connected with the apprehension and definition of this impression ) . the size-of-the-unit facet ( connected with the pick of units of interlingual rendition on different linguistic communication degrees on the footing of identificatory standards ) . operational facet ( connected with rules of sectioning a SLT into units of interlingual rendition ) .