Replacement of Effect by Cause and Visa Versa
Concretization
This type of lexical transformations is used in translating words with wide and non-differentiated meaning. The essence of this transformation lies in translating such words of SL by the words with specified concrete meaning in TL. When translating from English into Ukrainian they use it more often in verbs. If English verbs mostly denote actions in rather a vague general way, Ukrainian verbs are very concrete in denoting not only the action itself but also the manner of performing this action as well “to go (by foot, by train, by plane, etc.)” – “йти пішки”, “їхати поїздом”, “летіти літаком”, etc.; “to get out” – “вибиратися”, “виходити”, “вилізати”, “висаджуватися”, etc. The choice of a particular Ukrainian verb depends on the context. It does not mean, Of course, that the verb “to go” changes its meaning under the influence of the context. The meaning of “to go” is the same, it always more or less corresponds to Ukrainian “переміщатися”, but the norms of Ukrainian require a more specified nomination of the action.
This transformation is applicable not only to verbs but to all words of wide semantic range, no matter to what part of speech they belong: adverbs, adjectives or nouns.
The noun thing, which has very abstract and vague meaning the same as stuff, point or camp, is used to denote practically anything, often remaining stylistically neutral (The Shorter Oxford Dictionary denotes the word “thing” as “an entity of any kind”, “that, which is or may be in any way an object of perception, knowledge or thought”).In Ukrainian, however, nounswith such a general meaning are less universal, besides, theywould belong to colloquial register which often makes it impossible to use them in translation. E.g.thing if translated by way of concretization may have the meanings: штука, річ, предмет, справа, факт, випадок, обставина, витвір, істота:
things look promising — становище багатообіцяюче
how are things? — ну, як справи?
as things go — за нинішніх обставин
take off your things — роздягніться
he is a mean thing — він підла тварюка
oh, poor thing! — о бідолаха!, о сердешний!
it is just the thing — це саме те
good things — ласощі
I am not quite the thing today — я сьогодні нездужаю
near thing — небезпека, якої ледве вдалося уникнути
no such thing — нічого такого, зовсім ні
to know a thing or two — дещо знати; розуміти що до чого
to make a good thing of smth. — скористатися з чогось
to make a regular thing of smth. — регулярно займатися чимось
to see things — марити, галюцинувати, etc.
In many cases the words like thing are omitted at all in translation:
She is a pretty thing. — Вона гарненька.
above all things — насамперед, передусім, головним чином among other things — між іншим
and things — і таке інше
it amounts to the same thing — це те ж саме
At this point she is right — тут вона має рацію
Let’s buy bread, vegetables and perhaps some other stuff—
Купімо хліб, овочі та, може, щось ще.
In case when such words must be given some Ukrainian equivalent a word with more concrete meaning denoting this particular thing or stuff which is meant by the author, should be found:
I’ve bought this stuff in the neighboring grocery.
Я купила всі ці продукти в найближчому продовольчому супермаркеті.
…this madman stuff that happened to me…
…ідіотська історія, яка зі мною трапилась…
…all the dispensary stuff…
Усі медичні препарати (або ліки)
You have never done a single thing in all your life to be ashamed of
За все своє життя ти не скоїв жодного ганебного вчинку.
The verbs of motion come and go are concretized in translating into
Ukrainian, i.e. the way of motion is specified: приходити, прибувати, приїжджати, підходити, підбігати, припливати, прилітати; go — іти, ходити, їхати, відправлятися, сходити, приходити, плисти, летіти.
The concretization of words of speaking: say and tell also takes place — говорити, розповідати, казати, сказати, промовити, мовити, повторити, відзначити, зауважити, стверджувати, повідомити, висловитись, висловлюватись, спитати, заперечити, наказати, звеліти:
| So what? I said. | „Ну так що?“ — спитав я. |
| “Hello”, I said when somebody answered the goddam phone. | Алло! — Вигукнув я, коли хтось підійшов до цього триклятого телефону. |
| She had said that she was in bed and ill. | Беккі писала, що вона хвора й лежить у ліжку. |
| He told us we should always pray to God. | І нам теж радив завжди молитися Богу. |
| He told me to come right over, if I felt like it. | Вінзвелів хоч зараз приходити, якщо треба. |
| Thanks for telling me, — I said. | Дякую, щопопередила! — кажу. |
The device of concretization is also used in rendering other words with broad meaning:
Dinny waited in a corridor which smelled of disinfectant (Galsworthy).
Дінні чекала її в коридорі, що просяк карболкою.
Disinfectant — дезінфікуючий засіб (the word acceptable in official-scientific genre) — in fiction concretization is needed.
The same can be illustrated by the verb “to be”:
The clock is on the wall.
Годинник висить на стіні.
The apple is on the plate and the plate is on the table.
Яблуко лежить на тарілці, а тарілка стоїть на столі.
In all these cases, though, “to be” preserves its general meaning “знаходитись”.
| He is at school. | Він вчиться в школі. |
| He is in the Army. | Він служить в Армії. |
| He was at the ceremony. | Він був присутній на церемонії. |
| The concert was on Sunday. | Концерт відбувсяв неділю. |
| The book is on the table. | Книга лежить на столі. |
| The picture is on the wall. | Картина висить на стіні. |
| He’s in Holliwood (Sal.) | Вінживе в Голівуді (В іншому контексті могло б також бути „Він працює в Голівуді“) |
| I was in his office for about two hours, I guess. | Я просидіву нього в кабінеті години з дві. |
| That was her first summer in Maine. | Вона... тільки перше літо проводила в Мейні. |
| Then her blouse and stuff were on the seat. Her shoes and socks were on the floor, right underneath the chair, right next to each other. | Блузка та все інше лежало на сидінні, а туфлі, зі шкарпетками, скрученими всередині, стояли поруч під стільцем. |
| “Name something you’d like to be”. | Скажи, ким би ти хотів стати. |
| Alfred Lunt and Lynn Fontanne were the old couple, and they were very good. | Альфред Лант та Лінн Фонтанн грали старе подружжя, вони дуже гарно грали. |
| “He may have to stay in Hollywood and write a picture about Annapolis... Guess who’s going to be in it!” | Може йо знадобиться залишитись в Голівуді та написати сценарій про Аннаполіс... Вгадай, хто в ній буде зніматися? |
| Like most young Frenchmen of his generation he was athletic. | Як і більшість французів його покоління, він захоплювався спортом. |
| She is in bed. | Вона лежить у ліжку. |
The words of general purpose like the man, the woman, the person, the creature are replaced by concrete proper names or nouns: старий, солдат, прохожий, хазяйка, собака, кішка.
Concretization is caused by the necessity to complete the phrase, achieve figurativeness and avoid repetition.
| We had strolled over. | Ми підійшли до її паркану. |
| You could hear him putting away his toilet articles (Sal.) | Чутно було, як він збирає свої мильниціта щітки. |
| I don’t know of any landowner around here who begrudges those children any game their father can hit (To Kill a Mock...) | Я не знаю в нас у районі такого землевласника, котрий би пошкодував для цих дітей зайця. |
| Mr. Raynold sat up against the tree-trunk. | Містер Рейнольд притулився додуба. |
It is necessary to take into consideration not only denotative but connotative meanings as well. The verb “to employ” is usually translated as “наймати, приймати на роботу”. But if Mark Twain’s character is “accused of employing toothless and incompetent old relatives to prepare food for the foundling hospital”, of which he is warden, the verb acquires a shade of negative meaning (he is said to have used his position in order to pay money to his relatives for the work which they could not do properly); so it should be translated by a less “general” verb – e.g. “прилаштувати, влаштувати по знайомству”.
The English pronoun “you” deserves special attention. It can be translated only with the help of differentiation, i.e. either “ти” or “ви”. The choice depends on the character, his age, social position, relations and the situation in which he speaks. One should remember that the wrong choice can destroy the whole atmosphere of the narration.
Generalization
Generalization is the phenomenon opposite to concretization; the notions with narrow meaning in source language are replaced by the units with broader meaning in target language. We have to resort to generalization when in the target language there are no concrete notions analogous to the ones in source language. In many cases the norms of TL make it unnecessary and even undesirable to translate all the particulars expressed in SL. Englishmen usually name the exact height of a person: “He is six foot three inches tall”. In Ukrainian it would hardly seem natural to introduce a character saying: “Він шість футів і три дюйми на зріст”; substituting centimeters for feet and inches wouldn’t make it much better: “Його зріст — 190,5 сантиметра”. The best variant may be following: “Він дуже високий на зріст”.
Generalization is also used in those cases when in SL a word with differentiated meaning corresponds to a word with non-differentiated meaning in TL (“a hand” – “рука”, “an arm” – “рука”, leg – foot, etc.).
The necessity to use generalization may be caused by purely pragmatic considerations. In the original text there may be many proper names informative for the native speakers of SL and absolutely uninformative for the readers in TL. These may be the names of some firms, goods produced by those firms, shops (often bearing the names of their owners), etc. Englishmen know that “Tonibell” is the name of various kinds of ice-cream produced by the firm Tonibell, while “Trebor” means sweets produced by Trebor Sharps Ltd and “Tree Top” designates fruit drinks produced by Unilever. Transcribed in the Ukrainian text these names are absolutely senseless for the reader who would not see any difference between „Тонібел“, „Требор“, „Три Топ“ or even „Тоутал“, which is not eatable since it is petrol. An English reader in his turn can hardly guess what they sell in “Динамо” shops (even if it is spelt “Dynamo”) or in “Весна” (no matter whether it is rendered as “Vesna” or “Spring”). Hardly are more informative such names as “Сніжинка” (a café or a laundry), “Байкал” (a beverage), “Першокласниця” (candies), “Осінь” (a cake), etc. Therefore it is recommended to substitute names (unless they are internationally known or play an important role in the context) by generic words denoting the whole class of similar objects:
Він здає свої сорочки в „Сніжинку“.
He has his shirts washed at the laundry.
Вони їли „Осінь“, запиваючи її „Байкалом“.
They were eating a cake washing it down with a tonic.
…Domes of glass and aluminium which glittered like Chaneldiamonds.
…склепіння зі скла та алюмінію, що виблискували, наче штучні діаманти.
To translate “Chanel diamonds” as «діаманти фірми „Шанель“ would be a mistake since the majority of Ukrainian readers do not know that this firm makes artificial diamonds. If the text permits a longer sentence it is possible to add this information («штучні діаманти фірми „Шанель“), which may be useful for the readers’ scope but absolutely unnecessary for the text itself. However, the generalized translation “штучні діаманти” is quite necessary here.
Here are some other examples with generalization used:
He comes over and visits me practically every weekend. (Sal.)
Він часто до мене їздить, майже кожного тижня.
Then his girl gets killed, because she’s always speeding.
А потім дівчина гине, тому що вона постійнопорушує правила.
“Who won the game?” I said. “It’s only the half.”
„А хто виграв?“ — питаю.— Ще не скінчилось.
In translation generalization is combined with antonymic translation; verb said is concretized.
... He showed us this old beat-up Havajo blanket that he and Mrs. Spencer’d bought off some Indian...
Він нам показав пошарпану індійську ковдру — вони з місіс Спенсер купили її в якогось індійця.
…Jane used to drive to market with her mother in this La Salle convertible they had.
…Джейн їздила зі своєю матір’ю на ринок в їхній машині.
If I do not sleep… I shall tomorrow night get them to give me a dose of chloral.
Якщо я не спатиму… то завтра вночі попрошу в них снодійне.
I asked Dr. Seward to give me a little opiate of some kind, as I had not slept well the night before.
Я попросив у доктора Стюарда трохи снодійного, оскільки погано спав минулої ночі.
Replacement of Effect by Cause and Visa Versa
In the translation process there are lexical replacements, based on cause-effect relations between notions. Thus, word or word combination of SL may be replaced in translation by a word or word combination of TL, which by its logical relations denotes the cause of action or condition denoted by a translated unit of SL. This transformation presupposes semantic and logical analysis of the situation described in the text and consists in semantic development of this situation (in Ukrainian the transformation is called “значеннєвий (змістовий) розвиток”. If the situation is developed correctly, i.e. if the original and translated utterances are semantically connected as cause and effect, the transformation helps to render sense and observe the norms of TL:
Mr. Kelada’s brushes… would have been all the better for a scrub (S.Maugham).
Щітки містера Келади… не відзначались чистотою.
It may seem that the translation “не відзначали чистотою” somewhat deviates from the original “would have been all the better for a scrub”. However, the literal translation “були б набагато кращими від чищення” is clumsy while “не відзначались чистотою” is quite acceptable stylistically and renders the idea quite correctly: why would they have been all the better for a scrub? Because they “не відзначались чистотою”. The example illustrates substitution of effect by cause: the English sentence names the effect while the Ukrainian variant names its cause. The opposite situation may also occur – when the cause is substituted by effect:
I not only shared a cabin with him and ate three meals a day at the same table… (S.Maughm)
…тричі на день зустрічався з ним за одним столом…
Three long years had passed… since I had tasted ale… (Mark Twain)
Цілих три роки я не брав у рот пива…
In these examples the English sentences name the cause while the Ukrainian versions contain the effect (I ate three meals a day at the same table with him, so “Я тричі на день зустрічався з ним за одним столом”; three long years had passed since I tasted ale, so “Цілих три роки я не брав у рот пива”).
Here are some other examples:
| I don’t blame them. (наслідок) | Я їх розумію. (причина) Я їх не звинувачую, тому що я їх розумію. |
| He’s dead now. | Він помер (він помер, отже, він зараз мертвий). |
| And they probably came to Pencey that way. | Вони такими були й до школи (були такими до школи, отже, такими прийшли до школи). |
| He always made you say everything twice. | Він завжди перепитував. (Ви були змушені повторювати сказане, тому що він вас перепитував). |
| A lot of schools were home for vacation already. | У багатьох пансіонах і коледжах уже почались канікули (Почались канікули, тому школярі вже були вдома). |
| Maugham “Before the Party” ... If a client went to him with some trouble that was not quite nice, Mr. Skinner would look grave. | ... Якщо клієнт розповідав йому обставини, які могли здатися непристойними, містер Скіннер заклопотано насуплював брови. (Насуплював брови, тому мав похмурий вигляд). |
Below there are examples of inverse replacement of Cause into Effect:
| “Have a seat there, boy”, old Spencer said. He meant the bed. | — Сідай он туди, хлопчику, — сказав старий Спенсер. Він показав на ліжко (Показав, тому що мав його на увазі). |
| He was the kind of guy that hates to answer you right away. | Такі, як він, зразу не відповідають (Не відповідають, тому що не люблять робити цього). |
Antonymic Translation
This type of transformation means that a certain word is translated not by a corresponding word of TL but by its antonym, with negation being added at the same time (or, if there is negation in the original sentence, it is omitted in translation):
It wasn’t too far. – Це виявилось досить близько.
“Far” is translated as “близько” and negation in the predicate is omitted.
The necessity for this transformation arises due to several reasons:
1. peculiarities of the systems of SL and TL:
a) in Ukrainian the negative prefix “не” coinsides in its form with the negative particle “не”, while in English they differ (un-, in-, im-, dis-, mis-, ir-, etc., and the negative suffix –less on the one hand and the particle “not” on the other); so it is quite normal to say “not impossible, not misunderstand, not unnecessary” in English, while in Ukrainian “не неможливо, не не розуміти, не необхідно” is bad;
b) groups of antonyms in SL and TL do not necessarily coincide: in English the word “advantage” has an antonym “disadvantage”, while in Ukrainian the word “перевага” has no antonym, English has antonyms “to arrange – to disarrange”, while Ukrainian has only “систематизувати”, etc.
2. contextual requirements:
Sometimes antonyms become the most adequate way of rendering the contextual meaning: “a murderer is only safe when he is in prison” – “вбивця не становить загрози лиш тоді, коли сидить в тюрмі”.
In a particular context this transformation may help to render emotional and stylistic coloring of the text: “He’s probably thirsty. Why don’t you give him some milk?” – “Мабуть, він хоче пити. Може, дати йому молока?” Direct translation “Чому б не дати йому молока?” is not colloquial, while the heroes of P.G.Wodehouse speak in a highly informal way.
3. traditional norms of TL:
“I only wish I could. I wish I had the time” (S.Leacock) – “Мені дуже шкода, що я не можу. На жаль, у мене немає часу”.
The variant “Я би хотів, щоб я міг (в минулому)” is not Ukrainian.
Antonymic translation allows the translator to create a more natural grammatical structure in TL in cases, when the grammatical form comes into conflict with the rules of lexical compatibility and deprives the target text its expressiveness and clarity.
The following complex lexical-grammatical replacement is broadly spread: affirmative construction is transformed into a negative one and visa versa:
| Sal.: Stradlater didn’t say anything. | Стредлер промовчав. (Сказати — промовчати) |
| I’m not kidding. | Я вам серйозно кажу. (Жартувати — говорити серйозно) |
| I meant it, too. | І я не прикидався. |
| That doesn’t happen much, though. | Проте це нерідко трапляється. |
| She wasn’t looking too happy. | Вигляд у неї був доволі нещасний. |
| I don’t hate too many guys. | Я дуже мало кого ненавиджу. |
| I don’t believe this is a smoker. | Мені здається, це вагон для тих, хто не палить. |
| They all had on the kind of hats that you knew they didn’t really live in New York. | По їхніх капелюшках зразу ж було видно, що вони звідкілясь приїхали. |
| I couldn’t think of anybody to call up. | Я подумав, що дзвонити мені нема кому. |
Typical is the use of antonymic translation in rendering English construction not ... (un)til... into Ukrainian; (un)til being changed into “лише тоді, тільки (тоді), коли”, which to some extent may be considered its antonyms:
| He did not begin to calm down until he had cut the tops off every camelia bush Mrs. Dubose owned (To kill...) | Він трохи оговтався лишень тоді, коли позбивав верхівки з усіх камелій місіс Дюбоуз. | ||
| They gave me the wrong book, and I didn’t notice it till I got back to my room. (Sal.) | Я тількивдома помітив, що мені дали не ту книгу. | ||
| I didn’t think of it till we went half-way through the park. | Згадав я про це, коли ми вже проїхали майже весь парк. | ||
| He didn’t believe it until he saw the ruined farm. | Він повірив у це, тільки коли сам побачив зруйновану ферму. | ||
It should be kept in mind, that negation in English is not necessarily expressed by the particle not, but other devices as well, e.g., with the help of preposition without:
| He never met him afterwards without asking him. | Після цього він кожен раз під час зустрічі питав його. |
| The Radley-house had no screen doors. | Двері в них були суцільними. |
Antonyms exist among such auxiliary parts of speech, as prepositions and particles:
| Keep the child out of the sun. | Не тримайте дитину на сонці. |
| Keep off the grass. | Не ходити по траві! |
| Not tooloud, please! | Тихше, будь-ласка! |
Replacement of adjective or adverb in comparative or superlative degree by an adjective or adverb in neutral or zero degree or visa versa, which is followed by changing the construction “sign” + ð - ; - ð + is a special type of antonymic translation:
| She paid Riri’s parents the proper visit of condolence, but she neither ate less heartily nor slept less soundly. (Maugham. A man with a Conscience) | Вона, як годиться, відвідала батьків Рірі, принесла їм свої співчуття. Проте їла так само з апетитом і спала так само міцно, як завжди. |
| I’m the most terrific liar you ever saw in your life (Sal.) | Я страшенний брехун — такого ви ніколи в житті не бачили. |
| It wasn’t as cold as it was the day before. | Стало тепліше, ніж учора. |
The example of transforming affirmative construction into a negative one, is not accompanied by an antonymic replacement, but replacement of a compound sentence by a simple one and by the change of a syntactical function of the word before — “раніше”:
| It will be February 8 before they return to Earth. | Вони (астронавти) повернуться на землю нераніше ніж 8 лютого. |
If there are two negations present in one sentence, then the translation is made according to mathematical principle, i.e. when “minus plus minus in sum give plus”:
| — When does she want to go? — ASAP, but she cannot book a flight until after the FAX comes that will help her get her visa. | — Коли вона хоче полетіти? — Якомога швидше, але вона зможе замовити квиток на літак тільки тоді, коли надійде факс, що допоможе їй отримати візу. |
| Once your hard disk is installed it should not be removed unless it is damaged or you upgrade to a larger disk. | Якщо жорсткий диск встановлено, то знімати його слід лише тоді, коли він пошкоджений або коли ви хочете замінити його на більш місткий. |
| But he was no outfielder as Ikey was. | Йому більше таланило, ніж Айкі. (Він не був таким невдахою, як Айкі.) |
| “A Forsyte”, replied young Jolion, “is not an uncommon animal.” | „Форсайт, — відповів молодий Джуліан, — досить звичайна тварина“. |
Double negation frequently occurs in scientific-technical literature and colloquial expressions:
| If I don’t misunderstand you… | Якщо я вас правильно розумію… |
| Not infrequently… | Досить часто… |
| Not disconnected with… | Що має певний (деякий) зв’язок з… |
| Not without reason… | Досить обґрунтовано (не без причини)… |
| Not inconsiderable… | Досить значний… |
| This may not seem unusual except we are on an enormous hill and it was blizzard conditions out. | Це здається досить звичним, якщо не знаєш, що ми знаходимося на високому пагорбі, а на вулиці страшна завірюха… |
| Nothing is impossible for him… | Він все подолає… (Для нього немає нічого неможливого)… |
| He doesn’t want to disobey you. | Він хоче вас слухатись… |
| We cannot (help) but hope he is right… | Нам залишається лише сподіватись, що він має рацію… |
Antonymic translation is sometimes caused by lexical differences:
Snowdrifts three feet deep.
Кучугури з метр заввишки.
The city is built on terraces rising from the lake.
Місто збудоване на терасах, що збігають до озера.
LECTURE 19. Lexical Replacements (continued)
Compensation
The essence of compensation is clearly revealed in F.V.Fyodorov’s book “Basics of general theory of translation”: „У практиці перекладу трапляються окремі випадки, коли не відтворюється зовсім або замінюється формально далеким той чи той елемент оригіналу, оминається те чи те слово, словосполука тощо, та неможливість передати окремий елемент, окрему особливість оригіналу також не суперечить принципу перекладності, оскільки
останній стосується твору як цілого. Звичайно, ціле існує не як якесь абстрактне поняття — воно складається з конкретних елементів, які, проте, є суттєвими не кожний окремо й не в механічній своїй сукупності, а в системі, яка створюється їх поєднанням і яка складає єдність зі змістом твору. Звідси можливість замін і компенсацій у системі цілого, яка відкриває для цього різноманітні шляхи; отже, втрата окремого елемента, який не відіграє організуючої ролі, може не відчуватися на фоні широкого цілого, він начебто розчиняється в цілому або замінюється іншими елементами, іноді й не заданими оригіналом“ (Fyodorov: p.p. 169-170).
Compensation is not as much a transformation but rather a general principle of rendering stylistic peculiarities of a text when there is no direct correspondence between stylistic means of SL and TL. This transformation is widely used to render speech peculiarities of characters, to translate puns, rhyming words, etc. Its essence is as follows: it is not always possible to find stylistic equivalents to every stylistically marked word of the original text or to every phonetic and grammatical irregularity purposefully used by the author. Therefore a general stylistic balance based on compensating some inevitable stylistic losses by introducing stylistically similar elements in some other utterances or employing different linguistic means playing a similar role in TL, should be kept. Let us take some examples:
1. Suppose a character uses the word “fool-proof” which is certainly a sign of the colloquial register. In Ukrainian there is no colloquial synonym of the word “надійний” or “безпечний”. So the colloquial “fool-proof” is translated by the neutral “абсолютно надійний” and the character’s language loses its stylistic coloring. This loss is inevitable, but we have to find a way of compensating it. It is quite possible to find a neutral utterance in the same character’s speech that can be translated in a colloquial manner, e.g.: “I got nothing”. Taken separately it is translated “Я нічого не отримав” or “Мені нічого не дали”, but it allows to make up for the lost colloquial marker: “Мене пошили в дурні”, “Я залишився з носом”, “Мене обвели як немовля” or at least “Я залишився ні з чим”, etc. In such a way the number of neutral and colloquial utterances both in the original and the translated texts is preserved.
2. In political language of the USA the phrase selling candidates like soap is well known. Literally it means: продаючи кандидатів як мило. Where has this comparison come from? There was a period in the USA when some sorts of soap disappeared from the counters. This phrase may be translated: „Рекламуючи політичних кандидатів як ходовий товар“.
Compensation is often used where purely linguistic peculiarities of original must be rendered (dialectal words, individual peculiarities of speech, incorrect language forms, pun, play upon words, etc.), which not always have direct correspondence in translation language.
When translating contaminated speech, translator should not be bound to the same translation devices, which are used by a foreign author. Translator has full right to replace language devices by others (grammatical into lexical, phonetic – grammatical, etc. according to the norms of contamination in Ukrainian or Ukrainian).
Thus, when in the original text language is contaminated by a foreigner, then traditional ways of rendering foreigners’ speech in Ukrainian may be applied. It is well known that foreigners, even living for long in Ukraine, experience difficulties in correct expression of the aspect of verbs in Ukrainian: they replace synthetic form of Future by analytical („Я буду помирати“ instead of „Я помру“).
Compensation is one of the ways of gaining equivalence in translation. It is used when we have to restore (“compensate for”) semantic loss, caused by the fact, that some unit remains un-translated fully or partially, and a translator renders the same information in another way, and not necessarily in the same place of the textт, as in original:
My parents would have about two haemorrhages apiece if I told anything pretty personal about them.
У моїх предків, мабуть, трапилось би по два інфаркти на кожного, якби я став теревенити про їхні власні справи.
At the first sight one may have an impression that this translation is not quite equivalent, because the words parents andtell have neutral stylistic character (colouring), and Ukrainian предки(батьки) and теревенитиbelong to unceremonious and casual register:
He made a speech that lasted about ten hours.
Він штовхнув спіч годин на десять.
However this example as well as all other similar cases should be considered as equivalent. The point is that the use of stylistically marked words предки,теревенити,штовхнути спіч instead of neutral parents, tell, make a speech are here nothing else but compensation, which compensates for or restores the loss of corresponding stylistic characteristics in other places of the text translated:
If here is one thing I hate, it’s the movies (the word „кіношка“ appeared later).
Якщо я щось ненавиджу, то це кіно.
She had on those damn falsies that point all over the place.
У неї ... в ліфчик щось було підкладене, щоб стирчало в усі боки.
English words movies, falsies belong to unconstrained register; however in Ukrainian there are no such words, which would coincide with them stylistically. Therefore the translator had to render them with the help of neutral words кіно, ліфчик. This loss of information (replacement of stylistically marked words by the neutral ones) takes place repeatedly through the whole translated text and requires compensation. One more example:
“Why don’t you write a good thrilling detective story?” she asked. “Me?” exclaimed Mrs. Albert Forrester for the first time in her life regardless of grammar (S.M. The Creative Impulse).
— А чому б вам не написати детективний роман, такий, щоб аж моторошно було? — Шо? — вихопилось у місіс Форестер, яка вперше в житті забула про гарні манери.
Here in original Mrs. Forrester in elliptical sentence uses the form of so called objective case of the pronoun Me instead ofI, which many people consider grammatical carelessness (without sufficient reason, by the way, as the formme in such cases has long ago become the norm in colloquial literary language). Since in Ukrainian the system of personal pronouns has nothing of this kind, the translator compensated this loss through culturally incorrect pronoun form Шо. (In Ukrainian translation grammatically incorrect form of the pronoun Що – Шо was used).
Compensation clearly illustrates one of the basic statements of the translation theory – the adequacy of translation is gained not in separate elements of a text, but in a text as a whole. In other words, untranslatable details do exist, but there are no untranslatable texts.
In translation practice cases are known when the description of absolutely different situations becomes equivalent in original and translation. Such replacement of situation in translation may be stipulated by various reasons. It can be connected with differences of cultural traditions and life experience of recipients. Thus, in translation of the phrase from A. Cronin’s “The Citadel” it turns out, that the procedure of preliminary official announcement of the names of the people going to get married (banns) is unknown to contemporary Ukrainian reader:
“Don’t stand there like a Presbyterian parson about to forbid the banns”.
Word-for-word translation seems strange for our ear and sounds as follows:
„Не стійте тут як пресвітеріанський проповідник, що збирається виголосити заборону молодятам одружитись“.
The equivalence of the translation may be rather secured by mentioning a different church custom (another situation), having the same color in Ukrainian, i.e. unpleasant for those, against whom it is exercised, e.g., “оголосити анафему (проклинати)”:
„Не стійте як пресвітеріанський священик, що готується оголоситикомусьанафему“.
The full or partial change of the situation described may also touch upon its separate elements. This phenomenon is very often found in translating contaminated speech, used by the author in original for characterizing a speaking character. Thus, one of the heroines of G. Galsworsy’s “The End of the Chapter” Jin Tesbury is constantly compared with “leopardess”. The absence in Ukrainian and Ukrainian of a special name for a female leopard made translators (Y. Korneev and P.Melkov) replace it by “тигриця”.
The she-servant of little Davy in Ch. Dickens’s novel “David Copperfield” often pronounces English words incorrectly. In some cases this feature of her language may be considered insignificant and resign to the fact, that it becomes not rendered in translation. However, in the next sentence this peculiarity becomes the aim of the utterance:
“I ought to have made it, perhaps, but I couldn’t azackly,” – that was always the substitute for exactly, in Peggotty’s militia of words — “bring my mind to it”.
The phonetic form of all possible Ukrainian equivalents for “exactly” is too simple to be pronounced incorrectly by illiterate people. The more important here not the meaning of this word but the fact, that Peggotty pronounces incorrectly difficult words. By compensation the translator refuses to render directly the meaning of this unit in original, but compensates for this loss by using absolutely another word, which is natural for a person of little education to pronounce incorrectly from the view-point of translation:
«Може, я й мусила це зробить, та кітагорично – мовою Пеготі це завжди означало „категорично“, — не могла зібратись з духом». (Пер. О. Кривцової та Є. Ланна).
There is one more example – translation of the abstract from Jack London’s novel “Martin Eden” by S. Zayanitsky. Little educated sailor Martin Eden is talking with highly educated girl Ruth:
| “It was just an accident”, he said, putting his hand on his cheek. “One night, in a calm, with a heavy sea running, the main boomlift carried away, an’next the tackle. The lift was wire, an’ it was threshin’around like a snake. The whole watch was tryin’ to grab it, an’ I rushed in an’ got swatted”. | „Випадок стався такий, — сказав він, проводячи рукою по щоці. — Якось уночі, у велику хвилю, зірвало грот з усіма снастями. Трос, бач, був дротяний, він і став звиватися і хльостати кругом, як та гадина. Уся вахта намагалася його спіймати. Ну я кинувся й закріпив його, тільки ж при цьому мені він так заїхав по щоці, що мало не здалося“. |