Филологические науки/6. Актуальные проблемы перевода

Аспирант Пивоварова Е.В.

Дальневосточный Федеральный университет, Россия

“Phraseological translator’s “false friends”. Classification principles”

Phraseological units have always been in the focus linguistic interest. We take phraseological units to mean a word group with a fixed lexical composition and grammatical structure; its meaning, which is familiar to native speakers of the given language, is generally figurative and cannot be derived from the meanings of the phraseological unit’s component parts [7]. Phraseological units fall into two groups: idioms (the expressions, which can be understood only figuratively) and phrasemes (non-idiomatic expressions) [9, p.3]. Phraseological units, especially idioms, cause interest because an image that an idiom evokes is believed to help understand culture, traditions and mentality of native speakers in different countries. English today tends towards idiomatic usage of words [6, p.1].This explains why there is a growing number of idioms in language and why literal set expressions are turning into idiomatic. Handling idioms and phrasemes properly helps to understand foreign language and to communicate with native speakers efficiently.

The phenomena of the so called translator’s (interpreter’s) phraseological “false friends” deserves special consideration. This type of phrasemes and idioms prevents adequate comprehension of foreign speech and provokes mistakes in translation. The problem of phraseological “false friends” is critical in modern linguistics yet such language units haven’t got proper attention in scientific research. There are only few studies on phraseological “false friends”, among which are works by Dobrovolsky[2], E. Piirainen[5], Y. Dolgopolov[8], S.Kuzmin [9].

Phraseological “false friends” differ in nature from lexical “false friends”. Lexical “false friends” share sound or graphic form, which causes misunderstanding, whereas phraseological “false friends” may not sound alike but evoke identical images and differ in actual meaning. Having compared the definitions given by foreign and Russian linguists [2], [3], [4], [5], [8], [9] we came up with an operational definition of this phenomenon. Phraseological “false friends” are phraseological units in two languages that do not necessarily coincide in their form but evoke similar or identical images and thereby cause false identification. “False friends” phrasemes and idioms have their own meaning which cannot be derived from the meaning of their components and this meaning may totally differ from the meaning of the target text unit or coincide with it only partially. “False friends” are also several phraseological units with common structure in one language, which impedes the right choice of an equivalent in the translation.

Phraseological “false friends” seem to defy an easy classification but a survey of classifications given by different scientists helps to take into account all types of such units, to identify them in the language and avoid mistakes while using and translating interpreter’s phraseological “false friends”.

The classification of “false friends” phrasemes and idioms given by G. Gisatova includes two big classes of phraseological “false friends”: intralingual and interlingual units. These classes are subdivided into homonyms and paronyms. The class of paronyms is subsequently divided into full and partial paronyms. The author illustrates her classification with some examples in the Russian and English language:

1. Full intralingual paronyms – are phraseological units that have the same image and meaning but possess some structural and morphological differences which cardinally change their meanings:

skin a cat – “to spend little money”, “to save”;

skin the cat – “to make physical exercise”.

2. Partial intralingual paronyms – are phraseological units that have the same structure and image but possess two and more meanings one of which causes the appearance of a “false friend”:

во веки веков - 1. “forever”; 2. “never”;

на веки веков - 1. “forever”.

3. Intralingual homonyns – are phraseological units that coincide in form but differ totally in their meaning:

bite the dust – “to be killed in the fight, to die”;

bite the dust – “to feel small”, “to suffer a defeat”.

4. Full intralingual paronyms – are “false friends” with identical or common structure in two languages and the same image but different meaning:

протянуть руку – “to grab sth. that doesn’t belong you”;

протягивать руку – “to beg”;

give someone a hand – “to help smb”.

5. Partial intralingual paronyms – are phraseological units with identical structure in two languages that have several meanings and can be confused only in one of them:

to take sth. to heart – 1) “to treat sth. seriously”, 2) “to worry about sth.”. English phraseme in the first meaning can become a “false friend” of the Russian phraseme “to take sth. to heart” (“принимать близко к сердцу, переживать”).

1. Intralingual homonyms – are phraseological units with the same image and form in two languages or phrasems with some inessential formal differences which differ in their meaning.

биться об стенку – “to make everything possible”, “to defend the interests of smb.”;

beat one’s head against a brick wall – “to invite trouble” [1, p.103].

One of the main advantages of the classification given by G. Gisatova is the considering of intralingual “false friends” as a special type because proper handling these phrasemes and idioms helps to choose the correct variant in translation.

The same types of “false friends” can be found in the classification proposed by N. Dubinina and L. Koulchitskaya. The latter includes two more big classes: grammatical and lexical-grammatical “false friends”. As example of grammatical “false friends” the authors consider an English idiom “to have the news at the first hand” and a Russian idiom “узнать новость из первых рук”, which have the same actual meaning but differ in number representation. Complex lexical-grammatical “false friends” can be associated with each other despite the differences in their forms and meanings: “don’t cross the bridges before you come to them” means “not to raise difficulties beforehand” and can become a “false friend” of the Russian idiom “делить шкуру неубитого медведя” meaning “don’t cross the bridges before you come to them” [3, p.319].

A different classification though also based on the formal principle may be found in the dictionary of Y. Dolgopolov. The principle criterion for his classification is the similarity or contrasts in the form or wording or imagery of two or more units in one and the same language whose meanings or usages do not show corresponding similarity or contrast. The author proposes the following basic types of oppositions:

1. Formally identical expressions that are used differently by British and American speakers which may present special problems to foreign learners: pavement artist (UK)/pavement artist (US).

2. Units with identical components, relating as pseudo-quantitative variants, when one of the phrases is not really just a shortened form of an extended phrase: keep one’s head/keep one’s head up.

3. The expressions whose primary components are identical: bring one’s mind to sth./bring sth. to mind.

4. Solidly spelled compound words forming semantic oppositions to separately written analogous phrases with which they can be potentially confused: black eye/blackeye.

5. Phrasal verbs (combinations of verbs with prepositions or adverbs) with identical verbal component whose meanings may mistakenly appear similar: fight for sth./fight over sth.

6. Phrasal verbs forming structural and semantic oppositions to compound verbs with formally identical component parts represented in reverse order: do sth. over/overdo sth.

7. The expressions some of whose components are identical while others relate as synonyms: hold an appointment/keep an appointment.

8. The expressions some of whose components are identical while others designate contiguous notions: turn someone’s brain/turn someone’s head.

9. The expressions some of whose components are identical while others associate with the same class of things: lose one’s head/lose one’s mind.

10. The expressions whose components do not match but whose general phraseological idea and imagery may appear similar: hang all one’s bells on one horse/put all one’s eggs in one basket.

11. The expressions some of whose components relate as antonyms, and whose general phraseological idea may be construed as antonymous: in deep water/in low water [8, p.3].

A quite different approach to “false friends” classification has been proposed by D.Dobrovolsky and E. Piirainen. The authors ascribe most “false friends” to one of three kinds of idiom motivation:

1. “False friends” based on different conceptual metaphors;

2. “False friends” based on different rich images;

3. “False friends” based on one constituent.

Each class of phraseological “false friends” deserves a particular description but we will explain only their main distinguishing traits. For the first type of motivation, the divergence between the actual meanings of two idioms can be explained by different conceptual metaphors [2, p.114]. The following example is provided for this type of “false friends”: German “in den Keller gehen” (to go into the cellar – “to become less, to fall” (prices, shares) and Dutch “naar de keldar goan” (to go into the cellar – “to become unusable, to perish, to go to pieces”. There is no cultural difference between “cellars” in Germany or in the Netherlands. The difference in the actual meanings of the idioms can only be explained by addressing different conceptual metaphors behind them. Both idioms have the same source concept. Since cellar is the lowest part of the building, this concept has a cognitive potential to indicate the lowest point on a scale. According to a well-known metaphoric model, the quantity of shares, the amount of stock market prices is arranged on a scale or on a chart, where MORE is UP, and LESS is DOWN. According to another widespread metaphor, the lowest part (of the scale or the chart) is BAD, the upper part is GOOD. Thus the German idiom and the Dutch idiom are based on two different conceptual metaphors LESS is DOWN and BAD is DOWN respectively [2, p.116].

The second class of false friends can be interpreted on the basic level of the so-called “rich image”. It should be explained here that certain source concepts on the level of rich images are predisposed to be mapped onto different target domains. As example for this type of “false friends” D.Dobrovolsky and E.Piirainen describe idioms whose underlying rich image is “within the four walls”. This source concept can be exploited for semantic reinterpretation quite different ways, First, there is a positively connoted version: German “in den eigenen vier Wänden sein” (to be within the one’s four walls – “to feel comfortable”). In other languages a nearly identical lexical structure depicts negative aspects of the given situation. Dwelling between one’s four walls, cut off from the outside world, may have a negative impact on the mood or mental state of a person: Russian “сидеть в четырех станах” (to sit within four walls – “to always stay at home, never go out, be isolated, be bored”). The examples show that the same lexical structure can evoke different frames (a house with dwelling rooms or a prison with sells).

The third class is formed by “false friends” based on one single lexical constituent. Nevertheless, these are not one-word “false friends”. On the contrary, these are words that are absolutely identical in two languages in terms of their semantic potential. It is the constituents that have several secondary readings besides their primary readings. Above all, these are very productive somatic constituents like hand, heart, eye etc. The authors consider a German idiom “kein Herz im Leibe haben” (to have no heart in one’s body – “to have no sympathy, to be pitiless”) and a Dutch idiom “green hart in tijn liff hebban” (to have no heart in one’s body – “to have no courage, to be cowardly”). In both idioms, HEART does not occur in its primary reading (“organ for the blood circulation”) but in its secondary reading as “imaginary organ of some feelings”. The HEART concept affects several aspects, one of them being SYMPATHY, and another one COURAGE [2, p.119].

In conclusion it should be pointed out that all attempts to classify “false friends” phrasemes and idioms are of merely subjective nature, because the right perception of these units depends on different factors among which language competence and context should be mentioned. Nevertheless a detailed research of the “false friends” phenomena helps to distinguish such units in speech and language and avoid mistakes in communication and translation.

References:

1. Гизатова Г.К. «Ложные друзья переводчика» в лексико-фразеологических средствах русского, английского и немецкого языков//Вестник ЧитГУ. 2009. № 4(55). С.99-104.

2. Dobrovolskij D., Piirainen E. Figurative language: cross-cultural and cross-linguistic perspectives.Amsterdam:Elsevier, 2005. 395 p.

3. Дубинина Н.В., Кульчицкая Л.В. Фразеологизмы-«ложные друзья переводчика»//Культурно-языковые контакты.2004. №6. С.314-325.

4. Комиссаров В.Н., Коралова А.Л. Практикум по переводу с английского языка на русский. Учебное пособие для ин-тов и фак-тов иностр. яз. М.: Высшая школа, 1990. 127 с.

5. Piirainen E. Falsche Freunde in der Phraseologie des Sprachenpaares Deutsch-Niederländisch. Phraseologie und Übersetzen. Bielefeld: Aisthesis, 1999. 206 S.

6. Сейдл Дж., Макморди У. Идиомы английского языка и их употребление. М.: Высшая школа, 1983. 266 с.

7. http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Phraseological+Unit

Dictionaries:

8. Dolgopolov Y. A collection of confusable phrases: false “friends” and “enemies” in idioms and collocations. Coral Springs, FL: Lumina Press, 2004. 516 p.

9. Кузьмин С.С. Русско-английский фразеологический словарь переводчика. М.: Флинта: Наука, 2006. 776 с.

10. Кунин А.В. Англо-русский фразеологический словарь. М.: Рус. яз., 1984. 994 с.

11. Лубенская С.И. Большой русско-английский фразеологический словарь. М.: АСТ-ПРЕСС КНИГА, 2004. 1056 с.