N.P. Serebryakova

Buketov Karaganda State University

WRITTEN TRANSLATION AS THE STEP

TO PERSONILIZATION OF TEXT.

Usually when you ask students what type of the translation causes them difficulties mostly – the answer you are more likely to hear is “Of course, oral translation!”  And they don’t distinguish between consecutive and simultaneous. And at first sight that seems to be rather logical. In comparison either with frenzy of simultaneous translation or with tensity of consecutive one, surely written translation is less frenetic and hectic business. There is always time to ponder upon translation, to consult dictionaries or even to have a cup of coffee for a change. And what can be said about the methods of translation? Where do the differences lie here?

To begin with let us pay the attention on the names. As they suggest, in written translation the source text is in written form, as is the target text. In oral translation or interpretation the interpreter listens to the oral presentation of the original and translates it as an oral message in target language. As a result, in the first case the Receptor of the translation can read it, while in the second case he hears it. Though the line of demarcation between written and oral translation is drawn not only because of their forms but also because of the sets of conditions in which the process takes place. The first is continuous, the other momentary. In written translation the original can be read and re-read as many times as the translator may need or like. The same works for the final product. The translator can re-read his translation, compare it with the original, make the necessary corrections or start his work all over again. He can come back to the preceding part of the original or get the information he needs from the subsequent messages. These are most favorable conditions and here we can expect the best performance and the highest level of equivalence.  The conditions of oral translation impose a number of important restrictions on the translator’s performance. Here the interpreter receives a fragment of the original only once and for a short period of time. His translation is also a one-time act with no possibility of any return to the original or any subsequent corrections. This creates additional problems and the users have sometimes to be content with a lower level of equivalence.

Also comparing the processes of oral and written translations we may be guided by transformational and denotative models, which describe communicative scheme and the translation and interpretation themselves. If we apply this approach to written translation then several quite interesting facts will be noticed.

Firstly, written translation isn’t connected to any of these models. Not like oral consecutive translation, where denotative model dominates, or simultaneous, where transformations are mostly met. Working in a written form the translator can use both: either direct transformation or free interpretation of the text contents. And here is given the example for that based on the piece of literary translation:

"Tommy and Guy did not exchange a word on the road home. Instead they laughed, silently at first, than loud and louder. Their driver later reported that he had never seen the Colonel like it, and as for the new Copper Heel, he was "well away". He added that his own entertainment below stairs had been "quite all right" too.

Tommy and Guy were indeed inebriated, not solely, nor in the main by what they had drunk. They were caught up and bowled over together by that sacred wind which once blew freely over the young world. Cymbals and flutes rang in their ears. The grim isle of Mugg was full of scented breezes, momentarily uplifted, swept away and set down under the stars of the Aegean".

 

"По пути домой Томми и Гай не обменялись ни единым словом. Они только смеялись, сначала тихо, потом все громче и громче. Шофер позже рассказывал, что никогда не видел полковника в таком состоянии, а новый "медный каблук" был "еще хлеще". Он добавил, что его самого то­же "здорово"угостили внизу. Томми  и  Гай действительно  опьянели  не только  и  не столько от выпитого. Их обоих подхватил и сбил с тол­ку священный ветер, который некогда свободно разгу­ливал над молодым миром. В их ушах звенели цимбалы и флейты. Мрачный остров Магг овевался ароматным легким ветром, мгновенно поднимающимся, уносящимся вдаль и затихающим под звездами Эгейского моря”.

Secondly, predominance of one or another model of translation is connected with the genre of the source text and its style. Moreover, it is connected with number of direct correspondences in source text and target text. Apparently, for example, in poetry the possibility of direct equivalent is reduced to minimum. And opposite situation is with scientific or technical texts, where the translator uses direct correspondences in most of the cases. Turning to literary translation we see that it has in-between position: where it is suitable transformations may be used, and where it is not there is a way for transition to interpretation. This can be seen in the example given above. Where there was neutral description of actions – the direct correspondences could be distinguished. And on the point where it was necessary to emphasize expressive language of the uneducated driver the translator resorted to denotative approach.

It is also very interesting to look at written translation from the view point of communicational scheme. And here we also see the distinction from oral translation, as far as written translation is not targeted to definite user and not framed with the requirements of any group or individual. Written translation (and that could be even manual for meat mincing machine or coffee pot) is piece of literature. And it is addressed to everybody. No doubts that this idea can arise many arguments. For instance, translating something like the description of milk production equipment for some “Nэtige” company, it is expected that only this firm will use it. But positive answer here goes in conjunction with negative one. Certainly, this translation will be used by “Nэtige” in the first place, but afterwards it might become the part of technical library of the city or even the whole country. And the main point is that written translation ought to be done not in accordance with the needs of one factory, but under generally accepted terminological standards of Russian literary, scientific and technical prose. Partly, that is why higher demands are made of written translation than of the oral one.

And here we have come to a retraction of  the  widely spread belief, presented in the beginning of the article: that written translation is much more complicated than oral one. And namely because of higher demands written translation can cause more difficulties. That is written source and it must meet all grammatical rules, stylistics and orthography of the language it is translated into. When person deals with oral translation he may omit something or chose inappropriate synonym nevertheless he will be understood (that is what the most important thing for the listener). And all the gotchas will be lost in the listeners’ memories immediately. That works in another way for written translation, which might be read by many people. On the condition it contains important information it might be referred to more than once or twice or it might even be quoted sometimes. Everything which has been said is applicable for scientific or technical texts. And if to turn to in hand topic of translating novel, story or poem that is too obvious to be discussed. Translations of these pieces of writing have to get absorbed in Russian (Ukrainian, Japanese or Swedish, any) literature as integral part of it, though it has been written in another language. Moreover they could be recited or retold; English rhyme could become Russian song , for instance “Those evening bells” and “Вечерний звон”.

Thus the conclusion that written translation must be done in another way than oral one suggests itself. And that is not only high demands and bigger responsibility, but mostly the fact that in written translation all the factors of equivalent choosing should and must be taken into account. Approximately we speak about the following.

1.     General meaning that dictionary gives.

2.     Possible meaning in specific dictionary.

3.     Overall context of the whole source.

4.     Narrow context of one or two sentences.

5.     Communicative situation that determines the style of the text.

6.     Background information. The importance of it can’t be overestimated.

7.     Compatibility of the words in target language.

Of course, you don’t consult a dictionary all the time unless translating highly specialized text, where you just have to check the meaning of a word in special dictionary. Anybody might not know such words as “гомогенизатор” or “пюрпак”. As for the rest, in any situation of written translation all these seven factors work, and people may call it intuition not knowing what it is. So to say in word combination “steel nut” anybody would hardly translate “nut” as “орех”. Here is necessary to look it up in dictionary in search of appropriate equivalent. And that is where all the above factors work.

         Summarizing everything that has been said we can see that written translation is more complicated because of the very high demands to it. But this type of translation subdivides into informative and literary translation. So here let us return to the question “What is easier to translate technical texts or literary?”. No doubt that technical translation is easier the majority would claim . Is it possible to compare translation of  any manual with translation of “Crime and punishment”? Nevertheless it is quite obvious that for the person who deals with literature it will cause difficulties to translate something like “Правила колонадзора для емкостей высокого давления” and, on the contrary, for translator of technical texts it could be troublesome to work with novel of sacrificing love. And here we see that in translation as in any field of knowledge, to succeed in something you have to obtain experience in one narrow area. However the fundamental principles of translating either technical or literary texts are identical. That also true for those seven factors which determine the choice of equivalent and accordingly the quality of translation. For technical translation other background knowledge and different stylistics are essential. And concerning the rest it as complicated as literary translation.

         Moreover, the keypoint for translating literary and informative texts is excellent  understanding of  translation subject and mastering the style of it. Meanwhile working with literary texts translator has to obtain the skill of fancy thinking and ability to describe it, making good use of vide range of language means. Thus it is possible to master informative translation, but to handle literary one not every person is able to.  To translate poetry you’d better to be a poet, but to translate chemical text you don’t have to be a chemist. Of course that doesn’t mean that dealing with scientific text translator doesn’t meet any difficulties, connected with style choice or compatibility. While translating technical text all mentioned above seven factors, which determine the adequacy, should be used. But above all stands background (special) knowledge. And it can be proven on the following example.

ЧТО ТАКОЕ СТЕКЛО?

Это прозрачный материал, получаемый из минерального сырья, которым закрывают окна и вит­рины, салоны автомобилей и парники. Без стекла немыслимы оптическое приборостроение, химическое производство, изготовление полупроводни­ковых устройств ... Конечно, стекла бывают разные. Ни­кто не спутает хрусталь и бутылочное стекло, однако только специалист отли­чит кварцевое стекло от боросиликатного. И уж совсем узкий круг знатоков разби­рается в полупроводниковых или метал­лических стеклах.

Так что вопрос «что такое стек­ло?» — не такой уж и простой. Какие при­знаки отличают его, скажем, от кристал­лов кварца или горного хрусталя? Все дело во внутреннем строении—а оно пока неизвестно. Атомы или молекулы, образующие кристаллы, уложены геометрически пра­вильно, или, как говорят специалисты, с соблюдением дальнего порядка.

WHAT IS GLASS?

. This is transparent substance made from mineral raw material and used in windows, shop windows, cars and greenhouses. Without glass we would not have optical instru­ments, chemical products, semiconductor devices ... Of course, glass comes in different types. No one will take bottle glass for crystal, however it would take a specialist to tell quartz from borosilicate glass. But when it comes to varieties of semiconducting and metal glass only quite a narrow circle of specialists will be able to sort them out. This makes the question «What is glass» not that simple. What are the fea­tures which distinguish it from, say, crys­tals, quartz or rock crystal. What matters is the internal structure, but it is no: known so far. The atoms of molecules forming the crystals are arranged in a regular geomet­ric pattern or, as the specialists say, ac­cording to remote order.

It is obvious that even the fact that Russian translation is much longer than the English one proves the idea that everything ought to be explained due to special knowledge and norms of Russian technical terminology.

Here, basing on this example it seems appropriate to consider the role of dictionary. It is needless to say that to translate this text or alike ones is impossible without special dictionary. However dictionary itself can’t guarantee perfect translation of technical text in general and even single words without background knowledge of person. To exemplify that issue we can apply to the translation of the phrase “according to remote order” as “с соблюдением дальнего порядка”. These variant is imposed by understanding of the process described, but it cannot be found in any dictionary. Similar role dictionary plays in literary translation. Yet the distinction is that in translating technical texts the dictionary equivalents serve as starting point for understanding of process gist,  but dealing with literary text, basing on dictionary equivalents, translator builds semantic and stylistical models and creates artistic image. Thus practice of highly-skilled translator appears as intellectual and creative work. And as it is doubtlessly that there are not two identical intellects in the world so conformably there are no two identical translations in the professional arena. Not without reason they say that translation starts where dictionary ends.

 

Literature:

1.     FAWCETT P., Translation and Linguistics: Linguistic Theories Explained, Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997-240р.

2.     Waugh E. Officers and Gentlemen.- Penguin Books (Во И. Офицеры и джентльмены / Пер. П.Павелецкого, И.Разумного.- М., 1977).-320p.

3.     O. Meshkov, M.Lambert. Learn to translate by translating. – Moskow: NVI-TEZAURUS, 2002. -116p.

4.     Мирам Г.Э. Профессия: переводчик. – К.:Ника-Центр, 1999.-160 с.

5.      Алексеева И.С. Профессиональный тренинг переводчика: Учебное пособие по устному и письменному переводу для переводчиков и преподавателей. – СПб.: Издательство «Союз», 2005.- 288с.