Magister Bozhenko D.

Petro Mohyla Chernomorskyi State University, Ukraine

Ways of rendering extended prepositional attributive constructions from English into Ukrainian

Philology specialist, one of the prominent theorists, Z.A. Golikova inclines to think that attributive prepositional extended word combinations are the phrases to be shaped by making up nouns (definition stems from the word “attributive” which refers to an adjective, or the word that functions as adjective and bears its major traits) which is exactly what the sum and substance of attributive constructions boils down to.

It is not useless to admit, that attributive constructions, claiming for the lion’s share of journalistic idiostyle only to dominate the language in the long run, have by far little-to-no bearing on the Slavic linguistic reality. It is a common fact that English is believed to be another analytical language distinguished for the tendency of placing an attribute prior to the word it defines [5]. Apollova M. A. believes prepositional word combinations to have become of a wider spread rather than those used in post position stating that however extensive an attribute might be we still see it placed before the defining word [1]. In order to distinguish between a number of discrepancies in between the source and the target languages it requires that both languages beconfronted. Interestingly both languages under analyses belong to the Indo-European family with the exception of one fact: English is a West Germanic language of a Germanic branch, whereas Ukrainian is a member of the East Slavic subgroup of the Slavic languages. Ukrainian being synthetic and English the analytical language to have connections between independent words expressed through syntactic words and word order instead of being expressed via endings’ alterations or the interchange of roots’ sounds, the word combinations’ unique English language nature does make sense. It makes a point for in the analytical language typical fashion grammatical and semantic connections in terms of attributive word combinations in English are rendered by virtue of word order, in other words, the more distant from the core word attributive constituents are, the less degree of affiliation with the core word they display. Indo-European though, both languages enjoy a great deal of differences with Ukrainian being inflected rather than English with its rudimentary inflexion.

Analytical constructions in Ukrainian, if any, are very rarely to be seen. With all fairness, they are not to be found except for the two-member combinations, much less resorted to on a regular basis. The chief thing to remember is that the Ukrainian language doesn’t favour analytical style attributive constructions any more than any Slavic language does.

To secure the correct translation of attributive constructions a translator is to be aware of structural and semantic peculiarities of such constructions and to visualize which handy linguistic tools he has to wield for handling difficulties likely to arise.

Attributes in preposition are sometimes tagged regressive resting on the arrangement of dependent elements principle, i. e. from right to left [4].

Based on the semantic connections principle they distinguish loose combinations produced according to the communicative necessity anew and in accordance with Breus E. V. the so-called semantically bound usually referred to as terms to describe scientific concepts and phraseological units [1, p.83].

There is no denying that attributive word combinations may have different semantic display: the noun in preposition to the core element may stand for the time, place, material the object verbalized by the core word is made of. The major noun may very well be expressive of an action materialized by a noun created from a verbal stem aka a verbal noun functioning as either a subject or a passive object [2, p.132].

It is exactly adjectives, nouns (both proper and common), numerals, nouns with the possessive “s” morpheme and infinitives that may be exponent of attributive extended word combinations adjunct. A plausible element of a two-member attribute may be a preposition to enter into a kind of connection with the noun following it, e.g. after school activities - робота з дітьми після закінчення занять (або у позашкільний час) [2].

Korunets I. V. in turn sees exactly nouns as extended or single adjunct’s exponents, while he tends to subsume adjectives and numerals under the category of qualifiers and quantifiers respectively.

In the estimation of Apollova M. A. there often occur attributive word combinations components connected by the means of hyphenation which is a testament that complex adjective derivatives are to be found in English every now and then, e.g. that never-discussed subject –предмет, що його раніше не обговорювали. Apollova M. A. asserts that the “can’t-be highly unconventional” infinitives, predicative units or moreover personal infinitive forms are never mentioned to claim their spot where nouns usually fit, albeitthey don’t necessarily have to be out of use, e. g. numerable think sessions; a large upstairs sitting-room; the would be photographer, the I hate to cook book by Peg Bracken.

What should be specifically spotlighted is that among traditional and somewhat never guessed components multi-componential attributive groups with an internal predication rank the first place and are quoted among the wide-spread. It concerns sentences serving as attributive groups in the prepositional extended adjunct position. They distinguish the core noun and a quoted phrase to compose the pattern as in the following example: an urgent “change the line” demand; an unprecedented “new beginning” video appeal; a not ambiguous “don’t tell me what to do and I won’t tell you who you are” retort which, for example, means a person “would rather somebody backed off” and will not have him wisecrack any longer; a “don't-say-anything-to-me-or-I'll-contradict-you”countenance. In the event of rendering such extensive and unconventional constructions it is advised using descriptive translation especially in terms of a wide linguistic gap between the studied languages.

The idea of Barkhudarov L.S. is that subordinate word combinations should be considered from three different angles: 1) the part of speech the key component is expressed by (substantial, verbal, adjectival, adverbial and pronominal); 2) components’ extension: the major constituent of attributive word combinations according to Barkhudarov L.S. is termed the core word, while dependent one, subordinate to the kernel standing in preposition, is tagged the adjunct, else the one to adjoin. The scientist highlights the cases with expanded head and expanded adjunct or those with both components expanded; 3) adjacency which is determined by the separation of the components one from the other at the expense of additional words introduced into construction.

Translation and understanding difficulties oftentimes stem from syntactic and morphological connections between components being unexpressed via morphological means: vice boys – хлопці з відділку поліції по боротьбі з проституцією, наркотиками.

Finally it is worth mentioning that some two-member the same as multicomponental word combinations have already melted or graded into terms, e.g. take-home-pay - зарплата після відрахування, the brink-of-the-war policy-політика балансування на грані війни.

Speaking of the correct establishment of separate word combinations inside the multi-componential attributive constructions, it enables the unmistakable separation of certain attributive groups and thus makes it possible to semantically correct interpret the attributive combinations, e.g.: a strong party | man -is rendered as the person who climbs on the bandwagon, takes the winning side, which might very well be interpreted in a different way, if separated improperly, as the party member since now on being strong-fibred never busted red-handed, caught in the act of party switching. The incorrect semantic separation may culminate in misapprehension of the statement with all the possible repercussions to ensue afterwards.

Being brief and condensed of nature newspapers’ headlines tend to contain multi-componential attributive word combinations for the reason of economizing on space: London ship repairers' redundancy strike - Страйк протесту проти звільнення робітників через надлишок робочої сили на англійських судноремонтних підприємствах. With that being said, what really should be born in mind is that any language nature decrees the rule of perfection thereby far from being overused and overly abused in English ten-componential constructions, or so, are less likely to find linguistic application.

Technicalities aside, let us scrutinize the major ways and approaches of how attributive word combinations may be rendered. There is the whole abundance and they are just as follows:

Descriptive translation - an individual’s tax liability shield limiting –скорочення імунітету, що надається окремим платникам податків, що мають боргові зобов’язання;combined translation (e.g. word-for-word translation and addition) - a bank rescue plan implementation - реалізація плану з порятунку банківського сектора; metonymic translation: a free market- вільний продаж; compression: an imitation AK-47 automatic rifle finding - знахідка несправжнього автомату АК-47; reduction: a peculiar sensible political flavor Republican US political party reply - відповідь американських Республіканців з характерною для політики виваженістю; the country’s iron and steel producer - металургійний центр країни; addition: Senior Democratic figures- представники уряду США від демократичної партії, що обіймають високі пости; replacement: Wall Street’s emergency taxpayer funds misuse - зловживання у екстрених фондах платників податків на Уолл-Стріт; transposition (it is sometimes labeled permutation): a recession triggered social security expenditure- витрати на соціальну безпеку, що були стимульовані рецесією; concretization - Gulf drug-cartel rifles largest seizure -найбільший конфіскант штурмових гвинтівок моделі М-16 наркокартеля у Затоці.[

Such prominent Slavic linguists as Shpak V.K., Zrazhevska T.A., Belyayeva V.N., Krupnov V.N., Golikova Z.A. and Korunets I.V.propound and construe the major ALG or the exact succession of steps to be made for appropriately separating the construction members, parsing their structural and semantic peculiarities along with translating them the way it should be done:

1) To translate the core word (the final word in the lexical combination);

2) To parse semantic connections between the word combination members and to go on separating semantic groups (analysis is implemented from left to right);

3) To translate the word combination starting with the core word and look to translate each semantic group in a peculiar right to left order;

While analyzing the ways of conveying attributive constructions we applied the classification by Korunets I.V. since he provides the most detailed systematization of translation ways distinguishing between two,- three,- four,- five,- six,- and seven-componential constructions.

It is exactly due to compactness, brevity and briefness of the English language, the lack of inflexional connections between words that we face such challenging a task of translating attributive word combinations from the source into the target language. These reasons cannot choose but cause the rapid spread of such word combinations, the Ukrainian language can’t be abreast of. Yet another problem is rendering attributive word combinations which stand for scientific concepts with the well-established fixed meaning. Komissarov V.M., Retsker Y.I., Tarkhov V.I., Arnold I.V. etc. make an emphasis shift pinpointing the context playing the very first fiddle in cognizing and interpreting the key semantic message that constructions deliver.

The next step to make was doing a preliminary analysis of the components quantity so that the exact translation means might be established. Korunets I.V. claim two,- and three-componential constructions to be of a wider spreading yet the multi-componential constructions comprising from four up to seven components per word combination trend to transpire less than seldom. Collating multi-componential constructions and two-member word combinations the former are far less spread of the two for the time being. The above-mentioned persevering tendency of multi-componential attributive combinations accounts for the English language conciseness and brevity which is characteristic of the newspaper functional style.

The scientist’s standpoint is buttressed up by statistics that carries conviction about three-componential attributive constructions dominating the language regardless of style. The proving fact says that 178 constructions out of totally 300 contain three components which share if rendered statistically is tantamount to 59,3%, while the four-componential constructions are a fourth as many and are equal to 25,3% with 76 lexical units handpicked out of the research purpose; the five-componential constructions’ percentage totals 11% or 33 constructions out of 300; constructions with six components’ share amounts to 6 units else 2%; seven,- and eight-componential attributive word combinations were spotted 5 and 2 times which in mathematic parlance is 1,7% and 0,7% respectively.

Apparently all types of attributive constructions translated by the means of descriptive, combined and word-for-word translation have subsequently appeared in outline. An extensive usage of descriptive translation is tracked irrespective of components’ quantity and functional style they are used in to describe such or another phenomena or processes. Descriptive translation choice is authorized by the English language penchant for compactness and providing the maximum information with minimum syntactic devices, the oversaturation with semantic connections and overall complexity. As much as never one to be approved, word-for-word translation would be applicable to three,- four,- and five-componential constructions, while six,- and seven-componential word combinations were conveyed almost exclusively in a descriptive way. At the end of the day, statistics is unarguably a good thing, but the reality may very well prove different, thus he who has proper instincts pins his hopes on the language intuition.

Overall it a sure fact that there have already been a lot of scientific works of both national and international scholars dedicated to attributive word-combinations. Most importantly, this grammatical phenomenon is not learnt properly as of nowadays which leaves a lot to be studied. Bibliography:

1) Аполлова М. А. SpecificEnglish (Грамматические трудности перевода) М., «Междунар. отношения», 1977. 136 с. 81-88;

2) Верба Г. В., Верба Л. Г. Довідник з граматикианглійськоїмови: Довідк. Вид.- 3-тє вид. – К.:Освіта, 1993. – 320 с. 131-133;

3) Дмитриева Л.Ф., Кунцевич С.Е., Мартинкевич Е.А., Смирнова Н.Ф. Английский язык. Курс перевода. — М.: ИКЦ «Март» Ростов н/Д: Издательский центр «Март», 2005. — 304 с (Серия «Ин.яз. для профессионалов»); с.131-134;

4) Иванова И. П., Бурлакова В. В., Почепцов Г. Г. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка: Учебник./ — М.: Высш. школа, 1981. —285 с.; с. 100-149;

5) Корунець І.В. Теорія і практика перекладу (аспектний переклад): Підручник. -Вінниця. «Нова Книга», 2001 -448 с. 225-242 с.

6) Смирницкий А. И. Синтаксис английского языка. Издательство литературы на иностранных языках М. 1957, 286 с. 244-248