Gavrilina E. I.

Donetsk National University of Economics and Trade

named after M.Tugan-Baranovsky

The theory of translation as a part of linguistics

English, like all languages, is full of problems for the foreign learner. Some of these problems are easy to explain, others are more tricky and difficult even to advanced students. So it's no wonder that the beginners have such erroneous idea: in order to master a foreign language it's enough to have the stock of words and a set of grammar rules. The real learner's problem is much more complicated. Except words and grammar rules there is the usage of words, set phrases, idioms and grammar constructions, based on formed traditions.

When is word in its proper place? On the one hand, when it finds its niche in a grammar pattern and on the other hand it is adjusted by morphological modification fitting into syntax. The word usage propriety depends upon the internal structure of words.

So using the proper word requires the knowledge of rules, their exceptions and their correct application. The bulk of mistakes is the result divergences in the vocabulary and grammar systems of the home tongue and the foreign language.

The learners of English should be ready not only to overcome the language barrier as it is, but they should just as well realize "the inner mechanism" of language which is full of problems, exceptions and misunderstandings common both with foreigners and native speakers. No one would deny the crucial importance of context in the determination of word-meanings. As far as the role of verbal context is concerned, this was already recognized as fundamental by some of the pioneers of modern semantics. Modern linguists, however, have not only placed greater emphasis on context but have considerably broadened its scope and have also probed more deeply into its influence on word-meanings.

The range of the term "context" has been widened in several directions. Even the strictly verbal context is no longer restricted to what immediately precedes and follows, but may cover the whole passage, and sometimes the whole book, in which the word occurs.

In addition to the verbal context, the linguist must also pay attention to the so-called "context of situation". It primarily means the actual situation in which an utterance occurs, but leads on to an even broader view of context embracing the entire cultural back-ground against which a speech-event has to be sent. Bronislaw Malinovsky, a linguist and anthropologist, wrote: "The study of any language, spoken by people who live under conditions different from our own and possess a different culture, must be carried out in conjunction with the study of their culture and of their environment".

A good help to a language learner is offered by the so-called language universals. These include particular and general terms, synonymy, polysemy, lexical fields, thus being the universal principles in the structure of the vocabulary in any language. Examples of lexical fields are: the system of colors, the network of family relations, the terms for intellectual qualities, ethical and aesthetic values, religious experiences, etc. The numerous articles and monographs which have been published on these problems have all tended to emphasize the differences between these fields in various languages; they have concentrated on what is distinctive and idiosyncratic in them rather than on what they have in common. Yet, beneath all the diversity, there is likely to be an underlying unity which a systematic comparison of these fields would no doubt reveal.

So, the approach to language semantic studies must be multilateral and presupposes a great deal of analytic work.

Until the early sixties linguistics had been characterized by largely descriptive research in which grammar aspects were detailed but not compared? For the development of the theory of translation it was of little value. The simultaneous development of two theories of grammar, those of Noam Chomsky (1957, 1965) and Eugene Nida (1960, 1964), altered the course of translation theory and these theories remain very influencial today. The field of translation studies, thus, stems from linguistics and in the past 2 decades has expended its scope beyond structural analyses and literal translations.

Since the early 1970s, translation studies have become established as a legitimate field of study, much as applied linguistics did. Development of translation as a discipline of its own was started by Holmes in his report "The name and nature of translation studies," presented at the Third International Congress of Applied Linguistics in 1972 in Germany (published in 1975). In his later works Holmes advocated translation as an empirical science divided into main categories of "pure" vs. "applied" translation studies. The former was further broken down into "theoretical" vs. "descriptive," with "descriptive" branching into three fields of research: function, process, and product oriented. Included in the applied branch are "translation training, translation aids, and translation criticism".

This evolution in translation studies in the past 20 years has resulted in active interrelations between the categories of Holmes's model. Holmes's model us discussed in terms of the need to interrelate the pure and applied branches. Andrew Chesterman, a translation scholar working in Finland recognizes the multiple functions of translation theories, distinguishing the translation product, the processes involved in translating, and the functions of translation products for the target audiences.

Since early 21^st century the training of translators is becoming more and more necessary in language departments in Ukraine. Many Universities have schools of translation studies, which offer specialized graduate training for students majoring in language studies and turn out teachers of foreign languages, while translators appear as well from language departments.

Analyses of the development of the translation theory shows that translation studies in Europe and translation studies in the United States have taken different directions. According to Pochhacker, German theorists have led the academic, "scientific" tradition of translation scholarship, whereas "Anglo-American scholars of translation have tended to adopt a much more praxis-oriented approach to the theory and teaching of their subject". Pochhacker laments the lack of communication between the theoretically oriented European and the practically oriented Anglo-American translation scholars. As an example of the British scholar's relatively negative view of the role of theory in translation, Pochhacker cites Newmark, one of the most popular authors in the Anglo-American translation studies, quoting from his book, Approaches to Translation:

There can be no valid single comprehensive theory of translation and no general agreement on the element of invariance, the ideal translation unit, the degree of translatability, and the concepts of equivalent-effect and congruence in translation.

German translation scholars have been more interested in developing theories and models of translation than Anglo-American scholars. Both seem to agree, however, on the basic distinction between "literal" and "free" translation or the nearly synonymous terms "semantic" and "communicative" (Anglo-Americans) and "overt" and "covert" translation (German linguists). They agree that there is a need for free or communicative translation instead of literal translation, depending on the purpose of the translation. For example, translation theorists agree that methods of translation need to vary between informative and expressive texts because of different expected effects on the reader.

The field of translation studies in the past decade has' experienced changes similar to those that have occurred in other fields of linguistics. An expansion of influences from related disciplines has contributed to new emphases in the methods of translation studies; a trend toward empirical work is strong, and an interdisciplinary emphasis has evolved. Discussing the "frustration with existing translation theories" and the search for new tools for solving research problems in translation, translation theorists advocate an interdisciplinary approach to problems in translation studies: It depends on the nature of the problem whether it is linguistics, psychology, pragmatics, literary studies or some other discipline or a combination of disciplines which turns out to be methodologically useful.

There is also an arguments as to the terms and notions of "transfer" and "translate". Some theorists who maintain that the transfer procedure is the same in both translation studies and second language acquisition. The concept of transfer, as it is used in a foreign language studies, has characteristics that set it apart from the kind of transfer that takes place in translation. First, all knowledge of the source language is thought to be activated when a foreign language learner produces target language utterances. In translation, on the other hand, only a translatable utterance is the object of transfer. The difference is between the language system as the object of transfer in foreign language acquisition and the utterance in translation.