This theory takes into account the logical-semantic order in the translation process. The desire for maximum semantic and structural similarity of the translation of the original leads to the fact that not only texts, but also a separate statement in these texts, and not only a correlated statement, but also their constituent units of TL and FL are equivalent. The use of a specific TL unit to convey the IL unit in question is not accidental. Both units have a relatively stable meaning, and the fact that one of them can replace the other in the process of translation indicates a significant commonality of their meanings. Such a commonality just creates the prerequisites for establishing relations of translation equivalence between them, that is, for the regular use of one of them, as a translation - the other. Correspondences are divided into two groups: single (permanent) and multiple (variant). According to the second feature, translation correspondences are divided into lexical, phraseological and grammatical (syntactic and morphological). In Retzker's article titled "On Regular Correspondences in Translating into native language" 1950, and then in the book "Translation Theory and Translation Practice" 1974, the foundations of theories are detailed regular correspondences. The choice by the translator of one or another translation option is often not arbitrary, but natural, and this choice is determined by the ratio of the units of the two languages ​​that are involved in the translation process. For many units of the original language, there are more or less regular ways of translating into TL. Retzker calls these methods regular correspondences and proposes to distinguish three types of correspondences in the process of translation:

1) Equivalents (in scientific and technical translation, terminological equivalents are of decisive importance, which often do not depend on the context)

2) Analogues (In socio-political translation, analogues play the most important role, and analogue is the result of translation by analogy by choosing one of several possible synonyms)

3) Adequate substitutions (In literary translation, the method of adequate substitutions plays the most important role. In this case, using adequate substitutions, the translator must move away from dictionary correspondences and proceed not only from the content, but also from the ideological orientation of the literary text and the style of the author)

Although this classification is not entirely consistent, since adequate replacements are actually not a special kind of correspondence, but various types of transformations that are used by the translator in the absence of dictionary correspondences or the impossibility of using them. Nevertheless, thanks to Retzker, the very concept of correspondence has firmly entered the theory of translation practice. It was especially important to establish a method for comparing translations with their originals in order to identify the linguistic patterns of the translation process. Retzker's theory stimulates the study of equivalents, analogues, the volume of meanings of words and phrases. This theory shows the meaning of the context and predetermines the most likely lexical transformations. The model of regular correspondences, which is based on this theory, does not pretend to model the translation process. Its task is to establish regular correspondences between the units of the original and the translation at the level of language and speech. Interlingual correspondences can be recorded in bilingual dictionaries. Translation correspondences are established by comparing specific texts in one or another language pair. Based on a comparison of the texts of the original and the translation, Retzker identified three categories of interlingual correspondences:

1) Equivalent, established by virtue of the identity denoted, as well as deposited in the tradition of language contacts (maple leaf)

2) Variant and contextual correspondence (justice - not only justice, but also justice, legality; department of justice - the Ministry of Justice)

3) All kinds translation transformations

In subsequent years, many authors addressed the problem of translation correspondence in relation to different language pairs.

Home > Document

1. THEORY OF REGULAR CORRESPONDENCES

In 1950, Ya. I. Retsker put forward the "theory of regular correspondences" in his article "On regular correspondences in translation into the native language." In 1953 A.V. Fedorov in his work "Introduction to the Theory of Translation" expressed similar to Ya.I. Retzker views. This theory underlies many Russian educational and practical aids by translation. L.S.Barkhudarov consistently developed it, and V.N.Komissarov and V.Koller used individual elements of this theory in their concepts. The positive role of this theory lies in the fact that, for the first time, impressionistic considerations about translation were opposed by a scientifically (linguistically) substantiated theory, according to which translation activity can be considered as a process during which the translator selects options for translating a particular word, turnover according to certain principles. Ya. I. Retsker and A.V. Fedorov took into account not only literary translation, which is their special merit. In their research, they used materials from numerous translation solutions to various translation problems. They found that despite the difference in cases from practice in similar linguistic terms translators make more or less similar decisions. Therefore, it became possible to identify at least the general patterns that guide the translator when searching for interlingual correspondences. The theory of regular correspondences has extended its influence to various language tiers from vocabulary to syntax and style. The formation of the linguistic basis of the theory of translation was immediately announced. This position caused opposition among many practicing translators, but now it is clear that all skeptical views on the newly emerging scientific direction turned out to be untenable. The essence of Retzker's theory is the classification of correspondences that are taken into account when translating from one language to another. In this classification, three groups of correspondences are distinguished: 1) equivalents; 2) analogues (variant correspondences); 3) adequate replacements. Equivalents are understood as constant, context-independent correspondences of FL units to TL units. First of all, these are unambiguous terms. For example, the English the United Nations corresponds to the Russian United Nations. These kinds of correspondences are independent of the context, they are always constant, although they are few in number. The second group is analogues, or variant correspondences. They can be called analogous in the sense that analogous relations are established between a given FL unit and the corresponding TL unit: among the synonymous TL units corresponding to a given FL unit, a variant of conveying the meaning that is most suitable for a given context is sought. The choice of each particular pair of correspondences is determined by the context. So, English word fair can be translated into Russian as honest And How fair. Phrase fair share we will translate using the word fair; fair share. And the phrase fair deal - with the help of a word honestlyny: honest deal. It is the context of the phrase in which the English word is used that influenced our choice of Russian correspondence. The third group of regular correspondences in Retzker's classification is the so-called adequate substitutions. The translator resorts to them when it is necessary to convey the meaning “based on the whole”. Here, a contradiction is found in Retzker's classification, since equivalents and variant correspondences cannot be put on a par with adequate replacements. The reason for this is that the third group does not at all involve the selection of units of IL and TL that correspond to each other, but the establishment of a correspondence between certain units of IL and TL, i.e. It's about translation techniques. Retsker refers to the methods of translation as concretization of undifferentiated and abstract concepts, logical development of concepts, antonymic translation and compensation. Later, the so-called holistic rethinking was added to these techniques, when the translator decides to translate given word or expression, based on the understanding of the whole statement, sometimes departing from its specific elements very far. This can be illustrated by how, for example, phraseological units are translated (A good rid- dance! - tablecloth track!). According to Retzker, first equivalents appear in the translator's mind, then the search for analogues begins. If neither is suitable, he resorts to adequate substitutions. It must be said that the classification of regular correspondences proposed by Retzker in translation has been repeatedly refined both by the author himself and by other translation theorists. So, with regard to the first group - equivalents - it was pointed out that equivalents can be one-sided and two-sided. matching type above the United Nations - Organization-tion United Nations refers to bilateral equivalents, since the English phrase will always be translated into Russian in the same way. The same is true for translation in the opposite direction, from Russian into English. But "an unambiguous interpretation of a linguistic unit in terms of another language can take place only in one direction" [Schweitzer, 1973. p. 20]. With regard to the second group, Schweitzer proposes to distinguish between several types of analogues (variant correspondences). Analogues can be among themselves in a relationship of synonymy, as in the above example with the English word fair and two of its Russian counterparts fair and honest. But the synonymy of analogues that the translator has in the TL is not only ideographic (at the level of meaning) or stylistic (good, Class-ny, wonderful), when the choice of one or another analogue, variant correspondence is influenced by the context. It can be absolute, i.e. context independent: Grand Jury can be translated with equal right and how big jury And How Big advice jurors. Therefore, unambiguity / ambiguity and context dependence / independence, as Schweitzer rightly notes, do not always coincide. In addition, in languages ​​there are polysemantic words, which in other languages ​​correspond to words that are not synonymous with each other. I mean homonyms. Yes, the English word fair can be translated into Russian and how honest, and how blond . The choice of one or another Russian-language correspondence will depend on the phrase in which the word is used fair in the original text on English language. There are certain inaccuracies in the description of the methods of translation proposed by Retzker. For example, in the section on antonymic translation, there are illustrations in which there are no antonyms. In the examples in question, stable expressions in FL are replaced by their corresponding ones. set expressions in PJ: take your time - Not hurry up; Mind your own business - He interveninggo in strangers affairs. It is clear that in this case the problem lies in the unfortunate terminology, although the phenomena described are undoubtedly reflected accurately and correctly. I.S. Alekseeva notes "some unfinished places in the seemingly slender building of the classification of correspondences" single base classification; the ambiguity of the lexical scope of unambiguous equivalents, since they may include more than one lexeme (for example, in terminological expressions, company logos, prohibition inscriptions). Alekseeva also proposes to study the relationship between the one-to-one correspondence parameter and the type of text in which they occur. The type of text, according to her assumption, can determine the degree of freedom of the translator in choosing a match. On the material of the examples discussed by Ko-missarov [See: Ko-missarov 1996, pp. 176-177], she argues that unambiguous equivalents can be linguistic or speech equivalents. Critics have pointed to the overly normative nature of Retzker's theory. Therefore, in his subsequent publications, Retsker repeatedly emphasizes the creative nature of translation activities. Other remarks were made regarding the theory of regular correspondences, but in general it should be noted that its main value lies in the fact that for the first time important questions were raised for understanding the translation process and evaluating its result.

2. SITUATIONAL THEORY OF TRANSLATION

We encountered ideas close to the denotative theory of translation when discussing the problem of translatability / untranslatability / all-translatability. Universalist views suggested the deep similarity of all languages. Adherents of the denotative theory believed that linguistic signs reflect certain objects, phenomena of the real reality surrounding a person or the relations connecting them, called denotations. All languages ​​reflect the surrounding reality, and denotations unite them. Sometimes whole situations act as denotators. Hence the second name of this theory is the situational theory of translation. In this case, the situation is understood as a set of denotations that are in certain relationships. Such a model of translation is presented primarily in the works of J. Catford, V.G. Gaka. The logic of the denotative theory of translation is as follows. The world observed and reflected by man is generally the same for all mankind. In any language, one can find words that are differently shaped in appearance and somewhat different from each other in their content, which, nevertheless, indicate the same realities. Hence, the content of interlingual communication is extralinguistic reality, and the process of translation, according to the denotative theory, is the process of describing the denotations reflected in the original language, in the target language. Thus, the translator, perceiving the text of the original, connects the linguistic units of the FL with the corresponding and external denotations, fragments of objective reality. Then, having revealed these denotations, he describes them, but not by means of the FL, but by the TL. Usually, the translator knows in advance (without referring to the denotation stage) which language units of the FL and TL describe the same denotations. Therefore, he does not need to compare them with the corresponding denotations, he simply replaces the IL units with the TL units corresponding to the same denotations. However, such a shortened path is possible due to the fact that once a correspondence was established between the units of FL and TL as denoting the same fragment of reality. So far, we have proceeded from the fact that both languages ​​have names for the same phenomena of the world around us. But in practice it turns out that in one language there is a designation for something that is not designated in any way in another, i.e. we are dealing with a certain discrepancy in the linguistic picture of the world. In addition, languages ​​often divide the reality surrounding a person in different ways. Textbook examples are the following discrepancies between, say, English and Russian: English adjective blue corresponds to Russian blue and blue or English verb go corresponds to Russian go and drive, and in certain contexts fly, and swim. Even more complex may seem cases with cultural names, designations of certain cultural phenomena, expressed with the help of the means of a particular language, which acts as the original language in the process of translation. So, cultural names will be, for example, English words from the political and sociological lexicons, respectively: barn- storming, societal. Such cases of discrepancies in the designations of the phenomena of the surrounding world, however, do not create difficulties within the framework of the denotative theory. The fact is that with such discrepancies it is always possible to explain what is meant by giving a description of the denotation appearing in the original or the situation in the TL. This is especially clearly seen in the example of just cultural names. So, barn- storming can be transposed descriptively as travel candidate in progress pre-election campaigns on provincial cities With goal attract potential elector-lei, a societal - how having attitude to society in in general. It is in the successful solution of such problems that the main advantage of this theory lies. We can single out the following cases when, without clarifying what denotation or what situation is behind this or that language complex, translation is impossible. 1. The denotative model (theory) describes the translation well in the absence of a denotation or situation from the original in the TL. In this case, the translator describes a denotation or a situation with a combination of several language units of the TL (descriptive translation). Both of the above examples (barn- storming and societal) fall under this case. Another solution may be to find a sign of the PY that is close in meaning, i.e. a sign naming a similar denotation or a similar situation, for example: sit- in can be translated as sedentary strike. Finally, the translator can create a neologism, a new designation for the FL denotation. In a similar way are (it must be said, by no means always justified) translators working with texts on electronics, banking, psychology and many other fields of knowledge, which have been and continue to be influenced by the corresponding English-speaking (primarily American) fields of knowledge and practical activities. So May had terms a computer (computer), displacing COMPUTER, overdraft { overdraft), frustration (frustration) and many others. 2. The denotative (situational) model makes it possible to explain the translation in the case of an ordinary description of one or another situation appearing in the original. At the same time, in both FL and TL, there can be only one way to describe such a situation. In this case, it is precisely the usual variant of designating the situation described in the TL that is present in the TL, described by the corresponding usual, but in the conditions of the FL expression, is chosen for translation: Wet paint- Painted. There are cases when, in principle, a closer translation is possible, but the translator chooses a common turn, phrase, expression, again relying on the TL usage, for example: sleeping paradise-he - bedroom community (but not sleeping district). In scientific and technical texts, a qualified translator, based on an understanding of the subject of conversation (denotation, situation), can give a more accurate version of its description in TL compared to the original, even slightly editing the original. 3. The denotative model makes it possible to explain a kind of translation “manoeuvring” in those cases when the criterion of their relevance for the recipients of the translation comes to the fore when describing any situations using the TL. Quite a lot of examples of this can be found in political journalism and fiction. In the Russian translation of the following English sentence one can catch the intensification of the emotional coloring of the selected adjective for an obvious reason related to the ideological and political context of the times " cold war»: Looking back over the 1960's, the political historian might describe it as the time when the American Government began to think of the American people as a tiresome nuisance. - Looking back at the 1960s, a political observer might describe it as a time when the American government began to look at the American people as to-sadnuyu hindrance [See: Levitskaya, Fiterman. S. 175]. These are the main features of the denotative model of translation, which make it possible to explain the actions of the translator when choosing certain translation options by referring to reality. However, the denotative model has a number of disadvantages. 1) It is more effective for translating situations that uniquely determine the appropriate translation option, and therefore it is good for explaining the translation of terms and term-like units of the FL (cliche). 2) It takes into account only the content side of the original. Translation of its formal side, i.e. then, how this content is expressed in terms of expression, it is not reflected in it. For example, the pragmatic aspects of the translated prohibitive permissive clichés are not taken into account. Within the framework of the denotative model, it is possible to explain that a certain prohibition is being translated (say, smoking in a given place), but it is impossible to explain why a milder form (Request not smoke) more stringent is preferred. (Not smoke!) or vice versa [See: Komissarov, 1973, p. 36]. However, this argument can be refuted if we take into account the second name of the theory - situational, because information about the denotation-situation may well (and most likely will) include information about the pragmatic-stylistic assumptions of the translated original. For example, if we turn to our example, when translating prohibitive-permissive clichéd phrases, the translator, considering the denotation situation, will know where this phrase is pronounced or, if this announcement, is written. However, this theory does not reflect the complexity of the translation process.

3. TRANSFORMATIONAL THEORY OF TRANSLATION

Transformational theory grew out of the generative (generative) grammar of N. Chomsky. The essence of this grammar is reduced to an attempt to formulate certain rules of syntactic transformations, with the help of which the whole variety of statements, syntactic structures is deduced from the "nuclear", deep and simplest syntactic structures. Finite, derivable, surface structures are otherwise called transforms. Syntactic structures, nuclear and obtained with the help of transformations, have a common element - the plan of content. Thanks to the internalized (conscious) apparatus syntax rules and a limited inventory of elements (sounds, words) native speaker (native speaker), according to Chomsky's theory, he is able to formulate this plan of content in different ways and perceive all the diversity in turn in his native language. Such a view of the structure of the linguistic consciousness of an individual within the framework of the transformational theory of translation studies was transferred to interlingual activity. If, within the framework of the denotative theory of translation, the emphasis was placed on the similarity of two languages ​​interacting in the process of translation, then within the framework of the transformational theory, the main thing is modeling the transformations of the language units of the FL into the language units of the TL, performed by the translator, i.e. the translator receives the original text, performs a certain kind of transformational operations with it, and produces the final text - the translated text. This model was developed mainly in the early works of the famous American translator J. Naida. Some of its aspects are also reflected in the works of O. Kade, V. Koller. Another source of this model of translation activity is the interest shown in the middle of the 20th century. to machine translation. Since it was unthinkable without the maximum formalization of the process of recognition of linguistic signs and their generation, because the machine can only work in accordance with explicitly expressed rules for the implementation of language operations, attempts were made to apply linguistic models to natural translation. I.I. Revzin and V.Yu. Rosenzweig point out the fundamental difference between automated translation and human translation. If the translating machine works on the basis of the rules embedded in it for converting language units and structures of the FL into the corresponding units and structures of the TL, then a person, in addition to taking into account certain principles and rules of this kind, also turns to extralinguistic reality. Researchers even offer two special terms: actually translation, those. the process of converting the original into the translated text without resorting to extralinguistic reality, and interpretation, implying the connection to this process of extralinguistic data. It is important to understand that from this point of view, any translation carried out by a person, no matter what model it is described by, is still an interpretation. In this sense, it is interesting that Nida, whose works most fully reflect the ideas associated with the transformational model of translation, is also the author of the ideas of the so-called dynamic equivalence. The latter implies the achievement in the text of the translation of an impact on the recipient, similar to the impact of the original on its recipient. The solution of such a problem is impossible without understanding the nature of the impact of the original on its recipient, and this, in turn, can only be understood thanks to an understanding of the extralinguistic reality in the context of which the original was created and functions (or functioned). Within the framework of the transformational model, the idea of ​​an “intermediary language” was put forward, bringing it closer to the denotative model. In transformational theory, an intermediary language, or metalanguage, is understood as an abstract scheme of the linguistic description of the translated structure. This scheme includes, in particular, information about the set of elementary language units in their sense-generating relationships, the course of unfolding/folding of a given segment of the text from the nuclear structure to the surface, final, or vice versa. The presence of this kind of factual description of the situation is akin to an exit to reality, carried out with a denotative, or situational, model. In translation studies, the ideas of Chomsky's generative grammar have been embodied in two ways. First, in its terms, the actual transformation of units and structures of IL into units and structures of TL is considered, as was mentioned above. Secondly, these ideas are reflected in the model, according to which transformations are used to describe not the transition from FL to TL in the process of translation, but the stages of intralingual (in FL or TL) translation transformation). Within the framework of the first approach, when translating, the units and structures of the FL are transformed into units and structures of the TL. Transformations are also made inside the FL and inside the TL. At the same time, intralingual and interlingual transformations (the actual translation transformations are understood as phenomena of the same order). Thus, the translator in the process of carrying out his activity transforms the units and structures of the FL as initial ones (similar to the nuclear ones according to Chomsky) into the units and structures of the TL which are final, derived from them according to certain rules (similar to Chomsky’s “transforms”). Within the framework of the second approach, it is no longer the transition from the FL to the TL, but the intralinguistic stages of the translation processing of certain units and structures. At the same time, it is considered possible to reduce the entire variety of units and structures of IL and TL to a certain limited number of them. In both languages, nuclear structures are revealed, which are understood as equal to each other in terms of their content. The translation itself turns into a process of replacing the nuclear structures of the IL with the corresponding nuclear structures of the TL. Sometimes the reduction to nuclear structures does not reflect the relationship of the surface structures corresponding to them. Then one has to resort to the so-called near-nuclear structures, which are more “superficial” in comparison with nuclear ones, but still simpler (deep) than translatable surface ones. It can be two nuclear structures connected by a certain connection (causal, conditional, etc.). If, for example, the proposal Andbecause of his inertia he So nothing and not found out reduce to nuclear structures He was inert and He neither-what not found out then there is no causal relationship between them. Therefore, in this case, it is better to resort to a near-nuclear structure that reflects this connection: He was inert that's why nothing not found out. The entire translation process takes place in three stages. The first stage is analysis. Its essence is that the structures of the original are transformed into nuclear structures of the IA. Otherwise it is called reverse transformationher. The second stage is the replacement of the obtained nuclear structures of the IA with the nuclear structures of the NP invariant with respect to them. The method used at this stage is otherwise called transfer nuclear structures from the IA to the NA. The third stage is synthesis, or restructuring: the core structures of the TL are transformed into the final structures of the translation text. The transformational model, when applied to translation, turns out to be very useful, because it creates theoretical basis to detect translationally correlated structures and units of language pairs interacting in the process of translation. This is important for particular theories of translation. It is also useful to apply intralinguistic transformations to translation, which equips the translator with the set of transformative operations he needs. When he encounters the grammatical-syntactic structures of the FL, which have no analogues in the TL, he gets the opportunity, with the help of intralinguistic transformations, to reduce these structures to their corresponding nuclear structures, which he translates (replaces) with the invariant nuclear structures of the TL. For example, to translate a causative English construction My friend's witty remark caused me to change my attitude to the problem, the translator can reduce it to nuclear structures: My friend made a witty remark about the problem in question and / changed my attitude towards it. Then bring them out for more high level circumnuclear structure, reflecting the ratio of nuclear structures in the original sentence: / changed my attitude to the problem because my friend (had) made a witty remark about it. In this form, English causative constructions, which are generally very difficult to translate into Russian, are easier to translate. The undoubted advantage of the transformational theory is that it translates the comparison of multilingual units and structures from the sphere grammatical categories into the realm of semantics. Taking into account only the grammatical categories of surface structures, relying on them in translation is one of the most frequent sources of literalism, when the original expression plan is copied and mechanistically transferred to the TL. It is much more productive to take into account the categories of semantics that are common to FL and TL. In addition, the transformational model helps to remove the ambiguity of the surface structures of the IA. Indeed, in contrast to them, nuclear or near-nuclear structures are always expressed unambiguously: subject and object - by nouns or pronouns replacing them; process - verb; quality, sign - adjective, etc. This greatly simplifies the understanding of the meaning of the original statement. The disadvantages of the transformational theory of translation include the lack of an explanation of how the choice of the final structure/unit of the TL is carried out. In fact, within the framework of this theory, the mechanism of this choice is not reflected. Chains of transformations from the point of view of the second of the approaches described above turn out to be dependent on each other only at the second stage of transfer, substitution. Their further divergence is carried out independently of each other - at least if the correspondence of their nuclear structures is explicable, then the correspondence of the initial (in IA) and final (in TL) structures remains unclear. In addition, a comparative study of translations indicates that sometimes representative translations are also translations that are not reducible to invariant nuclear correspondences of IL and TL. Finally, the transformational model of translation cannot explain such easily explicable translatemes by the denotative theory as instant coffee - soluble coffee.

,41.39kb.

The translation is approved by the supervisor of the graduate student (applicant) and the specialist, 45.31kb.

Topic Seminar (Laboratory) classes, hour, 74.45kb.

Teambuilding today in Tatarstan, 143.53kb.

Malinovskaya Sofia Borisovna Specialty: journalism Specialization: artistic, 969.08kb.

Charles Baudelaire. The flowers of Evil , 1514.69kb.

Translation: V. Trilis, 2645.36kb.

4. REPRESENTATIVENESS OF TRANSLATION AT THE SYNTAX LEVEL

With some external similarity, the syntactic structures of IL and TL may turn out to be different.

For example, Had this happened all would have been different.- Had it happened, it would have been different.

Outwardly, the English construction is similar to the Russian one, but in fact they are stylistically opposite: the English construction is typical for written, bookish speech, the Russian one for colloquial style.

From the point of view of syntactic construction in the statement, its proper syntactic structure and communicative structure are distinguished. For a translator, it is important what should be paid attention to when translating in the first place. This is that the syntactic structure consists of a predicative group, which includes a subject and a predicate, with an adjoining object. As a rule, it is the predicative group with the adjoining addition that forms the “skeleton”, the basis of the translated text, this is especially important in consecutive and simultaneous interpretation. The remaining members of the sentence, one way or another, correlate with the predicative group. There is a group of the subject, consisting mainly of definitions, monolexical or expanded (with subordinate words, for example, in participial revolutions). Definitions describe the properties, qualities, attributes of the subject of the subject included in the group, then nothing terrible will happen for the course of communication, representativeness at the micro level will still be ensured. It is worse if the translator, trying to translate a chain of adjectives accompanying the subject, “gets stuck” in them and does not reach the subject. In addition to adjectives, the subject group may also include pronouns, numerals, the function of which is important for ensuring the representativeness of the sentence. The predicate group consists of analogs of adjectives - adverbs. If the adjective describes the qualities of objects and phenomena, then adverbs describe the qualities and signs of actions and other signs. The logic of the translator's reasoning here is the same as in the case of adjectives with a noun subject, namely: it is important to remember the main word in the phrase - the verb. Adverbs are adjacent to it. A very characteristic member of the predicate group in Russian is participial turnover. It should, however, be remembered that it is more characteristic of writing and do not abuse it in oral translation. Gotta break one difficult sentence on the foreign language into somewhat clear and distinct Russian. Take account of syntactic construction utterances are also needed in written translation, especially of complex syntactic periods, which are quite frequent in scientific and legal types of text. In such cases, it is important to familiarize yourself with the text at the pre-translation stage, select predicative groups with additions, and then start translating.

If speak about communicative structure utterances, then here it is necessary to remember the problem of the actual articulation of the sentence. Any logically organized speech deploys its constituent statements in a certain sequence. At the same time, within the utterances themselves, there is a strict pattern of transition from the known (old) to the unknown (new). The length containing the old and new information Segments of speech within utterances range from one word to several.

The segment expressing the “old” information already known to the interlocutors is called the “topic”, and expressing the “new” information unknown to them is called the “rheme”. In a properly organized text, themes and rhemes line up in a sequence that unfolds the content of the text. At the same time, as a rule, the rheme of the previous statement becomes the theme of the next one - this ensures the smooth development of the logic of the narrative.

For example, I read the novel N. It turned out to be very interesting.

The rheme of the first sentence of novel N in the second, being replaced by the pronoun he, turns into a theme, and his rhema becomes a phrase very interesting. The theme of one statement may remain the theme of another, but again appear in a slightly modified form.

For example, the national team once again won the European Cup. The members of the team were congratulated by the President of the country. Theme (team, members).

Failure to comply with the rules of the theme-rhematic expansion of the translation text, despite the fact that they are observed in the original, that is, not ensuring the representativeness of the translation at this micro-level of the text, leads to the fact that the text becomes difficult to perceive. Indicators of the theme-rhematic articulation of the utterance in different languages not only their own syntactic constructions (word arrangements) appear. Where there is an article, for example: deictic function. For example, An (rheme) old man sat on the bench.=The (subject) old man sat on the bench. Rhema→Theme; Subject → Rhema;

These are the principles of ensuring the representativeness of the translation at the micro level.

YOU CAN FIND QUESTIONS FOR THE SEMINAR AND LIST OF REFERENCES ON THE TAB "SEMINAR LESSONS"

INTRODUCTION IV

LINGUISTIC THEORIES OF TRANSLATION

1. THEORY OF REGULAR CORRESPONDENCES

2. SITUATIONAL THEORY OF TRANSLATION

3. TRANSFORMATIONAL THEORY OF TRANSLATION

4. SEMANTIC THEORY OF TRANSLATION

5. THEORY OF LEVELS OF EQUIVALENCE

6. QUESTIONS FOR SELF-CHECKING

1. THEORY OF REGULAR CORRESPONDENCES

In 1950, Ya. I. Retsker put forward the "theory of regular correspondences" in his article "On regular correspondences in translation into the native language." In 1953 A.V. Fedorov in his work "Introduction to the Theory of Translation" expressed similar to Ya.I. Retzker views. This theory underlies many Russian educational and practical translation manuals. L.S.Barkhudarov consistently developed it, and V.N.Komissarov and V.Koller used individual elements of this theory in their concepts.

The positive role of this theory lies in the fact that, for the first time, impressionistic considerations about translation were opposed by a scientifically (linguistically) substantiated theory, according to which translation activity can be considered as a process during which the translator selects options for translating a particular word, turnover according to certain principles.

Ya. I. Retsker and A.V. Fedorov took into account not only literary translation, which is their special merit. In their research, they used materials from numerous translation solutions to various translation problems. They found that despite the difference in cases from practice in similar linguistic conditions, translators make more or less similar decisions. Therefore, it became possible to identify at least the general patterns that guide the translator when searching for interlingual correspondences. The theory of regular correspondences has extended its influence to various language tiers from vocabulary to syntax and style. The formation of the linguistic basis of the theory of translation was immediately announced. This position caused opposition among many practicing translators, but now it is clear that all skeptical views on the newly emerging scientific direction turned out to be untenable.

The essence of Retzker's theory is the classification of correspondences that are taken into account when translating from one language to another. In this classification, three groups of correspondences are distinguished: 1) equivalents; 2) analogues (variant correspondences); 3) adequate replacements.

Equivalents are understood as constant, context-independent correspondences of FL units to TL units. First of all, these are unambiguous terms. For example, the English the United Nations corresponds to the Russian United Nations. These kinds of correspondences are independent of the context, they are always constant, although they are few in number. The second group is analogues, or variant correspondences. They can be called analogous in the sense that analogous relations are established between a given FL unit and the corresponding TL unit: among the synonymous TL units corresponding to a given FL unit, a variant of conveying the meaning that is most suitable for a given context is sought. The choice of each particular pair of matches is determined by the context. Yes, the English word fair can be translated into Russian as honest And How fair. phrase fair share we will translate using the word fair; fair share. And the phrase fair deal- with the help of a word honest: fair deal. It is the context of the phrase in which the English word is used that influenced our choice of Russian correspondence.

The third group of regular correspondences in Retzker's classification is the so-called adequate substitutions. The translator resorts to them when it is necessary to convey the meaning “based on the whole”. Here, Retzker's classification reveals a contradiction, since equivalents and variant correspondences cannot be placed on a par with adequate substitutions. The reason for this is that the third group does not at all involve the selection of units of IL and TL corresponding to each other, but the establishment of a correspondence between certain units of IL and TL, i.e. It's about translation techniques.

Retzker refers to the methods of translation as concretization of undifferentiated and abstract concepts, logical development of concepts, antonymic translation and compensation. Later, the so-called holistic rethinking was added to these techniques, when the translator decides to translate a given word or expression based on an understanding of the whole statement, sometimes deviating very far from its specific elements. This can be illustrated by how, for example, phraseological units are translated (A good riddance! - Good riddance!).

According to Retzker, first equivalents appear in the translator's mind, then the search for analogues begins. If neither is suitable, he resorts to adequate substitutions. It must be said that the classification of regular correspondences proposed by Retzker in translation has been repeatedly refined both by the author himself and by other translation theorists. So, with regard to the first group - equivalents - it was pointed out that equivalents can be one-sided and two-sided. matching type above the United Nations - United Nations refers to bilateral equivalents, since the English phrase will always be translated into Russian in the same way. The same is true for translation in the opposite direction, from Russian into English. But "an unambiguous interpretation of a language unit in terms of another language can take place only in one direction" [Schweitzer, 1973. p. 20]. With regard to the second group, Schweitzer proposes to distinguish between several types of analogues (variant correspondences). Analogues can be among themselves in a relationship of synonymy, as in the above example with the English word fair and two of its Russian counterparts fair and honest. But the synonymy of analogues that the translator has in the TL is not only ideographic (at the level of meaning) or stylistic (good, cool, wonderful) when the choice of one or another analogue, variant correspondence is influenced by the context. It can be absolute, i.e. context independent: Grand Jury can be equally translated and how Grand jury And How Grand Jury Council. Therefore, unambiguity / ambiguity and context dependence / independence, as Schweitzer rightly notes, do not always coincide.

In addition, in languages ​​there are polysemantic words, which in other languages ​​correspond to words that are not synonymous with each other. I mean homonyms. Yes, the English word fair can be translated into Russian and how honest, and how blond . The choice of one or another Russian-language correspondence will depend on the phrase in which the word is used fair in the original text in English. There are certain inaccuracies in the description of the methods of translation proposed by Retzker. For example, in the section on antonymic translation, there are illustrations in which there are no antonyms. In the examples in question, fixed expressions in FL are replaced by their corresponding fixed expressions in TL: Take your time - Do not rush; Mind your own business - Do not interfere in other people's affairs. It is clear that in this case the problem lies in the unfortunate terminology, although the phenomena described are undoubtedly reflected accurately and correctly.

I.S. Alekseeva notes “some unfinished places in the seemingly slender building of the classification of correspondences”; the absence of a unified classification base; the ambiguity of the lexical scope of unambiguous equivalents, since they may include more than one lexeme (for example, in terminological expressions, company logos, prohibition inscriptions). Alekseeva also proposes to study the relationship between the one-to-one correspondence parameter and the type of text in which they occur. The type of text, she suggests, can determine the degree of freedom of the translator in choosing a match. Based on the examples discussed by Komissarov [See: Komissarov 1996, pp. 176-177], she argues that unambiguous equivalents can be linguistic or speech equivalents.

Critics have pointed to the overly normative nature of Retzker's theory. Therefore, in his subsequent publications, Retsker repeatedly emphasizes the creative nature of translation activities. Other remarks were made regarding the theory of regular correspondences, but in general it should be noted that its main value lies in the fact that for the first time questions important for understanding the translation process and evaluating its result were posed.

Lecture plan

2. The concept of a translation model. Review of translation models: interpretive model and (further see Nelyubin, Khukhuni - Translation models)

Transformational model of translation

Advantages and disadvantages of the transformational model of translation

Practical task 1. Check out the examples of transformations in Appendix 1 and give your own examples of transformations from the texts of the translations of Lessons 6 and 7. (Minyar-Belorucheva) 2. Think about what techniques from Concise Dictionary translation terms you would add to the indicated headings

Theory of regular correspondences

The theory of regular correspondences is essentially aimed at establishing linguistic correspondences in translation and does not pretend to model the translation process. Its task is to establish regular correspondences between the units of the original and the translation at the level of language and speech. Language correspondences can be defined as known givens and, for example, recorded at the verbal level in bilingual dictionaries. Speech correspondences are established by comparing specific texts.

For the first time, the idea of ​​regular correspondences was put forward by Ya.I. Retsker, who determined various types of correspondences (equivalent, variant, contextual) and types of translation transformations based on a comparison of the texts of the original and the translation.

The theory of regular (translational) correspondences is a part of the theory of translation that generalizes and applies the data of comparative linguistics to the needs of translation and establishes the types of correspondences regularly used in translation and ways to overcome discrepancies in the systems of two languages.

Translation correspondences are TL units regularly used to translate certain FL units. They are not completely reversible; formally, the units given in the dictionaries as such are formal correspondences, unless, of course, the unit of FL was used in the corresponding meaning. This criterion is not absolute due to the incompleteness and imperfection of dictionaries.

The theory of regular correspondences arose within the framework of the concept of a full-fledged translation and its initial task was to establish the linguistic conditions for ensuring the equivalence of translation means. On the present stage it is a part of the theory of translation which generalizes and applies to the needs of translation the data of comparative linguistics and establishes the types of correspondences regularly used in translation. Thus, to establish correspondences, a comparative analysis of entire semantic fields in two languages, a comparative component analysis of individual lexical units, and an analysis of the structure and functions of related grammatical categories are required. An important place in the theory of regular correspondences is given to taking into account the function of one or another element in the text, i.e. establishment of informal, static, and functional, dynamic correspondences. Translation is sometimes defined as the correlated functioning of two languages; this definition is the best suited for determining the place and role of this section in translation theory.

The theory of regular correspondences establishes certain parameters within which the choice of translation options can be made, reveals the general laws of the translation process on a functional basis. Such functional correspondences take into account the dependence of the transfer of certain semantic categories on the action various factors. The quantity and quality of factors cannot be constant for any genre of translated material; only the logical and semantic basis will be common, which determines the processes of analysis and synthesis that form translation techniques. AT special theory translation, regular correspondences used by translators to transfer certain units of the original are considered. For example: perfect - past tense, imperfect species. Thus, the theory of translation correspondences is based not only on the theoretical correlation of linguistic meanings, but also on the data of translation practice.

In the concept of normative content compliance, translators sought to fulfill two requirements: 1) to convey all the essential elements of the content of the source text 2) to comply with the norms of the target language (TL).

The authors of this concept A. V. Fedorov and Ya. I. Retsker defined the following qualities of an adequate translation: 1) an exhaustive transfer of the semantic content of the text; 2) the transfer of content by equivalent (that is, performing a function similar to the expressive function of the language means of the original) means.

In translation studies, the analysis of interlingual lexical correspondences is carried out not for the sake of regulating some mechanical replacements of the lexical units of the original with the corresponding words and expressions of the target language, but to study what the lexical units convey in the translation, how they can differ from the words of the original and form a thought corresponding to the thought. the original phrase, otherwise, we are talking about a comparative analysis of the semantic, stylistic and functional characteristics of the words and expressions being compared, because any thought, any emotions conveyed in the text are constructed, created from words and equivalent units.

However, the regular nature of interlingual correspondences is determined not only by the above factors, but also by the existence of correlative lexico-semantic categories at the interlingual level.

In translation studies, an attempt to theoretically comprehend interlingual lexical correspondences was first made by Ya. I. Retsker in 1950. Establishing lexical correspondences was not a fundamentally new idea. The merit of Ya I. Retsker was that he drew attention to the regular nature of lexical correspondences in translation, pointed out the importance and independence of the doctrine of various types and types of correspondences in the theory of translation and tried to determine the degree of lexical-semantic correlation of the compared units, subdividing the possible correspondences between the lexical units of the original and the translation into three main types: equivalents, analogues and adequate replacements. This classification, unchanged or with some modifications, formed the basis of most teaching aids translation published after 1950, and it was also taken into account when developing later classifications.

Translation methods: substitutions and transformations

The description of the transfer process is inconceivable without explaining the way of transition from IT units to PT units. The study of these methods is mainly carried out by comparing the initial and final segments of the text. These transition methods will be called translation methods.

If you try to establish correspondence between the units of the original and the translation within the framework of the transformational model of translation, then it turns out that the translation is carried out on the basis of isolating the translation units and searching for the corresponding TL unit. Such a search is carried out in three possible ways. You can either 1) replace the translation unit with a single correspondence that exists in the TL, or 2) choose from several TL units corresponding to the IT unit being translated, or in the absence of both or if they cannot be used for stylistic and pragmatic reasons 3) apply the transformation , i.e. thus transform the form and semantics of the original unit in order to convey in the translation the actualized part of its content. The first two ultimately come down to substituting a dictionary match into the translation text. This method of translation is called substitution. And the latter is actually a transformation.

These methods of translation correspond according to Retzker with three types of correspondences in translation: equivalents, correspondences and transformations. For Yakov Iosifovich Retsker, transformations are a way to search for occasional translation correspondences that are not dictionary, i.e. equivalent or alternative. However, in practice it is difficult to distinguish between variant correspondences and transformations. One of the formal criteria for this distinction can be a bilingual dictionary, with the caveat that dictionaries differ and can subjectively reflect the actual relationship between the language units of the FL and the TL. If a certain correspondence to a foreign language unit used in the translation is found in the dictionary, then this is more likely a correspondence (single or plural), and not the result of a transformation. Meanwhile, the remark of R.K. Minyar-Beloruchev is also true, who claims that dictionary correspondences are transformations in the diachronic plan, they were carried out by translators and lexicographers of the past; from the point of view of a modern translator, these are ready-made correspondences.

In this regard, Vilen Naumovich Komissarov points out that transformations are not a means of analyzing the relationship between foreign language units and their dictionary correspondences, but translation methods that a translator can use in cases where there is no dictionary correspondence, or when it is unacceptable in a given context, t .e. emphasizes not the static, but the dynamic nature of transformations, thus delimiting them from correspondences.

Classification of translation correspondences by Ya. I. Retsker

According to the nature of translation actions, three categories of correspondences are built in the process of translation: 1) equivalents, established due to the identity of the signified, as well as deposited in the tradition of language contacts; 2) variant and contextual correspondences and 3) all types of translation transformations. Equivalent correspondences belong to the sphere of language, the last two groups to the sphere of speech.

Equivalent matches (replacement / substitution) - constant equivalent matches that do not depend on the context ( geographical names, proper names, terms, dog-collar - collar). These are more often phrases Difficult words, words with transparent inner shape.

Equivalent matches(replacement/substitution)

constant equivalent correspondence, independent of the context (geographical names, proper names, terms, dog-collar - collar). These are more often phrases, compound words, words with a transparent internal form.

Equivalents

complete, partial

covering the entire shadow in the main value

the meaning of the whole word (see above) is "shadow", because still matters

darkness and ghost.

absolute relative

the shadow of the gods - dirt cheap

twilight of the gods - the only difference is stylistic and

acceptable match with expressive coloring

If the English word compilation"collection, compilation" is quite neutral in this respect, then Russian. compilation has a shade of disapproval, meaning "non-independent work based on the mechanical use of foreign materials." The absence of an equivalent, i.e. a constant and equivalent correspondence does not interfere with the adequate transmission of the content of the statement in another way. Translation is carried out in the sphere of speech, the use of interlingual correspondences is not necessary, adequate the transfer of content is possible by moving from one level to another (translation transformations).

Variant and contextual matches are set between words when there are several words in the target language to convey the same meaning of the original word.

The plurality of Russian variant correspondences to the lexical meaning of the English word does not give grounds to consider the latter as polysemantic. In such cases, a broad concept (abstract parts) is not covered by one word of the Russian language. Sincere - 1) sincere, genuine; 2) true, genuine, real (friend); 3) direct, honest, righteous (life). Justice - justice, justice, justice. These concepts in English are inseparable, choosing one option (performing differentiation) we inevitably impoverish the content of the word. Variant correspondences are characteristic, consisting of single-root Russian words: flying - flying, flying, flying, flying. High - high, tall; big, large - large; dirt - dirt, filth, mud.

Light in sight - talk of the devil (angel) / Not easy brought - compensation.

Contextual meanings arise and are realized under the influence of a narrow, broad and extralinguistic context. Usual (repeating, passing into the category of variant correspondences) and occasional (random, individual) contextual meanings are distinguished. Contextual values ​​are the realization of the values ​​potentially embedded in the word. In dictionaries, they are fixed with the help of phrases. For determining lexical meaning words, it is necessary to reveal its semantic structure, to assess its place in the language system as a whole. And contextual analysis will help you choose the most appropriate translation option (to resent expresses a complex set of negative emotions expressed in Russian by the words indignant, indignant, angry, angry, annoying, angry under the general broad concept of expressing dissatisfaction). The absence of a Russian verb with the same set of semes makes unpredictable all possible potential connotations of the meanings of this word, revealed in the context.

Correspondences obtained by transformations, i.e. such words that are put into correspondence with each other only by the will of the translator in a particular case. Guys - mob? Elfish chance - a ghostly hope.

Language units have three main kinds of meanings in which they may or may not correspond to units of another language: semantic(referential / logical-objective and denotative), pragmatic(connotative, reflecting the attitude of language communities to various subjects reality) and intralinguistic/syntactic(relative grammatical meanings, generic and species relations in the system, rhyme, compatibility, word-formation connections, and other paradigmatic and syntagmatic intra-system relations). From the essence of the translation, defined in the general view as a process of re-expressing the content of a text in one language by means of another language, it follows that it is impossible to convey absolutely all types of meanings expressed in the translated text. What meanings are most fully preserved in translation? Of course, referential (and denotative, i.e. concrete-contextual). The reason for this is 1) the surrounding reality coincides more than it diverges, 2) with the help of any language it is possible to describe fundamentally any objects of the concept and situation. Although, of course, the ways of describing the same situations / expressing the same meaning can vary significantly. Less transferable pragmatic meanings, because the limits of pragmatic adaptation are limited, and differences in attitudes of different peoples to the same subject can vary significantly (the sun and day are evil for Muslim cultures). Intra-linguistic meanings for the most part cannot be transferred, the requirement of their transfer is absurd, for it is equal to the refusal of translation in general. These types of meaning can play in texts different types unequal role, when translating this should be taken into account and, first of all, convey those meanings that are most relevant for a given text.

One of the first linguistic theories of translation activity put forward in Russian translation studies was the “theory of regular correspondences” by Ya.I. Retzker, who in 1950 published the article "On Regular Correspondences in Translation into the Native Language". In 1953, A. V. Fedorov, in his work “Introduction to the Theory of Translation”, expressed views similar to those of J. I. Retsker. This theory underlies many Russian educational and practical translation manuals. L. S. Barkhudarov consistently developed it, and V. N. Komissarov and V. Koller used individual elements of this theory in their concepts.

The positive role of the theory of regular correspondences consisted primarily in the fact that for the first time, for the most part, impressionistic considerations about translation, its quality, which had prevailed before in publications on this topic, were opposed to a scientifically (linguistically) substantiated theory. In accordance with it, it was possible to consider translation activity as a process and analyze its results. In other words, it turned out to be possible to single out some principles for choosing the options for translating a particular word, turnover in the process of carrying out translation activities. Its result - the text of the translation - could also be considered from the point of view of the implementation of regular correspondences. The authors managed to show that the translator does not just act on a whim, on inspiration, that there are certain patterns in the choice of interlingual correspondences.

The vast experience accumulated by practical translators served as an empirical basis for constructing the theory of regular correspondences. The special merit of Fedorov and Retsker should be recognized that they took into account not only literary translation, as was done before them. The researchers relied on the experience of translators who also worked in other areas, although literary translation, of course, prevailed.

The researchers built their research on the materials of numerous translation solutions to various translation problems. Consideration of cases from practice prompted scientists to the idea that, despite their difference from each other in similar linguistic conditions, translators make more or less similar decisions. Therefore, obviously, it is possible to single out at least the most general patterns that guide the translator when searching for interlingual correspondences.

It is clear that a theory of regular correspondences was being developed, which considered translation as an exclusively linguistic activity for the time being, on the basis of comparative linguistics that had already developed by that time. In comparative studies, within the framework of which research has been actively conducted for more than a century to identify similarities and differences in languages, a large amount of factual material has accumulated, and tools for theoretical understanding of the collected linguistic phenomena have been worked out.

The essence of Retzker's theory is the classification of correspondences that are taken into account when translating from one language to another. In this classification, three groups of correspondences are distinguished: 1) equivalents, established due to the identity of the signified, and also deposited in the tradition of language contacts; 2) variant and contextual correspondences and 3) all types of translation transformations.

Equivalents are understood as constant, context-independent correspondences of units of the FL (source language) with units of the TL (translating language). First of all, these are unambiguous terms. For example, the English the United Nations corresponds to the Russian United Nations. These kinds of correspondences are independent of the context, they are always constant, although they are few in number. The second group is analogues, or variant correspondences. They can be called analogues in the sense that analogous relations are established between a given FL unit and the corresponding TL unit: among the synonymous TL units corresponding to a given FL unit, a variant of conveying the meaning that is most suitable for a given context is sought. The choice of each particular pair of matches is determined by the context. So, the English word fair can be translated into Russian as honest and fair. We translate the phrase fair share using the word fair: a fair share. And the phrase fair deal - with the help of the word honest: a fair deal. It is the context of the phrase in which the English word is used that influenced our choice of Russian correspondence.

The third group of regular correspondences in Retzker's classification is the so-called adequate substitutions. The translator resorts to them when, in order to correctly convey the thought of the original, it seems most expedient to depart from the “letter of the original”, i.e. words used in the original, and the solution of the problem facing him "based on the whole". Here, Retzker's classification reveals a contradiction, since equivalents and variant correspondences cannot be placed on a par with adequate substitutions. Indeed, the first two groups are based on language units that can be defined as correspondences, while the third group does not involve the selection of units of FL and TL that correspond to each other, but some actions of the translator to establish a correspondence between certain units of FL and TL, those. It's about translation techniques.

Retzker identifies the following translation techniques:

Differentiation of values;

Specification of values;

Generalization of values;

semantic development;

Antonymic translation;

Holistic transformation;

Compensation for losses in the translation process.

According to Retzker, first equivalents appear in the translator's mind, then the search for analogues begins. If neither is suitable, he resorts to adequate substitutions. Translators should be trained in the same sequence: first, teach them to find equivalents, then analogs, and finally, to make adequate replacements. A special place in Retsker's theory is occupied by the so-called illegitimate establishment of equivalents, which ensures the creative nature of translation activity, excluding automatic selection of correspondences.

It must be said that the classification of regular correspondences proposed by Retzker in translation has been repeatedly refined both by the author himself and by other translation theorists. So, with regard to the first group - equivalents - it was pointed out that equivalents can be one-sided and two-sided. A correspondence like the above the United Nations - the United Nations refers to bilateral equivalents, since the English phrase will always be translated into Russian in the same way. The same is true for translation in the opposite direction, from Russian into English. But "an unambiguous interpretation of a linguistic unit in terms of another language can only take place in one direction." So, Russian word Computer (electronic computer) is translated by English computer, but that, in turn, is either as a computer, or (in our time more often) as a computer. With regard to the second group, Schweitzer proposes to distinguish between several types of analogues (variant correspondences). Analogues can be synonymous with each other, as in the above example with the English word fair and its two Russian counterparts fair and honest. But the synonymy of analogues that the translator has in the TL is not only ideographic (at the level of meaning) or stylistic (good, cool, wonderful), when the choice of one or another analogue, variant correspondence is influenced by the context. It can be absolute, i.e. context-independent: grand jury can be translated with equal right both as a grand jury and as a grand jury. Therefore, unambiguity/ambiguity and context dependence/independence, as Schweitzer rightly notes, do not always coincide.

In addition, in languages ​​there are polysemantic words, which in other languages ​​correspond to words that are not synonymous with each other. I mean homonyms. So, the English word fair can be translated into Russian as both honest and blond. The choice of one or another Russian-language correspondence will depend on the phrase in which the word fair is used in the original text in English. If this is, for example, the phrase by fair means, then the translation will be fair / honest. If fair is used in the phrase fair hair, then it will need to be translated as fair hair.

There are certain inaccuracies in the description of the translation methods proposed by Retzker. For example, in the section on antonymic translation, there are illustrations in which there are no antonyms. In the examples in question, set expressions in FL are replaced by their corresponding set expressions in TL: Take your time - do not rush; Mind your own business - Do not interfere in other people's business. It is clear that in this case the problem lies in the unfortunate terminology, although the phenomena described are undoubtedly reflected accurately and correctly.

Critics have pointed to the overly normative nature of Retzker's theory. Therefore, in his subsequent publications, Retsker repeatedly emphasizes the creative nature of translation activities.

Other remarks were made regarding the theory of regular correspondences, but in general it should be noted that its main value lies in the fact that for the first time questions important for understanding the translation process and evaluating its result were posed.

Retzker's contribution to the creation and development of the linguistic theory of translation in our country can hardly be overestimated. According to the fair and apt expression of Komissarov, Russian translation studies in many respects “came out of Retsker”.