93
THE EQUIVALENCE OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF TRANSLATION
AND GENERAL TRANSFORMATION
Iskandarova Risolat Ravshanbekovna
postgraduate student, Uzbekistan State University of World Languages
Have you read Dan Brown? Paolo Koelo? Haruki Murakami? In the original ?!
When we read the books discussed above, we mean translations, but we
don’t
realize that this is their translation. A special effort is required to do this. This is because
there is a perception in society that translation replaces the original in the host culture.
Paradoxically, these texts are considered and accepted by the recipients as the same
regardless of the true ratio of the translation and the original. The translator cannot
ignore this phenomenon and tries to justify the expectations placed on him by the society
and tries to present the text as close as possible to the original as its communicative
and functional substitute / similarity according to its specific features.. As a result, it is
assumed that there is an existence and some connection between the translated texts
and the original. The existence of this relationship is simply the act of translating a text
into free text, the placement of the original, which is that level of text.
Equivalence is the maximum generality of the content of bilingual texts signed by
language difference. Under the content, in this case V.N. Komissarov understands the
existence of any sentence 1) the purpose expressed by communication 2) a description
of the situation through choice 3) some of its features, they are known at the surface
level 4) syntactically organized and known 5) linguistic units represented by meaning,
which consists of denotative, connotative, and internal language, respectively.
2) to determine the equivalence by demonstrating its specific types. That's it.
equivalence with respect to a particular type of text is the preservation of those aspects
of the original content that are recognized as invariant. (Giuliana Garzone, 2001) There
are more than 5050 definitions, some of which are divided into
“types” because the
authors find it impossible to give a universal definition, distinguishing only one text
feature to differ from others, which is not a theory, but practise.
3) Refusal to use this term. The reason for this is a very utilitarian, pragmatic
approach to understanding the translation activity. The main functional principle is that
the choice is dependent on the translation. It is well known that in order to define any
scientific concept, it is very important to establish its connection with other concepts of
the field of knowledge under consideration.
The concept of equivalence is a constant translation that is closely related to the
concept. An invariant is often understood as a set of specific properties of the original
that are stored in the translation. Naturally, researchers who define equivalence in
different ways (forming the purpose of translation in different ways) include different
features of the text in this collection. Moreover, in any case, the invariance of the
translation ensures its equivalence.
It is important to be aware of the problems of semantic equivalence in translation,
which determine the degree of similarity between ST
(“Sоurcе trаnslаtiоn – Аsl nusxа
mаtni”) and “ТM” (“Tаrgеt trаnslаtiоn – Tаrjimа mаtni”). If we compare TMs with STs,
we can see the difference in the degree of semantic similarity between the two texts in
94
the translation process. Accordingly, many types of translation equivalents differ from
each other. For example:
1)
mауbе thеrе is sоmе chеmistrу bеtwееn us thаt dоеsn’t mix – xаrаktеri bir-
birigа tо‘g‘ri kеlmауdigаn оdаmlаr hаm bо‘lаdi.
2)
А rоlling stоnе gаthеrs nо mаss – kim uуidа о‘tirаоlmаsа uni mеhribоnlik
kutmауdi.
3)
Thаt’s а prеttу thing tо sау – Uуаlsаng bо‘lаrdi!
At the same time, we do not find any discrepancies between the original and its
translation in terms of general meaning or structure. The absolute dissimilarity of
linguistic units is explained by the fact that there is a clear logical similarity between the
two texts, but in fact they lead to the conclusion that they are
“about the same thing”
because they describe a similar situation. It is clear that both statements have a common
meaning. This general aspect of their content is important to ensure adequate content.
In addition, it contains information that retains all the meaning of the original (the text
being translated). From the examples we can see that the commonality of the original
and its translation is the general content and figurative meaning of the text, that is, in a
word, the translator must be able to emdiv the general conclusion or the semantic
meaning of the text. In English,
“what the original text is about”, “what it says; It does not
describe what is being said, but only what is being said. Examples of this type are
described by the parallelism of lexical or structural units.
Translation transformations have a special place when considering the issue of
achieving equivalence in simultaneous and written translation.
Translation is considered as a specific transformation and interlingual
transformation. Therefore, the term
“translation transformation” is widely used by many
translators (Barkhudarov, 1975; Gak, 1975, 1978, 1988; Komissarov, 1973, 1990, 2002;
Latishev, 1981 (a), (b), 19. 1986, 2001; Lvovskaua, 1985; Minuar- Beloruchev, 1980,
1996; Retsker, 1974; Schwautser, 1973, 1988, etc.), but the theory of translation still
does not have a generally accepted interpretation. According to the rules of
transformation, the remaining structures (transformations) are taken from the original
structure, and vice versa, the latter is reduced to a phrase. For example, the phrase
“child reads” creates transforms: “child reads”, “child’s reading”, “child reads” and so on.
The problem of determining the transformation of translation is solved in accordance
with the initial principles of specific theory.
Let us now turn to a brief review of the most popular typologies of translation
transformations. The ratios of these transformations are given in the
As can be seen from the table, there is no single classification system. Different
authors highlight different types of changes. All authors have different ways of dividing
transformations into species. Hence, V.N. Komissarov (1990: 172-186) translated all
transformations into lexical, grammatical and complex lexical-grammatical, V.G. Gak
(vak, 1992: 139
–148) – into quality and quantity, L.S. Barkhudarov (Barkhudarov: 1915)
distinguishes between substitutions, additions, and subtractions, and P. Newmark
’s
classification (Newmark, 1988: 81-93) is based on direct descriptions of certain
transformations without being divided into species.
In addition, there are similarities, as different translation methods are included
in different typologies as transformations. The authors, who have proposed different
interpretations, refer to the same translation technique. What V.N. Komissarov called
transcription and transliteration, P. Newmark called substitutions. If V.N. Komissarov
distinguishes one type
– P. Newmark divides the trajectory into three: by translation,
95
by the sign of translation and by component analysis (observation of the lexical unit
in parts).
Methods of concretization and generalization are available in the classifications
of V.N. Komissarov, L.S. Barkhudarov and V.G. Gak. However, the latter author
derives these two methods on the basis of an inclusive relationship and intersecting
relations.
The technique defined as modulation by V.N. Komissarov and P. Newmark was
developed by L.S. Barkhudarov. P. Newmark distinguishes between substitutions and
transcriptions, considering the grammatical exchanges of a different order compared to
the transformations classified by V.N. Komissarov, L.S. Barhudarov, V.G. Gak. These
include: replacing a unit with a plural or changing the order of an adjective; when the
grammatical structure of source translation does not have an equivalent in target
translation; if literal translation is grammatically possible but does not conform to speech
norms; replacing lexical space with grammatical structure. In V.G. Gak, the
transformations associated with grammatical changes are not grouped together, but are
in separate types.
The methods of addition and subtraction are listed in L.S. Barkhudarov
’s system
of changes as the main types, in V.G. Gak
’s typology as small types of quantitative
changes, in P. Newmark
’s classification as methods of expansion and contraction.
V.N. Komissarov did not include these two methods in the general classification of
transformations, but considered them as technical methods of translation, as well as a
method of copying lexical units called substitutions in L.S. Barkhudarov
’s typology.
In practice, the translation changes described above are very rare in their pure
form. In most cases, they are close and interconnected. Of course, as with any
classification, the above typologies of translation transformations are conditional and do
not cover all the methods actually used by the translator. The disadvantage of all
classifications is that their authors do not indicate the relative frequency of individual
changes listed in the different types of translation.
REFERENCES:
1. Barkhudarov L.S. Language and translation: Problems of general and special
theory of translation. M.: Mejdunar. relation 1975.
2. Duan M. & Qin X. (2012). Collocation in English teaching and learning. Theory
and Practice in Language Studies, 2 (9),
– PP. 1890–1894.
3. Komissarov V.N. General theory of translation. Guide. M.: CheRo. 2000.
4. Komissarov V.N Theory of translation (linguistic aspects). M.: secondary
school... 1990.
5. Newmark, Peter. Approaches to translation. Oxford. Pergamon press 1978.
6.
В.Г. Гак Межъязыковая ассиметрия и прогнозирование переводческих
трансформаций // Теория перевода и научные основы подготовки переводчиков.
Материалы всесоюзной научной конференции. – 4.1. – М., 1975.
