<<
>>

Reflektivnye the bases of transfer of phraseological units

The picture of the world at carriers of various languages is created from the whole complex of representations and sights at the validity, from the saved up individual and collective experience. Figurative vision of similar objects, concepts and the phenomena at carriers of different languages differs, that, first of all, finds reflexion in national and art creativity.

Visually it is possible to illustrate it on an example of phraseological units which in the majority are, inherently, with the metaphors accepted by language norm and expressing representations of the person about the various phenomena of world around.

Some linguists consider as natural development of a metaphor its dying off. From means of creation of an image the metaphor turns to a way of formation of values lacking to language, but, being generation of art creativity, the metaphor survives in proverbs and phraseological units.

Character of the metaphor underlying phraseological units, differs from figurative, "free": it becomes "standard", loses individuality, but nevertheless keeps figurativeness and allegorical meaning [CHerdantseva 1988: 78].

The metaphor in the field of phraseology, unlike an art metaphor, is not individual. On the contrary, in a basis of figurative motivation the trivial, standard metaphor, clear to all language collective and owing to it can lay down only
Passed process frazeologizatsii. As mechanisms of creation of this process ability of language signs to formation of secondary values on the basis of carrying over of primary values and manufacture motivirovannyh language units ”[in the same place acts“: 84]. Process frazeologizatsii assumes word-combination possibility to bear in itself sense of this primary context which is completely lost in due course, keeping only an image.

Transfer of metaphors represents a special problem in the theory and transfer practice as many researchers admit that fact that it is impossible any to generalise definitely possibilities and ways of transfer of metaphors [Broeck 1981]. The factor which can explain "resistance" of a metaphor to transfer in any measure, it is possible to name ontologiju metaphors: researchers were excited always with a question why one tropes appear in language, and others are not present, why a metaphor which easily is understood in one language, causes difficulties in other, that is, does not possess metaphorical isomorphism [Dagut 1976: 32].

Transfer of metaphors is the multilevel process which purpose consists in search in a target language of equivalent elements on sootyovetstvujushchih levels of functioning of art speech, substantial and which emotional value would be in equivalent relations with original metaphors [Feodors 1983].

The literary translation purpose - as much as possible true imitation of the original. Restrictions on the such activity, imposed first of all language and culture, are quite obvious, also necessity for reception by culture from the outside of other maintenances, senses and ways of activity with them however is obvious. In it function of an intercultural exchange by texts and the cultural importance of art texts also consists. They enrich as the, and other cultures,
Being not only and it is not so much in way of intercultural communications, how many in way smysloporozhdenija and way of creation of means of development of new senses.

The translator should create preconditions for program of an optimum of pithiness of the text of the original, whenever possible overcoming resistance of cultures and languages [Galeyev 2011: 119-120].

Problem of the translator is not only preservation of value FE, but also the report to the recipient of the translation text of sense FE whom it gets in the text. Criteria of equivalence in that case cannot be reduced to purely linguistic, and should be based on a reflexion of recipients of the initial and translation text, developed in belts sistemomysledejatelnosti.

As a rule, a starting point for discussion of a question on equivalence of transfer is that fact, that one of the primary goals of the translator - as much as possible full transfer of the maintenance of the initial text, at preservation of an actual generality of the maintenance of the original and transfer.

For an estimation of equivalence of transfer of metaphors, and accordingly, and phraseological units, it is often applied urovnevaja model. Using V.N.Komissarova's classification [commissioners 1980, 2000, 2002], allocating five levels of equivalence of transfer, are allocated levels and subtotals of equivalence of metaphors which suppose absolute equivalence (the fifth level) even in case obviously unequal partitioning of the validity in the pictures of the world created by different languages.

The concept of types / levels of equivalence of V.N.Komissarova has undergone a number of updatings throughout decades.

V.N.Komissarov distinguishes «potentially achievable equivalence», that is the greatest possible generality of the maintenance
The original and the transfer, supposed by distinctions IJA and PJA, and «translational equivalence» - real semantic (substantial) affinity of the original and the transfer, reached while translating [Commissioners 2000: 51-56].

Various factors can affect possibility of full preservation of the maintenance of the initial text in transfer, such, for example, as distinctions in systems of languages, and also ways of functioning of these languages. Therefore it is inevitable, that equivalence is while translating possible only at preservation or loss of certain elements of sense of the original. Types, or levels, equivalence, according to V.N.Komissarova's concept, differ proceeding from what part of the maintenance of the original has been lost or kept while translating. The concept of levels of equivalence assumes, that at any level of equivalence transfer provides realisation mezhjazykovoj communications. That is, proceeding from concept postulates, even in case of loss of a certain part of the maintenance, equivalence of the text of the original and transfer is admissible.

Problem of any text is performance of certain communicative function: the contact establishment between kommunikantami, the message of the facts or the information, to action or reaction etc. the Text can carry out expression of emotions, prompting simultaneously some such functions.

According to the theory of levels of equivalence on V.N.Komissarovu [commissioners 2000: 51-56], equivalence of transfers of the first type

Consists in preservation only that part of the maintenance of the initial text which makes the communications purpose. The communications purpose is understood as the sense deduced from all statement. The recipient, doing conclusions from all maintenance of the text, understands not only that is spoken in the text, but also for what it is spoken, that is, understands the statement purpose.
At the second type of equivalence the general part of the maintenance of the initial text and the text of transfer not only allows to reach the identical purpose of communications, but also to identify same vnejazykovuju a situation (it is necessary to understand set of objects described in the statement as a situation and communications between them).

The third type of equivalence is defined by preservation in the text of transfer of the purpose of communications and identification of the same situation, and also preservation while translating the general concepts with which help the situation is described, that is, a way of the description of a situation.

At the fourth type of equivalence, along with three components of the maintenance which remain at the third type, in transfer the basic part of values of syntactic structures of the original also is reproduced.

At the fifth type of equivalence the maximum degree of affinity of the maintenance of the original and transfer which in general can exist between texts in different languages, for example is reached: I saw him at the theatre. - I saw it at theatre; The house was sold for 100 thousand dollars. - the House has been sold for 100 thousand dollars [Commissioners 2000: 51-56].

Besides the concept of levels of equivalence of V.N.Komissarova it is possible to list other influential concepts in this area.

So, for example, on a boundary of 1950-60th Eugene Najda has opposed formal equivalence of dynamic equivalence. Dynamic equivalence estimate through comparison not texts of the original and transfer, and through comparison of reactions of their recipients. If such reactions coincide, transfer is equivalent, if is not present - is nonequivalent [Najda 1970].

Along with concept «equivalence of transfer» researchers operate also with concept "adequacy" (it widely used

A.V.Fedorov) [Feodors 1983]. There are different approaches to differentiation of these concepts. Usually the concept of adequacy assumes a presentation of wider spectrum of requirements to PT, than more "flexible" in this sense concept of equivalence.

N.L.Galeyev notices, that in domestic tradition germenevtichesky, dejatelnostnyj the approach to transfer practically is not used, not always in the modern linguistic theory of transfer translation from one culture in another of ways of thinking and the activity organisation [G aleeva 2011: 5-6] is realised.

The reference to dejatelnostnomu to the approach is not marked not only in domestic linguistics, together with in foreign [Chesterman, Wagner 2002; Anderman, Rogers 2003; Bassnett, Trivedi 2002; Baer, Koby 2003; Cronin 2013; Munday 2001; Bermann, Wood 2005; Newmark 1988; Sin-wai 2015; Hutchins 2015; Farwell, Helmreich 2015, Cardey 2015].

Scheme SMD offered by G.P.ShChedrovitskim, has already been resulted in work for consideration of fixing of a reflexion at understanding of phraseological units in the English-speaking text.

In the given chapter we will consider equivalence of transfer of phraseological units not from the point of view of traditionally recognised urovnevoj models, and taking for a basis three belts sistemomysledejatelnosti and variants of fixing of a reflexion.

It is necessary to notice, that almost the judgements denying mezhjazykovovuju perevodimost at all times were popular enough. Thus the decision of a question on transfer possibility quite often appeared is closely connected with the decision more the general question - about language and thinking interaction. So, if the researcher considers, that the thinking of all people has universal, so to say, universal character it will treat translational difficulties in one plan - "optimistically",
Supposing possibility of their overcoming thanks to possibility to leave on level of "universal" senses; if he believes, that in thinking of polyglot people there are fundamental distinctions also the problem of difficulties of transfer will be comprehended by it absolutely differently - most likely, rather "pessimistically": such distinctions are usually thought as almost insuperable barriers for mezhjazykovoj and intercultural communications. [Krupnov 1976: 30 - 36].

V.N.Krupnov [Krupnov 1976: 30 - 36] believes, that the "nihilists" denying possibility of high-grade transfer, it is possible to divide on two groups. Nihilists - concern the first "traditsionalisty" which see already in the in itself certificate of transfer treachery in relation to the original and «spirit of language». So, Paul Gjunter quotes words of the German translator which very long translated the Homere, and then, definitively having been disappointed in this work, has addressed to the potential recipient: « Expensive reader, learn the Greek language, and my transfer throw out in fire ». In due time even V Humboldt noticed a background, that transfer is represented to it attempt to solve obviously impracticable problem. The second group of"nihilists", according to V.N.Krupnov, is presented by those who tries to bring a certain philosophical base under the point of view. V.N.Krupnov carries U.Kuajna to this category of theorists (W. Wholesale) and B.Uorfa (Benjamin L. W ^^. Concepts Kuajna and Uorfa are reduced to attempt to prove, that high-grade transfer is impossible in view of a divergence as Krupnov speaks,« expressive means »different languages; U.Kuajn also supports this conclusion with idea about"uncertainty"of process of communications in general and transfer, in particular.

Concepts neperevodimosti often were exposed to criticism first of all they postulate theoretical impossibility of that in practice is regularly carried out.

Ideas neperevodimosti were exposed some kind of the critic and in G.I.Bogina's works. Speaking about national cultural specificity of statements, he asserted, that “if values of statements national-cultural urn, their senses mezhkulturny”. No"untranslatable specificity” is present, all easily gives in not that that raspredmechivaniju - to elementary decoding ”.“ If senses and means tend to national specificity metaunits tend to international availability. Therefore we can understand sense in texts of the most remote national cultures ”[Bogin 2001: 112-113].

By consideration of possibilities of transfer of phraseological units in a basis of ways purely linguistic features of phraseological units traditionally lay down.

So, it is possible to allocate next ways of transfer FE:

• a full equivalent;

• a partial equivalent (lexical or grammatical);

• obertonalnyj transfer (some kind of the occasional equivalent which J.I.Retsker names contextual replacement);

• descriptive transfer;

• a literal translation (tracing-paper).

Certainly, full equivalent traditionally is considered a maximum level of achievement of equivalence, but this way of transfer will take into consideration only linguistic features of the original and transfer.

N.L.Galeyev allocates different kinds of translational difficulties - difficulty of the original for understanding and difficulty of translation understood (actually translational difficulty). In the linguistic theory of transfer translational difficulty is considered regardless to understanding for the reason, that transfer is understood as system of replacements and
Transformations of elements of one text by elements of other text. Introduction of understanding as separate translational difficulty will allow to understand differently actually translational difficulties (difficulty of translation). The the text is more art, the it is more difficult for understanding [than Galeyev 2011: 120]. Continuing N.L.Galeevoj's thought, it is possible to assert, that the more difficult a mosaic of fixing of a reflexion at understanding of phraseological unit, the transfer of such phraseological unit will make the big difficulty for the translator.

Considering transfer of phraseological units from the point of view of possible variants of fixing of a reflexion, it is possible to assume, that the full phraseological equivalent not always reflects all aspects of fixing of a reflexion of understanding FE in the original, that, in turn, can lead to incomplete understanding or incorrect understanding while translating phraseological units as national-cultural metaphors. The Germenevtichesky method as a way of the discretion implicitly given in the text allows to transfer in transfer a way of thinking and the activity organisation on understanding of the original.

While translating the art text containing phraseological units, the translator should pass all three levels of understanding (semantizirujushchee, kognitivnoe and raspredmechivajushchee), having paid special attention raspredmechivaniju sense FE, applying various technicians of understanding.

2.2

<< | >>
A source: Aleksandrova Elena Vladislavovna. the PHRASEOLOGICAL UNIT AS the NATIONAL-CULTURAL METAPHOR: FILOLOGO-GERMENEVTICHESKY ASPECT. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of a Cand.Phil.Sci. Tver - 2015. 2015

More on topic Reflektivnye the bases of transfer of phraseological units:

  1. Transfer of phraseological units as national-cultural metaphors
  2. THE CHAPTER II TRANSFER OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS AS FILOLOGOYO THE GERMENEVTICHESKY PROBLEM
  3. THE CHAPTER I LINGVOKULTURNYE BASES metaforizatsii OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS
  4. thematic classification of the phraseological units containing the names of plants, in Russian and Vietnamese linguistics
  5. semantic differentiation of Russian and Vietnamese phraseological units with names of plants and their national-cultural originality
  6. classification of phraseological units with names of plants on rate of the use in Russian and Vietnamese discourse
  7. an image of plants and it reprezentatsija in Russian and Vietnamese phraseological units: the general in various
  8. 2.10. The phraseological units including in the structure of a lexeme of semantic sphere "music"
  9. Russian phraseological units with names of plants in Russian teaching by the Vietnamese pupil
  10. Bezekvivalentnaja and nepolnoekvivalentnaja the lexicon reflecting a national-cultural originality of Russian and Vietnamese phraseological units with names of plants, in practice of teaching of a foreign language
  11. THE CHAPTER I. PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS WITH NAMES OF PLANTS FROM THE POSITION OF MODERN LINGUISTIC VIEWS
  12. phraseological units with names of plants as a subject of linguistic research in Russian and Vietnamese linguistics
  13. THE CHAPTER II. PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS WITH NAMES OF PLANTS IN RUSSIAN AND VIETNAMESE LINGVOKULTURAH: THE RATHER-COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
  14. THE CHAPTER III. PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS WITH NAMES OF PLANTS AS THE MATERIAL IN PRACTICE OF TEACHING OF THE FOREIGN LANGUAGE
  15. Khong Thu Hien. RUSSIAN And VIETNAMESE PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS With NAMES of PLANTS In LINGVOKULTUROLOGICHESKY ASPECT. The dissertation AUTHOR'S ABSTRACT on competition of a scientific degree of a Cand.Phil.Sci. Tver - 2019, 2019
  16. Khong THU HIEN. RUSSIAN and VIETNAMESE PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS C NAMES of PLANTS In LINGVOKULTUROLOGICHESKY ASPECT. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of a Cand.Phil.Sci. Voronezh - 2019, 2019