Omission as a Translation Problem

This transformation is rarely obligatory within a structure, as it is usually caused by stylistic considerations and deals with redundancy as a traditional norm of SL, but not acceptable in TL. A typical example of such redundancy is the use of synonymic pairs, i.e. the words with the same or close referential meaning, in English: “… their only stay and support …” (Mark Twain) – both words mean “підтримка”, “опора”. There is no need to translate them both, it is sufficient to leave one of them: ”їхня єдина підтримка” or, according to the context requirements “ єдине, що рятувало їх від голоду ”.

This phenomenon is peculiar of English judicial documents and is often met in written language: just and equitable treatment — справедливе ставлення.

The use of synonymic pairs is characteristic, actually, of all styles of written English. Very often saving this pair of identical words in translation would be perceived as pleonasm, which is redundant even in translations of official documents requiring utmost precision, e.g.:

The Treaty was declared null and void.

Договір був анульований (оголошений недійсним).

Condemned by almost all members of the United Nations, and regarded as an outcast and criminal system by the vast majority of mankind, it (apartheid) is able to exist and defy censure solely because of the aid and support given to it by theWesteren imperialist countries. (W. Pomeroy)

Апартеїд було засуджено майже всіма членами ООН, і більшість людства вважає цю систему злочинною. Апартеїд існує, абсолютно не зважаючи на загальний осуд, тільки завдяки допомозі та підтримці імперіалістичних країн Заходу.

In this example two synonymic pairs: outcast and criminal, aid and support are used. In the first case the word “ злочинний ” completely embraces the meaning of both synonyms. Lexical meaning of the adjective “ outcast — вигнанець, знедолений ” is not right in this context either due to the norms of combinatory power or collocability or due to its meaning. The second pair of synonyms may be preserved without any great reserve — допомога та підтримка. Participle “ given ” is omitted as its meaning is rendered by the case endings.

The phenomenon of omission is met in the materials of publicistic genre:

The bold and courageous struggle for freedom.

Мужня боротьба за свободу.

Under regular and normal conditions – за нормальних умов

It is a unique session — happily and fortunately led by a unique President.

Це особлива сесія, якою, на щастя, керує знаменитий Голова.

The use of synonymic pairs does not always appear to be a stylistic device. Sometimes it is imposed by other reasons. Foe example, in scientific-technical style стилі these synonyms serve as a means of explaining a technical term:

Burning or combustion is the process of uniting a fuel or combustible with the oxygen in the air.

Згорання — це процес поєднання палива з киснем, що міститься в повітрі.

In this sentence special technical terms combustion, combustible, which may be unknown to a reader without special knowledge, are explained by the words in general use burning, fuel. Ukrainian words згорання і паливо are understood by everybody and do not need explanation, therefore in translation of this sentence into Ukrainian redundancy is removed by way of omission.

Omissions are often caused by the fact that one or word combination, or even subordinate sentence appear redundant from the view point of their meaning:

Her hands rested side by side on her lap (J. Steinbeck).

Її руки спокійно лежали на колінах = Вона спокійно тримала руки на колінах = Вона спокійно поклала руки на коліна.

It clear that we should not translate adverbial modifier of manner “side by side” as it is redundant, and this position of hands does not require any specification.

The storm was terrible while it lasted.

Буря була жахлива.

Subordinate clause of time in this function looks like a cliché and has no correspondence in Ukrainian. The following example from the W. Collins novel “Moon Stone” is quite interesting:

There, on the threshold of her bed-room door, stood Miss Rachel, almost as white in the face as the white dressing-gown that clothed her. There also stood the two doors of the Indian cabinet wide open.

Там, на порозі спальні, стояла міс Рейчел. Обличчя її було біліше за її білий пеньюар. Дверцята індійської шафки були широко розчинені.

The verb “ to stand ” is used twice: in its loose and bound meanings. Repetition is underlined by the use of adverb “ also ”. Preserving the repetition based on different usage plans of the verb “ stood ”, in Ukrainian is excluded, therefore the adverb is removed in translation and lexical replacement “ були розчинені” was made. Subordinate sentence “ that clothed her ” is also omitted and rendered by a possessive pronoun “ її ”.

But not always omission is explained by willingness to eliminate speech verboseness. It may have other reasons. Characteristic of English is a tendency to maximal concreteness, which is expressed in using numerals, measurement units where it is motivated by semantic factors. This tendency requires using omission:

About a gallon of water was dripping down my neck, getting all over my collar and tie... (Catcher in the Rye)

Вода з голови лилася за комір, вся краватка змокла, весь комір...

Desemantisized words are omitted, too:

What are those black things in the field? Що це там чорніє в полі?

One of two words is removed in translation, too: Red Indian — індієць, concert pianist — піаніст, woman teacher — вчителька, raw material — сировина.

Sometimes modal verbs are omitted:

He was short-sighted and could not recognize his friends, when he passed them by in the street.

Він був таким короткозорим, що не впізнавав знайомих на вулиці.

But can it be true?

Невже це правда?

The phenomenon of omission can be observed in translating syntactical complexes with object-predicative member, where the verbs are omitted: I am glad to hear you say so. Я рада чути це.

Specificity of syntactical connections in English sometimes requires using the verbs, which express feelings, perception, etc., and which are omitted in translation:

I regret to say that I miss your point. На жаль, я не розумію, на що ви натякаєте.

Much greater economic tasks were seen to lie ahead. Попереду значно важливіші економічні завдання.

I am sorry to tell you that he has changed his opinion of you.

Мені прикро, що він змінив думку про тебе.

I regret to inform you that your application has not been successful. Мені шкода, що твою заяву не прийняли.

Sometimes it is recommended to omit semantically empty “ tags ” of declarative and interrogative sentences: “ British to the backbone, that’s what I am ” (S.Maugham) – “ Англієць до самих кісток! ”, “ I can’t leave the room and send myself to you at the same time, can I? ” (G.B.Shaw) – “ Не можу ж я піти з кімнати і в той самий час прислати самого себе до вас! ” It is also recommended to remove logical redundancies and repetitions to achieve what is called “ text compression ”. However it must be remembered that logical redundancy of speech and various repetitions are used by writers to characterize the personage’s individual manner of speaking, his way of thinking, etc. In such cases omissions are not allowed.

LECTURE 20: Pragmatics of Translation

Words in language are related to certain referents which they designate and to other words of the same language with which they make up syntactic units. These relationships are called semantic and syntactic, respectively. Words are also related to the people who use them. To the users of the language its words are not just indifferent, unemotional labels of objects or ideas. The people develop a certain attitude to the words they use. Some of the words acquire definite implications, they evoke a positive or negative response, they are associated with certain theories, beliefs, likes or dislikes. There are “noble” words like “honour, dignity, freedom ”, etc. and “low” words like “infamy, cowardice, betrayal”. Words can be nice or ugly, attractive or repulsive. Such relationships between the word and its users are called “pragmatic”.

The pragmatic implications of a word are an important part of its meaning that produces a certain effect upon the Receptor. Of even greater significance is the pragmatic aspect of speech units. Every act of speech communication is meant for a certain Receptor, it is aimed at producing a certain effect upon him. In this respect any communication is an exercise in pragmatics.

Since the pragmatic effect plays such an important part in communication, its preservation in translation is the primary concern of the translator, though it is by no means an easy task. The pragmatic aspect of translation involves a number of difficult problems.

The pragmatics of the original text cannot be as a rule directly reproduced in translation but often requires important changes in the transmitted message. Correlated words in different languages may produce dissimilar effect upon the users. An “ambition” in English is just the name of a quality which may evoke any kind of response — positive, negative or neutral. Its Ukrainian counterpart „ амбіція “ is definitely not a nice word. Thus, the phrase “ The voters put an end to the general’s political ambitions ” can be translated as „ Виборці поклали кінець політичним амбіціям генерала “, retaining the negative implication of the original, but if the implication were positive the translator would not make use of the derogatory term. The sentence “ The boy’s ambition was to become a pilot ” will be translated as „ Мрією хлопчика було стати льотчиком “.

Such words as “idealism” or “nationalism” often have a positive effect in the English text and are rendered into Ukrainian not as „ідеалізм“ or „націоналізм“ but as „служіння ідеалам, безкорисливість “ and „національна самосвідомість, національні інтереси“, respectively.

When we consider not just separate words but a phrase or a number of phrases in a text, the problem becomes more complicated. The communicative effect of a speech unit does not depend on the meaning of its components alone, but involves considerations of the situational context and the previous experience. A report that John has run a hundred meters in 9 seconds will pass unnoticed by some people and create a sensation with others who happen to know that it is a wonderful record-breaking achievement.

Here again, a great role is played by differences in the historical and cultural backgrounds of different language communities, in their customs and living conditions. It stands to reason that the natives of a tropical island can hardly be impressed by the statement that something is “as white as snow”. The reported “cooling” in the relations between two friends may be understood as a welcome development by the people who live in a very hot climate. Translation should involve a kind of pragmatic adaptation to provide for the preservation of the original communicative effect. This adaptation must ensure that the text of translation conveys the same attitude to the reported facts as does the original text. It goes without saying that in an adequate translation the comical should not be replaced by the tragic or praise turned into a censure.

The pragmatic adaptation of the translation must also see to it that TR understands the implications of the message and is aware of its figurative or situational meaning. A phrase like “Smith made another touchdown in three minutes” refers to a situation which does not mean anything to a Ukrainian Receptor who does not know anything about the rules of American football. When the English original just refers to the First Amendment, the Ukrainian translation should make it more explicit by speaking about the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; otherwise TR will not understand what it is all about.

Discussing the problem of equivalence at different levels, we have emphasized the necessity of making the translation as understandable and intelligible as the original text is. We have also taken care to include in the overall meaning of the text all its emotional, figurative and associative implications. The pragmatic adaptation of this kind is an integral part of translation procedures which ensure the necessary level of equivalence.

Apart from the pragmatics of linguistic signs, there are also the pragmatics of individual speech acts. In a concrete act of speech the Source has to do with the specific Receptor upon whom he tries to produce the desired effect, and from whom he would like to elicit the desired reaction.

This second type of pragmatics is also present in translation events. A translation event is a kind of speech act and it is performed with a certain pragmatic purpose as well. But here we are confronted with a more complicated process than in ordinary speech.

A translation event is pragmatically oriented in two directions. On the one hand, it is translation which means that its primary purpose is to give the closest possible approximation to the original text. This orientation towards a foreign text is one aspect of its pragmatics.

But on the other hand, a translation event is a concrete speech act in the target language. Therefore, it is not just an act of inter-lingual communication between the Source and TR, but also an act of speech communication between the Translator and TR. This involves two important implications. First, a translation event may be pragmatically oriented toward a concrete TR, and, second, it is the result of the activities of a concrete translator, who may have some additional pragmatic motivation, may pursue some aims beside and beyond the true reproduction of the original text.

As long as translation is not just an exercise in producing an equivalent text in another language but a pragmatic act under specific circumstances, its results can be assessed both in terms of its loyalty to the original and its ability to achieve the purpose for which it has been undertaken.

The users of the translation often make judgements of its quality exclusively on its merits as an instrument in achieving some specific aim. If in doing it, the translation departs from the original text, so much the worse for the latter. So, translation of the maintenance instructions is considered good if, after reading it, a technician will be able to operate the appropriate piece of machinery correctly.

Sometimes books written for adults are translated for children’s reading with appropriate alterations made in the course of translation. Presumably any text should be differently translated depending on whether it is for experts or laymen, for staging or screening, and so on.

As to the specific aims pursued by the translator, they may also bring about considerable changes in the resulting text with no direct bearing on the original. Each translation is made in a certain pragmatic or social context, and its results are used for a number of purposes. The translator is assigned his task and paid for it by the people for whom his work is not an end in itself but an instrument for achieving some other goals. Aware of this, the translator tries to make his work meet these “extra-translational” requirements, introducing appropriate changes in the text of translation. Sometimes these changes are prompted by the desire to produce a certain effect on the Receptors, which has already been mentioned.

The specific goal, which makes the translator modify the resulting text, often means that, for all practical purposes, he assumes an additional role and is no longer just a translator. He may set himself some propaganda or educational task, he may be particularly interested in some part of the original and wants to make a special emphasis on it, he may try to impart to the Receptor his own feelings about the Source or the event described in the original. In pursuance of his plans the translator may try to simplify, abridge or modify the original message, deliberately reducing the degree of equivalence in his translation.

It is clear that such cases go far beyond the inherent aspects of translation and it is not the task of the translation theory to analyze or pass a judgement on them. But the translator should be aware of this possibility for it will have an impact on his strategy.

When a book is translated with a view to subsequent publication in another country, it may be adapted or abridged to meet the country’s standards for printed matter. The translator may omit parts of the book or some descriptions considered too obscene or naturalistic for publication in his country, though permissible in the original.

In technical or other informative translations the translator or his employers may be interested in getting the gist of the contents or the most important or novel part of it, which may involve leaving out certain details or a combination of translation with brief accounts of less important parts of the original. A most common feature of such translations is neglecting stylistic and structural peculiarities of the original. In this case translation often borders on retelling or precise writing.

A specific instance is consecutive interpretation where the interpreter is often set a time limit within which he is expected to report his translation no matter how long the original speech may have been. This implies selection, generalizations, and cutting through repetitions, incidental digressions, occasional slips or excessive embellishments.

It is obvious that in all similar cases the differences which can be revealed between the original text and its translation should not be ascribed to the translator’s inefficiency or detract from the quality of his work. The pragmatic value of such translations clearly compensates for their lack of equivalence. Evidently there are different types of translation serving different purposes.

LECTURE 21: Lexical Problems of translation

Не нашли, что искали? Воспользуйтесь поиском: