Главная

Популярная публикация

Научная публикация

Случайная публикация

Обратная связь

ТОР 5 статей:

Методические подходы к анализу финансового состояния предприятия

Проблема периодизации русской литературы ХХ века. Краткая характеристика второй половины ХХ века

Ценовые и неценовые факторы

Характеристика шлифовальных кругов и ее маркировка

Служебные части речи. Предлог. Союз. Частицы

КАТЕГОРИИ:






Handling Context-bound Words




The meaning of most words in the English vocabulary in any sentence largely depends on the context in which they are used. True, all words have meanings of their own which are defined in dictionaries but the context may specify or modify the word’s meaning, neutralize or emphasize some part of its semantics. And before looking for an equivalent, the translator has to make a careful study of the context to identify the contextual meaning of the word that should be rendered in translation. This meaning is the result of the interaction between the word semantics and the methods of its actualization in the speech act.

Most of the words are polysemantic, that is, they have several meanings. As a rule, the word is used in the sentence in one of its meanings and the context must show what meaning has been selected by the speaker and cut off all other meanings irrelevant for the particular act of communication. If somebody complains that “ New Europeans speak Mandarin ”, the context unequivocally shows that it is the Chinese language that is meant and not a Chinese imperial official or the Chinese fruit. If the same idea is expressed in a more ambiguous way, for instance, “ Few Europeans know the first thing about Mandarin ”, the context of the sentence may fail to indicate the relevant meaning beyond any doubt but the rest of the text or the circumstances of communication will certainly do that.

The context has also a decisive role to play in the selection of TL equivalents to the words of the original. We know that in most cases, the meaning of a SL word can be rendered in TL by a number of regular equivalents. Variable equivalents can be found not only to the polysemantic words but also to the monosemantic words as well as to a semantic variant of a polysemantic word, that is, to one of its meanings which can be actualized in the course of communication. In such cases after the translator has ascertained what meaning the word has in the original text he still has to choose one of the regular equivalents which fits the context best of all. In other words, the role of the context is even greater for the translator than for an ordinary SL receptor. Suppose he is to translate the following English sentence “ This issue of the paper devoted about half of its twenty news columns to the trial of a murderer ”. The context enables the translator to understand that the “issue” refers here to a publication, the “paper” is a newspaper and the “column” is a department in that newspaper. But he has also to find additional information in the context which will allow him to choose an equivalent to “issue” among such Ukrainian words as „випуск, видання, номер“ or to compare the use of the Ukrainian „відділ, колонка, стовпчик“ as equivalents to “column”.

No less important is the role of the context in translating the words with a wide range of reference whose equivalents are too numerous to be listed in any dictionary. For example, the English noun “record” is defined as “something that records” or “the recorded facts about something or someone” and can refer to any document or any events, past or present. It is clear that the Ukrainian names of documents or events cannot be foreseen and the translator has to find the appropriate occasional equivalent in each particular context.

The context may modify the meaning of a word to such an extent that its regular equivalents will not fit TT. In the following sentence: “History has dealt with Hitler; history will deal with all would-be Hitlers”, the translator has to do with the verb “to deal” used in the sentence in the meaning which is usually rendered into Ukrainian as „обходитись“ or „повестись“. But obviously history has dealt with Hitler as severely as he deserved and the translator will opt for a stronger occasional equivalent like „покінчити“. The ability to render the contextual meanings is an essential element of the translator’s professional skill.

The contextual modification may extend to the connotative meaning of the word. The translator is greatly concerned about the adequate reproduction of this part of the word semantics since it has an impact upon the whole text. For example, the English noun “ambition” and the adjective “ambitious” can contextually assume either a positive or a negative connotation. Accordingly, “the UN ambitious program of providing food for the people of the earth” will be translated as „грандіозна програма ООН“ while the “ambitious plans of South African racists” will be rendered as „честолюбні плани південно-африканських расистів“.

The English-Ukrainian dictionary is the translator’s best friend and assistant in finding the appropriate equivalent. Sometimes the context tells the translator that one of the dictionary equivalents to the given word can be well used in TT. Even if the entry in his dictionary does not provide him with an equivalent that fits his context, the translator can use the dictionary data to facilitate the solution. Suppose he comes across a sentence in ST which runs as follows:

The United States worked out a formula which later came to be known as dollar diplomacy.

None of the equivalents suggested by dictionaries (формула, рецепт, догмат, шаблон) fits the context of the sentence which deals with a stage in the US political history. But combining these data with the context the translator will look for the Ukrainian substitute for a “political formula” and may arrive at such terms as „політична доктрина“ or „політична програма“:

США виробили політичну доктрину, яка надалі стала називатись „доларовою дипломатією“.

The translator should consult the context with special care if his dictionary suggests only one equivalent. He should not be in a hurry to use this equivalent in his text without first ascertaining that the English word really is context-free and is always translated in the same way. In case it is not, the entry is not exhaustive and the translator should look for another way out. The dictionary, for example, treats the English words “opportunism” and “opportunist” as political terms and gives only one equivalent to each: „опортунізм“ and „опортуніст“. An English-English dictionary, however, will define “opportunism” as “the art, policy, or practice of taking advantage of opportunities or circumstances”. And when the word is used as a general term of disapprobation implying little regard for principles or consequences, the equivalents suggested by the dictionary have to be rejected in favor of such Ukrainian words as „кон’юнктурник, пристосованець“ and the like. This is also an illustration of the usefulness of an English-English dictionary to the translator who should always turn to it for more complete information on the word semantics.

Professional skill in using both the dictionary data and the information extracted from the context to solve his translation problems is the hallmark of a good translator.

 






Не нашли, что искали? Воспользуйтесь поиском:

vikidalka.ru - 2015-2024 год. Все права принадлежат их авторам! Нарушение авторских прав | Нарушение персональных данных