Transfer features of newspaper texts

• Content
• Introduction
• 1. Types of translation theory
• 2. Definition of equivalence in translation
• 2.1 Jakobson and the different concept of equivalence
• 2.2 Formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence
• 2.3 Types of Equivalents
• 2.4 Equivalence within the framework of Dynamic translation model
• 3. The usage of different levels of translation in literature texts
• 4. Aspects of Translating Process
• 5. Practical Examples
• Conclusion
• Bibliography

Introduction

Translation is essentially the task of communicating across cultures. The translator has the job of taking a message formed in one culture and producing a message that is understandable to members of other culture. Ideally, the translated message should impart the same understanding as the original message, but such results are not always possible. Some factors affecting the «reception» of the translation include the knowledge of the translator, the knowledge of the receiver (s), and the distance between the two cultures in terms of common experiences.

The actual work of translation brings together everything the translator has learned about the target audience. Having faced many difficulties in preparing for me translation, the translator is will face still more obstacles before the work is done. Pitfalls include technical flaws in the translation, insufficient knowledge of the language, and failure to consider the presuppositions of the audience. As with other stages of the process, the finished work can refined by testing and revision.

Translators work with, both speech and the written word. In the former case, the results are needed within seconds for communication to proceed; in the latter case, the results may take hours or even years. While translation of the written word has the luxury of more time, the task is accordingly more difficult man the translation of speech. A conversation, say, between the leaders of two countries will tend to touch on a limited number of subjects, with individual utterances being of generally short duration. A written work, on the other hand, may deal with a great variety of subjects, and the structure of the language may be much more complex. A reader has the opportunity to think more about what has been written, and thus has the opportunity for exploring multiple levels of meaning.

My project course paper consists of Introduction, Four main Chapters Demonstration, Conclusion and Bibliography.

I have chosen this theme because I think that it is very requisite, helpful and interesting. The aim of my project course paper is to show that we can translate texts at different levels, which are complicated and difficult. Also I want to show that translator is dealing with two different cultures at the same time. As we are future interpreters these different levels will be very useful. With the help of these levels we may translate all kinds of texts without any difficulties and problems.

In Chapter I you will meet different types of translation theory.

In Chapter II you will become acquainted with the definition and types of equivalence.

In Chapter III I tried to show how we can translate sentences at different levels of translation in newspaper texts.

In Chapter IV you will come across with information of Aspects of Translating Process. Translating processes must include mental processes.

In Demonstration of translation levels I tried to translate sentences at various levels and also to show that it is possible to translate from one language into another through different levels of translation.

Methods of my project course paper are: analysis, comparison, investigation

I have come to certain conclusions in Chapter conclusion.

Translation is a very ancient kind of human activity. As soon as groups of people with different languages were born in human history, bilinguals appeared and they helped to communicate between collectives of different languages. With the development of the written language, written translators join oral ones. They translated different texts of official, religious and business character. Translation had the main social function at first. It made possible inter-linguistic: communication of people. The spreading of the written translation opened to people the wide access to cultural achievements of other nations; it made possible interaction and inter-enrichment of literature and culture. The knowledge of foreign languages let read original books, but not everybody can earn at least one foreign language.

Translation is the transformation of the message of the source language to the message of the translating language. The exact translation is possible because of a great number of language differences in the grammar and the number of words, besides, the distinction of the cultures can influence the way of translating and its results. Translation is the art of revelation. It makes the unknown be known. The translator has the fever and craft to recognize, recreate and reveal the works of the artists. Translation is an art between languages.

Some translators tried to define the row of demands of which the good translators should be. The French humanist E. Dolet considered that a translator should keep the following five basic principles of translation:

1. To understand the content of the translating text and the intention of the author perfectly;

2. To know the language he translates from and the language he translates on perfectly;

3. То avoid the tendency to translate word-for-word, because it misrepresents the original content and spoils the beauty of its form;

4. To use the translation of speech forms in general use;

5. To reproduce the general impression in corresponding key, produced by the original, by choosing and placing words correctly.

In 1790 the Englishman A. Tayler formed the following request to the translation in his book «The principles of the translation» :

1. The translation should transfer the ideas of the original completely;

2. The style add way of the exposition should be the same as m the original;

3. Тhe translation should be read with the same easiness as the original works.

The translation is the multifaceted phenomenon and some aspects of it can be the subjects of the research of different sciences. In the frames of the science of translation psychological, literature critical, ethnographical and other points of translation as well as the history of translation in one or other countries are being studied. According to the subject of research we use the knowledge of the psychology of translation, the theory of art and literary translation, ethnographical science of translation, historical science of translation and so on. The main place in the modern translation belongs to linguistic translation, which studies the translation as linguistic phenomenon. The different kinds of translation complement each other and strive to detailed description of the activity of the translation.

The theory of translation puts forward the following tasks:

1. To open and describe the common linguistic basis of translation, that is to show which peculiarities of linguistic systems and regularities of the language operation are the basis of translating process, make this process possible and determine its character and borders;

2. To determine the translation, as the subject of the linguistic research, to show its difference from the other kind of linguistic mediation;

3. То work out the basis of classification of kinds of the translating activity;

4. To open the essence of the translating equivalence as the basis of the communicative identity of the original texts and the translation;

5. To work out the common principles and the peculiarities of construction of the peculiar and special translation theories for the different combinations of languages;

6. To work out the common principles of the scientific description of the translation process as actions of a translator of transforming the original text to the translating text;

7. To open the influence on the translating process of pragmatic and social linguistic factors;

8.To determine the idea «the translating norm» and to work out the principles.

It is common knowledge that in order to provide an adequate translation, he translator must be able to sense nuances in the semantics of both the sourсе-language and target-language texts.

Translation experts have recognized three approaches to translation:

— translation at the level of word (wordforword translation)

— translation at the level of sentence, and conceptual translation

In the first approach, for each word in the Source Language an equivalent word is selected in the Target Language. This type of translation, is effective, especially in translating phrases and proper names such as United Nations, Ministry of Education, Deep Structure, and so on. However, it is problematic at the level of sentence due to the differences in the syntax of source and target languages. Translated texts as a product of this approach are not usually lucid or communicative, and readers will get through the text slowly and uneasily. When translating at the sentence level, the problem of word-for-word translation and, therefore, lack of lucidity will be remedied by observing the grammatical rules and word order in the Target Language while preserving the meaning of individual words. So, sentences such as «I like to dance» — «Мен билеуді жа? сы к? ремін», «I think he is clever» — «Мені? ойымша ол жа? сы «and «We were all tired» — «Біз б? ріміз де шаршады?» can easily be translated into a target language according to the grammatical rules of that language. Translation at the sentence level may thus be considered the same as the translation at the word level except that the grammatical rules and word order in the Target Language are observed. Text produced following this approach will communicate better compared to word-for-word translation.

In conceptual translation, the unit of translation is neither the word nor is it the sentence; rather it is the concept. The best example is the translation of idioms and proverbs such as the following.

" He gave me a nasty look", «Ол ма? ан жаман к? зімен ?арады» ," No living man all things can", «Ешкім барлы? іске шебер бола алмайды», «Enough is as good as a feast „,“ Жа? сылы?тан жа? сылы? іздемейді», «Не kicked the bucket», «Ол шелекті итерді» .

Such idioms and proverbs cannot be translated word-for-word; rather they should be translated into equivalent concepts in the Target Language to convey the same meaning and produce the same effect on the readers.

In addition to word-for-word, sentence-to-sentence, and conceptual translations, other scholars have suggested other approaches and methods oi translation. Newmark, for example, has suggested communicative and semantic approaches to translation. By definition, communicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the source language. Semantic translation, on the other hand, attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the Target Language allows, the exact contextual meaning of the original. Semantic translation is accurate, but may not communicate well; whereas communicative translation communicates well, but may not be very precise.

1. Types of translation theory

While translating we should know the types and levels of our translation.

There are different types of translation:

Idiomatic translation

Idiomatic translation is where the meaning of the original is translated into which most accurately and naturally preserve the meaning of the original forms. Idiomatic refers to being in the common language of average speakers, the natural phrasings and idioms of the language. The terms idiomatic translation, dynamic translation, and free translation are essentially equivalent, and the non-technical term thought-for-thought translation probably is, as well. The term functional equivalence is a subcategory of idiomatic translation. A newer term meaning-based translation, is also a synonym for idiomatic translation. For example, «The weather was horrible on Saturday. It was raining cats and dogs all day.» -Сенбі к? ні ауа райы жаман болды. ?йткені жа? быр шелектеп?? йды. «Would you like to go ice-skating? No, it's not my cup of tea.» — М? з айдынына сыр? анау?а барасы? ба? Жо?, мен оны? натпаймын.

Idiom

An idiom is an expression which is unique to a language and cannot be understood simply from the meaning of its individual words. In other words, the actual meaning of an idiom is not the total of the meaning of its individual parts. An idiom is a figure of speech. English has many idioms, such as:

сlean up your act — мінезі?ді жа? сарту

get your act together — ?йымшыл болу

go ape — жынданып кету

up in arms — ашулы, ызалы

be glad to see the back of — адамны? кетуіне м? з болу

Following are some English idioms with the common verbs «give,» «take,» «have,» «make,» «catch», and «got.» Probably most of these could not be translated literally to any other language. Notice that the idioms are acceptable with some object nouns but not others. Nouns which are not acceptable with these verbs are marked with the asterisk (*), In some cases we abbreviate a total idiom to save space, for instance, «give a hand» would normally be used as «Give me a hand!» -Ма?ан к? мектесші" or «Let's give him a hand» — «О?ан ?олымызды шапала? тайы?» (which happens to two different meanings in English, one meaning to help him — к? мектесу and the other to applaud him by clapping your hands — шапала? тау).

Formal equivalence translation (FE)

Same as Form-equivalent translation. This refers to a translation approach which attempts to retain the language forms of the original as much as possible in the translation, regardless of whether or not they are the most natural way to express the original meaning. Sometimes when original forms are retained, the original meaning is not preserved. Usually, when this happens the translator is not aware of it. Field testing is required to help the translator discover when original meaning has not been preserved in the translation. When people speak of some versions of the Bible being literal, they are referring to ones which haye been translated with a formal equivalence translation approach.

Formal equivalence translation is essentially the same as word-for-word translation. Word-for-word translation is a lay term, while formal equivalence translation is a technical term.

Although formal equivalence translations have weaknesses in terms of readability, overall preservation of original meaning, and impact, they are useful for helping one understand HOW meaning was expressed in the original text. They can help us see the beauty of original idioms, rhetorical patterns, such as Hebrew poetic parallelism, and how individual authors used certain vocabulary terms uniquely. It is not so easy to appreciate these factors from reading idiomatic translations, because these factors are related to form and idiomatic translations are willing to lose original form to maximize preservation and understandability of original meaning. For example, It is never too late to learn. ?йренуге еш? ашан кеш емес. It is good fishing in troubled water. Лайлан? ан суда балы? аулау жа? сы.

Form-equivalent translation

Same as the more commonly used label, formal equivalence translation. Form-equivalent translation is described in the preface to the God’s Word translation: The oldest theory of translation is form-equivalent translation (often inaccurately called literal translation. In this type of translation, the translator chooses one of a limited number of meanings assigned to each Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek word. The translator fills in the words that belong in the sentence but follows the word arrangement and grammar that is characteristic of the original language. Such a translation is often viewed as accurate. However, it can result in awkward, misleading, incomprehensible, or even amusing sentences. For instance, 'From his shoulders upward Tom was taller than any of the people.' Том? зіні? биік иы? ы мен? зын мойыныны? ар? асында бас? а адамдар? а ?ара?анда биік болып т? рды. In English this implies that Tom had a misshapen head and neck. (Я?ни, а? ылшын тілінде б? л Томны? иы? ы мен мойыныны? д? рыс ?алыптаспа?анды?ын к? рсетеді) Translations using this theory have made the Bible more difficult to read and understand in English than it was in the original languages.

Free translation

A free translation is one which preserves the meaning of the original but uses natural forms of the target language, including normal word order and syntax, so that the translation can be naturally understood. Free translation is a kind of idiomatic translation.

For example, «I have enjoyed reading the English list of idioms but all good things must come to an end». Мен а? ылшын тіліні? идиомаларын о? уды унаттым, біра? ?кінішке орай мен ая? тап ?ойдым.

Front translation

A specially designed tool to assist a native translator. It is prepared by an advisor for a specific translation project for the mother tongue translators under his supervision. The advisor creates a front translation with the goal of making the meaning explicit and as easy as possible for the mother tongue translator, whose ability in English is limited, to use. The advisor studies a passage of the Bible, then writes up an accurate front translation based on this exegesis. The front translation contains all the meaning of the original, including implicit information which may need to be made explicit in the translation. The front translation has a structure that takes into consideration the unique vocabulary and grammatical patterns such as word order, phrase and clause structure, and idioms of the receptor language. For example, «I'm glad уou want to prepare the report by yourself. Just be sure that you don’t bite off more than you can chew» Мен сені? рефератты? зі? дайындайтынды? ы?а ризамын. Біра? сен? зі?е лайы? ты emin, ?иын та? ырыпты алма.

Function

In terms of language study, function refers to the purpose for which a language form or phenomenon exists. More broadly, function refers to the purpose for which any utterance is made. An utterance can be any length of speech that communicates some meaning. Function refers not only to individual words and how they relate to each other, but also to how words are used. For instance, in some languages it is possible to repeat something for some effect. A translator needs to know what that effect is, that is, what is the function of repetition in the language under study. It is the function itself which must be translated, not necessarily the way (form) that function is encoded in a language. For example, some languages do not permit repetition, as did New Testament Greek with its frequent occurrences of what is translated as «Verily, verily,» in English (for example, John 3,3; 3.11; 5,19). But if we know what the function of repetition in the source language is, we can look for an equivalent structure (or process) in the target language which has the same function. This approach is referred to as functional equivalence translation.

The translator should constantly ask, «What is the function of this particular language phenomenon in the language from which I am translating?» He then matches the same functions between languages, regardless of what forms are used to carry out those functions, Forms communicate meaning through various functions required of language, If functions are not the same, then meanings will not be the same. And the purpose of translation is to transfer meaning.

Language must perform a wide range of functions. Some of the most important functions that we call upon our speech to perform are:

To question — c? pay;

To command — б? йыру;

To deny — бас тарту;

To emphasize — к??іл б? лу;

To indicate logical. relationships, such as causality — сылтау сия? ты логикалык, ?атынасты к? рсету;

То indicate continuity of participants — ?атысушыларды? жал? асын к? рсету;

То indicate continuity of actions — ic-?рекетті? жал? асын к? рсету;

То contrast — карсыластыру

Linguists who regard discovery of language function as a primary task of linguistics are called functionalists. Their approach to language study is called functional linguistics and functionalism.

Functional equivalence

Functional equivalence translation is a subcategory of what many call idiomatic translation.

The translators of the God’s Word (GW) English version describe this philosophy of translating (which they call function-equivalent translation) as follows:

A newer theory of translation is function-equivalent translation (often inaccurately called paraphrasing). In this type of translation, the translator tries to make the English function the same way the original language functioned for the original readers.

The preface continues with statements that I am not sure I can agree with, but they do reflect opinions about this translation philosophy which are held by an important percentage of those who evaluate Bible versions:

However, in trying to make the translation easy to read, the translator can omit concepts from the original text that don’t seem to have corresponding modern English equivalents. Such a translation can produce a readable text, but that text can convey the wrong meaning or not enough meaning. Furthermore, function-equivalent translations attempt to make some books readable on levels at which they were not intended. For instance, Song of Songs was not written for children. ?ле?дер балалар? а арналып жазыл? ан жо?. Paul’s letter to the John is very sophisticated. Паулды? Джон? а арна? ан хаты? те тияна? ты. I couldn’t answer your letter because I was snowed under with work. Мені? ж? мысым к? п бол? анды?тан мен хат? а жауап бере алмадым.

This preface does not identify which versions its authors regard as function-equivalent translation, but by process of elimination with the two other philosophies described in the preface, form-equivalent translation and closest natural equivalent translation (used in GW), we can guess that the GW translators are referring to versions such as LB, TEV, CEV, and NCV. We also do not know which translation approach the GW translators would regard as underlying more literal translations such as NIV, ISV, NET, and NLT, which are not precisely form-equivalent translations, yet they do not seem to fit into the function-equivalent category, as described in the GW preface. The GW translators contrast their approach, closest natural equivalent translation, with function-equivalent translation, but we do not know if they view GW as the only closest natural equivalent translation. It seems clear that not all who critique Bible versions use the same terms to describe translation philosophies, nor do they use all the terms in exactly the same way. The editor of this glossary is more comfortable with the terms formal equivalence and idiomatic translation, approaches to translation which appear on opposing ends of an idiomaticity scale. Some English translations cluster near either end of this scale while others are best described as being somewhere in between. Creating new terms such as closest natural equivalent translation may be helpful, but those who use them should describe them well enough so that it can be better understood how they relate to terms already in use such as idiomatic, dynamic, and meaning-based translation. For example, He is someone who means business. Ол мінезі салма? ты адамдарды? 6ipi. Fernando has everything he needs. He’s a real fat cat. Фернандода керекті н? рселерді? б? pi де бар. Ол расында да ба? ытты адамдарды?, бірі.

equivalence translation literature newspaper

2. Definition of equivalence in translation

Vinay and Darbelnet view equivalence-oriented translation as a procedure which 'replicates the same situation as in the original, whilst using completely different wording'. They also suggest that, if this procedure is applied during the translation process, it can maintain the stylistic impact of the SL text in the TL text. According to them, equivalence is therefore the ideal method when the translator has to deal with proverbs, idioms, nominal or adjectival phrases and the onomatopoeia of animal sounds.

With regard to equivalent expressions between language pairs, Vinay and Darbelnet claim that they are acceptable as long as they are listed in a bilingual dictionary as 'full equivalents'. However, later they note that glossaries and collections of idiomatic expressions 'can never be exhaustive'. They conclude by saying that 'the need for creating equivalences arises from the situation, and it is in the situation of the SL text that translators have to look for a solution'. Indeed, they argue that even if the semantic equivalent of an expression in the SL text is quoted in a dictionary or a glossary, it is not enough, and it does not guarantee a successful translation.

2.1 Jakobson and the different concept of equivalence

Roman Jakobson’s study of equivalence gave new impetus to the theoretical analysis of translation since he introduced the notion of 'equivalence in difference'. On the basis of his semiotic approach to language and his aphorism «there is no signatum without signum', he suggests three kinds of translation:

*Intralingual (within one language, i.e. rewording or paraphrase)

*Interlingual (between two languages)

Intersemiotic (between sign systems)

Jakobson claims that, in the case of interlingual translation, the translator makes use of synonyms in order to get the ST message across. This means that in interlingual translations there is no full equivalence between code units. According to his theory, 'translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes', Jakobson goes on to say that from a grammatical point of view languages may differ from one another to a greater or lesser degree, but this does not mean that a translation cannot be possible, in other words, that the translator may face the problem of not finding a translation equivalent. He acknowledges that 'whenever there is deficiency, terminology may be qualified and amplified by loanwords or loan-translations, neologisms or semantic shifts, and finally, by circumlocutions'. Jakobson provides a number of examples and explains that in such cases where there is no a literal equivalent for a particular ST word or sentence, then it is up to the translator to choose the most suitable way to render it in the TT.

There seems to be some similarity between Vinay and Darbelnet’s theory of * translation procedures and Jakobson’s theory of translation. Both theories stress the fact that, whenever a linguistic approach is no longer suitable to carry out a translation, the translator can rely on other procedures such as loan-translations, neologisms and the like. Both theories recognize the limitations of a linguistic theory and argue that a translation can never be impossible since there are several methods that the translator can choose. The role of the translator as the person who decides how to carry out the translation is emphasized in both theories.

Both Vinay and Darbelnet as well as Jakobson conceive the translation task as something which can always be carried out from one language to another, regardless of the cultural or grammatical differences between ST and TT.

It can be concluded that Jakobson’s theory is essentially based on his semiotic approach to translation according to which the translator has to recode the ST message first and then s/he has to transmit it into an equivalent message for TC.

2.2 Formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence

Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal equivalence—which in the second edition by Nida and Taber is referred to as formal correspondence—and dynamic equivalence. Formal correspondence 'focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content', unlike dynamic equivalence which is based upon 'the principle of equivalent effect'. In the second edition or their work, the two theorists provide a more detailed explanation of each type of equivalence.

Formal correspondence consists of a TL item which represents the closest equivalent of a SL word or phrase. Nida and Taber make it clear that there are not always formal equivalents between language pairs. They therefore suggest that these formal equivalents should be used wherever possible if the translation aims at achieving formal rather than dynamic equivalence. The use of formal equivalents might at times have serious implications in the TT since the translation will not be easily understood by the target audience. Nida and Taber themselves assert that Typically, formal correspondence distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns of the receptor language, and hence distorts the message, so as to cause the receptor to misunderstand or to labor unduly hard'.

Dynamic equivalence is defined as a translation principle according to which a translator seeks to translate the meaning of the original in such a way that the TL wording will trigger the same impact on the TC audience as the original wording did upon the ST audience. They argue that 'Frequently, the form of the iriginal text is changed; but as long as the change follows the rules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual consistency in the transfer, and of transformation in the receptor language, the message is preserved and the ransiation is faithful'.

One can easily see that Nida is in favour of the application of dynamic eqivalence, as a more effective translation procedure. This is perfectly understandable if we take into account the context of the situation in which Nida was dealing with the translation phenomenon, that is to say, his translation of the Bible, Thus, the product of the translation process, that is the text in the TL, must have the same impact on the different readers it was addressing. Only in Nida and Taber’s edition is it clearly stated that 'dynamic equivalence in translation is far more than mere correct communication of information'.

Despite using a linguistic approach to translation, Nida is much more interested in the message of the text or, in other words, in its semantic quality. He therefore strives to make sure that this message remains clear in the target text

2.3 Types of Equivalents

There are two types of translation equivalents:

1. Contextual Equivalents;

2. Phraseological Equivalents

1. The structural similarity of Source Text and Target Text implies that relationships are equivalence established between correlated units in the two texts, that is English and Kazakh. Since language units are used in the accepted meanings, many Source Text units have their regular equivalents in Target Text units. For example, Source Text we use Austria-Австрия. Regular equivalents are connected with geographical names, proper names (Smith-Смит) and the names of magazines, hotels. Depending on the type of language unit regular equivalents can be classified as lexical, phraseological or grammatical.

Coordinated words into languages make correspond to each other in one or several components of their semantic structure. Though they are not fully identical in their semantic.

For example, ambitious-aim, wish, desire; selfish, egoistic, dishonest. The ambition of a girl was to be a teacher. ?ызды? жал? ыз арманы м?? алім болу. The ambitious politicians are very selfish and may deprave their surroundings. М? нсап?ор саясаткерлер? здерін ?ана ойлап,?орша?ан ортасына? серін тигізуі м? мкін.

In conclusion lexical equivalents in Target Text cannot be regular if the contexts are not clear. The linguistic context is made up by the other Source Text unit in Target Text. While the situational contexts include temporal, special and other circumstances which the translator must interpret.

2. In this case the Kazakh equivalents can be found in the following way.

While going to the mountains he always wraps his food up with foil. ?немі тау? а шы? ар алдында тама? ын фольгамен орайды.

When we do something wrong we are trying not to foil our parents. Бір н? рселерді жаса? ан кезде біз ата-аналарымызды ренжітпеуге тырысамыз.

Our ancestors had different foils in order to protect our land. Amaбабаларымыздь? жерімізді ?ор?айтын турлі ?ылыштары болды.

It is obvious that one word foil has several meanings in Target Text due to context.

foil — фольга, foilренжіту, foil -?ылыш.

If somebody wants to choose direct meaning of attitude as in dictionary he may fail to translate it correctly. Because the phraseological equivalent doesn’t mean the same.

The choice of grammatical units in Target Text largely depends on the semantics and combination of lexical elements.

For example, People speak a lot about the election. Адамдар сайлау туралы к? п айтып жатыр. A lot of people speak about the election. К? птеген адамдар сайлау туралы айтып жатыр.

The choice of grammatical equivalents is very important in translation especially when no permanent grammatical equivalents exist. As a result the meaning of the context may be changed.

Semantic dissimilarity in Source Text and Target Text sentence structure also results in having several equivalents in Target Text.

For example, The Greens suggest their program to save the water resource in the world. Таби? атты ?ор?аушылар ?лемдегі су ресурсын кор? ау ?шін ба? дарлама ?сынды.

But semantic relationships between the number of groups or words are wider in Target Text than in Source Text and of course prepositions may play a certain role in translation, conveying different meanings of adverbial modifier of cause, purpose, place, etc. A word or preposition within the sentence may change the meaning of Source Text completely. Sometimes small number of Source Text units may not have their equivalences in Target Text. In this case we call them equivalent — lacking words (they have no straight meaning in TT).

The absence of regular equivalents doesn’t imply that the meaning of Source Text cannot be rendered into Target Text. But the translator must be very careful and accurate in explaining or interpreting. We have seen that words with regular equivalents are not infrequently translated with the help of contextual substitutes.

2.4 Equivalence within the framework of Dynamic translation model

In our proposal of a Dynamic Translation Model, we attempt to show that translation should always be understood within the framework of a communicative process. A simplified graphic representation of our model would be:

CONTEXT

Socio-psychological characterization & competences

CLIENT

SENDER TRANSLATOR RECEIVER

Text typology Text typology

SL TEXT SL TEXT TL TEXT TLTEXT

Textualization in L1 Detextualization Textualization in L2

— Text levels Text-levels

(Stylistic)syntactic (Stylistic)syntactic

— Cohesion mechanismsCohesion variety

(Stylistic) lexical (Stylistic) lexical

— Linguistic varietyLinguistic variety

Semantic Semantic

— Coherence mechanismsCoherence mechanisms

Pragmatic Pragmatic

— Speech actsSpeech acts

Semiotic Semiotic

— Verbal / Non-verbal signsVerbal / Non-verbal signs

Three main basic components are distinguished in our DTM: 1) participants, 2) conditions and determinants, and 3) text The participants in the translation process are: client (whose participation is facultative), sender (who utters a text in L1), translator (who is in charge of producing a target language text from a source language text the sender wrote in LI), receiver (audience/addressee of SL-text in L2). The conditions and determinants of the translation process are those factors which are present in any communicative event: participant' competences (linguistic, communicative, textual, cognitive, and with regard to the translator, translation competence), participants socio-psychological characterization (gender, age, role, status; motivation, interest, memory, etc.), and context (historic, economic, social, cultural). The text corresponds to the linguistic realization of the communicative purpose of the sender in L1. It is structured in the following interwoven levels: (stylistic) syntactic (cohesion mechanisms such as references, connectors, substitutions, etc), (stylistic) lexical (linguistic variety: sociolect, dialect, jargon, etc), semantic (coherence mechanisms: time sequence, topic sequence, argument; presupposition, inference; denotation, connotation), pragmatic (speech acts: performative, constative; direct/indirect; sender’s intention (illocution) and intended effect (perlocution), and semiotic (combination of verbal and non-verbal signs in SL-Text: diagrams, tables, charts, etc.).

Let’s see briefly how the model works. The potential initiator of the translation process is a client. If there is no client, the translator himself can start the process of translating a SL-text into a TL. The SL-text's sender and author wishes to fulfill some communicative purpose in his speech community. The translator should be aware of the communicative value of SL-text and its closest equivalent in L2. According to the different conditions and determinants, the sender fulfills some specific role when he produces the source language text. He can be a father, a club’s member, a scientist, etc. Let’s assume he decides to write a scientific text. In this case his most relevant social characterization is the role he plays as a scientist. There will be a potential community of receivers who belong to the same scientific field, to whom the text is basically addressed. They would be the first addressees of the text, that is, the text has been articulated in such a way that it is these readers who can work out more profitably the conveyed content of the message.

The translator in charge of translating this text should possess the linguistic and communicative, and textual competences for the initial reading of the text. Afterwards, as the text deals with a specialized topic, the translator activates his cognitive competence in order to update and contrast his previous knowledge with the knowledge that is being presented in the text. Thus he can fully understand the text’s meaning. Now he activates his translation competence that will allow him. to carry out a reading we have called 'surgical', which consists in reading the text once again in order to determine the way it has been constructed in relation to the stylistic, syntactic and lexical characteristics, as well as the semantic, pragmatic and semiotic peculiarities, which may prove potentially problematic for the translation process. At this point a first draft of the translation is prepared taking into account the peculiarities and communicative potentiality of the target language, that is, equivalences are being established. Subsequent translation drafts are reviewed in order to verify that all translation problems encountered (equivalence problems) have been adequately accounted for. Furthermore, here translation is seen as a problem-solving activity, Then it should be pointed out that the translator carries out a dynamic task in search of equivalences, which takes him from the source language text to the target language text, and back to the SL-text, in a movement that can be traced by using our DTM.

Therefore, the main task the translator faces in his work is the establishment of equivalences in a continuous and dynamic problem-solving process, Instead of the five frames of equivalenceto a certain extent disarticulated — devised by Koller, we propose that equivalence is the relationship that holds between a SL-text and a TL-text and is activated (textualized) in the translation process as a communicative event in the five text-levels we identified in DTM: (stylistic) syntactic, (stylistic) lexical, semantic, pragmatic, and semiotic, based on the SL-text verbalization and taking into account the conditions and determinants of the process, that is, participants' socio-psychological characterization and competences, and context. It is clear that equivalence is carried out at the different text-levels. We would speak then of equivalence at the stylistic-lexical, stylistic-syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, and semiotic text-levels. It is important to bear in mind that one cannot know beforehand which text-levels will be activated as problematic in the translation process, however one can say that equivalence-problem activation will take place at one or more of the described text-types of the DTM.

At this point two aspects should be clarified. First, the fact that equivalences are established at text-levels does not mean that they are isolated in and restricted to each of those levels. The text is to be understood as a complex, interwoven network of linguistic relations, and, for instance, the use of a lexical entry in a text does not simply affect the lexical level but may have semantic or pragmatic implications (denotations, connotations, special effects on receivers, etc.). Second, linguistic choices at the different text-levels are the product of a communicative event in which a SL-sender and a potential TL-receiver are involved; therefore conditions and determinants (participants' competences and socio-psychological characterization, and context) have necessarily been taken into account for fulfilling a communicative purpose. Thus they are somehow 'visible' in the different language choices present in the SL-text. The translator is also embedded in this communicative process and when he translates, i.e. establishes equivalences, he does so by taking into account again not only the linguistic material of the SLtext, itself but also the conditions and determinants of the SL-text production and those of the TL-text reception. Our working hypothesis for analyzing (describing, classifying, explaining) translation equivalence is that it is a text-bound relation which is linguistically realized in texts and whose only tangible, empirically apprehensible form is the SL and TL texts. Therefore our point of departure and arrival is always a text. Obviously conditions and determinants of the translation communicative process should be taken into account as a resource to resort to when necessary but not as a perennial limbo of speculation which drives one away from the source language text or highlights excessively the role played by the translator.

Translation equivalence as envisaged in our DTM could have immediate impact on the work of the professional translator by helping him solve (=define, describe, analyze, explain) translation problems, on teaching translation as an inter-subjective activity where clear parameters can be established as to what may count as a translation, and on the field of translation criticism as it would allow to avoid simplistic, impressionistic (=biased) critiques of translations. In this respect we have already used our equivalence-related DTM for analyzing the translation of a literary text. This is a translation case, as are literary texts in general, where supposedly no textual equivalences could be actually established and, therefore, analyzed. Our initial premise is that no sound translation critique can be carried out if the whole text is not analyzed. The final judgment as to the translation quality as a whole should be made in terms of weaknesses and strengths of the analyzed translated text. By using a metaphor one would say that the translation product is like a wave: it has peaks and troughs. The ideal case would be a straight line, but it is ideal precisely because there are no absolute equivalences, that is, 1:1 inter-textual (SL-text and TL-text) equivalences. However, one should be able to determine when a peak or a trough has just gone off boundaries, i.e. when the translation equivalence is off the limits of the linguistically possible and textually realizable equivalence range.

3. The usage of different levels of translation in literature texts

Nowadays the usage of different levels of translation in literature texts is very important. There are five levels in translation. It means that we can translate at different levels.

I. Semantic similarity of Target Text with Source Text. This type of level is the most difficult type which exists in the theory of translation and translators are not always keen of using this type. So I think that we should try to avoid this type of level.

For example, I’m very .glad that he gave me a hand at the exam. Ол ма? ан емтиханда к? мектескені ?шін мен.куаныштымын.

II. This type of level is similar to the first one. But there is less parallelism of lexical and structural units. Most of words in Source Text. do not have direct correspondences in Target Text.

For example, He answered the telephone when his mother called. Шешесі телефон шал? ан кезде ол телефон т? т?асын к? терді.

The second type of level has closer similarity of Source Text and Target Text. This type of level can be explained in terms of situational theory. This group of translation level implies retention of two types of information contain in the original purport of communication and the situation.

III. The third group of level is larger group and may be explained from the following example.

Turkey saw a cold winter last year. Туркияда? ткен жылы? ыс ?те суы? болды.

In this case the identity of verb is different except the rest of the sentence. So Source Text is clear for the translator if he changes the method of description.

The third type of level contains the purport of communication, the identification of situation and method of description.

IV.The forth type is the easiest type of level and the simplest type for the translator. But not all Source Text may contain this type of level. In such type of level the syntactic structures can be regarded as original text through direct or back word translations. This level can have complete similarity of purport of communication, identification of situation, method of description and invariant meaning of syntactic structure.

For example, I don’t see that уоu should go further to study, because you have enough knowledge, Мені? ойымша сені? білімі? жеткілікті бол? анды?тан са? ан ары? арай о? у ?ажет емес.

V. The fifth is the type of spoken language where all parts of sentences have maximum similarity of Source Text and Target Text.

For example, The flat was given for rent for 2 months. Yй екі ай? а жал? а берілді. All students go to the university in order to get knowledge. Барлы? студенттер университетке білім алу? шін барады.

4. Aspects of Translating Process

Translating Process is very difficult and one of the major tasks in translation theory. Here we deal with the dynamic aspect of translation trying to understand how the translator performs the transfer operation from Source Text into Target Text. Psychologically the translating process must include mental processes:

understanding;

verbalization;

translation.

The translator understands the content of Source Text. That is reduces the information it contains to his own mental program.

Then he develops this program into translation. The problem is that these mental processes are not directly observable and we do not know much of what that program is and how the reduction and development operations are performed. That’s why the translating process has to be described in some indirect way. The translating theory achieves this aim by number of translation models;

1. A model is a conventional representation of the translating process describing mental operations by which the Source Text is translated irrespective of whether these operations are performed by the translator. Translation models can be oriented towards the situation in Source Text contents or towards the meaningful components of Source Text.

For example, limit-noun, шекара-зат eciм, to limit-verb, шектеу-emicтік, limitless-adjective, шекарасыз-сын есім. The existing models of translating process are based on the same assumptions which we considered in discussing the problem of equivalence namely: situational; semantic transformational. In other words it is presumed that the translator actually makes a mental travel from their original to some interlingual level of equivalence and then further to the text of translation.

In the situational model this intermediate level is extra linguistic. It is described reality, the facts of life that are represented by the verbal description. The translating process consists, if the translator gets beyond the original text (ST) to the actual situation. This is the first step of the process that’s the break-through to the situation. The second step is to describe this situation in Target Text. Thus, the translating process goes from one language through extra linguistic situation to another language. The translator first understands what Source Text is about and then says «the same things» in Target Text.

For example, These days most doctors and scientists agree that our physical health is closely related to our psychological well-being, ?азіргі уа? ытта д? рігерлер мен? алымдар бізді? физикалы? дене шыны? тыруымыз психологиялы? ?атынаспен ты? ыз байланысты екендігіне сенеді.

A different approach was used by E. Nida who suggested that the translating process may be described as a series of transformations: