Курсовая работа: The translation equivalence and the equivalents levels

Чтобы узнать стоимость работы и выбрать удобную систему оплаты, нажмите кнопку

Английский язык
Тип работы:
Курсовые работы
Количество страниц:






1.1 The concept of equivalence in the modern theory of translation. 5

1.2 Different types of equivalence, their advantages and disadvantages. 8



2.1. The non-equivalent vocabulary and untranslatable in translation. 13

2.2. The reasons of the non-equivalent lexical units. 15

2.3 The variety of English non-equivalent lexics and the methods of its translation into Russian. 21







1.1 The concept of equivalence in the modern theory of translation


... In fact according to her theory, every text itself is placed within a particular situation which has to be correctly identified and taken in to account by the translator. After the ST analysis, House believes that if the ST and the TT differ significantly on situational features, then they are not functionally equivalent and the translation is not of a high quality in fact, she represent that ‘a translation text should not only match its source text in function, but it should employ equivalent situational – dimensional instrument to achieve that function’. House’s theory of equivalence in translation seems to be much more flexible than Catford’s. In fact she gives example, uses complete texts and more importantly, she relates linguistic features to the context of both source and target text (Leonardi 2000).


Roman Jakobson (1959 p.54) in his study of equivalence gave new perspective to the theoretical analysis of translation since he introduced the notion of ‘equivalence in difference’. On the basis of his semiotic approach to language he suggests three kinds of translation.


1- Intralingual (within one language, i.e. rewording of paraphrase)


2. Interlingual (between two languages)


3- Intersemiotic (between sign systems)


Jakobson claims that, in the case of interlingual translation, the translator makes use of synonyms in order to transfer the ST message. 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 also says that from a grammatical point of view languages may differ from each other to a greater or lesser degrees, but this does not mean that translation can not be possible, in other words, the translator may face the problem of not finding a translation equivalent. He also says that ‘whenever there is deficiency, terminology may be qualified and amplified by loanwords or loan translations, neologisms or semantic shifts and finally by circumlocutions’. ...



2.2. The reasons of the non-equivalent lexical units


... As for some other types of departures from language norm, some of them such as jargon, slang often are interlaced with one another and represent the sort of vernacular. Thus there are some words that don’t have equivalents in Russian: Big Apple – большой город (любой, но чаще Нью-Йорк), nixy – нет, rope – сигара. As long as these lexical units are departures from norm towards decreasing of style we can call then sub-standard vocabulary.


Most part of archaisms is often hard to translate. So there are no Russian equivalents for English archaisms: astonied (=astonished), behest (=order), demesne (=estate), Sire (=father) etc. Also there are poetic digressions, for example: clime – страна, климат, eld – старость, orison – молитва, happly – случайно, внезапно.


These types of words represent the digressions from language norm but towards increasing of the language as elevated and poetic one in contrast to sub-standard vocabulary.


 To departures from language norm we can also relate individual neologism or so-called liberty of spoken language. For example in Russian we can relate to this group the words: загибоны, свинтус, спиноза, in English: flopnik – неудачно запущенный спутник (от английского flop – шлепнуться), buttinsky – человек, который всюду встревает (от английского butt in – встревать, совать нос не в свое дело). Such distortions are directed to achievement of humorous effect.


Speaking of departures from language norm we should note that they are not become exhausted just by nonequivalent vocabulary. Thus, dialect character of the speech can be transmitted by grammatical and phonetic departures from language norm besides just dialect words. However we can’t relate them to nonequivalent vocabulary also as some other distortions and defects of speech (accent, children's speech, broken speech, individual defects of speech) as they are concerned just phonetic or grammatical distortions of the words. Undoubtedly we can face with difficulties translating them. However since they exceed the bounds of nonequivalent vocabulary we don’t take them up. ...


2.3 The variety of English non-equivalent lexics and the methods of its translation into Russian


The vocabulary of any language is so large and heterogeneous that not any translator, not even the native speaker can know all the words and distinguishes all their meanings. A vague knowledge of the text, the deep meaning hidden under the surface structure obliges the translator to be in constant contact with dictionaries, because they do translators in estimate service in understanding the text more clearly.


The right choice of the word for a complete transformation of the meaning of the word in the text is one of the complicated objectives in the translation process. The difficulty of this task is conditioned by the complex nature of the word and its versatile and semantic value. The word as a lexical unit in English and Russian languages don’t always coincide. Too often one word may correspond a composite word or a whole word combination of English. For example: “карусель – merry-go-round” or may happen vice-versa. Another example: “to stare – пристально смотреть”.


As it’s generally known the word expresses the notion of a substance or the phenomenon of the reality, the whole complex of forms and meaning. There are a logical meaning, an emotional meaning and the named meaning. Very often even English monosemantic word doesn’t coincide with the usage of the Russian words and as the result it’s translated into Russian by different words. For example: “a young child – маленький ребёнок; a young man ––человек; a young criminal –неопытный преступник; the night was young – ночь ещё только наступила.”


In searching for the necessary word translator applies usually synonymic role in the native language. For example: She was very brave about it.  ...