Contents
Introduction 3
Chapter I Translation pragmatics 5
1.1 Concept of pragmatics 5
1.2 Author’s communicative intention and communicative effect upon the receptor 7
1.3 Types and History of Film Translation 11
Chapter II Difficulties in translating film titles from English into Russian and their pragmatic 19
2.1 Difficulties in translating comedy movie titles 19
2.2 Difficulties in translating horror movie titles 21
2.3 Difficulties in Translating Action Movie Titles 23
2.4 Difficulties in Translating Melodramatic Movie Titles 25
2.5 Difficulties in Translating Adventure and Historical Movie Titles 27
Conclusion 30
Bibliography 32
Chapter I Translation pragmatics
1.1 Concept of pragmatics
Semiotics as a sign study posits that each sign, including a language one, be viewed in three perspectives: syntactic, i.e. the relations of signs; semantic, i.e. the relation between a sign and a real situation; and pragmatic, i.e. the relations of the sign and its users.
Each utterance in a speech act is aimed at somebody. Combined together, words make up a syntactic scheme of the sentence. They refer to specific events, persons or objects, acquiring, thus, a sense.
There are two types of language sign users: an addresser (author) and an addressee (receptor). When speaking, an addresser has a communicative intention, or purpose of the speech act. An utterance has a communicative effect on the receptor: it can inform a receptor of something, or cause some feelings, etc. A communicative effect is virtual: e.g., an advertising text may persuade a receptor to buy something but the receptor may remain indifferent to the promotion. The potential effect of the utterance is its functional force. The communicative effect may override both literal sense and functional force and add further consequences depending on the situation. For example, Shut the door is imperative in a sense. Its communicative intention may be to carry the force of a request, but the communicative effect could be to annoy the receiver [1].
Communicative intention does not always coincide with the communicative effect. A vulgar anecdote, told to make the audience laugh, may have a contrary effect of disgusting the listeners.
In terms of linguistic pragmatics, developed by J. Austen, the three types of relations are locution (reference and the utterance sense), illocution (communicative intention and functional force), and perlocution (communicative effect) [2].
The adequate translation is the one whose communicative effect is close to that of the source text; at best, its communicative effect coincides with the author’s communicative intention. Regarding this principle, P. Newmark introduced two types of translation – communicative translation, which attempts to produce on its receptors an effect as close as possible to that produced on the readers of the original, and semantic translation, which attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original [3]. Taking these concepts into consideration, the sentence Beware of the dog! could be rendered as Осторожно, злая собака! (communicative translation) or Опасайтесь собаки! (semantic translation).
Close to translation adequacy is the concept of translation acceptability, developed by Israeli theorist of translation studies Gideon Toury [4]. A translation is considered acceptable when the end-product is admitted into the target system. In other words, an acceptable translation is the text with language use in the natural situation.
1.2 Author’s communicative intention and communicative effect upon the receptor
A translator should be aware of the author’s purpose of introducing this or that element into the text. Some problems are associated with this requirement:
• Rendering regional dialect;
• Rendering social dialect;
• Rendering foreigners’ speech;
• Rendering substandard speech.
Why did the author use these elements, challenging the translation? To answer the question is to find a clue to the problem.
A regional dialect may be introduced into the text either as a means of the author’s narration or as a means of a character’s speech characteristics. When used as a means of the author’s narration (e.g., V. Astafyev’s novels are written in Siberian dialect), the regional dialect is neutralized in translation [9], since it is inappropriate and misleading to substitute a Russian (say, Siberian) dialect with an English one (for example, Southern American). Of course, this can lead to the loss of local coloring in translation, but the miss can be compensated by using realia belonging to the region.
A regional dialect used as a means of a character’s traits is normally compensated by a social dialect (sociolect). Dialectal words are colloquialisms, or slang, that is they evoke certain social associations. In “Pygmalion” by B. Shaw, London cockney spoken by Eliza Doolittle reveals a low-class girl. Cossacks from “Тихий Дон” (“Quiet Flows the Don”) by M. Sholokhov speak the dialect recognized as the speech of Southern Russia’s peasants. To translate this type of vocabulary, it is necessary to compensate it with stylistically marked, expressive colloquial words and structures, which lack a local ring.
Sociolect is used in the text for the stratifying characteristics of a character, that is, to show social class the person belongs to.
A translator is free to manipulate these locally and socially colored elements. S/he can make the compensation in some other part of the text. S/he can compensate phonetic peculiarities of speech with phraseological or syntactical units, etc. For example, in the beginning of the play, Eliza Doolittle speaks the following way: Nah then, Freddy: look wh’ y’ gowin’, deah. <…> Theres menners f’ yer! Te-oo banches o voylets trod into the mad. <…> Ow, eez ye-ooa son, is e? Wal, fewd dan y’ de-ooty bawmz a mather should, eed now bettern to spawl a pore gel’s flahrzn than ran awy athaht pyin. Will ye-oo py me f’ them? [which means Now then, Freddy: look where you are going, dear. There’s manners for you. Two bunches of violets trodden into the mud. <…> Oh, he’s your son, isn’t he? Well, if you’d done your duty by him as a mother should, he’d know better than to spoil a poor girl’s flowers and then run away without paying. Will you pay me for them?] In her translation Y. Kalashnikova focused on depicting the sociolect through low colloquial words and phrases: Куда прешь, Фредди? Возьми глаза в руки! <…> А еще образованный! Все фиалочки в грязь затоптал. <…> А, так это ваш сын? Нечего сказать, хорошо вы его воспитали…Разве это дело? Раскидал у бедной девушки все цветы и смылся, как миленький! Теперь вот платите, мамаша! [10]
When rendering a foreigner’s speech, it is necessary to take into account contrastive typology of the languages under consideration and traditions of the target language literature.
Bibliography
1. Hatim B. Pragmatics and Translation.//Routeledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routeledge, 2008.
2. Austin J. How to do Things with Words. – Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.
3. N e w m a r k P. Approaches to Translation. – New York a.o.: Prentice Hall, 1988. – P.39.
4. Toury G. “Translation of Literary texts” vs. “Literary Translation”: A Distinction Reconsidered. // Recent Trends in Empirical Translation Research / Tirkkonen-Condit S. and J.Laffling (eds.) – Joensuu: Iniversity of Joensuu, 2009.
5. Чужакин А. Мир перевода-2. Pracricum. – М.: Валент, 2007.
6. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies/Ed. By M.Baker. – London and New York: Routledge, 2008.
7. Catford J. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. – London: Oxford Univ. Press, 2009.
8. Комиссаров В. Н. Теория перевода. – М.: Высшая школа, 2010.
9. Shaw B. Pygmalion. – Voscow: Higher School Publishing House, 2007.
10. Шоу Б. Пигмалион / Пер. Е.Калашниковой. – М.: Худож. литер., 2009.
11. Пушкин А.С. Капитанская дочка. – Собр. соч. – т. 8 – М.: Худож. лит., 2008.
12. Бёрджесс Э. Заводной апельсин /Пер. с англ. В. Бошняка – Л.: Худож. лит., Человек, 2007.
13. Чужакин А., Палажченко П. Мир перевода, или Вечный поиск взаимопонимания. – М.: Валент, 2007.
