Cognitive interpretation of phraseological units

1.2. Methods of translation of phraseological units.
Before proceeding directly to the methods of translation of phraseological units, it is advisable to first highlight the issue of the theory of translation in general and the history of its occurrence. Translation practice originated in the 20-30s of our century. Then it reflected the formalistic view of translation. The translators of that time studied formal deviations from the original. In the 30s, translations were already carried out by highly qualified translators, such as T.V. Schepkina-Kupernik, S.Ya.Marshak , M.Ya.Lazinsky . In the same period, work began on translating the literature of the peoples of the USSR. The All-Union Congress of Writers (1934) played an important role in this. Private and cooperative publishing houses were closed. From that time until the 1950s, translated literature was published only in state publishing houses under strict control. The fact that many talented poets and writers were forbidden or limited the right to their own creativity, this led to the appearance of their translations ( A. Akhmatova , M. Tsvetaeva ). In the 30s, a school of literary translation arose, which was created by I.A. Kashkin , who was a historian, critic, theorist and practitioner of translation. He translated Chaucer ("The Canterbury Tales"), Hemingway . M.P. Bogoslovskaya , V.M. Toper , O.P. Kholmskaya re-translated Ch. Dickens , as well as other English and American authors. Their translations were published in the journal International Literature (1933-43). Then in 1955, this magazine was revived under the name "Foreign Literature", which exists to this day.
During the Great Patriotic War, there was a significant decline in translation and publishing activities, and in the 1950s, translation work resumed and acquired a new dimension. This period includes the translation activities of such a master as R.Ya. Wright -Kovaleva , who translated Salinger's Catcher in the Rye. From 1967 to 1977, 200 volumes of the World Literature Library were published. They included 26 thousand works of 3 thousand authors. Since the mid-1980s, numerous publishing houses have emerged that, along with the existing literary publications, had the intention of publishing those works that had not been translated before. In the 1980s, the Izvestia publishing house published a series called "Library of the journal Foreign Literature". Of the English-speaking authors, such authors as Bradbury , S. Hill , V. Wolf were published . At the end of the 1980s, associations of translators began to emerge in Russia (1989): the Moscow Association of Translators, the Union of Translators of Russia. At the same time, the following translators were awarded the title of laureates of the prize : I.M. Bershtein ( I.Vo , A. Murdoch ) , N.M. ).
In 1930, an article by A.B. Fedorov “Techniques and tasks of literary translation” was published. The foundations of translation were laid by A.B. Fedorov “On Literary Translation” (1941), “Introduction to the Theory of Translation” (1953). Until the 1950s, the theory of translation developed in the literary aspect. A follower and student of A.B. Fedorov made a significant contribution to the development of the linguistic direction Ya.I. Retsker . Fedorov's ideas were greeted with irritation, he was criticized by Kashkin , who believes that, on the one hand, the linguistic theory of translation is limited, on the other hand, the translation of any text cannot be theoretically comprehended without taking into account genre features. Thanks to the works of A.D. Schweitzer , L.S. Barkhudarov and V.N. Komissarov , the theory of translation received more intensive development.
As for the translation of phraseological units, they have received a lot of attention in theoretical works. The problems associated with this are considered in different ways, different methods of translation are recommended, and there are dissenting opinions. And this is understandable: there can be no unambiguous, standard solution here. There are times when, in the presence of an equivalent phraseological correspondence, one has to look for other ways of translation, since this equivalent is not suitable for a given context. Even within the boundaries of one group of phraseological units, an individual decision may be required.
To talk about the methods of translating phraseological units, it is necessary to classify the entire phraseology of a given language into groups, within the boundaries of which there would be both a predominant one or another method, and one or another approach to the transfer of phraseological units into the target language.⁴
Such well-known linguists as Sh.Bally , V.V. Vinogradov , B.A. Larin , N.M. Shansky , take linguistic classifications as a starting point, tuned mainly to the criteria of the indecomposition of a phraseological unit, to the fusion of its components, depending from which and from a number of additional features - meaning motivation, metaphoricality - the place of a phraseological unit in one of the following sections is determined: phraseological fusions (idioms), phraseological units (metaphorical units), phraseological combinations and phraseological expressions [Florin, Vlakhov, 1980: 182] .
Indicative of the creative use of such a classification in the theory and practice of translation can be considered the work of A.V. Fedorov . Having examined the main linguistic schemes for that time (1968), he stops at the one proposed by V.V. Vinogradov and comprehends it from the point of view of translation studies . So, for example, he notes the lack of clear boundaries between individual rubrics, different degrees of motivation , transparency of the internal form and national specificity of units, which may require the translator to take approximately the same approach as idioms [Fedorov, 1968: 198].
According to Ya.I. Retsker , the same classification is very convenient for the theory and practice of translation, but he takes only unity and merging from it, believing that unequal translation techniques should be applied to these two groups of phraseological units. Thus, the translation of phraseological unity, in his opinion, should be as figurative as possible, and the translation of phraseological fusion should be carried out mainly by the method of integral transformation [ Retzker , 1968: 151].
Vlakhov and Florin note that the possibility of achieving a full-fledged dictionary translation of a phraseological unit depends on the relationship between the units of FL and TL:
1. The phraseological unit has an exact, context-independent, full-fledged correspondence (semantic meaning + connotations) in the TL, i.e. phraseologism IL, equal to the phraseological unit ПЯ, is translated by the equivalent.
2. A phraseological unit can be transferred to the TL by one correspondence or another, usually with some deviations from a full-fledged translation, i.e. Phraseologism IL, approximately equal to the phraseological unit ПЯ, is translated as a variant ( analogue) .⁵
3. The phraseological unit has no equivalents or analogues in the TL, it is untranslatable in dictionary order, i.e. the phraseological unit of the FL, which is unequal to the phraseological unit of the TL, is transmitted by other, non-phraseological means.
Simplifying the scheme, we can say that phraseological units translate either by phraseological units - phraseological translation, or by other means - non-phraseological translation [Vlakhov, Florin, 1980: 183].
From a translation point of view, English phraseological units are divided into two groups [ Kunin , 1964]:
- phraseological units that have equivalents in Russian;
- non- equivalent phraseological units
Phraseological equivalents can be of two types:
I constant equivalent correspondence, which is the only possible translation and does not depend on the context. This type of translation was called “equivalent” by Ya.I. Retsker in an article in which the question of regular correspondences was first raised in translation into the native language [ Retsker , 1950]. Since any equivalent correspondence is an equivalent, it is advisable to call this type of translation a monoequivalent . These correspondences may arise as a result of a literal translation of English phraseological units, for example :
time is money - “ time is money ”,
to dance to somebody 's tune
tired as a dog - “ tired as a dog ”,
dumb as a fish - " German fish ",
to kill like a dog - "kill like a dog " .
II On the other hand, there may be two or more equivalents of an English phraseological unit in the Russian language, from which the best one or any of them is chosen for the translation of a given text if both or all of them are equivalent. Such equivalents are called selective [ Kunin , 1964].
For example : rus. "at hand"
1. spatial meaning - close;
2.temporal value - close (Before the start of the Olympics, just a stone's throw away) ;
3. the meaning of the place is now (Now = close to the outskirts meadows begin).
Following S. Vlakhov and S. Florin , we note that when choosing, all indicators of the original phraseological unit, as well as its style and color, are taken into account. Sometimes it is precisely the stylistic inconsistency or the presence of color that does not allow the seemingly most suitable unit to be translated. One of the clearest examples of different-style synonyms is the phraseological units of “dying”: from the upbeat to go to another, to a better world, give up the spirit, fall asleep forever to roughly colloquial give an oak, give up the ends, discard the skates, play in the box, throw the horses. For the translator, the whole difficulty lies in the fact that he needs to choose from such an abundance and variety of synonyms exactly the one that could convey the full meaning of the original unit. For example , when translating the German phraseological unit ins Gras bei ß en , the translator must delve into the context with all seriousness in order to find out for himself the intentions of the author and choose the only one from dozens of options - the one that the author would choose if he wrote in Russian [Vlakhov, Florin, 1980: 198].⁶
In addition to this division, we, following Kunin , can classify equivalents as follows:
Full equivalents are Russian equivalents, most of which are monoequivalents of English phraseological units, coinciding with them in meaning, in lexical composition, figurativeness of stylistic orientation and grammatical structure. This is what A.D. Reichstein calls identity, i.e. full coincidence of aspect organization and total meaning [ Reichshtein , 1979].
The number of such correspondences is not numerous, this group includes phraseological units of an international character, based on mythological traditions, biblical legends and historical facts.
For example : English. Augeanstables - Augean stables
Pyrrhicvictory - Pyrrhic victory
Achilles ' heels heel
The apple of discord - the apple of discord
The salt of the earth - salt of the earth
Of the phraseological units of other types, A.V. Kunin notes:
- comparisons : as bold (brave) as a lion - “ meek ( brave ) as lion ";
as free as a bird - “ free as bird ";
as cunning as a fox as fox ";
as busy as a bee - " hardworking as bee ";
- proverbs : extremes meet - " extremes meet ";
habit is a second nature - “ habit is second nature ”.
Partial equivalents - this does not mean any incompleteness in the transfer of meaning, but only contains lexical, grammatical or lexico-grammatical differences in the presence of the same meaning of the same stylistic orientation. Therefore, the partial equivalent in terms of the degree of adequacy of the translation should be considered equivalent to the full equivalent.