|
monitoring managerial performance <…>” (G20 OECD, 2015);
“В целях выполнения своих обязанностей по контролю за работой менеджмента,
<..>, очень важно, чтобы у совета директоров была возможность высказывать объективное суждение по разным вопросам” (G20 OECD, 2016) (L.t.: the control of the work of management);
“In order to exercise its duties of monitoring managerial performance, <…> , it is essential that the board is able to exercise objective judgement” (G20 OECD, 2015).
It is obvious that the term form was not regarded as fixed by the translators. It triggered the search for contextual equivalents. The word monitoring should have also been strictly defined and translated consistently throughout the text.
The terms or “codified collections of words” aim “to fix meaning”: “their function is to be determinate about meaning and the relations between the lexical elements expressing meaning” (Rogers, 2007, p. 31). The translation of terms is different from the translation of LGP units, where a translator chooses translation equivalents according to context. Codified terms obtained using DT should be mentioned in dictionaries, glossaries and instructions. Reliable term equivalence can only be observed in codified resources. When translating terms within a specialized text, a translator deals with “formal correspondence”, rather than “textual equivalence” (Catford, 1965, p. 29). The usage of different variations of a single term interferes with the referential function of texts for special purposes (Rodgers, 2008, p. 104).
Nevertheless, as demonstrated, LSP can admit certain variations of term forms in the context; however, the use of contextual equivalents should be limited and not included in codified resources.
Homonyms and Synonyms in Business Terminology Translation
Despite the monosemanticity requirement (see 2.8.), the phenomena of homonymy and polysemy are widespread in LSP. In addition to this, “there is now a general acceptance that the goal of achieving a one-to-one term concept and concept-term relationship” is practically impossible within a subject field (Rogers, 2007, p. 15). For this reason, a translation should be carried out thoroughly, because free or improper translation may result in certain deviations in a text and distortion of its content.
The context indicates the meaning of a term, but at the same time, it makes it dependent on other lexical units, including other terms. When translators deal with polysemy or homonymy, thus contemplating several translation equivalents in the same context, they often rely on a dictionary. In theory, properly selected glossaries and dictionaries should ensure correct and accurate translation. In practice, however, dictionaries, appear to be misleading tools. They provide terms with incoherent or inconsistent comments, listings and explanations and sometimes offer partially incorrect or wrong translations of terms. The compilers of dictionaries and glossaries often cannot follow how term meaning changes and how a certain translation equivalent emerges or disappears. The situation is worsened by superfluous or redundant term equivalents and term components.
A dictionary should provide a translator with a concrete term equivalent with corresponding listings and comments. Nevertheless, many dictionaries prove to be imperfect: they do not distinguish homonyms, LGP and LSP units and synonyms. The problem of polysemy poses a greater risk than homonymy, because a translator should identify the field of concept use. However, the flaws in dictionaries represent a hindrance for the search for an adequate equivalent. For example, the Amburger building dictionary offers not only the direct equivalent for the term arch: “арка”, but also terms which are close in meaning: “аркад”а and “свод” (as cited in Grinev-Grinevich, 2008, p. 117). A translator should have enough competence to understand whether he/she can use a certain equivalent in the field of engineering or mechanics or whether the concepts designated by the terms are equal or different. Accordingly, a translator should quickly acquire such competence (ibidem): consult the etymological dictionaries, encyclopedias and corpora, etc. Additional translation equivalents offered in dictionaries make
translation difficult, but at the same time, provide translators with a chance to choose a suitable translation.
For example, the Management term transparency can have the following equivalent, borrowed by means of transliteration with assimilation: транспарентность (UN-1) (transparentost’; suffix “- ost’” often indicates an abstract noun in the Russian language). The English word has the following equivalents in LGP:
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
