The level of the linguistic signs

The equivalence of translation consists in the maximal identity of all the levels of content of the source language text and its translation.

The units of the original text and its translation can be equivalent to each other at all five levels or at some of them only. Fully or partly equivalent units and potentially equivalent utterances objectively exist in the source language and in the language of translation, however their correct estimation, a selection and use rely on knowledge, abilities and creative capabilities of a translator, his ability to take into account and compare all the aggregate of linguistic and extralinguistic factors. In the process of translation a translator decides the difficult problem of finding and correct using of the necessary elements of the system of equivalent units, on the base of which the utterances equivalent communicatively in two languages are created.

The potentially attainable equivalence are distinguished that means the maximal commonness of the content of two different language texts, assumed by the distinctions of two languages which these texts are created in, and the translating equivalence that is the real semantic closeness of the original text and its translation achieved by a translator in the process of translation. The maximally possible linguistic extent of saving the content of the source language text during translation is the limit of the translating equivalence, but in every separate translation a semantic closeness to the original text in a different extent and in a number of different ways approaches to the maximal one.

The differences in the systems of the initial language and the language of translation and features of creation of texts in each of these languages in a different extent can limit possibility of the complete saving the content of the source language text in translation. Therefore, the translating equivalence can be based on saving (and accordingly on losing) the different elements of sense that are contained in the source language text. Depending on what part of the content is passed in translation for providing its equivalence, the different levels or types of equivalence are distinguished, but the main is that translation can provide interlingual communication at any level of equivalence.

Any text accomplishes some communicative function such as reports some facts, expresses emotions, sets the contact between interlocutors, requires some reaction or actions from the listeners etc. A presence of a similar purpose determines the general character of the passed reports and their linguistic registration in the process of communication.

The equivalence of translations of the first type consists in saving only that part of content of the source language text, which indicates the general speech function of the text in the act of communication and is the purpose of communication.

The relations between the source language text and the target language one is characterized by:

Uncompareness of lexical composition and syntactic organization.

Impossibility to link a vocabulary and structure of the source language text and its translation by the relations of the semantic rephrasing or syntactic transformation.

Absence of the real or direct logical connections between the reports in the source language text and its translation, which would allow to assert that the same is reported in both cases.

The least commonness of the source language text and its translation in comparison with all the other translations acknowledged equivalent.

At such level of equivalence translations are accomplished when the more detailed reproduction of the content is impossible and also when such reproduction will lead a receptor of translation to the wrong conclusions, will cause quite the other associations than at the receptor of the original text, and, thus, will prevent the correct transmission of the purpose of communication.

In the second type of equivalence the general part of the content of the source language text and its translation does not only pass the identical purpose of communication but also reflect one and the same extralinguistic situation, i.e. the aggregate of objects and connections between objects described in the utterance. Any text contains information about something and is correlated with some real or imaginary situation. The communicative function of the text cannot be carried out differently as by means of the situation oriented to the report.

The more complete reproduction of the content of the source language text does not mean the transmission of all the semantic elements of the original text. Saving the pointing on the identical situation is accompanied by considerable structural and semantic divergences with the source language text in translations of this type. One and the same situation can be described through different combinations of features peculiar to it. The possibility and necessity of identification of the situations described from different sides is the result of this. The sets of utterances, which are perceived by the native language speakers as synonymous ones, appear in a language, in spite of the complete lack of coincidence of their language devices. People are able to realize the identity of the situations described in different ways completely.

For the second type of equivalence the identification in the original text and its translation of one and the same situation at the change of method of its description is typical. The universal character of relations between a language and extralinguistic reality serves the basis of semantic identification of different language texts. The second type of equivalence is presented by translations the semantic closeness of which to the source language text is not also based on the commonness of meanings of the used language devices. In similar utterances the most of words and syntactic structures of the original text do not find the direct correspondences in the text of translation.

Thus, the relations between the source language text and the target language one is characterized by:

Uncompareness of lexical composition and syntactic organization.

Impossibility to link a vocabulary and structure of the source language text and its translation by the relations of the semantic rephrasing or syntactic transformation.

Saving the purpose of communication in translation.

Saving the pointing on the same situation in translation.

The comparison of the source language text and its translation of this type is characterized by the following features:

The absence of parallelism of lexical composition and syntactic structure.

The impossibility to link the structure of the source language text and the target language one by the relations of syntactic transformation.

Saving the purpose of communication and identification of the situation in translation that is the same in the source language text.

Saving the common notions by which the description of situation in the source language text is accomplished in translation.

The last position is proved by the possibility of semantic rephrasing of the report of the source language text in the report of translation that exposes the commonness of the basic semes. Saving the method of description of situation implies pointing on the same situation, and identification of the described situations supposes that the purpose of communication of the original text is achieved by this.

The commonness of the basic concepts means saving the structure of a report, when one and the same signs are chosen for description of the situation in the source language text and the target language one. If in the previous types of equivalence the information related to what the content of the source language text is reported for and what is reported about in translation, then what is reported in the source language text is passed, i.e. what side of the described situation makes the object of communication.

In the fourth type of equivalence in the rank with three components of the content, which are saved in the third type, the considerable part of the meanings of the syntactic structures of the original text is reproduced in translation. The structural organization of the source language text gives the definite information included in the common content of the text translated. The syntactic structure of the utterance conditions the possibility of using the words of definite type in a definite sequence in it and with definite connections between separate words, and also greatly determines that part of the content, which comes forward on the first place in the act of communication. Therefore, the maximally possible saving of the syntactic organization of the source language text during translation promotes more complete reproduction of the content of the original text. Moreover, the syntactic parallelism of the source language text and its translation gives a basis for correlation of the separate elements of these texts. The use of the analogous syntactic structures provides the invariance of syntactic meanings of the source language text and the target language one in translation.

Thus, the relations between the source language text and its translations of the fourth type of equivalence are characterized by the following features:

1) Considerable and incomplete parallelism of lexical composition for the most words of the original text when it is possible to find the proper words with close content in translation.

2) The use of syntactic structures similar to the structures of the original text related to them by the relations of the syntactic varying that provides the maximally possible transmission of the meaning of the syntactic structures of the source language text in translation.

3) Saving the purpose of communication, pointing on a situation and method of its description in translation.

The less extent of invariance of the syntactic meanings is achieved by the use of the structures related to the analogous structure by the relations of the syntactic varying in translation at impossibility to save syntactic parallelism completely. Three basic types of such varying are marked out in the fourth type of equivalence:

1) The use of synonymous structures linked by the relations of the direct or reverse transformation.

2) The use of analogous structures with the change of order of words.

3) The use of analogous structures with the change of type of connection between them.

In the last, the fifth type of equivalence the maximal extent of closeness of the content of the source language text and the target language one, which can exist between texts in the different languages, is achieved. The relations between the original text and its translation of this type is characterized by the following features:

The high extent of parallelism in the structural organization of the text.

The maximal interrelationship of the lexical composition when the correspondences to all the words of the source language text can be found in translation.

Saving all the basic parts of the content of the source language text in translation.

The maximally possible commonness of separate semes that are the part of the meaning of the corresponded words in the source language text and the target language one is added to four parts of content of the source language text saved in the previous type of equivalence. The extent of such commonness is determined by the possibility of reproducing the separate components of meaning of words of the source language text in translation that, in the same turn, depends on how one or the other component in the words of the initial language and language of translation is expressed and how the necessity to pass the other parts of content of the original text influences the choice of words in translation in every case.

Thus, speaking about translating equivalence, it is foremost spoken about possibility to pass a source language text into the target language one in a maximally complete volume.

However, the linguistic originality of any text, orientation of its content to the definite audience who possesses background knowledge, cultural and historical features that are peculiar to it, cannot be recreated in the other language with absolute plenitude. It is the reason why translation does not suppose creation of the identical text and absence of identity cannot serve an evidence of impossibility of translation. The loss of some elements of the text translated during translation does not mean that this text is «untranslatable» as such loss is usually revealed when it is already translated and the target language text is compared with the original one. The impossibility to reproduce some features of the source language text in translation is the private display of the general principle of no identity of the content of two texts in the different languages. The absence of identity does not prevent translation with accomplishing its communicative functions for carrying out of which the source language text was created.

The specific feature of translation, that distinguishes it from all the other types of linguistic mediation, supposes that it targets at the competent replacement of the original text and that the receptors of translation consider it fully identical to the source language text.

The features of translation and types of equivalent relations between the source language text and the target language one considered above are conditioned by the specificity of translation as the linguistic phenomenon that takes place within the framework of interlingual communication. The general description of translation, that determines translation as the correlated functioning of two linguistic systems, and conclusions that arise from this determination spread on any act of translation.

The real translating activity is carried out by translators under various conditions; the texts translated are various by their subjects, language and genre belonging; translations are accomplished in a written or oral form; the different requirements are set to the translators in regard to the exactness and plenitude of translation etc. The separate types of translation require the special knowledge and abilities from a translator.

All these distinctions, whatever considerable they are, do not change the essence of the process of translation, its general linguistic basis. First and foremost, any type of translation remains translation with all its features determined by correlation of the used languages.