Chapter 6. Transformations in Translation

6.1. Translation transformations: definition, causes, classification

In the process of translation a SLT as a whole or its segments may undergo varied modifications that are known in the theory and practice of translation as translation transformations. The term ‘transformation’ is polysemantic and there are at least 6 meanings that are associated with this word in translation studies including intralinguistic translation [Нелюбин 2003]. The discussion of translation transformations below includes the following: definition, causes (determinants), levels and techniques of translation.

Translation transformations are defined by L.S. Barkhudarov as numerous and varied in their quality inter-lingual changes which are made to achieve adequacy in translation in spite of discrepancies in the formal and semantic systems of a SL and a TL [Бархударов 1975: 190].

A.D.Shveitser stresses that the term ‘transformation’ is used in translation theory metaphorically as in fact we mean special inter-lingual operations of transpresentation («перевыражение») of SL sense by means of TL [Швейцер 1988: 118]. In keeping with this understanding he connects the character of transformations with his model of the levels of equivalence which is based on three aspects of a linguistic sign: syntactic, semantic and pragmatic.

The syntactic level favours substitutions which retain the syntactic invariant despite various other replacements, e.g. The sun disappeared behind a cloud. – Солнце скрылось за тучей.

The semantic level admits of a variety of transformations including passivization, nominalization, replacement of a word by a word group, etc. E.g. Ваша жена прекрасно готовит – Your wife is a superb cook. In such cases the invariant is retained on two sublevels: (a) componential – retains the componential structure of an utterance (as in the example above) and (b) referential – retains the invariant of the referential sense of a SL utterance and a TL utterance (У меня стоят часы – My watch has stopped).

The pragmatic level regarded as a top level in the hierarchy of levels exists irrespective of the other two levels and allows a wide range of transformations which cannot be described in terms of a single type (e.g. Many happy returns of the day – С днём рождения).

An understanding of translation transformations offered by V.S.Vinogradov connects it with two stages in a translator’s work:

· the first phase includes two types of perception of a message: pre-translational (a translator perceives a SL text after first (second, if necessary) reading, analyses its sense) and translational perception (immediate perception of concrete words, phrases, utterances at the moment of their translation);

· the second phase connected with re-creation by means of TL of what has been perceived in a SL text is also divided into two phases: transpresentation and artistic identification of translation [Виноградов 2004].

The author discusses various transformations in both phases of the second stage and points out that changes are indispensable in translation as the translator does not look for a ready correspondence in a TL utterance for this or that unit of translation, but he transpresents («перевыражает») the sense of the phrase.

One more very important aspect is revealed in translation transformations by L.K. Latyshev who defines them as conscious deviations from objectively possible language parallelism in order to achieve communicative and functional equivalence of a SLT and a TLT [Латышев 2003]. This approach to translation transformations requires satisfying a strict principle of their motivatedness, that is the use of transformations in translation should always be due to some causes. In the author’s opinion, causes of translation transformations include two major factors:

(a) a SL text as a determinant of translation modifications and

(b) a lingua-ethnical barrier as another important determinant.

Both these factors are so complex and comprise important facets that they deserve a careful consideration.

A SL text as a determinant of its transformations contains the following features:

1) textual content comprising denotative, significative connotations, the interpreter’s level of content, intra-lingual content, structural content;

2) functions of a text including intellectual informative, emotive, aesthetic, nominative, voluntative, phatic.

A lingua-ethnical barrier includes linguistic (proper) and ethno-cultural factors:

1) linguistic factors comprise discrepancies between two language systems on various language levels, language norms, speech norm;

2 ) ethno-cultural b arrier refers to pre-textual information stock of SL and TL speakers.

It is obvious that textual parameters of a SLT should be reproduced in translation as fully as possible which impels the translator to make varied modifications on the levels indicated above. As investigations show there are differences in the lingua-ethnical competence of a SL and a TL reader which may become too serious a barrier to ignore. The importance of the two factors is hard to overestimate especially now that modern views on translation activity regard it as a bi-lingual, bi-ethno-cultural process, as a dialogue of two mental worlds and two world-views.

In further discussion of translation transformations it is useful to keep apart related aspects of transformations: transformations as modifications /changes of a SL text made on various levels, transformations as certain operations made in particular conditions of activity and transformations as translator’s techniques caused by certain translation difficulties and problems.

6.2. Levels of translation transformations, operations
and techniques of translation

These aspects of translation refer to the ‘nuts and bolts’ of the translation craft and business, yet in translation studies scholars often use respective terms indiscriminately, especially often mixing levels of transformations and techniques of translation. Suffice it to mention that even well known classifications of textual modifications confuse transformations proper and techniques of translation. The term operations of translation is reserved by us to those cases when a translator makes use of ready dictionary correspondences to translate a given unit by merely replacing it.

Besides, there is one more aspect of translation transformations which is connected with the understanding of the mechanism of transformations. This problem initially linked with lexical transformations gave rise to a heated discussion that revealed its principal significance in understanding the nature of any transformations. In 1980 Ya.I. Retsker published in the journal “Tetradi perevodchika” his famous article «Что же такое лексические трансформации?» [Рецкер 1980] which brought to light this burning issue of translation practice. The author contrasted two diametrically opposite views on the understanding of lexical transformations expressed, on the one hand, by L.S.Barkhudarov [Бархударов 1975] and, on the other hand, by T.R.Levitskaya and A.M. Fiterman [Левицкая, Фитерман 1976]. L.S.Barkhudarov argues that lexical transformations should be understood as substitutions of some lexical units (words and stable word combinations) in a SLT by lexical units in TL which are not their dictionary equivalents, that is such units which taken outside the given context possess a different referential meaning. E.g. She had said that she was in bed and ill (W. Thackeray, Vanity Fair) – Она писала, что она больна и лежит в постели (пер. М. Дьяконова).

The supporters of the other approach to lexical transformations believe that there are no absolute equivalents in any two languages and since translation itself is regarded as a kind of transformationwhich presupposes the retention of semantic invariant of a source text or textual elements content rather than its/their surface structure, i.e. the form of expressing this content, it is liable to change, cf. school leavers – выпускники, instant coffee – растворимый кофе.

In this debate Ya.I. Retsker backs up the first approach for which he gives several reasons:

firstly, such TL correspondences as given above are qualified as dictionary correspondences that do not result from any contextual modifications;

secondly, what the authors mean by a surface structure of a lexical unit is its inner form pointing at a particular feature of an object chosen to name it which very seldom coincides in different languages accounting for the differences in nomination techniques, and

finally, the use of translation transformations is a creative artistic process which lets a translator exceed the limitations of dictionary equivalents and offer something proper and adequate for a given situation.

In connection with the discussion of the nature and mechanism of lexical transformations it seems reasonable to apply the above given understanding to any other transformations including grammatical and stylistic. For example, when rendering English sentences with an active voice predicate it is not always best to retain it in translation, but use instead a passive voice construction as there may be other factors active in a given speech situation. The same goes for stylistic devices as there may be shifts in the choice of proper devices in place of ready formal correspondences to produce in a TLT a desirable stylistic effect. Such examples are discussed later in connection with respective types of transformations.

The first important problem arises in connection with classification of transformations made on different levels which is due to the difference of opinion on the notion of ‘levels’. In many books on translation the authors single out transformations that correlate with language levels. One of the most popular classifications of transformations offered by prof. V.N. Komissarov takes into account the character of modifications and singles out lexical, grammatical and lexico-grammatical transformations [Комиссаров 1999a]. L.K. Latyshev and A.L. Semenov differentiate between two classes of transformations: structure-layer and content [Латышев, Семёнов 2003]. The former include categorial morphological, syntactical, stylistic and lexical changes, while the latter involving a change in the content representation of a situation include redistribution of semantic components, situational semantic transformations (instrument – instrumental use, event – perception of an event, measure – result, etc), explication of implicit content.

In the section devoted to methods of translation J.-P. Vinay and J. Darbelnet consider them on three levels: lexis, structural organization and message [Вине, Дарбельне 1978].

In their approach to this problem T.R.Levitskaya and A.M. Fiterman also use a language-level classification of transformations (lexical, grammatical and stylistic), though, as is obvious from the previous discussion, they treat transformations in a very broad sense embracing both lexical and grammatical equivalents [Левицкая, Фитерман 1976].

In a systematic way translation transformations were considered and classified by prof. Ya.I. Retsker in close connection with the theory of regular correspondences which distinguished between adequate substitutions (later named ‘lexical transformations’) and equivalent, variant and contextual correspondences [Рецкер 2004]. Transformations are classified by the author into lexical (comprising differentiation, concretizing, generalization of meaning, sense development, antonymic translation, entire phrase modification, compensation for losses), grammatical (full – with complete sentence restructuring and partial with partial restructuring) and stylistic (expressive-emotional concretizing due to the necessity to follow the principle of expressive-stylistic compatibility (in the terminology of V.G. Gak) and expressive-pragmatic concretizing).

In our classification of translation transformations from the point of view of the level on which they are made we proceed from the understanding of the object of translation which has been defined above as speech units, i.e. texts. Accordingly, a translator resorts to various modifications either of fragments (segments) of a text or a whole text. Transformations involving segments of a text may refer to the elements of the semantic, lexical, morphological, syntactical (with two sublevels – that of a phrase and that of a sentence) levels, whereas textual transformations are active on the level of a text as an entity. All the above mentioned levels of transformations with the exception of the semantic level may involve changes on two planes: content and form. Correspondingly, in real practice of translation various transformations overlap affecting various aspects of a speech unit: semantic, syntactic and pragmatic.

* * *

Below are given examples of different-level transformations, but for the sake of illustrations we point out only those which apply to a particular type:

a) lexico-semantic, А я вот сиди и работай на него как каторжный!… (Чехов. Юбилей) – So I have to sit here and slave away for him (пер. К. Кук).

Instead of using dictionary correspondences of the word каторжный (convict, prisoner, felon, culprit, criminal) the translator resorted to a number of transformations including lexico-semantic, replacing the word within the comparative word-group by the phrasal verb on the basis of several common semantic components: cf. (работать как) каторжный – человек, сосланный на каторгу [ каторга – содержание заключённых в тюрьмах с особо суровым режимом и с привлечением к тяжёлому физическому труду ] (БТСРР) – slave away – work continuously like a slave [ a slave – someone who is legally owned by another person and works for them for no money ].

b) Morphological, …а заглянешь в душу – обыкновеннейший крокодил (Чехов. Медведь) - …yet gaze into her soul and what do you find – a regular hyena (C. Cook)

Since the English word regular is used as an intensifier there is no need to use it in the superlative degree.

c) Syntactic I ( phrase level), Сестра опять всю ночь не спала ( Чехов. Чайка ) – My sister had another sleepless night ( C. Cook ).

Syntactic II (sentence level), И бедняк может быть счастлив ( Чехов. Чайка ) – People can be poor and still be happy ( C.Cook ).

d) Textual level (text as an entity), the title of the book by V. Grossman “Все течет…” and its translation transform “Forever Flowing” (Tr.Thomas P. Whitney) make sense only in the context of the entire book.

* * *

Techniques of translation relate to a translator’s concrete actions and particular ways of translation which bring about a certain modification or transformation of a SLT. L.S. Barkhudarov described his transformations in terms of four basic techniques: (a) restructuring (or transpositions), (b) substitutions, (c) additions and (d) omissions (or deletions) [Бархударов 1975]. In his opinion, all the major classifications of translator’s techniques boil down to those four.

A much broader classification of techniques of translation was advanced by J.-P. Vinay and J. Darbelnet [Вине, Дарбельне 1978] who singled out seven types:

a) borrowing

b) loan translation

c) word-for-word translation

d) transposition

e) modulation

f) equivalence

g) adaptation.

The authors point out that the technical ways and means of translation are limited and can be exhaustively described in terms of those seven given above which are enumerated according to the degree of difficulties of translation. In the classification they refer the first three techniques of translation to direct (or literal) translation thanks to structural or/and metalinguistic (notional) parallelism in the two languages. The remaining four techniques are associated by the authors with non-direct translation and are due to either structural or metalinguistic discrepancies or ‘empty cells’.

It seems that such a broad approach to techniques of translation can hardly be justified as, for one thing, the first three types are in fact connected with the choice of the unit of translation rather than techniques, and, for another thing, the four phenomena ‘modulation’, ‘adaptation’, ‘equivalence’ and ‘transposition’ may be qualified as varieties of substitutions which are caused by different factors: modulation is due to the necessity of expressing a certain message in a usual way which is acceptable in TL (cf. No vacancies – Номеров нет (объявление в гостинице и т.п.), adaptation is used to render a SL situation which does not exist in a TL community (cf. greet one another with a holy kiss (from the New Testament) is not translated into English word-for-word, but is adapted into give one another a hearty handshake all around, equivalence is used to render the same situation in a way that is typical of a TL, so it is always syntagmatic in its character, involves a message as a whole and refers to stable units and clichés including proverbs, sayings, phraseological units (cf. Too many cooks spoil the broth – У семи нянек дитя без глазу), while transposition is just another term to use alongside ‘substitution’. Thus, the given classification confuses techniques of translation and their causes, techniques of translation and units /ways of translation, but at the same time it neglects some other important techniques which are active in the process of translation.

Thus, we can take for a basis L.S. Barkhudarov’s classification and supplement it with one more type, namely entire message modification=integral modification (‘целостное преобразование’). This system of techniques of translation comprising five types underlies various translation transformations on all the levels discussed above, used alone or in various combinations.

6.3. Classification of translation transformations according
to techniques of translation

6.3.1. Transpositions covers all cases of restructuring, so naturally here refer transformations made on the syntactic level which result in changes in word order. They can be divided into two kinds depending on the nature of a unit undergoing restructuring, its size and syntactic functions:

· re-patterning on the level of a word-group,

· re-patterning on the level of a sentence.

Re-patterning I (on the level of a word-group or a phrase) is caused by differences in the structural patterns of correlated SL and TL word-groups and phrases. Quite often such changes are accompanied by morphological (part-of-speech) or syntactical substitutions, e.g.

Алёшка, стуча зубами, стал сказывать про Тыртова (А. Толстой)

His teeth chattering, Alyosha began explaining about Tyrtov (tr. by A. Miller)

The Russian verbal adverbial phrase is replaced by the English absolute construction (syntactical substitution) which makes a respective re-patterning obligatory.

Re-patterning II (on the level of a sentence) can be further subdivided into three sub-types:

a) changes in the word order within a sentence or a clause, e.g.

It was very tiring to stoop all the time ( E. Blyton ).

Идти всё время согнувшись было очень утомительно (пер. В. Исакович).

The restructuring of the English sentence is caused by the change in the sentence-type, the difference in their theme-rheme structure and is accompanied by other transformations (addition, morphological substitution).

There is no re-patterning of Russian sentences which are characterized by two features: 1) a verb-predicate is intransitive so there is no direct object in them and 2) a sentence begins with some adverbials (of manner, place), e.g. Там, в этом краю, очень много озёр. – Up in that lake country were many, many lakes.

b) changes in the order of clauses within a complex or a compound sentence, e.g.

Disposed as she then was to calculate upon that vague basis which allows the subtraction of one sum from another without any perceptible diminution, she was happy (Th. Dreiser).

Девушка была счастлива; она находилась в том настроении, которое позволяет вычитать одну сумму из другой без заметного ущерба для последней ( пер. М.Волосова ).

Re-patterning II is caused by the difference in the theme-rheme organization of the English and Russian sentences and is accompanied by a number of other transformations (syntactical, lexical and morhological substitutions, omission).

c) changes in the order of sentences, e.g.

Photographers came. The tragedy had interested the local press.
– Трагедия заинтересовала местную прессу. Пришли фотографы.

The main cause of the re-patterning here is the grammatical meaning of the Past Perfect form which expresses priority of the action denoted by it to an action in the Past Simple which in Russian has to be signaled by the order of respective sentences.

6.3.2. Substitutions unlike the previous technique underlie transformations made on various levels: lexical, stylistic, grammatical (morphological and syntactic).

· Lexical substitutions include several subtypes depending on the character of changes in the lexical meaning of a SL unit:

1) concretizing – a SL word with an abstract, broad and general meaning is replaced by a TL word with a concrete, narrow and specific meaning, e.g.

After dinner I sat and waited for Pyle in my room over the rue Catinat (Gr. Greene).

После ужина я сидел у себя в комнате на улице Катина и дожидался Пайла (Е. Голышева, Б. Изаков). The English word dinner has a broad meaning (dinner – the main meal of the day, taken in the middle of the day or in the evening – LDCE) which has to be concretized in translation into Russian where there are two words with more specific meanings (обед – основной приём пищи, еда (обычно в середине дня) и ужин – вечерняя еда, последний приём пищи перед ночным сном – БТСРЯ).

2) generalization – a SL word with a concrete, narrow, specific meaning changed for a TL word which has an abstract, broad, general meaning, e.g.

Отец умер ровно год назад, как раз в этот день, пятого мая, в твои именины (А. Чехов ).

It’s exactly a year ago today that Father died, the fifth of May – your birthday (K. Cook).

The Russian word is more specific in meaning since it reflects Christian habits and is different from the word group день рождения (именины – у православных и католиков личный праздник кого-либо, приходящийся на день, в который церковь отмечает память одноимённого святого – БТСРЯ), while the English word birthday is day that is an exact number of years after the day when you were born (LDCE).

3) sense development – a SL word is replaced by a TL word the meanings of which denote notions connected with each other through cause-result links. Since such links are usually connected with an action there may be basically 6 varieties of such transformations:

result – cause

result – action

action – result

action – cause

cause – result

cause – action

e.g. When I opened my eyes she had lit the lamp (Gr. Greene) (action ).

Когда я открыл глаза, лампа была зажжена (K. Cook) (resultant state)

4 ) antonymic translation – a SL word is translated by its TL antonym which as a rule brings about changes in the grammatical structure of a sentence, namely an affirmative sentence often becomes negative and vice versa a negative sentence may turn into an affirmative one,

e.g. “He will not be long”, she said as though I needed comfort for his absence (Gr. Greene )

Теперь он скоро придёт, -- сказала она, будто я нуждался в утешении (K. Cook).

· Compensation – the replacement of a SL word which has no ready correspondence by a TL unit with an approximate / close meaning or an acceptable way of referring to an object named. Compensation can be of two types:

1) semantic compensation which is used as a means to compensate for sense losses especially while translating culture-bound and nationally specific units and thus render the intended meaning in an acceptable form for the target reader, e.g. five-and-ten-cent store trade ( Warren ) – дешёвые магазины ( В.А. Кухаренко ); from soup to nuts and a Corona Corona ( Warren) – полный обед – от супа до десерта и дорогой сигары (В.А.Кухаренко).

2) stylistic compensation which can be local and non-local and is employed to compensate for stylistic losses that may be due to differences in stylistic reference of correlated units. Compare English correspondences used to translate Russian young people’s slang, буча (драка) – a scrap, a brawl; пятихатник – 500 roubles, каша (вещевой рынок) – flea market.

In cases of non-local compensation a translator fails to find a proper correspondence for a certain stylistically marked unit in a SL text, so he tries to restore the intended effect elsewhere. As a result, the overall impression of a text is believed to be balanced.

· Grammatical substitutions refer to various changes of grammatical (morphological) forms and syntactic structures that include several kinds of modifications:

1) part-of-speech characteristics, e.g.

Когда дочь переехала к родителям, ей вначале было очень одиноко. – When she moved to stay with her parents, their daughter felt very lonely at first ( pronominal substitution);

… в российского министра образования чуть не попало яйцо – Russia’s Minister of education was nearly hit by an egg ( passivization);

Он не очень хорошо сходится с людьми – He is not a terribly good mixer (the Russian verb-adverb phrase is translated by the English adjective-noun combination;

Он копит деньги на покупку дома – He is saving money to buy a car (the Russian deverbal noun is translated by the English infinitive);

Рабочие требовали повышения зарплаты и сокращения рабочего дня – The workers demanded higher pay and shorter working hours (the Russian deverbal noun denoting increase or decrease in size, volume, range is replaced by the English adjective in the comparative degree);

Я ему обрадовался – I was glad to see him (the Russian verb denoting emotional behaviour is often replaced by the English stative phrase: to be (turn, get, grow, become) + adjective);

Проект бюджета представлен на рассмотрение правительства России – The draft budget was submitted for consideration by the Russian government (the Russian noun+noun pattern is often replaced by the English adjective-noun phrase).

2) parts-of-a-sentence substitutions:

Visitors are requested to leave their coats in the cloakroom – Посетителей просят оставлять верхнюю одежду в гардеробе (the subject of the English passive form is replaced by the Russian direct object of the active form);

Last week witnessed an intensification of the diplomatic activity – На прошлой неделе наблюдалось оживление дипломатической деятельности (the English subject denoting the time of the action is replaced by the Russian adverbial modifier of time).

3) syntactic substitutions:

I never even once saw him brush his teeth – Я не видел, чтобы он чистил зубы ( the English simple sentence is replaced by the complex sentence in Russian);

It was so dark that I couldn’t see her – Я её в темноте не мог видеть (the English complex sentence is translated by the simple Russian sentence);

John kept whistling “Song of India” while he shaved – Джон брился и насвистывал «Индийскую песню» (subordination in the English sentence is replaced by coordination in the Russian sentence);

It was hot as hell and the windows were steamy – Жара была адская, все окна запотели (English syndetic linking is replaced by asyndetic linking in Russian).

6.3.3. Additions are complex lexico-grammatical transformations which bring about changes in the lexical elements of a SLT that are accompanied by grammatical changes. As a result of additions one or more words are added when translating an original utterance which are a sort of extension to it. Additions are caused by a number of factors:

a) the difference in the word-building, combinatorial, grammatical and other features of SL and TL, e.g. I’ll have him call you – Я скажу ему, чтобы он позвонил тебе.

b) the absence of a ready-to-use lexical correspondence in TL for a certain unit of translation which makes it necessary to resort to periphrastic explanations or cultural comment, e.g.

Его встретили с хлебом-солью – He was met with the bread and salt of hospitality.

c) ellipsis of some elements in a SLT where they are considered redundant, but which have to be restored in a TLT since they are compulsory in it, e.g.

The current design will only have a single process train, as the volumes will be small. – По существующему проекту предусматривается только одна технологическая линия, так как объемы добычи невелики.

d) stylistic demands in keepingwith the norms of TL, e.g.

A few minutes later nurse Davis, starched and curious, arrived – Через несколько минут вошла сестра Дэвис, вся накрахмаленная, едва сдерживая своё любопытство.

6.3.4. Omissions represent changes in a SLT which are opposite in nature to additions, though they are also qualified as complex lexico-grammatical transformations. Omissions result in dropping some elements from a SLT which may be caused by a number of factors:

a) the difference in combinability of SL and TL, e.g. English favours pair synonyms the origin of which has historical and cultural roots that have to be translated by single word correspondences in Russian. They are known as redundant synonymic cliches and are eliminated in a Russian translation, e.g. in respect thereof or in relation thereto – связанные с этим, all matters and things – все вопросы.

b) well-established traditions of expressing some information, e.g. English unlike Russian prefers to use detailed descriptions of size, volume, weight and other measurements [Хайруллин 1997] which are looked upon as redundant in Russian and are usually replaced by their functional analogues, e.g. Every inch of his face expressed amazement – На его лице было написано изумление.

c) the desire to create compression in an English sentence which is often achieved thanks to frequent uses of participial, infinitival, gerundial phrases, complex object, complex subject and other complexes, e.g. Как сообщается, целый день более 30 автомашин простояло без движения из-за снежных заносов на дороге. – More than 30 cars are said to have stuck twelve hours in snow drifts.

Translation practice shows that omissions are more frequently made while translating from Russian into English in contrast to additions that are usual when translating from English into Russian.

6.3.5. Integral modifications are such changes which involve the whole semantic and formal structure resulting in radical modifications of the speech utterance.

According to S.P. Romanova and A.L. Koralova, integral modifications may take place on two levels: the level of a word-group and the level of a sentence [Романова, Коралова 2004].

On the level of word groups they usually occur when translating phraseological units which may correlate in SL and TL in sense, but differ in their form, e.g. to be born with a silver spoon in one’s mouth – родиться в сорочке; to set the fire to – пустить красного петуха.

But more often than not we resort to integral modifications when rendering the whole utterances, e.g. The others can go right along the road. – Остальные пусть проваливают.

The comparison of integral modifications with other translation transformations shows that integral changes are of a higher order as they are usually accompanied by some other transformations, such as concretizing or generalization of meaning, antonymic translation and some others that refer specifically to constituent parts of an utterance which are rendered in some modified form, e.g. Have you ever in all your born days seen the like?—Ты когда-нибудь за всю свою жизнь видел что-нибудь подобное? (generalization).

I had the right of way – Вы должны были уступить мне дорогу ( sense development ).

It stands to reason that a translator may resort to integral modifications in two ways:

(1) when there is a ready correspondence in TL to render a given SL speech unit which presupposes a complete transformation. This is a case when dealing with various well-established notices, warnings, etc that have a fixed form, cf. Video controlled – Ведется видеонаблюдение; Fragile – Осторожно, стекло; Mind your head – Осторожно, низкий потолок.

(2) when a translator refrains from using a dictionary correspondence and thinks of a different way of translating a certain unit in a given context that he finds more appropriate for a given occasion, cf. Except for those two things, life is nau-se-at-ing – Без удовольствий и власти жизнь – ко-ш-шмар.

Thus in the former case integral modifications are regular and constant, while in the latter case they are individual, optional and contextual.