The theory of regular correspondences by Ya.I.Retsker

The notion of lexical correspondences can be treated in a narrow and a broad sense: in a narrow sense it refers to correspondences registered as ready dictionary correspondences in bi-lingual dictionaries, while in a broad sense it is used in regard to any means of textual translation of a given unit that doesn’t coincide with a dictionary correspondence, cf. on the one hand, in one’s teens – в подростковом возрасте and on the other hand, events of the country in its teens – события в стране в начале нынешнего столетия.

The theory of regular correspondences elaborated by Ya.I. Retsker (the first version was described in the article that came out in 1950 signaling the emergence of the linguistic theory of translation in this country) is based on the narrow interpretation of the term correspondence though in actual practice it often exceeds its limits and relies greatly upon a broad approach to correspondences. This inconsistency was explicitly stressed in prof. V.N. Komissarov’s theory of the levels of equivalence. In 1974 Ya.I. Retsker published his monograph “ Teoriya perevoda i perevodcheskaya praktica ” in which he modified his initial version changing the classes and the terminology used. The final version of the theory of regular correspondences establishes three types:

· equivalent correspondences

· variant and contextual correspondences

· correspondences resulting from translation transformations [Рецкер 2004].

According to the author, equivalent correspondences belong to the sphere of language, while the 2-nd and the 3-rd groups refer to speech. Such a conclusion is not supported by other scholars, for example, by prof. V.N.Komissarov who claims that there are several mute points here:

firstly, it is not quite clear what is actually meant in such cases, that is whether we take into account ways of establishing correspondences (when we view them as elements of a SL and a TL systems or establish as a result of comparing a SLT and a TLT) or the fact of their being registered in a bilingual dictionary;

secondly, variant correspondences cannot be contrasted to equivalents on this ground because they are also registered in parallel dictionaries and thus should be qualified as language elements, but not speech units;

thirdly, many correspondences which result from textual transformations later become established as dictionary correspondences [Комиссаров 2004].

7.2.1. Equivalent correspondences: definition,
classification, types of equivalents

Equivalent correspondences are defined as constant regular dictionary correspondences which are used in translation irrespective of a context and are interchangeable with each other in all their uses. It is argued that equivalents are usually found among compound words and word-combinations and are very rare among simple words, e.g. dog-collar – ошейник, to take the floor – взять слово. To equivalents the author refers proper and geographic names, terms and some common nouns.

Equivalents can be further divided into groups if we take into account denotational and connotational components of lexical meaning: when only denotational component of correspondences is compared it is possible to speak about full and partial equivalents. Full equivalents are such equivalents which coincide fully in their denotational meaning, cf. mass media – средства массовой информации, gossip column – светская хроника. Partial equivalents are such equivalents which coincide in some of their meanings, and differ in others and so they are interchangeable only in some of their contexts. Usually partial equivalents are found among polysemantic words, cf. the word – group silver plate can be translated as 1) серебряная пластинка, 2) серебряное блюдо, 3) столовое серебро. All these three correspondences should be treated as partial equivalents as they are used to translate different meanings of this polysemantic word.

When not only denotational, but also connotational component of lexical meaning is taken into account equivalents are classified into absolute and relative. Absolute equivalents coincide fully both in their denotational and connotational meanings, e.g. hydrocarbons – углеводороды, nitrogen dioxide – двуокись азота (terms in English and in Russian); to kick the bucket (sl) – окочуриться (сл., вульг.). Relative equivalents coincide in English and Russian in their denotational meaning, but differ in connotational component, e.g. гэбист (разг.) – KGBer (neutral); клубничка (сл.) – erotic entertainment (neutral).

There are several points connected with equivalent correspondences that have been criticized by some scholars. The first restriction concerns the use of the term equivalent which should not be understood as complete identity of content (H. Bellock, E. Nida, В. С. Виноградов, В.Н. Манакин). Even proper names and terms are liable to have some nuances of meaning which are often culturally relevant. These nuances of meaning are often revealed in derivatives and combinatorial capacity [Чанышева 2004], cf. the English name Canterbury enters the phrase to tell Canterbury tales which acquires a metaphorical sense associated with the knowledge of the respective narrative. The Russian correspondence рассказывать нескончаемые скучные истории retains only part of the connotations, while very important connotation implied in the English phrase ‘ these stories are especially famous for bawdy humour, i.e. about sex told in a rude and funny way’ (LDELC) is not conveyed. Besides, the contention that equivalents do not depend on a context gives rise to doubts since it may be true only of full equivalents the number of which is obviously very insignificant, but it does not hold good in regard to partial equivalents used by definition when translating polysemantic words which are contextually dependent [Швейцер 1988].

7.2.2. Variant correspondences: definition and the difference between variant correspondences and partial equivalents

Variant correspondences are a set of dictionary correspondences in TL used to translate, depending on a context, one and the same meaning of a SL unit of translation.

e.g. writing paper – писчая бумага

writing desk - письменный стол

the writing profession – пишущая братия

The analysis shows that meanings that are translated by variant correspondences prove to be general and broad in SL and have to be specified or concretized in TL. These correspondences in TL are usually related in meaning and often form synonymic sets. The translator is confronted with a task of the proper choice of the synonym which can be done only depending on the context, cf. общий – general/staff meeting; common aims/objective; joint efforts; our mutual friend.

As the definition of variant correspondences implies, the main cause of using this type of lexical correspondences lies in the difference in the semantic volume of related words. For example, министерство – ministry; board; the Treasury ( responsible for a country’s financial matters); department; office (Home office). This may be due to linguistic and extralinguistic reasons. Ya.I Retsker gives examples of semantically non-differentiated meanings of English words which have to be differentiated in translation into Russian, cf. justice may be translated by Russian справедливость or правосудие which are thought of as inseparable in the English word, while in Russian, according to the author, one of them does not necessarily presuppose the other.

Variant correspondences can be used to translate a SL word with one broad meaning or one of the meanings of a polysemantic word. In the latter case variant correspondences should not be confused with partial equivalents. As was shown above, partial equivalents are used to translate different meanings of a polysemantic word, i.e. they refer to a vertical dimension, thus forming a paradigmatic set, when they are viewed together as partial equivalents in relation to a word as a whole unit. Variant correspondences refer to a horizontal dimension, i.e. forming a syntagmatic, linear string, as they are used to translate one and the same meaning depending on its right and left environment. Thus, partial equivalents and variant correspondences apply to a word on its different levels coexisting with each other: partial equivalents are considered in relation to the semantic structure of a polysemantic word, while variant correspondences are established as correlates in regard to individual meanings, e.g.

carrier – 1) носильщик, подносчик (variants)

2) посыльный, рассыльный, курьер (variants)

3) возчик, перевозчик (variants)

4) авианосец

7.2.3. Contextual correspondences: definition and types
of contextual correspondences

Contextual correspondences are such correspondences in TL which are used to translate a SL unit in a particular linguistic and extralinguistic context. Depending on the character of a context they can be subdivided into usual and occasional contextual. Usual contextual correspondences are used to translate a given unit in a fixed context, e.g.

academic – 1) университетский; академический

2) академический, чисто теоретический, отвлечённый,

оторванный от практики;

3) канонический, традиционный

but: an academic discussion of a matter (already settled) – бесполезное (бесцельное) обсуждение уже решённого дела.

The influence of a fixed context on the use of a usual contextual correspondence is best of all felt when translating phrases which possess stability of context, i. e. phraseomatic and phraseological units, cf. light which is translated by equivalent and variant correspondences and its usual contextual correspondence in the phrase to bring to light – вывести на чистую воду.

Occasional contextual correspondences occur in a free context when they replace existing (ready) correspondences registered in dictionaries. They are used as translation solutions only for a given occasion, and thus their occasional contextual corespondences do not get registered in dictionaries. Since their use is not governed by ready dictionary correspondences, occasional contextual correspondences are very individual in character and depend on a translator’s creative abilities. E.g. He is a hot sketch for a fighter, anyway – Он такой «прекрасный» боксер, что дальше ехать некуда.

The 3-rd group of correspondences in Ya.I. Retsker’s classification includes various kinds of correspondences which result from using translation transformations. They have been discussed in detail above in connection with translation transformations (see Ch. 6), here it suffices to illustrate it with one more example, At last he found his voice. Он наконец-то обрёл дар речи. The difference between occasional contextual and transformational correspondences lies in the fact that the latter are generally governed by certain regularities connected with changes and modifications of the original text. In the above given example the Russian dictionary correspondence for voice – голос can be easily replaced by дар речи thanks to the lexical transformation of sense development which is necessitated by combinability rules.

7.3. Analogues as a special type of lexical correspondences.
Drawbacks of translation analogues

The first version of the theory of regular correspondences established analogues as a variety of correspondences alongside equivalents and adequate substitutions. In the later versions this class is not included because the theory has been greatly changed by the author both in the types of correspondences established, their number and naturally the terms used.

In the modern LTT the term analogue is used in a different sense. Ya.I. Retsker used it in connection with several TL correspondences for a given unit of translation when a translator has to make a proper choice on analogy with the choice of synonyms for a given context. Other scholars understand the term differently. A.V.Fyodorov defines analogues as means of rendering nationally specific concepts of SL which have no ready correspondences in TL and are thus translated approximately by words and phrases which denote in TL something similar [Фёдоров 1968:181].

Prof. L.S.Barkhudarov qualifies analogues as approximate equivalents which means that he considers them alongside other correspondences [Бархударов 1975:101]. To illustrate analogues he gives the following examples: техникум – junior college, горсовет – municipal council, путёвка (в санаторий, дом отдыха) – a voucher. Though according to L.S.Barkhudarov, such analogues are quite useful in dealing with nationally specific notions a translator must be aware of their approximate character, cf. the comment from an American film “ Food is awful in drugstores ” might not make sense in Russian translation «В аптеках ужасно кормят» because the words drugstore and аптека are only analogues, but not true equivalents, so in this case it is reasonable to translate it by the word закусочная. From L.S. Barkhudarov’s definition it is clear that he regards analogues in a broader sense than A.V. Fyodorov, as he refers to them names of such notions that are similar in the two languages in some features and differ in others.

A.V.Fyodorov who treats analogues in a more narrow sense confines them only to nationally specific concepts and phraseological units. At the same time he points out drawbacks of unrestricted use of analogues:

1) they may weaken in translation the national specificity, cultural relevance and local colouring that is created by such words in the original text. In Russian a lot of perestroika terms were first translated by approximate English words, which proved that they failed to render properly all implications, so that the analogues had to be replaced by borrowed translation, cf. гласность – openness, publicity, frankness / glasnost which was supplied by a comment: a system introduced in the mid-1980s in Russia which allowed people and the media to express views in opposition to the official position, diametrically opposed to the closed-society concept; государственные краткосрочные облигации (ГКО) – treasury bills /government short-term bonds (obligations). Examplesof this kind are discussed in more detail in [Чанышева 2006; Чанышева, Дьяконова 2007].

2) they may result in the unintended effect of bringing in certain connotations connected with a given concept in a TL linguacultural community. Such connotations which are aroused by TLT may seem to be strange, out-of-place and improper for a situation described. For example, the English word peddler (торговец-разносчик) could hardly be translated by the Russian word коробейник which is proper to use only against the background of the Russia of the Nekrasov times.

It should be borne in mind that some bilingual dictionary compilers choose wrong analogues in translation which may bring to intercultural misunderstanding, e.g. career woman – работающая женщина, особ. имеющая специальность.