the correlation of Passive w-form in E and R.

Present in both langs. Differences: 1) in character: R can form passive with limited # of verbs(transitive), while E has much broader choice of verbs(even intransitive – run a hotel)

2)in the functions: a)when smth is acted upon smb E favours Passive while R–inversioned order(direct obj.-pred-subj); b)R impersonal sent => E Passive;

c)verbs of judgement, 3^rd person(полагают) => E Passive.

In English the passive voice subject: a)point at the agent of the verbal action; b)indicate the recipient of an action; c)show the locality of an action; d)stress the effect of some event on smth; e)indicate the event (eventive subject)

3) in the uses

In Eng passive constructions are frequently used in academic prose, in news, in conversation where they tend to be stative in their meaning.

In R restricted to official docs use only.

Correlation. Type 1: was written – было написано

Dif-ces: 1)stylistic: R – bookish

2)subj(pas) is stressed, the doer +by in E; while Active in R

Type 2: E passive correlates with R intransitive

1)active v. +кто-то

2)indef personal sentence

3)indef personal sentence with verbs of speaking(Как передают)

4)infinit. sent. (nothing is to be seen – ничего ни видать

5)verbs with reflexive –ся (фильм снимается)

6)impers sent with predicate (He has been ordered to return. - Ему приказано вернуться.)

7)impers sent + modal verbs (нужно покончить – must be done away with)

(42, 43) Aspect serves to show the relation of the action to the passage of time, especially in reference to completion, duration, or repetition. The category of aspect in Rus can't be compared with any category in non-Slav. Languages. No equivalent relations between aspect forms in Rus and Eng.

comprehensive grammar: 1) tense-past and present time orientation, aspect the completion or lack of completion; 2) there are two marked aspect forms in English: the perfect and the continuous +present and past of both.

Catford points out that the Russian imperfective писал denoting either an action in progress or a repetitive action can equally frequently be translated into English by both the unmarked form wrote and the marked form was writing, while the marked members in both languages написал (denoting a single accomplished action) - was writing (denoting an action in process) are mutually untranslatable.

Translation difficulties: 1)absence of equivalent relations; 2) additional means-aspectual verbs; 3) division into term. and dur. and influences the choice of marked and unmarked in TL; 4) the existence of the so-called aspectual partners in Rus(писал-написал); 5) lex meaning of the aspectual forms in Rus.

The ways of translating the Rus imperf готовила: 1) Mother was cooking fish when I came home (the action in process at a given moment in the past).2) When I came home there was no one in but I knew at once mother had been cooking fish (the action was in progress before a given situation).3)Mother cooked fish on Thursdays (repeated action).

The perf.forms: 1)single-a)beg-g: She burst out laughing (Past Simple); b)moment- The child turned pale( lex.means ); c)completed-the sun has set; 2) repeated- то кто-нибудь придёт-people keep coming in(lex)

E=> R. 4 groups of tense-aspect:

1)perfect(=> perf.(single accom-d), imperf(repetitive)),

2)continuous(=> imperf(for planned future or in the given moment), perf(for future)),

3)perfect continuous(=> imperf.(in progress for the period before a given sit-n or continued into it), perf),

4)indefinite(=> imperf.(recurrent actions), perf(a single past action)).

(44) Translating texts (technical, scientific, newspaper, publicistic, diplomatic, etc) which are written in accordance with the accepted standards in SL he has not only to solve translation problems that arise at the level of elements and segments of a text, but also to pay attention to categories that exist on the level of a text. One of the most essential features of any text is functional style.

According to prof. I.R. Galperin a functional style of language is a system of interrelated language means which serves a definite aim in communication. functional styles are: 1)the language of belles-lettres, 2)the language of publicistic literature, 3)of newspapers, 4)of scientific prose and 5)the language of official documents. The division of the literary standard of any language into functional styles is important to take into account in translation for several reasons: 1)any SL text that has to be translated into TL can be referred to this or that functional style that must be retained in translation; 2)though the types of functional styles may correlate in SL and TL their linguistic peculiarities do not coincide fully; 3)functional styles reflect norms, rules of speech etiquette of a given lingo-cultural community.

In modern linguistics a new approach (van Th.Deiik, A.P.Chudinov) is based on their analysis in terms of discourse. A discourse as distinct from a text is dynamic and is understood as the process of creating a text in certain conditions, for a certain purpose, with a certain intention, by participants of a certain linguacultural community in keeping with the norms accepted in it.

V.L.Naer: the newspaper style proper vs the publicistic style qualifying the newspaper style as an informative style.

I.V.Arnold: the newspaper style possesses a set of style-forming features.

G.Ya.Solganik: a single newspaper-publicistic style within which lexicon comprises groups of units with various stylistic colouring.

V.N.Komissarov divides all newspaper materials into 4 groups: 1)informative and descriptive, 2)publicistic, 3)official and business, 4)scientific and technical.

Th.Van Deiik singles out the following elements in the structure of an English article: headline - by-line - the leading paragraph (the leads) - the body of the article. All the parts of an article are interdependent both structurally and functionally.

(45) 4 functions are of special importance for translation:

1) to draw the reader's attention to what is described in a newspaper,

2) to give the gist of the matter by summing up the content of an article,

3) to convince the reader of the point of view expressed in an article,

4) to prepare the reader for an adequate reaction to what is described

Dif-ces: a)they are concerned with giving the gist of the matter; b) they tell the story in a highly compact and condensed form

Rus=> Eng

1) replace Russian noun phrases: a) N1(process) + N2(agent)=> N2–subj, N1–predicate (Открытие навигации); b) N1(process) + N2(object)=> N2-subject, N1-Part.II

2) current events: a) sentences of various communicative types; b) Pr.Cont.

3) future events: a) by using sentences; b) by infinitive with the link-verb

4) past events: a) by using sentences; b) by historical Present(victim dies)

5) drop fun-al w.(Сенсационная находка - Nazi Papers Found in Attics)

6) restore all vital info to make it 'tell the story'(В тревожном ожидании - Three department stores will close by September)

7) Context bound transformations of addition(Предстоящая конференция - Physical Conference to Open in Moscow)

Common headline vocabulary has to be concretized on the basis of the headline environment(CIA man quits Israel - Отъезд директора ЦРУ из Израиля; Tell US to quit -Требуйте вывода американских войск; Union boss quits - Отставка профсоюзного босса)

(46) From the fun-al point of view the lead is closely connected with the headline as it expands upon the gist of the information. words in the lead are synonymous and tend to be longer.

The formal (grammatical) demands of translation observed in the leads are as follows:

1) arrange the content of the lead according to the following pattern:

Eng - who? - (did) what? - where? when? -why? - how?

Rus - when? - where? - (did) what? - who? (Вчера на заседании кабинета министров Англии было объявлено о планах сокращения на 20% расходов на социальные программы. - Plans for a 20% cut in spending on social needs were announced at the meeting of the British cabinet of ministers yesterday)

2) M-S (Eng) vs S-M (Rus): как заявил X — X said; как сообщается из X — it is reported from X; как сообщают из X — it is reported from X;

согласно заявлению X — according to X

3)Rus.adv.mod-er=> Eng.subj.(В совместном заявлении подчёркнуто -

The joint statement stresses)

4)Leave out redundant information(Реакционные силы пытаются помешать установлению взаимопонимания Между Востоком и Западом. - The reactionaries are out to hinder East-West understanding)

When translating from Eng into Rus – addition to keep with the norms оf the newspaper writing in Rus.(The settlement may be considered to be of primary importance to a number of home industries. - Можно считать, что заключение этого соглашения будет иметь решающее значение для ряд;» отраслей отечественной промышленности.)

(47) V.G.Kostomarov stresses two opposite trends: the repetitiveness of language means used and the expressiveness.

Dif-ties: 1) the core of newspaper lexis is constituted by standard well-established cliches but the bulk of standard newspaper lexis are nationally specific(производство на душу населения - per capita production

мыслить по-современному - to think along modern lines история подтверждает - history bears out). a)avoid " cultural shock" -Проблема отцов и детей-The generation gap; b) peculiar connotations in SL that offer difficulties for TLreaders(silent majority-молчаливое большинство)

2)E=> R: stylistically marked vocabulary by neutral units(axed-отклонил, показуха — show-off)

3) neologisms(получать тринадцатую зарплату - to get a 13' pay packet)

4) a) universal shortenings(GATT, IMF, VAT); b) nationally specific shortenings-ГКО (государственные краткосрочные облигации) - short-term Government bonds (treasury bills, government securities with a fixed interest rate)

5) Eng-dimin. and fanciful forms of ref. to politicians; Rus-not(ВВП, БАБ, Maggy, Gorbi)

6) to retain a stylistic effect(He is soaring into his world of fantasy-Но он предпочитает летать в облаках)

R=> E (rendering the meanings of linga-cultural concepts)

The analysis of Rus neologisms-three main sources of their appearance: 1)neologisms formed after productive patterns of Russian (чернобылец); 2)neologisms borrowed from other languages(таймшер (time-share); 3)neologisms described as inner borrowings(отмазывать).

Translation solutions: a) transcription /transliteration(префект — prefect); b)loan-translation(личное подсобное хозяйство - individual subsidiary holding); c)equivalent(утечка мозгов - brain-drain); d)analogues(общепит -public catering facilities); e)variant(отмывание денег-hot moneyrecycling

f)explanatory(дерьмократ - shitty democrat); g)combined translation(bor.tr-n+expl.= черный нал - black cash)

(48) Componential method relate to the analysis and interpretation of meaning hence the findings of this semasiological procedure were heavily relied upon in attempts to throw light upon semantics of correlated words in the two languages. The supporters of the componential analysis of meaning (J.J. Katz, J.A. Fodor, M. Bierwisch,) proceed from the assumption that the smallest units of lexical meaning in correlated words of any two languages seldom coincide in their quality, number. This model of translation singles out several stages in the process of translation including (a) establishing in SLT elementary units of content, (b) analyzing their componential structure which is then followed by (c) looking for such correspondences in a TL. The equivalence of two texts is understood here as being measured on the basis of semantic equivalence of their elements.

a) correlated words may differ in the quality, number and arrangement of semantic components (изба-hut)

b) correlated synonymic sets may differ in the number and semantic peculiarities of their members

c) Combinability of correlated words in the two languages where the difference often stems from the dissimilarities in their semantic structures (issue)

d) Correlated semantic / conceptual fields may not coincide in SL and TL (purple)

49) Situational model of translation (J. Catford, V.G. Gak) was developed under the influence of linguistic views of major British scholars (J. Firth, A.K. Halliday) who argued that every human language possesses its own systems of meaning understood as a matrix of relations into which this or that unit enters. Translation should not be understood as a mere transfer of meanings as different languages often use different sets of semantic components to describe the same or similar situations. Semantic equivalence of a SLT and a TLT is established not on the basis of respective sets of semantic components, but on the basis of identity of the situation described in the two languages. It must be stressed that a situation is understood as objects of reality and relations between them described in an utterance, but not as a speech context in which an act of communication takes place. According to V.G. Gak, there are five kinds of semantic changes in the ways of naming an object including synonymic substitutions, antonymic translation, semantic processes of expansion or narrowing, as well as the process of transfer. This model is reliable when comparing similar ways of describing the same situation despite various other differences:

a) the difference in word-building resources of SL and TL, e.g. It is convenient for a money-losing factory to blame suppliers for its own fault. - Плохо работающему производству удобно винить смежников.

b) The difference in well established ways of describing a given situation in the two languages, e.g. There is no knowing what may happen. - Нельзя знать, что может случиться.

c) The difference between lexico-semantic systems of SL and TL in verbalizing notions of different degrees of abstractedness, e.g. English has no generic term for the Russian любитель, but only a number of particular words, cf. coffee drinkers, cinema goers, nature lover, dog fancier.

d) Peculiarities of expressive resources and stylistic devices of SL and TL, e.g. It won't be skin off my nose. - Плевать мне с высокой горы.

(50) Cultural-semiotic approach to translation is based, on the one hand, on R. Jacobson's works that initiated a semiotic turn on the borderline of translation studies and cultural semiotics. These works show mat meaning can be lent to any kind of translation activity, methodologically the semiotic tradition has been characterized by bringing the concepts of meaning, interpretation and translation close to one another. These scholars put together inter-linguistic, intra-linguistic and intersemiotic translations which was crucial not only for translation studies, but also for developing the general notion of culture as the process of total translation. On the other hand, translation viewed as a working mechanism of culture is connected with semiotics of culture and thus it follows the traditions of M. Makhtin and J. Lotman. M. Bakhtin introduced the notion of dialogism in analyzing the language of literature which was further applied to «translation text as a place for two different logics of two different languages to meet in. It is very important to stress that this model has two important advantages compared to other theories: firstly, bringing semiotics into linguistics it broadened the boundaries of human communication, viewing a text as a code instead of looking at a text as a message produced on the basis of language alone it enabled to reconstruct cultural codes in their diversity and simultaneity

Cognitive model of translation developed by T.A.Fesenko, I..Flower, K.A.Schreiver within the framework of cognitive translatology is believed to incorporate the entire experience gained by translationists from Cicero, Saint Jerome and other great thinkers of the past. It is argued that a translator's main task is to reproduce in translation all the thoughts, expressed in a SLT, both in form and content while the reproduction of actual words is determined by the TL resources. According to this understanding, translation is viewed as human cognitive activity in the context of its socio-cultural functions. The central role is played by a translator who interprets the sense code contained in a SLT. Since there is no such a general universally accepted model of language, there are various models of translation linked with pure (formal) linguistics and contrastive, anthropological, cultural semiotic, cognitive and other macrolinguistic areas.