Translation and its Relation to other Sciences.

Translation is a many-sided type of human activity. It is the object of study of various sciences. In the system of linguistic sciences, it has close relation to grammar, lexicology, stylistics. Translation studies many problems treated in stylistics. Translation always deals with the system of linguistic signs organized in the translated texts on condition of their equivalence, unity of content and form. The translator’s task is to look for parallel adequate modes of expression of the content of the original with the aid of available means of expression in the mother tongue. For a translator without some knowledge of the history of words, the images hidden in their roots and their stylistic properties, a considerable part of the meaning of a literary text, whether prosaic, poetic or some other is lost. Without the knowledge of all these connotations one cannot grasp the whole essence of the message the author has to convey to his reader.

These contrastive studies do not identify the object of translation with the object of contrastive linguistics which deals with linguistic systems of grammar, phonology, vocabulary, etc. The translator primarily deals with texts, rather than systems. Apart from linguistic characteristics, any text presupposes its communication topic, situation and participants in communication, each of whom possesses a certain degree of linguistic and non-linguistic or extralinguistic experience. Linguistic and extralinguistic factors and phenomena interact, and a good translation is made possible when taking into account the subtleties of the language and participants in communicating extralinguistic experience.

e.g. …that Rob had anything to do with his feeling as lonely as Robinson Crusoe.

The meaning of the sentence cannot be grasped completely if the receptor or the reader knows nothing about Robinson Crusoe whose name usually associates with loneliness. The same is true of the sentence below: Camp David has gone as far as it could go.

Thus, the theory of translation and translation proper come close to the science called “socio-linguistics”.

Many aspects of translation of fiction and poetry can be successfully examined by scholars within the framework of literary studies. The psychophysiological process in the translator’s mind at the time of translating can be and is the object of study by psychology and physiology. Various problems arising from endeavors to machine translation are within the competence of such sciences as cybernetics, applied mathematics, the theory of information.

As for linguistics, it covers all types and varieties of translation. Its object of study is written and oral translation, translation of fiction and poetry, newspaper, documentary, technical scientific literature. There is every evidence to think that only close cooperation of various sciences studying different aspects of translation, will make it possible to successfully develop and raise the status of translation.

Translation is closely connected and interrelated with methods of foreign language teaching. Translation was considered to be a method of instruction and there were the so-called “grammar-translation” method (primarily from the mother tongue into the foreign language) and “lexical-translation” method (from the foreign language into the mother tongue) and “conscious translation” method proposed by L.Tsherba (it was applied at every stage and throughout the whole process of assimilation). However, practice has shown that the use of translation as a leading type of exercise in language learning does not ensure the necessary conditions for pupils’ direct comprehension of foreign language material. Modern methods of foreign language teaching do not exclude translation from the school programme, but its use is not as extensive as it used to be.

Additional information

A BRIEF HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION

In mid-fifties of the last century conference interpreter was still in its infancy with the first simultaneous interpretation having been used after World War II at the Nuremburg Trials (English, French, Russian and German).

In the interwar years consecutive interpretation alone was provided at international gatherings, such as at meetings of the League of Nations in Geneva where English and French were used.

The first interpreters were not trained but entered the profession on the strength of their mastery of languages, prodigious memory, and their impressively broad cultural background. Some of the legendary figures of interpreting include Jean Herbert, Andre Kaminker and Prince Constantin Andronikof, who was personal interpreter to General de Gaulle and one of the founders of AIIC, which was established in 1953.

With the setting up of international and European organizations (United Nations – 1945, Council of Europe – 1949, European Community - 1957) there was a growing need for a much larger number of trained professionals. To meet this continuing challenge, the course has expanded and now encompasses the languages of the European Union and the UN family.

The situation in the early 20^th century was totally different from what is known now as conference interpreting – a highly professional field requiring advanced learning and special training. Conference interpreting actually started during World War I, and until then all international meetings of any importance had been held in French for that was language of the 19^th century diplomacy.

After the Armistice had been signed on November 11^th, 1918, interpreters were invited to work for the Armistice Commissions and later at the Conference on the Preliminaries of Peace. This was the period when conference interpreting techniques to be developed. According to the conference interpreter and author Jean Herbert, they interpreted in consecutive in teams of two, each into his mother tongue.

So conference interpreting was becoming a profession, assuming certain standards in the period between the two World Wars. It started as a non-professional skill, developed from sentence-by-sentence interpreting into consecutive proper and involved special techniques of taking notes as well as many others.

This interpreting process required special qualities on top of an excellent command of two languages, among others tact and diplomacy; above average physical endurance and good “nerves”.

All this applies to both consecutive and simultaneous interpreting and interpreters.

Simultaneous interpreting came into life much later although first attempts to initiate this new conference interpreting procedure were occasionally made at multilingual gathering in the late twenties and the early thirties. In the USSR simultaneous interpreting was first introduced at the VI Congress of the Communist International in 1928 with interpreters sitting in the front row of the conference hall trying hard to catch the words of speakers, coming from the rostrum, and taking into heavy microphones hanging on strings of their necks. Isolated booths for interpreters started to be used five years later, in 1933. Attempts to introduce simultaneous interpreting in the International Labour Organisation were made a few years before the Second World War. Interpreters there were seated in somewhat like an orchestra pit just below the rostrum. They had no earphone to facilitate listening and had to do their best to understand what came over the loudspeakers. They whispered their translations into a sort of box called a Hushaphone.

With the establishment of the United Nations Organisation which opened up an era of multilateral diplomacy, and the development of multilateral economic relations a new era for conference interpreting also began. Simultaneous interpreting gained ground, particularly as Russian, Spanish and Chinese languages were introduced as UN working languages.

NOTE-TAKING IN CONSECUTIVE TRANSLATION

While listening to the speaker the interpreter takes notes of the message he or she receives, while the utterance is being received. It means that perception and comprehension are concurrent with note-taking.

The interpreter’s notes are an ideographic system of encoding the message. They are word- and symbol-based, their syntax is simple, their word order is direct and grammatical functions are expressed by fixed positions of the elements of the utterance, while positions themselves are vertically organized.

This brief description of the system of interpreter’s notes makes one realize that to take notes one has to translate the original utterance into another code. This code is in fact very close to what has been previously described as the internal semantic code of the Recipient. And the fact that the interpreter’s notes are something only the interpreter who has made them can read, or decode, proves the point.

So in order to be able to listen, comprehend and take down a processed and transformed version of the original utterance the interpreter has to run ahead of the utterance being received and anticipate its morpho-phonemic, syntactical and semantic structure.

If we now take our model of the interpretation process we shall see that it represents a two-phase process of consecutive interpreting in which the phases are separated from each other, the first phase being completed when the semantic representation is achieved in the form of notes, and the second phase being started when this semantic representation is utilized for programming and producing the message in the TL (target language).

No such border-line can be drawn for simultaneous interpreting. If we attempt a graphic representation of the process of simultaneous interpreting for one utterance, we shall see that the processes of speech perception and speech generation concur and run parallel to each other.

The language in which an interpreter has to take notes is the source language. Note-taking is a help for short-term memory. It reflects basic thoughts of the source text. The system of note-taking is based at widely spread abbreviations and individual own symbols.

Symbols and abbreviations used in note-taking must meet the following requirements:

- they should be understandable, easy to write and to decode;

- to be universal and easy to remember;

- they should mean definite notion, symbol, sense, which appears clearly and monosemantically both in linguistic and extra linguistic context;

- to be recognizable at the given moment of speaking and translating.

In order to read and interpret the notes easily you should place them downward in diagonal way. The first level is subject group, the second level is predicative, the third level is Direct Object and the fourth level is Indirect Object.

Model:

	the sentence

Some examples of the symbols used in the note-taking:

MP – Member of Parliament

VIP – Very Important Person

G-7 – Group of seven

Common used abbreviations:

CIS – СНГ (Commonwealth of Independent States)

EU – European Union

RF – Russian Federation

US – United States

UK – United Kingdom

UN – ООН (United Nations Organization)

MOW – Moscow

NY – New York

LON – London

CEO – chief executive officer

JV – joint venture

FTZ – Free trade zone

P – President

VP – Vice President

I/V – investment

↑ I – growth of inflation

E – employment

E – unemployment

D/B – budget deficit

Usage of contracted words:

pro – professional

demo – demonstration

info – information

Letter precision information such as proper names and geographical names is written only by means of consonants. Numeral precision information like days of a week and months is written by numbers.

e.g. – Friday, 11 – November

dates: current decade – 2008 = ‘8

current century – 1995 =.95

current millennium – 1812 =.812

numbers from 1100 to 10000 is to be written by hundreds

e.g. 17H = 1700

17t = 17 thousand

17m = 17 million

17b = 17 billion

17tr = 17 trillion

Marking of semantic ties between the symbols is the most important and rather difficult point. Especially when the interpreter is voicing his notation. Speaking is marked with: after the subject group; emphasis is marked with:! (claimed, referred, accused, offered). The symbol (:) means press-conference, press-release, statement.

approval – OK

disapproval – OK

plural – sign of square; e.g. MP² = Members of Parliament

m² = millions

repeat = R with an arrow with the place which is repeated

> - more, < - less

↑ - growth, rise; increase; improvement; future

↓ - decrease, fall, degradation; past

∆ - state, country

lines: → departure; E - export; address to

← arrival; I - import

Expression of modality:

possibility: m – may; m? – might

c – can; c? – could

doubt:? or?!

necessity: d (must, to be to, should) – from debere (lat.)

Comparative and Superlative degrees of Adjectives: signs of square and cube

e.g. big² – bigger, big³ – the biggest

“Speaking” symbols:

○ – congress, meeting

X – war, conflict

This approach shouldn’t be accepted as a third language. It should be created by imagination of an interpreter. /28/