Translation of lexical and grammatical transformations

Костанайский гуманитарный колледж

Иванов Иван Иванович

“Translation of lexical and grammatical transformations”

Курсовая работа

0512000 “Переводческое дело”

Научный руководитель:

Иванов Иван Иванович

Костанай, 2016

Plan

Introduction………………………………………………………………….……….3

1 Lexical and grammatical transformations………………………………………….4

Reasons for using lexical and grammatical transformations……………….….…9

Classification of the lexical-grammatical transformations…………………..…10

Analyzing transformations taking as an example the story by

John Green “The Fault in Our Stars”…………………………………………...18

The main reasons for using transformations in the story “The

Fault in Our Stars”……………………………………………………………...19

Varieties of transformations used in the story “The Fault In

Our Stars”………………………………………………………………….........20

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..30

References…………………………………………………………………………..31

Introduction

Translation is the communication of the meaning of a source-language text by means of an equivalent target-language text. [1]

Translators always risk inappropriate spill-over of source-language idiom and usage into the target-language translation. On the other hand, spill-overs have imported useful source-language calques and loanwords that have enriched the target languages. Indeed, translators have helped substantially to shape the languages into which they have translated. [2]

All translators unlike bilingual or in other words people, who know two or more languages, should know methods of transfer identified by linguists-translators. And there are a lot of methods of translation between two languages.

Translated there are transformations at the level of a single word or the whole sentence, or even paragraph. Changes occurring in the translation of the word are called lexical transformation.

For the practical part I used the book of John Green «The Fault in Our Stars”. For this work I used the book mentioned above, translation of this book made by O. Myshakova. And the works of the theorists like as Barkhudarov and Kamisarov.The main goal of this course paper is disassemble the reasons for using lexical and grammatical transformations while translating from English into Russian.

The subject of this course paper is disassembling kinds of lexical and grammatical transformations.

The object of the current research is the theory of translation.

The hypothesis of this course paper can be formulated as follow: the knowledge of the types of lexical and grammatical transformations and ways of it is use can help to avoid difficulties in translation.

The objectives are:

To study the reason for using lexical and grammatical transformations;

To study the classification of the lexical and grammatical transformations;

To analyze story by John Green “The Fault in Our Stars”, using the materials of the theoretical part.

References contain the most known and important researches for given work of teachers – innovators and scientists: psychologist, theorists. References consist of 26resources.

Lexical and grammatical transformations

Translation is a science, but from the author’s point of view in some way it is like an art. An art that helps people to communicate helps to learn how to express you correctly and appropriately. Already during ancient times people felt necessity of translation which provided the communications between them and transfer of the information. [14]

Lexicology is a branch of linguistics, the science of language. The term Lexi c o l o g y is composed of two Greek morphemes: lexis meaning ‘word, phrase’ (hence lexicons ‘having to do with words’) and logos which denotes ‘learning, a department of knowledge’. Thus, the literal meaning of the term L e x i с o l о g у is ‘the science of the word’. [3]

Lexicology as a branch of linguistics has its own aims and methods of scientific research, its basic task being a study and systematic description of vocabulary in respect to its origin, development and current use. Lexicology is concerned with words, variable word-groups, phraseological units, and with morphemes which make up words. [3]

Lexical Units

It was pointed out above that Lexicology studies various lexical units: morphemes, words, variable word-groups and phraseological units. We proceed from the assumption that the word is the basic unit of language system, the largest on the morphologic and the smallest on the syntactic plane of linguistic analysis. The word is a structural and semantic entity within the language system. [4, 7]

It should be pointed out that there is another approach to the concept of the basic language unit. The criticism of this viewpoint cannot be discussed within the framework of the present study. Suffice it to say that here we consistently proceed from the concept of the word as the basic unit in all the branches of Lexicology. Both words and phraseological units are names for things, namely the names of actions, objects, qualities, etc. Unlike words proper, however, phraseological units are word groups consisting of two or more words whose combination is integrated as a unit with a specialized meaning of the whole. To illustrate, the lexical or to be more exact the vocabulary units tattle, wall, taxi are words denoting various objects of the outer world; the vocabulary units black frost, red tape, a skeleton in the cupboard are phraseological units: each is a word-group with a specialized meaning of the whole, namely black frost is ‘frost without snow or rime’, red tape denotes bureaucratic methods, a skeleton in the cupboard refers to a fact of which a family is ashamed and which it tries to hide. [4, 7]

Course of Modern English Lexicology

Modern English Lexicology aims at giving a systematic description of the word-stock of Modern English. Words, their component parts — morphemes — and various types of word-groups, are subjected to structural and semantic analysis primarily from the synchronic angle. In other words, Modern English Lexicology investigates the problems of word-structure and word-formation in Modern English, the semantic structure of English words, the main principles underlying the classification of vocabulary units into various groupings the laws governing the replenishment of the vocabulary with new vocabulary units. [4, 11]

In this case I want to say that not only English speakers should learn new ways of forming English language, and as translators from English language we should know every aspect of the both languages.

Modern English Lexicology as a subject of study forms part of the Theoretical Course of Modern English and as such is inseparable from its other component parts, i.e. Grammar, Phonetics, Stylistics, on the one hand, and the Course of History of the English Language, on the other. [4, 11]

The language learner will find the Course of Modern English Lexicology of great practical importance. He will obtain much valuable information concerning the English word stock and the laws and regulations governing the formation and usage of English words and word-groups. Besides, the Course is aimed both at summarizing the practical material already familiar to the students from foreign language classes and at helping the students to develop the skills and habits of generalizing the linguistic phenomena observed. The knowledge the students gain from the Course of Modern English Lexicology will guide them in all their dealings with the English word-stock and help them apply this information to the solution of practical problems that may face them in class-room teaching. [4, 11]

Semasiology

By definition Lexicology deals with words, word-forming morphemes (derivational affixes) and word-groups or phrases. All these linguistic units may be said to have meaning of some kind: they are all significant and therefore must be investigated both as to form and meaning. The branch of lexicology that is devoted to the study of meaning is known as e m a s i o l o g y. [4, 13]

And I want to remember you that ‘language’ is a very difficult part of our live, it has much brunches for study, so that’s why as translators we should learn language not only as a science, but also as a living organism, which lives and develops with us.[4, 13]

It should be pointed out that among the adherents of the referential approach there are some who hold that the meaning of a linguistic sign is the concept underlying it, and consequently they substitute meaning for concept. Others identify meaning with the referent. They argue that unless we have a scientifically accurate knowledge of the referent we cannot give a scientifically accurate definition of the meaning of a word. According to them the English word salt, e.g., means ’sodium chloride (Na Cl)’. But how are we to define precisely the meanings of such words as love or hate, etc.? We must admit that the actual extent of human knowledge makes it impossible to define word meanings accurately. [4, 13]

Meaning

Comparing word-forms of one and the same word we observe that besides grammatical meaning, there is another component of meaning to be found in them.[4, 19]

Unlike the grammatical meaning this component is identical in all the forms of the word. Thus, e.g. the word-forms go, goes, went, going, gone possess different grammatical meanings of tense, person and so on, but in each of these forms we find one and the same semantic component denoting the process of movement. This is the lexical meaning of the word which may be described as the component of meaning proper to the word as a linguistic unit, i.e. recurrent in all the forms of this word. [4, 19]

The difference between the lexical and the grammatical components of meaning is not to be sought in the difference of the concepts underlying the two types of meaning, but rather in the way they are conveyed. The concept of plurality, e.g., may be expressed by the lexical meaning of the world plurality; it may also be expressed in the forms of various words irrespective of their lexical meaning, e.g. boys, girls, joys, etc. The concept of relation may be expressed by the lexical meaning of the word relation and also by any of the prepositions, e.g. in, on, behind, etc. (cf. the book is in/on, behind the table). [4, 19]

It follows that by lexical meaning we designate the meaning proper to the given linguistic unit in all its forms and distributions, while by grammatical meaning we designate the meaning proper to sets of word-forms common to all words of a certain class. Both the lexical and the grammatical meaning make up the word-meaning as neither can exist without the other. That can be also observed in the semantic analysis of correlated words in different languages. E.g. the Russian word сведения is not semantically identical with the English equivalent informationbecause unlike the Russian сведения the English word does not possess the grammatical meaning of plurality which is part of the semantic structure of the Russian word. [4, 19]

Part-of-Speech Meaning

It is usual to classify lexical items into major word-classes (nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs) and minor word-classes (articles, prepositions, conjunctions, etc.).[4, 19]

All members of a major word-class share a distinguishing semantic component which though very abstract may be viewed as the lexical component of part-of-speech meaning. For example, the meaning of ‘thingness’ or substantiality may be found in all the nouns e.g. table, love, sugar, though they possess different grammatical meanings of number, case, etc. It should be noted, however, that the grammatical aspect of the part-of-speech meanings is conveyed as a rule by a set of forms. If we describe the word as a noun we mean to say that it is bound to possess set of forms expressing the grammatical meaning of number (cf. table— tables), case (cf. boy, boy’s) and so on. A verb is understood to possess sets of forms expressing, e.g., tense meaning (worked — works), mood meaning (work! — (I) work), etc.[4, 19]

The part-of-speech meaning of the words that possess only one form, e.g. prepositions, some adverbs, etc., is observed only in their distribution(cf. to come in (here, there) and in (on, under) the table). [4, 19]

One of the levels at which grammatical meaning operates is that of minor word classes like articles, pronouns, etc. [4, 19]

Members of these word classes are generally listed in dictionaries just as other vocabulary items, that belong to major word-classes of lexical items proper (e.g. nouns, verbs, etc.). [4, 19]

One criterion for distinguishing these grammatical items from lexical items is in terms of closed and open sets. Grammatical items form closed sets of units usually of small membership (e.g. the set of modern English pronouns, articles, etc.). New items are practically never added. [4, 19]

Lexical items proper belong to open sets which have indeterminately large membership; new lexical items which are constantly coined to fulfill the needs of the speech community are added to these open sets. [4, 19]

Interrelation of the lexical and the grammatical meaning and the role played by each varies in different word-classes and even in different groups of words within one and the same class. In some parts of speech the prevailing component is the grammatical type of meaning. The lexical meaning of prepositions for example is, as a rule, relatively vague (independent of smb, one of the students, the roof of the house). The lexical meaning of some prepositions, however, may be comparatively distinct (cf. in/on, under the table). In verbs the lexical meaning usually comes to the fore although in some of them, the verb to be, e.g., the grammatical meaning of a linking element prevails (cf. he works as a teacher and he is a teacher). [4, 19]

Nature of Semantic Change

Generally speaking, a necessary condition of any semantic change, no matter what its cause, is some connection, some association between the old meaning and the new. There are two kinds of association involved as a rule in various semantic changes namely: a) similarity of meanings, and b) contiguity of meanings. [4, 30]

S i m i l a r i t y of m e a n i n g s or metaphor may be described as a semantic process of associating two referents, one of which in some way resembles the other. The wordhand, e.g., acquired in the 16th century the meaning of ‘a pointer of a clock of a watch’ because of the similarity of one of the functions performed by the hand (to point at something) and the function of the clock pointer. Since metaphor is based on the perception of similarities it is only natural that when an analogy is obvious, it should give rise to a metaphoric meaning. This can be observed in the wide currency of metaphoric meanings of words denoting parts of the human body in various languages (cf. ‘the leg of the table’, ‘the foot of the hill’, etc.). Sometimes it is similarity of form, outline, etc. that underlies the metaphor. The words warm and cold began to denote certain qualities of human voices because of some kind of similarity between these qualities and warm and cold temperature. It is also usual to perceive similarity between colors and emotions. [4, 30]

It has also been observed that in many speech communities color terms, e.g. the words black and white, have metaphoric meanings in addition to the literal denotation of colors. [4, 30]

C o n t i g u i t y of meanings or metonymy may be described as the semantic process of associating two referents one of which makes part of the other or is closely connected with it. [4, 30]

This can be perhaps best illustrated by the use of the word tongue — ‘the organ of speech’ in the meaning of ‘language’ (as inmother tongue’s. also L. lingua, Russ.). The word bench acquired the meaning ‘judges, magistrates’ because it was on thebench that the judges used to sit in law courts, similarly the House acquired the meaning of ‘members of the House’ (Parliament). [4, 30]

It is generally held that metaphor plays a more important role in the change of meaning than metonymy. A more detailed analysis would show that there are some semantic changes that fit into more than the two groups discussed above. A change of meaning, e.g., may be brought about by the association between the sound-forms of two words. The word boon, e.g.”, originally meant ‘prayer, petition’, ‘request’, but then came to denote ‘a thing prayed or asked for’. Its current meaning is ‘a blessing, an advantage, a thing to be thanked for.’ The change of meaning was probably due to the similarity to the sound-form of the adjective boon (an Anglicized form of French bon denoting ‘good, nice’). [4, 30]

Within metaphoric and metonymic changes we can single out various subgroups. Here, however, we shall confine ourselves to a very general outline of the main types of semantic association as discussed above. A more detailed analysis of the changes of meaning and the nature of such changes belongs in the diachronic or historical lexicology and lies outside the scope of the present textbook. [4, 30]

Lexical Meaning of word group

The lexical meaning of the word-group may be defined as the combined lexical meaning of the component words. Thus the lexical meaning of the word-group Redflower may be described denotation ally as the combined meaning of the wordsred and flower. It should be pointed out, however, that the term c o m b i n e d l e x i c a l m e a n i n g is not to imply that the meaning of the word-group is a mere additive result of all the lexical meanings of the component members. As a rule, the meanings of the component words are mutually dependent and the meaning of the word-group naturally predominates over the lexical meaning of its constituents.[4, 67]

Even in word-groups made up of technical terms which are traditionally held to be mono semantic the meaning of the word-group cannot be described as the sum total of the meanings of its components. For example, though the same adjective atomicis a component of a number of terminological word-groups, e.g. atomic weight,atomic warfare, etc., the lexical meaning of the adjective is different and to a certain degree subordinated to the meaning of the noun in each individual word-group and consequently the meaning of the whole group is modified. [4, 67]

Interdependence of the lexical meanings of the constituent members of word-groups can be readily observed in word-groups made up of poly semantic words. For example, in the nominal group blind man (cat, horse) only one meaning of the adjective blind, i.e. ‘unable to see’, is combined with the lexical meaning of the noun man (cat, horse) and it is only one of the meanings of the noun man — ‘human being’ that is perceived in combination with the lexical meaning of this adjective. The meaning of the same adjective in blind type (print, handwriting) is different.[4, 67]

As can be seen from the above examples, poly semantic words are used in word-groups only in one of their meanings. These meanings of the component words in such word-groups are mutually interdependent and inseparable. [4, 67]

Semantic inseparability of word-groups that allows us to treat them as self-contained lexical units is also clearly perceived in the analysis of the connotation component of their lexical meaning. Stylistic reference of word-groups, for example, may be essentially different from that of the words making up these groups. There is nothing colloquial or slangy about such words as old, boy, bag, fun, etc. when taken in isolation. The word-groups made up of these words, e.g. old boy, bags of fun, are recognizably colloquial. [4, 67]

Reasons for using lexical transformations

In his work "The course in Translation" L.K Latyshev defines lexical transformation as a "deviation from the lexical correspondences." In the lexical systems of English and Russian languages ​​are observed discrepancies that occur in the type of the semantic structure of the word. Any word that is a lexical unit - is part of the lexical system. This explains the uniqueness of the semantic structure of words in different languages. [7]

Therefore, the essence of lexical transformations is the "replacement of individual lexical items (words and phrases). Foreign language translation language lexical units that is not their dictionaries and equivalents, that is, which have a different meaning than they transmit in the translation unit of a foreign language" [8]

There are many causes of lexical transformation, and fully grasp all the reasons why there is no way. Therefore, we will limit their choices to a few main causes of the need for this type of transformation. In the meaning of the word in different languages ​​are often allocated different signs of the same phenomenon or concept which reflects the vision of the world, characteristic of the language, rather, carriers of the language, which inevitably creates difficulties in translation. Compare, for example, glasses and очки. In English, the word stands out the material from which the object is made, and in Russian - its function: the second eye (eyes). Or: Hot milk with skin on it.Горячеемолокоспенкой. This phenomenon is actually associated in English with the skin, skin that covers the body or fetus, whereas in the Russian language as the basis of the word on the results of the boil - foam appears when the milk boils and foams.

The second reason, calls the lexical transformation, is the difference in the amount of semantic word. There are absolutely identical words in a foreign language and the target language. More often than not the same as the first lexical-semantic variants of words, their fundamental importance, and followed by various lexical semantic variants, for the development of the values ​​of these words going in different ways. This is due to the operation of the various words in the language, the difference in use, different compatibilities, but even the basic meaning of the English word may be wider than the corresponding Russian word (of course, cannot be excluded and the opposite case).

Difference in the semantic structure of a word represents one of the main reason causing lexical difficulties in translation. [25]

The third reason that causes the need for lexical transformations is the difference in compatibility. Words are defined for the language links. It is important to note that the compatibility of the words in the case of interoperability concepts designated by them. This compatibility in different languages, obviously, is different, and what is possible in one language is unacceptable in another.

Each language has its typical standards compatibility. Each language can generate an infinite number of new combinations that are understandable to people who speak it, and do not violate its norms.

Labor Party protests followed sharply on the Tory deal with Spain.

За сообщением о сделке консервативного правительства с Испанией немедленно последовал протест лейбористской партии.

The wider the scope of semantic words, the wider its compatibility, that is.. Due to this, it may enter into a variety of communications. This in turn allows the transmission opportunities in the translation, the translations.

1.2Classification of the lexical and grammatical transformations

The matter of lexical transformations is considered in linguistics concerning translation of scientific and social and political texts because new word formations are typical of the above texts (for instance, neologisms of various kinds). However, little attention is paid to the features of lexical transformations in terms of literary translation. Mostly, the matter of lexical transformations concerns stylistic norms of the language because lexical transformations are connected mostly with such translation techniques as 1)generalization; 2) omission; 3) concretization; 4) antonymic translation; 5) meaning extension or sense development 6) loss compensation.[5]

Generalization is used when something in the TARGET language is usually expressed using concepts with broader meaning or when the preserving the original concepts with narrower meaning would result in an awkward translation. [5]

–How do they call thee?

–Как тебя зовут?

The original text contains the Middle English pronoun thee. The translator usually faces a challenge in such cases because there should be a choice between the archaic word with certain stylistic coloring and certain stylistic generalization, almost neutralization. In this particular case the translator opted for stylistic generalization and her choice might be explained by the historical context. The Russians had certain idea of Spanish guerillas of that time. If the translator kept the archaic form in the translation, it would sound at least awkward and provoke a smile of the Russian reader. Nevertheless, here the author’s gesture interferes again because Hemingway assigned such awkward phrases to foreigners who spoke English in his works. Thus, English readers could exactly distinguish this inappropriate use of the word thee. But at the same time, if we know the plot of the novel, we should note that the character, who pronounced How do they call thee? respected very much Robert Jordan, the person who this phrase was addressed to. Therefore, we may suggest that such enigmatic usage of the pronoun thee might have double sense. The translation was effected at the word level. [5]

Example:

For several years, the English Parliament was discussing a bill to abolish the death penalty. British newspapers always called him No Hanging Bill. But a bill to abolish hanging probably would have been understood as the replacement of one method of execution to others, such as the shooting. The only correct one in this case is the generalizing translation:

Законопроект об отмене смертной казни.

A bill to abolish the death penalty.

In the following example, had to resort to both the reception of generalization and to antonymic translation, as well as the replacement of parts of speech.[5]

В результате человек не приобретает многого, чему мы бы могли научиться в профессии, быту, общении.

As a result a person fails to learn a great deal of what he might have learned professionally and from the point of view of his general culture.

Omission is used when the clause is redundant, from the point of the TARGET language, and would make the TARGET sentence sound unnatural if it were to be translated. There are cases when certain words are just omitted without compensation and mentioning with the help of some lexical units.[5]

Example:

…He spread the photo stated military map out of the forest floor and looked at it carefully…

…Он разложил на земле карту и внимательно вгляделся в нее…

On the one hand, the translator omitted several words and didn’t transfer the meaning of these words. But, on the other hand, translator’s decision can be justified by the fact that the word photo stated military map is not so important detail to be rendered in an exact way and loss of these two words photo stated and military doesn’t affect the context at all. What should be pointed out is that the translator managed to keep the same syntactical structure of the author’s sentence. The unit of translation is a word-combination. [5]

Additions –Semantic additions are inadmissible in translation. A translator can do semantic additions, i.e. explanations, only out of TT, in his/her notes that are taken outside of a text by footnotes. However, a translator has sometimes to add some words into the text so as not to break the norms of the Russian language. [10]

Over the chimney-piece was an old copy of Lawrence’s portrait of Kemble as Hamlet.

Над камином висела старая копия портрета Кембла в роли Гамлета кисти Лоренса.

They opened with a failure and this was succeeded by another.

Пьеса, которой они открыли тот сезон, потерпела фиаско, то же произошло и со следующей.

She bustled Julia upstairs.

Эви выпроводила Джулию из комнаты и погнала ее наверх.

Compression peculiar English necessitate the addition of words in the translation into Russian. [5]

Example:The new American Secretary of State has proposed a world conference on food supplies.

Новый государственный секретарь США предложил созвать всемирную конференцию по вопросам продовольственных ресурсов.

In the phrase has proposed a world conference omitted verb to call -созвать. When translated into Russian, we add the word in accordance with the rules of the Russian language.

The widespread use of complex combinations of attribute also leads to the use of lexical Reception adding: [5]

George Mac Govern's 1972 economic program turned into a vote-losing albatross.

Экономическая программа Макговерна обернулась для него неудачей и привела к потере голосов избирателей.

Scottish miners in conference here today launched a new wages demand ... Totally ignoring any Tory pay laws or legal threats, they will pursue increases of up to 13 a week. Here wages demand should be translated as …требованиеповыситьзарплату, a Tory pay laws–asпринятыеконсервативнымправительствомзаконыозамораживаниизаработнойплаты.In the latter case, the right choice of the semantic component is added to the Russian translation requires knowledge of extra linguistic factors.

Concretization is used when something in the target language is usually expressed using concepts with narrower meaning or when preserving the original concepts with broader meaning would result in awkward translation. [5]

…He was a short and solid old man in a black peasant’s smock and gray iron-stiff trousers and he wore rope-soled shoes …

…Это был невысокий, коренастый старик в черной крестьянской блузе и серых штанах из грубой ткани; на ногах у него были сандалии на веревочной подошве …

Here we should pay attention to the way the word shoes and trousers are translated. The translator used more concrete Russian word to render the description of the elderly man. Shoes have rather broad meaning in English and give no exact description of the image of the elderly man. We know that events of the novel take place in the forest and the mountainous area. Certainly, the type of the elderly man’s shoes is not that important but concretization created more vivid description of the character if given with concretization. Thus, shoes were translated as сандали. The word trousers are more often translated into Russian as брюки. But here the translator dresses the elderly man in штаны . Actually, that’s right because this word has simpler connotation which is more appropriate for this particular novel. [5]

Sometimes concretization causes not only choice of more exact word for translation but also transposition in the sentence and change of syntactical structure of the sentence. [5]

…His shirt was still wet from where the pack had rested…

…Рубашка на спине еще не просохла после подъема на гору…

This transformation has to do with lexical transformation of concretization because the original description of the place where the pack was conveyed into Russian with more exact meaning. The Russian translation is more laconic than the source phrase, thus, following the general demand towards translation of Hemingway’s works – absence of grandiloquence. [5]

Sometimes a translator adapts rather general word combinations to the context and translates them with more precise meaning than they were implied in the source text. Due to this translator’s decision, the target text becomes clearer and reflects the contextual background better. [5]

…It is only by doing nothing that we are able to live in these mountains…

…Мы только потому и держимся в этих местах, что ничего здесь не затеваем …

This concretizing transformation would be impossible without knowledge of the context of the novel. The translator implied the real meaning of the phrase doing nothing which was relevant for the context and narration. Sometimes this type of transformation is rather useful because it makes some vague details clear in the text itself and allows the reader to follow the idea better. There is such a translation phenomenon when the translator is able to improve the narration of the author by concretizing something without loss of the original style of the author. [5]

Antonymic translation involves translating a phrase or clause containing a negation using a phrase or clause that does not contain a negation or vice versa. Nevertheless, antonymic translation is more related with stylistic devices of translation because it is personal decision of the translator to imply this technique concerning some speech patterns in the source text.[5]

The necessity for this transformation arises due to several reasons: 1) peculiarities of the systems of source language and target language, 2) contextual requirements, 3) traditional norms of target language. [13]

...That is simple…

…Это не трудно…

This is the classic example of antonymic translation when the affirmative phrase in the source language is translated into the target language with a negation that is sometimes more typical of the stylistic norms of the target language or according to the text. This transformation does not distort the author’s plan style of writing and actually conveys the real meaning of the phrase “That is simple”. Moreover, the phrase corresponds with stylistic norms of the target language. This example shows how a sentence can be considered as a unit of translation. [5]

Antonymic transformation concerns word combinations more often. This kind of transformations is affected at the phrase or word combination level. [5]

…The mountain sloped gently where he lay…

…Склон в этом месте был некрутой …

As we can see in the example, antonymic translation again takes place and affirmative construction is translated with a negation in the TARGET text. Sometimes the choice of such transformations depends on personal views of the translator but actually it corresponds with literal norms and purposes to express the idea better in terms of literature and stylistics. [5]

The whole subordinate clause can be transformed with antonymic translation that proves effectiveness of this method if a translator has the purpose to keep author’s taciturn and laconic style of writing. [5]

…He knew how to blow any sort of bridge that you could name …

…Нет такого моста , которого он не сумел бы взорвать…

In fact, here we observe antonymic translation at the phrase level because the translator transforms the meaning of the whole phrase. We pointed out earlier that translation can be effected at several possible levels: word, word combination, phrase, sentence and so on. Here we come across the phrase level. [5]

So, meaning and use of Russian and English word-building suffixes diverge considerably. Every language has rather productive suffixes, for example, the English suffix –er. “The suffix –er is capable of forming a noun which means an agent of an action derived from practically any word. [9]

That is why verbs are often used when nouns with –er are translated into Russian”. Actually the following example shows how a translator can apply meaning extension or sense development. It regards the word driver and the way how it was translated. Meaning extension involves translating a cause by its effect or vice a versa.[5]

…They had dismounted to ask paper soft he driver of a cart…

…Они спешились, чтобы проверить документы у крестьянина , который ехал на телеге…

The noun with –er - driver was translated with the Russian finite verb ехал. Actually, the morphological transformation took place. As for lexical transformations, they often occur alongside with morphological ones because it requires change of the lingual components which are closely related with a word that converts into other part of speech. The word крестьянин in the TARGET text appears from the context and is very appropriate there because it complements the entire picture where the novel takes place. The translator has such a right to add some lexical units to make the description more complete and clear in the target language. Thus, here the translator applied concretization, addition, and morphological transformations. [5]

Translation often practices when one part of speech is converted into other one. An English verbal noun with –eris “frequently and regularly” converted into a Russian finite verb.[5]

Sometimes a translation technique of addition is used to translate words with –er according to stylistic norms. A translator often uses by his personal view.

While literary translation, one should consider not only word-forming peculiarities but also “rich stylistic resource of the Russian language in comparison with the English language”. This factor should be taken into account when emotional and expressive constructions typical of literary texts are translated. So, a great number of various Russian diminutive, affectionate, pejorative suffixes allow a translator to convey the speaker’s attitude to the subject. [5]

Loss-of-meaning compensation involves adding to or reinforcing a target text in one place to compensate for something that hasn’t been translated in a different place in the source text. Sometimes it can concern the reproduction of certain parallel lexical and syntactical model as it is observed in the examples below.[5]

…That is your right and how it should be done…

…Вот что нужно , и вот что от вас требуется…

Translation is effected at the sentence level and the translator employed some possible techniques for that. In fact, we have no source construction reproduced in the target sentence but we have rather an idiomatic Russian construction with a sort of parallelism. This has expressive coloring and renders the mood which was conferred to the phrase by the speaker. We classified this example as a lexical transformation because as we can see the translator used absolutely different set of lingual units as compared with the source sentence. But it is sure to have relation with syntactic transformations as well because the structure is changed completely and has nothing in common with the original structure. [5]

The considerable part of translator’s work is dedicated to rendering various colloquial phrases. Such situations usually occur while translating some dialogues when characters interchange utterances of sub neutral stylistic level and the translator must confer the same coloring to the TARGET text. [5]

…–Not even in a joke…

…–Да, тут шутки плохи …

Colloquial phrases are one of the most difficult matters to be translated because the TARGET phrase must correspond with the source one in expressiveness, it must be of lower style. The key word for translation of this particular phrase became the word “joke”. The translator managed to find the equivalent phrase in Russian and the translated phrase sounds as idiomatic as the original one in English. Translation is at sentence level because the syntactical structure and set of lingual units were changed. [5]

A translator can employ paraphrasing to reach the equivalent energy of the phrase or render the atmosphere and the mood which is relevant to the situation described. [5]

…I understand that…

…Ясно…

The translation was effected at the sentence level and the sentence with a finite verb was translated with an adverb in Russian that is an impersonal sentence. [5]

…Look at the seal. – he said…

…Что эта запечать?…

Imperative Mood and an exclamatory sentence were transformed into Indicative and an interrogative sentence though a rhetorical one. Such transformations occur when translating colloquial sentences and immediate utterances. Actually, the present example can be considered as a case of concretization because the translator made the idea of exclamation more exact and showed that the speaker had no idea of the seal but didn’t ask whose it was, or some other reasons. [5]

It is possible to point out the following concluding the subject of lexical transformations:

1. Word-building suffixes and prefixes are different in various languages in terms of their productivity and their additional meanings. The most productive English suffix –er is usually translated into Russian as a finite verb corresponding with the meaning of the verb form which the noun with –er was derived. Transformation of the noun with –er provoked some syntactical transformations as well. [5]

2. Though there are more affixed formations in English than in Russian, Russian possesses more affixes of higher stylistic value than English does. In this respect a translator has to use lexical means introducing modal words and emotional lexis to reach adequate translation. [5]

3. Various parts of speech and phraseology can be employed when English formations are translated in order to make an adequate translation. It concerns some set expressions which are typical of and natural for the target language. [5]

4. It is important to know the literal style of the author because it limits the number of translation techniques and the translator makes conveying closer to the original. In this particular case, the translator should not have used grandiloquent lexis. [5]

2. Analyzing lexical transformations taking as an example the story by John Green “The Fault in Our Stars”

An obligatory condition of an adequate translation of a scientific text is the ability to analyze the grammatical structure of foreign sentences to ascertain translation difficulties and construct sentences while translating according to the norms of a language and the genre of translation. [11]

Of special importance for a translator of a scientific text is the knowledge of the subject of translation, i.e. the ability of orientation oneself in that subject branch to which a text intended for translation belongs [11]

In our case, it is literary etudes.

While translating a comprehension of the content of the sentences and semantic relations between sentences, as well as the meanings of met textual elements, participating in the organization of a text, are necessary. The largest complex of grammatical problems of translation is naturally connected with understanding the syntactical structure and the morphological composition of sentences as linguistic elements and direct carriers of subject information. [11]

In order to avoid an inadequate, word-for-word translation (grammatical “over-literal rendering”) it is necessary to apply translating grammatical transformations. As a result a literal translation is adapted to the standards of the language of translation and becomes adequate. Under grammar transformation one envisages a change of the grammatical characteristics of a word, word combination or a sentence in a translation. [11]

They differentiate a few grammatical transformations: a transposition or permutation, a replacement or substitution, addition, exclusion, complex transformation, generalization, integral transformation etc. [11]

In examining this topic Lexical Transformations, I examine many kinds of lexical transformations. As part of the course work in the practical part, I will use only a few of them, which in my opinion are the most common in the work of the translator.

In the practical part in the consideration of this story, I will use the omission, addition, specification, generalization, antonymic translation. There were, only 5 lexical transformations.

And, referring to paragraph 1. Lexical transformation point Course of Modern English Lexicology I would like to note that the item is a hot topic for consideration, since the book “The Fault In Our Stars” was written and translated in 2012, as well as the plot of a book reveals the story of two teenagers in today's world, I wish to note that the book is not a narrative genre of the Middle Ages. In the end I want to say that while working on this book I will meet modern English, which is a "headache" for translator using lexical transformations.

2.1The main reasons for using lexical transformations in the story “The Fault In Our Stars”

Words or constructions cannot always be translated in such a way that the part of speech and slot frame correspond exactly. [20]

Main translation problems and comparative analysis. [18]

The method of comparison helps the translator to solve the main problems which may appear in the process of translation. [18]

All lexical problems are subdivided into 4 groups:

1) Problems connected with the semantic structure of a word.

2) Problems connected with special groups of words such as terms, neologisms, modal words and phraseological units.

3) The use of words within word-groups, the combinability of words and phraseological units.

4) Problems connected with the use of different translation methods for rendering words, semantic groupings of words, phraseological units, word-groups. [18]

Nowwelookatthemainreasonsforusinglexicaltransformationsinthestory “The Fault In Our Stars”

I will list all the reasons that met in the analysis of the first chapter of this book:

1) One of the first and the main reason is differences in the structure of sentences in Russian and English. As we all know, the proposals in the English language have a certain procedure for drawing up and in the Russian language there is no such order. Therefore, the translation appears lexical transformation. It's one of the reasons. I note that the translation from English into Russian, sentence structure often changes and this leads to the use of lexical transformations.

By this point, I want to include not only the structure of the proposal, but also the style of the writings peculiar only to the original language. For example, in English, the stories can be found in the description of two adjectives or verbs that are synonymous, and it will be considered acceptable. In the Russian language, it is less common, which leads to the use of transformation.

2) The second reason for which the translator has resorted to the use of transformations are words which have no analogues in the Russian language, most often such words are slang, dialect, or words which have only recently entered into circulation English language. I mention this in the theoretical part the language must be seen as a living thing that evolves.

3) The third reason is a group of words requires a specification, or one of the types of lexical transformations. This group includes words such words, such as a: to be, to go, to do; and so on, which have a large number of options for translation into Russian.

4) I would like to highlight Slang, as a separate reason for using lexical transformations. As mentioned earlier, I have taken the story was released in 2012 and has a modern painting events. It is, carried out, on young people and, therefore, Slang occurs quite often. Slang in turn usually needs any transformation.

5) The final item. Since we consider the lexical transformation, as an example of a literary work, is a literary text coloring, will be one of the reasons for the use of lexical transformations. I want to say that the translator often resorted to transformations based on their own feelings, how he feels the story, which he expounds. Transformation used for the beauty of the writing, and in order not to overload the text of the story.

2.2Varieties of lexical transformations used in the story “The Fault In Our Stars”

In the theoretical part of the course work, we have considered almost all kinds of lexical transformations. In this practical part I will use only 5 lexical transformations, such as the addition, omission, generalization, concretization and antonymic translation.

Upon completion of the analysis of examples of the use of these types of lexical transformations in work “Fault in Our Stars”, I will make use of the analysis of the amount of each of these types of transformations, as well as touch on item 2.1 the main reasons for using lexical transformations.

Thus, the first sample:

1) Depression is a side effect of dying. (Cancer is also a side effect of dying. Almosteverything is,really.)[26, 3]

2) Депрессия – побочный эффект умирания. (Рак – тоже побочный эффект умирания. Да и вообще в эту категорию можно отнести практически все.)[12, 9]

In this example, the author of the translation is used to add. Russian and English languages have different functions sentence structure, as well as the proposal (English version) has a native English spelling is difficult to translate into Russian without the transformation.

1) ….Butmy mom believed I required treatment, so she took me to see my Regular Doctor Jim….[26, 3]

2) …Но мама решила отвести меня к лечащему врачу, доктору Джиму, …[12, 9]

In this example, there are both omission and concretization. The Russian version of the proposal is not the pronoun "my" but simply say "Mama", it is quite permissible omission, created on the initiative of an interpreter, in order not to overload the text. The second case, this concretization was applied by the fact that the literal translation of the word "regular" is not used in the Russian language in this example.

1) This Support Group featured a rotating cast of characters in various states of tumor-driven unwell ness.[26, 3]

2)Группа поддержки, отличалась постоянной сменой состава участников, пребывавших в разных стадиях депрессии по поводу своей онкологии.[12, 9]

Example number three, used omission. The word tumor-driven has no analogues in Russian language, so it is simply replaced by rebuilding the proposal. It is very important to know how to translate a literary work without distorting the message transmission, but the translation of each item.

The grammatical and stylistic peculiarities are not as frequent as lexical ones. Mainly they are determined by the fact articles are the representatives of publicistic style. But we consider they must be mentioned. [17]

1) The Support Group, of course, was depressing as hell.[26, 3]

2)Посещения группы поддержки угнетали хуже некуда.[12, 9]

Addition. The word посещения, the author of the translation has been added. In the original, talk about what the band support depressed, but a translator in Russian laid out so that the support group has become an adjective, namely the "visiting" the noun is depressing. Most likely, this addition was added because of the context of the text in Russian.

The reason for this transformation can be accounted for by language usage preferences: English tends to the nominal expression of the state; Russian can denote the general state by means of the verb. [19]

As far as idioms and phraseological units are concerned in translation, the first difficulty that a translator comes across is being able to recognize that s/he is dealing with an idiomatic expression. [22]

1)It met every Wednesday in the basement of a stone-walled Episcopal church shaped like a cross.[26, 3]

2)Собрания проходили по средам в подвале каменной епископальной церкви, фундамент которой имел форму креста.[12, 9]

The concretization. In this example, the pronoun “It” was replaced by the noun собрания. This is quite a standard form specifying when the pronoun of this type, it is necessary to transfer certain noun or a verb. The translation was made from the context that I think it was easy for the translator.

1) Once we got around the circle, Patrick always asked if anyone wanted to share. And then began the circle jerk of support: everyone talking about fighting and battling and winning and shrinking and scanning. [26, 3]

2) Дав всем представиться, Патрик спрашивал, не хочет ли кто чем поделиться. И начиналась круговая мастурбация: каждый лепетал о борьбе и победе, о потере веса и результатах сцинтиграфии.[12, 11]

The omission is often used when translating from English, where there are identical offers this example: fighting and battling. In English, it is acceptable to use synonyms in the description. But in the Russian language such examples I have not met. And also I want to note that I think the proposal is also present concretization. The English word «scanning» essentially means the same thing as the word "сцинтиграфия" but in Russian the word has a more limited scope of distribution, or rather is a medical term, in comparison with the English word more widely.

1)…a 20 percent chance of living five years, the math kicks in and you figure that’s one in five . . .[26, 3]

2)… скажем, двадцать шансов из ста прожить пять лет, ты с помощью несложного математического перевода получаешь один шанс из пяти…[12, 11]

Concretization used due to the fact that the English version of the proposal the author used, is not that a phrase in English, I would say even more slang. In the Russian language is not identical to the example, so it uses concretization very similar to descriptive translation.

In modern English there is an aspiration to democratization or to reduction in literary norm of language which finds the reflection in all spheres of a public life and is direct in modern English-speaking fiction and publicist.

1) Isaac and I communicated almost exclusively through sighs. [26, 4]

2) Мы с Айзеком общались с помощью вздохов.[12, 12]

This translated into Russian, used the omission. This omission was not necessary, and is the only solution interpreter. However, even a little bit do not agree, and would like to offer your own translation, which reads as follows: МысАйзекомобщалисьисключительноспомощьювздохов.

1) So Support Group blew, and after a few weeks, I grew to be rather kicking-and-screaming about the whole affair.[26, 4]

2)В общем, группа поддержки не помогла: через несколько недель я готова была отбиваться ногами, лишь бы туда не ездить.[12, 12]

The word «blew» has many meanings. But in this context, the translator chose to translate it as: does not help. In cases with a similar situation, the translation is based on the context. This was the reason for the use of concretization.

While translating, we should also remember that different lexical and grammatical elements of an original might be translated differently if accepted by the norms of conformity to the whole original. The translation adequacy of separate phrases, sentences and paragraphs should not be considered separately but along with achievement of the adequacy and completeness of the translating piece as a whole because the unity of a piece is created through collecting the components. [15]

1) Mom: “Television is passivity.”

Me: “Ugh, Mom, please.” [26, 4]

2) Мама:Этопассивноезанятие.

Я: Ну ма-ам, ну пожалуйста! [12, 12]

As you can see here there is the omission, as the example of the word in Russian television never had been used? Judging by the context, the previous proposals we have already talked about television, and in order not to overload the text, the translator came to the omission.

1)Mom: “You’re going to Support Group.”

Me: “UGGGGGGGGGGGGG.” [26, 4]

2) М а м а: Ты поедешь в группу поддержки.

Я:А-а-а-а-а-а! [12, 12]

I believe, in this example used antonymic translation, as the basis of the situation that in the original text uses the expression of emotions that were trying to convey by means of writing. The Russian example, as you can see, applying a totally different expression of emotions, lexically unrelated to the English version.

1) That shut me up, although I failed to see how attendance at Support Group met the definition of life.[26, 4]

2)На это у меня возражений не нашлось, хотя я так и не поняла, как посещение группы поддержки можно привязать к понятию «жизнь». [12, 13]

It is also an example of antonymous translation. That is to say the action is reaction. In the English version the heroine suggests that, literally, is it plugged. A Russian version of that she did not find this objection. This type of translation is used because we cannot translate the most similar phrase literally without distorting methods of presentation in Russian.

1)There is only one thing in this world shittier than biting it from cancer when you’re sixteen, and that’s having a kid who bites it from cancer.[26, 4]

2) Хреновей, чем умирать от рака в шестнадцать, может быть только одно: иметь ребенка, который умирает от рака. [12, 13]

Here a bright example of the omission. It is used by the author of translation in my opinion not to overload the text, thereby spoiling the literary construction. After all, do not forget that we are considering a literary work, and is very important aesthetic coloring text.

1)Mom pulled into the circular driveway behind the church at 4:56.[26, 4]

2)К заднему фасаду церкви мы подъехали без четырех минут пять. [12, 13]

Generalization or omission? In my opinion all the same generalization used in this example. Let's compare, the omission in the case of «mom», when the word has not been translated into Russian. On the other hand, the generalization is that the pronoun "мы" in the Russian version, includes the main character and her mother.

1) “Do you want me to carry it in for you?” [26, 4]

2) – Помочь? [12, 13]

As a vivid example of the omission. This translation was dropped everything and translated one word - carry. Within the context of the English version, translated it was expressed in the right form, and superseded whole sentence.

1) The cylindrical green tankonly weighed a few pounds, and I had this little steel cart to wheel it around behind me.[26, 4]

2) Зеленый баллон весит всего несколько фунтов, плюс у меня есть стальная тележка, чтобы возить его за собой. [12, 13]

As omission and concretization are present in the proposal. In my opinion if a literal translation: "Зеленыйбаллонцилиндрическойформы" would have sounded not. Word tank relate to a particular group of words that require specificity in translation, as I mentioned earlier.

1) “You too, Mom. See you at six.”[26, 5]

2)-Я тебя тоже. Подъезжай к шести.[12, 13]

A very interesting example, both omissions and additions. The wordmother is not present in the translation, but instead there appears a pronoun.

1) Long and leanly muscular, he dwarfed the molded plastic elementary school chair he was sitting in.[26, 5]

2)Долговязый и худой, но не хилый, он скрючился надетском пластиковом стульчике.[12, 14]

An example of generalization. In the English language is used in the description of the chair style typical of English writing, which is not applicable in the Russian language.

1)I walked into the circle and sat down next to Isaac, two seats away from the boy.[26, 5]

2) Я села рядом с Айзеком, через два стул от новенького. [12, 14]

As you can see in the example, example sentences in Russian begins in the middle of an English sentence, and start up nowhere else. The author of the original uses excessive detailed description that often when translated into Russian - is the omission.

Transposition is required when the English sentence contains a large group of nouns with indefinite article and then it is natural that they, being the center of informative message are placed at the end of the sentence. [24]

1) I pulled out my phone and clicked it so it would display the time: 4:59. [26, 5]

2)Я вынула мобильник: без одной минуты пять.[12, 14]

Example much like the previous example, when an over-detailed description, and thus we come to the omission in the translation.

1) The circle filled in with the unlucky twelve-to-eighteens, and then Patrick started us out with the serenity prayer:…[26, 5]

2) Круг уже заполнился несчастными душами от двенадцати до восемнадцати, и Патрик начал свою коротенькую молитву: …[12, 14]

Adding from the use of language peculiar to the English language itself, as we cannot translate the «twelve-to-eighteens» without addition, the context, the author of the translation added the word: душами.

1) And then we all, in a monotone, said, “We’re here for you, Isaac.” [26, 5]

2)И мы все повторили:

-Мы рядом, Айзек.[12, 15]

In this case, the omission is used by the interpreter come. Iwanttooffermytranslation:Затем мы все, монотонно, сказали: Мы рядом, Айзек.

Translation in a given situation depends on the personal characteristics of an interpreter.

1) There were five others before they got to him.[26, 6]

2)Доновенького, говорили еще пятеро. [12, 16]

Example of concretization when, instead of pronouns, in this case, used the adjective. In the context, the use of the pronoun he used very often is not applicable in the Russian language.

1) “I did,” Augustus answered. [26, 6]

2) - Сказал, - ответилОгастус. [12, 17]

One of the most common cases, concretization the verb did (Do). This is probably one of the most striking examples of the group verbs in English which should be specified in the translation.

1) And if the inevitability of human oblivion worries you, I encourage you to ignore it. God knows that’s what everyone else does.” [26, 6]

2) А если тебя беспокоит неизбежность забвения, предлагаю тебе игнорировать этот страх, как делают все остальные.[12, 18]

There used omission. Most likely due to the rebuild proposal. As we can see, the two sentences of the English language have become a Russian proposal.

1) His gait was crooked like his smile. He towered over me, but he kept his distance so I wouldn’t have to crane my neck to look him in the eye. “What’s your name?”he asked. [26, 7]

2)Походка у него была кривовата, как и улыбка, - он прихрамывал.

-Как тебя зовут? – спросил он.[12, 19]

It is a strange kind of omission, when there wasn’t translated a whole sentence. And not just a proposal, and for carrying a meaning, or any information. I mean the context of this offer; you can understand that the hero was higher than the growth of the main character. Usually such omission can be used only in certain cases. Just like most of all, especially in technical texts, when the interpreter generally cannot understand the meaning of, and makes the omission hoping not to miss anything important.

1) “She’s a regular?” I couldn’t hear Isaac’s comment, but Augustus responded, “I’ll say.” He clasped Isaac by both shoulders and then took a half step away from him. “Tel Hazel about clinic.” [26, 7]

2) – Она постоянно ходит? – Айзека я не расслышала, но Огастус ответил: - Надо думать. – На секунду он сжал Айзеку плечи и тут же отступил от него на пол шага. – Расскажи Хейзел, что врач сказал.[12, 19]

Generalization is used to draw the story I think. After all, if sue on the proposal, in the English version, he says, «I'll say», and Russian "to think" that it is absolutely not a close semantic meaning, however, because of the context in the Russian language interpreter translated that way.

1) “Someone should tell Jesus,” I said. “I mean, it’s got to be dangerous, storing children with cancer in your heart.”[26, 7]

2) – Кто-то должен Ему сказать, - хмыкнула я. – Это же опасно – держать в сердце больных раком детей.[12, 20]

This generalization is made very high quality, in my opinion. The translator does not translate literally Jesus, but used in the Russian language the pronoun Нim, with a capital letter, which literally means in Russian appeal to Jesus, without using his name.

1) “You’re like a millennial Natalie Portman. Like V for Vendetta Natalie Portman.”[26, 8]

2) Ты - как Натали Портман в двухтысячные. Как Натали Портман в фильме «V значит Вендетта» [12, 21]

Added words movie, since such a transfer is more beautiful with the literary side, and furthermore, without the addition of the sentence would look distorted. This is already a feature of the Russian language

1) I stopped walking. [26, 8]

2) Яостановилась. [12, 22]

Omission. Literary omission of which makes the text easier and simpler, without cluttering it. Besides the literal translation takes absolutely no literary form.

1) Always is their thing [26, 8]

2)Этоихфишка.[12, 23]

The concretization of the word requires Thing if not permanently, then very often. This is a word that we can just in the opposite direction when translated into English to apply generalization.

1) It was just Augustus and me now, watching Isaac and Monica, who proceeded apace as if they were not leaning against a place ofworship.[26, 9]

2) Остались только мы с Огастусом – наблюдать за Айзеком и Моникой, которые шустро продолжали, будто и не у стеныкультового сооружения. [12, 23]

Wordworship itself requires specification because they do not have exact counterparts in Russian language. Or rather, it has a large number of analogues in Russian and in translation we concretize.

Adequate translation, into V. Komysarova's idea, translation which provides pragmatically problems of the translational certificate on greatest possible for achievement of this purpose equal equivalence refers to, not supposing infringement of norms of the use of words and their forms which was fixed in language of translation, adhering to tasks –stylistic requirements to texts of the given type and answering socially – the recognized conventional norm of translation. In not strict use «adequate translation» is a «beautiful» translation which justifies expectation and hopes of the person which carries out an estimation of translation quality. [23]

1) “Are you serious?” I asked. “You think that’s cool? Oh, my God, you just ruined the whole thing.”[26, 9]

2) – Ты что, серьезно? – спросила я. – Возомнил, что это круто? Божемой,тытолькочтовсеиспортил! [12, 24]

Generalization. We resort to a generalization, as in the English word used in the proposal is directly owned by the language and have no analogues. I mean it is the phrase: the whole thing.

1) I was standing with my Chuck Taylors on the very edge of the curb, the oxygen tank ball-and-chaining in the cart by my side… [26, 9]

2) Я стояла на краю тротуара в своих кедах, прикованная к тележке с баллоном кислорода, как каторжник к ядру. …[12, 24]

Generalization, on the basis of that used in the original text brand shoes peculiar to the country of the original and not popular in the country of an interpreter. Which leads to the fact that the transfer of the test to approach the reader, we do not use the name of the brand, and just drink the common name of things?

Like single words, idioms and fixed expressions may be culture- Specific. Formulae such as Merry Christmas and say when which relate to specific social or religious occasions provide good examples. [21]

Having examined the first chapter of this book, for example the practical part I have used only five types of lexical transformations occurring to me that I mentioned earlier.

Below is a table in which you can clearly see the relation of Use kinds of transformations with each other. And in conclusion, I will analyze them in detail.

Number of use lexical transformations in the first chapter of the book The Fault In Our Stars, in writing, rather than a table:

Concretization – 10

Ommition – 15

Addition – 5

Generalization – 6

Antonymic translation - 2

Conclusion

During the work on this course paper, I gave an answer to all the goals of the task I set to us in the beginning.

In the theoretical part of the course work, I considered the kind of lexical transformations, such as: concretization, omission, addition, generalization, antonymic translation, loss-of-meaning compensation, colloquial phrases.

As part of the course work for the theoretical part, I used only a few of them: concretization, omission, addition, generalization, antonymic translation. So I think this is the most common conversion in the translation of literature.

In the theoretical part of the course work, using the story "The Fault In Our Stars", I analyzed the lexical transformation, explaining the nature of their origin.

A large number of omissions, I cannot explain the two main points:

Originally English phrases used in the original text. They do not belong to the group of words that have relatively high-grade equivalents in Russian. Therefore, they just need lexical transformation.

Most of the lexical transformations is this analysis was performed because of the literary transformation. Since the text is a literary work and the perception of the reader is very impBut it's only two main points, except for them there are many others.

Also when compared generalization and concretization, we can see a difference in the amount of their use. Concretization because in English there is a group of words required for translation into Russian resort to specifying.

These are the moments when one word of English words can express a dozen Russian language, even in the Russian equivalents of such are not available. In my opinion the Russian literary language, a more diverse, because of that it was used transformation.

Using the generalization due to the fact that, for example, one of the best examples that I have met in chapter 1, is that in the English language instead of the names things, it may use the name of a brand or brands in the Russian language is used in such cases, or adding together which translates to mark goods or resort to a generalization naming thing.

Reference

Белянин В.П. Психолингвистические аспекты художественного текста. – М.: Изд-во МГУ, 1988. – 123 с.

Бреус Е.В. Основы теории и практики перевода с русского языка на английский. – М.: УРАО, 1998. – 207 с.

Власов С., Флорин С. Непереводимое в переводе. – М., 1978. – 174 с.

Галь Н. Слово живое и мертвое.

Гончаренко С.Ф. История языкознания: Учеб. пособие. 2005. – 672 стр.

Демурова Н.М. О переводе сказок Кэрролла / Льюис Кэрролл. Алиса в Стране чудес. Алиса в Зазеркалье. – М.: Наука, 1991. – 115 с.

Иностранная литература №8, 2002. – С. 35–50.

Казакова Т.А. Практические основы перевода – СПб.: Союз 2005. – 319 с.

Каменская О.Л. Текст и коммуникация: Учеб. пособие для институтов и факультетов иностр. языков. – М.: Высшая школа, 1990. – 152 с.

Колшанский Г.В. Паралингвистика. – М.: Наука, 1978. – 80 с.

Комиссаров В.Н. Теория перевода – М.: Высшая школа, 1990. – 253 с.

Левин Ю.Д. Проблема переводной множественности // Литература и перевод: проблемы теории. – М.: Прогресс, 1992. – С. 23–34.

Левый И. Искусство перевода. – М.: Прогресс, 1974. – 397 с.

Миньяр-Белоручев Р.К. Как стать переводчиком? – М.: Готика, 1999. – 176 с.

Миньяр-Белоручев Р.К. Теория и методы перевода – М.: Московский Лицей, 1996. – 207 с.

Начало формы

Ревзин И.И., Розенцвейг В.Ю. Основы общего и машинного перевода. – М.: Высшая Школа, 1964. – 243 с.

Рущаков В.А. Основания лингвистического перевода и проблемы сопоставления. СПб.: – СПбГИЭА, 1996. – 125 с.

Черняховская Л.А. Перевод и смысловая структура. – М., 1976. – 169 с.

Чужакин А., Палажченко П. Мир перевода. – М.: Валент, 1997. – 224 с.

Чуковский К.И. Высокое искусство: принципы художественного перевода. – СПб.: Азбука-классика, 2008. – 442 с.

Bell, Roger T. Translation and Translating. Longman, 1991. – 341 с.

Newmark, Peter. Paragraphs on Translation. Multilingual Matters Ltd, 1993. – 188 с.

The Complete Poems by Anna Akhmatova. Transl. by Judith Hemschemeyer. In 2 vol. – Cambridge, Mass., 1992. – 214 с.

Thurber, James. My Own Ten Rules for a Happy Marriage. The Oxford Book of Essays. Ed. John Gross. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. C. 462–470.

А.И. Куприн «Юнкера» // NoNaMe [Электронный ресурс]. Режим доступа: http://nnm.ru/blogs/makhno/a_i_kuprin_yunkera/

Б.Л. Пастернак «Избранное» // Combook [Электронный ресурс]. Режим доступа: http://www.combook.ru/product/10137080/

Лозинский Михаил Леонидович // Википедия [Электронный ресурс]. Режим доступа: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Лозинский,_Михаил_Леонидович

Сонет 90 // Шекспир [Электронный ресурс]. Режим доступа: http://www.shakespeare.ouc.ru/sonnet-90-ru.html

Краткая хроника жизни // Владимир Набоков [Электронный ресурс]. Режим доступа: http://nabokov.niv.ru/

Алиса в Зазеркалье // Л. Кэрролл [Электронный ресурс]. Режим доступа: http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/grol/alice/glass03.html

Адрес публикации: https://www.prodlenka.org/metodicheskie-razrabotki/323959-translation-of-lexical-and-grammatical-transf