GENERAL AND SPECIFIC THEORIES OF TRANSLATION TEACHING

I.O. Simkova
Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Associate Professor  
NationalTechnical University of Ukraine "Kyiv Polytechnic Institute"
 
All approaches to the interpretation\translation teaching are based on general or specific theories. Among general theories of translation should be mentioned the information theory belongs to K.R. Mignar-Beloruchev, the theory of equivalence levels belongs to V.N. Komissarov, the situational theory belongs to V.G. Gak, the semantic theory belongs to L.S. Barkhudarov, the theory of regular correspondences belongs to Y. Retsker, and the transformational theory of translation belongs to E.Nida.
The review of them we start with a situational theory of translation, developed by V.G. Gak [2]. This theory assumes that language means content reflects objects, phenomena, and relations between them. It states that all messages that are generated in any language containing information about referents that are in certain relations with each other, in other words, they contain information about a certain situation. The possibility of translation itself suggests that the reality is the same for all mankind regardless of linguistic identity. Of course, there are some differences but they are not so substantial to talk about a completely different perception of reality by different nations. In all languages​​ objects and events are called by using the language means of different content. Main content goes beyond language, so situational theory defines the translation process as a process of describing the situation outlined by used source language referents, and using target language referents. The interchange of elements in two languages ​​that functionally correspond to each other within a certain context is took place. The mechanism of this interchange is as follows: we receive text in a foreign language, then we consider the situation within the reality described in the source text, and in the end we describe this situation with the help of target language.
When describing the situation in the target language we use different types of equivalents. Equivalent type is defined by the relationships that exist between the words in two languages. When we have constant compliance of words regardless of the context in different languages then we are talking about a permanent equivalent. When we need to choose from a range of equivalents that meet certain words, and the choice is determined by the context, we deal with an ad hoc equivalent. When describing the situation we can have such cases when there are differences in the perception of reality and therefore there is no equivalent. However, in most languages there are necessary means to describe both known objects or phenomena and unknown. Of course, the creation of needed equivalent or description of the equivalent through its concept is difficult for the translator\interpreter but not impossible.
According to this theory, the main task is to train future philologists to choose the needed equivalent correctly. The choice can be made by them directly, without reference to reality or vice versa. The latest is necessary when choosing an ad hoc equivalent and when there is no equivalent in the target language.
Next we consider the semantic translation theory which belongs to L.S. Barkhudarov [ 1]. Its main task is to reveal the nature of equivalent relationship between the content of the source text and the target text. It provides a comparison of the elements and their content, and involves analysis of its structure. Content means concept. The content of expression has the following structure: meaning of expression consists of the sum of the verbal units concepts, which, in its turn, are created by a set of basic content or as they are called – seme. We can define semes, which create verbal units, with the help of differentiation characteristics, when we consider the content of two verbal units, which are similar according to their meaning. Every language element is selected in different ways, because of the different language organization. For example, "system" means system, but not a method, not an approach, not a way. Based on this understanding of the content structure in the theory of translation equivalence we can find the general semes that are in the content of the source and target text.  According to the considered above theory the future philologists should be taught to reflect in translation the communicatively significant semes of source text. The lost of other semes is insignificant.
According to this theory, any language is considered as a set of expressing distinctive ways of defined content categories. These categories are deeper concerning the actual structures of language. In this way, we can make a conclusion about the possibility of defining general content categories for all languages, as well as the possibility of constructing a deep syntax and advanced vocabulary for each language. It is proposed that we should train future philologists first to reduce the original unit to the deeper categories, and train them to deploy these categories in the system of target language means.
To describe this process in each language we create a scheme of mutual relations between basic words, whose meaning belongs to one and the same semantic category. Then, these two schemes are reduced. The biggest problem in this theory lies in the difficulty of linguistic resources distribution according to the category.
Y. Retsker proposes an approach based on the theory of equivalents [3]. The translation process is understood as a transformation of the source text into the target text. According to this approach the source language means are replaced by equivalent target language means. Such replacement is based on functional dependencies. Thus, future philologists should be taught how to choose the required equivalent during the process of translation. It is proposed to distinguish three types of equivalents:
1) general equivalents;
2) ad hoc variants and equivalents;
3) all kinds of existing translation transformations.
The regular equivalent does not depend on the context and can be complete, partial, absolute or relative. Variable equivalents are determined by the existence of several words in target language that can be used to explain one word in the source language. Ad hoc equivalents are realized within the context, which may be narrow, wide, and extra-linguistic.
They are divided into usual and occasional and, moreover, the latter may become also usual. The third type of equivalents consists of vocabulary and grammar transformations based on the techniques of logical thinking and transform the structure of the sentence during the translation process in accordance with the rules of the target language. In its turn, the ways of thinking are based on formal logical categories of submission, overlapping, and opposition. In this approach, the integrity of the translation is understood as the unity of form and content.
A very important point in this approach is the selection of lexical and grammatical transformations that allow future philologists to simplify the process of translation, because during the translation of scientific and technical texts the author's style is not the main problem.
References:
1.     Бархударов Л. С. Язык и перевод (Вопросы общей и частной теории перевода) /  Л. С. Бархударов. – М. : Междунар. отн-я, 1975. – 240 с.
2.     Гак В.Г. Теория и практика перевода / В.Г. Гак, Б.Б. Григорьев. – М.: "Интердиалект + ", 1997. – 454 с.
3.     РецкерЯ.І. Теория перевода и переводческая практика /  Я.І. Рецкер. –М. : Междунар. отн-я, 1974. – 212 с.