(pdf)
SciELO 
SciELO 
Permalink
Introduction
It is well known, that PUs are one of the most difficult language units in terms of translation. Some people even consider PU as being “untranslatable”. The main problem while translating PUs is that the translator has to comprehend its figurative meaning and metaphorical conceptualization (Naciscione, 2011). That is why it was decided to analyze the different translations of the same PUs, considering the cases of PU’s figurativeness comprehending and the choice of best practices for PU’s translation done by Russian translators.
For that purpose, the works of Lawrence (1989, 1993, 2002, 2006), were chosen, as this author is famous for active usage of PU in his literary works, being the fine example of classical English literature of the beginning of the XX century. His legacy still excites interest among readers and scientists round the world, his works are being translated repeatedly, enabling the researches to compare different translations of the same work. Among them short stories “You touched me”, “Smile”, “Lovely lady”, “Two blue birds” and a novel “The Rainbow”. Each literary work was translated by 2 translators, thus making it an interesting case of comparing different translating techniques, solutions and difficulties.
Methology
Within the present article, several methods of linguistic analysis have been used in complex, among them: the method of phraseological analysis by Kunin (1972), the method of comparative and typological analysis, the method of statistical calculation, the method of contextual analysis together with the method of dictionary definitions, the methodology of types of interlingual phraseological correlation identification on the basis of the theory of PU component identity by Arsenteva.
Development
The research studies the PUs and methods of its translation into Russian. According to the terminology of the major phraseologist Kunin (1972), “a phraseological unit is a stable combination of words with a fully or partially figurative meaning”. Many works of major linguists were dedicated to the topic of PU’s translation, among them, as well as young linguists lately Safiullina & Aveeva (2016); Kayumova, Safina & Shestakova (2017); Varlamova, Rakhimova & Shingareva (2017); and Yerbulatova, et al. (2017).
In their works, the linguists share the opinion that equivalent and analogues are the compulsory elements within the classification of translation methods. Equivalents as well as analogues are as such phraseological kind of counterparts, thus being the examples of phraseological translation.
Other elements of classification refer to the translation of non-reciprocal units, thus being the examples of non-phraseological translation. The translation of non-reciprocal PUs coincides greatly with the translation of the non-reciprocal lexical units in general. According to Barkhudarov non-reciprocal lexical units are to be translated as follows:
Translational transliteration and transcription, i.e. the reconstruction of the form of the lexical unit from the source language by means of letters or sounds of the target language.
Loan translation, i.e. substituting morphemes or constituent part of the lexical units from the source language by relevant lexical counterparts in target language.
Descriptive (elucidative) translation, i.e. the translation by means of descriptive phrases, which expose metaphorical meaning of the lexical unit in source language.
Approximate translation, i.e. the use of such grammatical units that coincide partially in given context with the grammatical structure of non-reciprocal lexical units in the source language.
Transformational translation, i.e. the change of the syntactical structure of the sentence, the meaning of the lexical unit, or both.
Absence of translation, i.e. abandoning translation of certain lexical units due to their excessiveness
At translation of PUs it is impossible to use transliteration and transcription’ methods due to the fact that plane of expression does not coincide with the plane of content in different languages. The other methods of translating non-reciprocal lexical units are used widely. There is also lexical, combined (after Arsenteva), antonymic, compensational, adjusting methods of translation (after Kunin).
However, despite such variety of methods, it is impossible to establish unified classification of translating methods, the explanation for this matter is found in the dissertation work by Kaumova (2010). The linguist argues that some classifications are based on the use of data, gained through examination of systematic units, i.e. words in dictionaries; while the other classifications of translating methods are established on the basis of theory and practice of translation in discourse.
Concerning this matter another major linguist, translator and lexico . a.Retsker expressed an opinion that the major difficulty resides in the fact that no dictionary ever can foresee all the possibilities of PU’s use in context (Retsker, 1974), that’s why classifications based on systematic level will never coincide completely with classifications based on actual use of the language in discourse. Vlakhov and Florin admit this and say that while translating it is often needed to find the other translation variants apart from those given in phraseological dictionaries. The reason for that is the context.
Taking into account the difference in classification of methods of translation depending on the environment of PU use, it is eligible to use the system developed by Kazan linguists Arsenteva and Kaumova and break down the classification into several levels.
opposition of phraseological and non-phraseological translation.
opposition of dictionary and contextual translation.
opposition of antonymous and non-antonymous translation.
opposition of retaining and abandoning author’s transformation of PUs.
The majority of scientists, while characterizing different methods of translating, do not give the exact recommendations as for what kind of translation is preferable in each opposition. It’s understandable, as it was already stated before, that the decision in every particular case is to be made while taking into account different contextual peculiarities. Nevertheless, there is one general recommendation, expressed by many major linguists, such as Retsker, Florin, Vlakhov, Komissarov, Nasciscione. Retsker stresses that it is highly advisable that the translation of PUs into the target language retains its figurativeness in the target language.
The scientists Florin, Vlakhov put it even more direct, that PU is to be translated into the target language by means of PU. They specify that it is not a must, but this variant is to be considered on the first place and can be omitted only if it is not possible at all. Nasciscione argues that the decision to omit the figurative meaning of PU when translating leads to extensive descriptive translation, inhibits the perception and recognition of the unit (Nasciscione, 2010).
Within the present research 275 PUs were analyzed. For each PU two cases of translating were studied, so the overall number of translation cases amounts to 550.
In present research were studied the translations of 7 translators: Volodarskaya (translations of short stories “You touched me”, “Smile”, “Lovely lady”, “Two blue birds”), Alekseeva (“You touched me”), Derevyangina (“Smile”), Lanchikov (“Lovely lady”), Rubinova (“Two blue birds”), Minina (“The Rainbow”), and Oseneva (“The Rainbow”). As for the percentage ratio the biggest amount of PUs were translated by translators Minina (164 PUs), Oseneva (164 PUs), Volodarskaya (111 PUs). Minina and Oseneva are the official translators of the novel “Rainbow”.
Out of the total amount of PUs the phraseological method was used in 12% of cases. The Fig. 1 shows the amount of PU translated by each translator and the share of phraseological translation in total numbers of translated PU.
The Fig. 2 shows the share of phraseological translation in works of particular translator.
Fig. 2 - The share of phraseological method in total number of PU translator by particulat translator.
PUs translated by means of phraseological method only
In present works there were found 13 such PUs. The reason for choosing phraseological methods of translation in these occasions is probably the active use of phraseological dictionaries by translators (as in 18 cases out of all 26 translations the dictionary translation was used); or the memorable expressive images of these PUs, that were easily recalled by the translators.
Among such highly expressive PUs are the following examples: “A drowning man will clutch at a straw” - “утопающий за соломинку хватается”, “(one's) heart sinks into (one's) boots” - “струсить, испугаться; сердце упало, душа в пятки ушла”, “vale of tears” - “юдоль печали”, “юдоль слез”. Other PUs resemble corresponding PUs in Russian language in terms of expression and meaning, making it possible to fix such meaning in phraseological dictionaries, for example “at the bottom of one’s heart (at the bottom)” - “в глубине души”, “at home” - “как дома”, “keep (one's) place” - “знать свое место”, “to tell the truth” - “по правде сказать, по правде говоря, признаться”.
PUs that were translated both by phraseological and non-phraseological method
There are 40 such PU in studied literary works. In 10 cases one of the translators used the phraseological translation fixed in phraseological dictionary. The other one did not though.
For example, the PU “go on wheels” in the translation of the short story “Two little birds” by Volodarskaya was translated as in the dictionary:
“He dictated to her, she slaved for him and adored him, and the whole thing went on wheels”
In translation of the same piece of work translator Rubinova used contextual, non-phraseological, descriptive and presumably faulty translation, as the Russian meaning of expression “идти как по маслу” (“go on wheels”) does not coincide with the expression “идти свои чередом” (“run its course”):
“He dictated to her, she slaved for him and adored him, and the whole thing went on wheels”
There is one more case that worth mentioning. The translation of this PU is fixed in the English-Russian phraseological Dictionary by Kunin (1972), “you cannot make a silk purse (out) of a sow's ear”.
Both translators decided against using the dictionary translation, but acted differently. Translator Oseneva found very expressive analogue of the PU in Russian language:
“But you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, as he told his mother very early, with regard to himself; much to her mortification and chagrin”.
This case is a good example of translation that at the same time retained the figurativeness and meaning of the original PU and naturally fitted the style of Russian text.
Translator Minina used her own loaned translation that clearly stands out as a foreign one, is not familiar for the Russian reader and lacks the whole meaning of original PU:
“But you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, as he told his mother very early, with regard to himself; much to her mortification and chagrin”
Within the present article the cases of PU with author’s transformation are not to be considered, but regarding one PU it is necessary to make an exception as this case shows a very good example of translating. The translator managed not only to use phraseological translation but also to retain the author’s transformation of PU in Russian version.
In the source language Lawrence transformed the PU ”fly in the ointment” by means of adding additional lexical element within the PU: “In all this ointment there was one little fly”. In the Russian version of this literary work translator Volodarskaya retained the meaning and transformed the formalization of the PU in the same way as in the original:
The other translator of the same PU, namely Alekseeva, also have chosen fairly expressive variant - “все бы хорошо”, but the original PU and its transformation was not preserved. As for the other cases of translation when only one translator used phraseological method it has to be noted that there is certain number of cases when the given PUs were not translated at all. Mostly it was found in the translation made by the translator Minina where even some paragraph are missing.
PUs translated by non-phraseological methods only
The great majority of PU was translated by non-phraseological method, but it does not necessarily mean that these cases are the examples of improper translation, as already was mentioned in the previous parts of the present article. Mostly it is because it was not possible to use the phraseological method due to difference in context, inconsistency in meaning of Russian and English PU and other reasons. But in a number of cases it was clear that translators did not recognize the PU, thus being the main reason of mistranslating as stated in the works by Florin and Vlakhov.
One of the most distinctive example is PU “as well be hanged (hung) for a sheep as a lamb”. Both translators offered not very exact translation. Translator Oseneva translated it literally:
“Well, one might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb”.
Translator Minina refused to translate the PU at all and left only very general meaning of the PU:
“Well, one might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb”.
Conclusions
As it has been stated above, only 18% maximum of all PUs were translated by phraseological method. Despite the fact that phraseological method is considered to be the most preferable one, low percentage of phraseological translation in given literary works does not imply improper translation. Each case is to be studied separately and in most cases it is justified. However, in a large number of cases the translators have to pay more attention in order to recognize PU and use all possible means so as find phraseological equivalent or analogue in the target language. The whole article proves that the cases of PU’s translation should be studied thoroughly by all the translators of literary works, both present and to-be ones.
