Substitution and ellipsis

Unlike reference substitution and ellipsis are grammatical rather than semantic. In substitution an item is replaced by another item. “I like movies. – And I do.” The means of that are different in many languages. In English it is the auxiliary that fulfills the function of substitution, and also “do, one, the same…” In Russian the items are of different nature.

*You think John already knows? – I think everybody does.

Ellipsis involves the omission of the item. It’s the way of leaving something unsaid which is still can be understood. It includes some grammatical structures in which the structure itself can fill the slot.

Have you been swimming? – Yes, I have.

Since substitution and ellipsis are purely grammatical relations, which hold between language forms rather than between linguistic forms and meaning, the details are highly language specific. And the details therefore can be discussed only in reference to a specific language.

The boundaries between the 3 types of cohesive device are not clear-cut. And the question “Does Helen sing in a bath?” may elicit 3 answers:

No, but I do. (Substitution)

Yes, she does. (Ellipsis)

Yes, she does it to annoy us, I think. (Reference)

Pragmatic equivalence.

It is not about what is explicitly said, but about what is implied. Therefore the translator needs to work out the implied meaning in translation in order to get the SL meaning across. So the duty of the translator is to relate the author’s intention. The difficulty is that s/he has to take into consideration another culture to enable TL reader to understand it.

The notion of equivalence is undoubtedly one of the controversial and problematic issues in the field of translation theory. So the term itself is causing heated debates. People sometimes mess up equivalence and adequacy, which is related only to cases when equivalence is impossible. The translator has to render SL text by a text that will have the same functions and produce the same impact upon the reader or listener. A universal approach to equivalence is impossible, but we don’t need any, as we understand that translation is possible and untranslatability is a notion that shouldn’t interfere with everyday duties of the translator.

Levels of equivalence and the concept of adequate translation

The problem of levels was discussed in connection with distinction between semantic and pragmatic equivalence.

*The sun disappeared behind the clouds.

Every word in the original corresponds to the word in the translation. Here we find similarity of form and meaning. Such cases are rare, because of differences between languages, Russian and English. This case is a case of formal equivalence. We can speak about semantic equivalence, which is the case that characterizes the major quantity of translations. Semantic equivalence exists when the same meaning is expressed in two languages in a different way.

*Troops were airlifted to the battlefield. – войска были переброшены по воздуху к месту сражения

Some scholars speak of situational equivalence. It is established between utterances that differ both in linguistic devices being used and semantic components being expressed, but nevertheless the two utterances describe the same extra linguistic situation.

*To let someone pass – уступить дорогу

The formal equivalence is insufficient. As to semantic equivalence, it can be of two types: semantic equivalence + formal equivalence and semantic equivalence without formal equivalence. As to situational equivalence we can say that this type of equivalence is a variety of semantic equivalence and it differs from the 1^st type of semantic equivalence only because it has different semantic components. Levels: formal equivalence, semantic equivalence, pragmatic equivalence.

As to pragmatic equivalence, this type implies a close fit between communicative intention and the receptor’s response. But sometimes it is required at all levels of equivalence and sometimes it may appear alone without formal or semantic equivalence as in the case:

*С днем рождения – Many happy returns of the day

Formal and semantic equivalence may accompany semantic and pragmatic equivalence, but it is not mandatory. It has been pointed out that translator doesn’t set the task of preserving the syntactic relations of the original, nor does he set himself the task to keep the formal ties between the original and the translation. Usually formal equivalence results from similarity between the grammatical forms and the lexical terms of both languages, but it does not arise from a deliberate effort. Adequate translation may be defined as a type of translation, which is determined by a semantic and pragmatic equivalence. It may be produced when the translator has to establish some semantic and pragmatic relations between the original and the translation.

Literal translation is the type of translation, which relies on the formal equivalence, and this regards semantic or pragmatic equivalence. It reproduces the morphological and sound form of the original as in Чуковский’s translation for “compositor” instead of “composer” and “cheery orchard” instead of “вишневый сад”.

It may also reproduce lexical items overlooking idiomatic meaning of the phrase. In other words, literal translation reproduces the form at the expense of the meaning and distorts the original. In some cases it may violate the stylistic norm reproducing the syntactic form of the message.

Literal translation may reproduce the linguistic form and the denotational meaning, but ignore the pragmatic aspect of the message. The message doesn’t get across and the necessary effect isn’t attained. As a result, free translation is opposed to literal translation. It consists in pragmatically unmotivated translation, also in omissions, but in both cases (literal and pragmatic translations) the original message is distorted. But free translation plays at least the same role as the original. If there are losses there should be compensations. For those who adhere to free translation, it is necessary to decide what to lose and what to gain.

The attitude to translation.

They say that a translation, which manages to tell the reader more than the original, enriches the language. They say that to say more in translation is to produce an excellent work of art but it’s NOT a good translation.

If the original is quite primitive & the translator tries to make it more presentable, it’s not the translation. It violates the system of images, a set of ideas & in fact the purpose of the author. And if the original is a masterpiece then the translator should do his best to make the translation adequate.

Every translation implies a pure language & since the translated text can never reproduce the meaning of the original we have to rely on the feeling that languages have much in common. All languages each taken as a system intend one & the same thing, which is accessible only to their totality. Every language as such will add some hue. The SL & the TL should be taken together as parts of a whole. Translating is not only connected with linguistic competence but with intertextual, psychological & narrative competence. Translation is just substitution, but substituting expressions are never equivalent to the one substituting as they can say sometimes more & sometimes less. It all depends. Translation is always interpretation & it’s shift between cultures.

*I ordered a coffee, gulped it down in a second.

*He spent half an hour with a cup in his hands, sipping his coffee & thinking of Mary.

The translation should be culturally true. The translator should not hope that literal translation will be enough to make a foreign reader understand.

“Yes sir” may be used if it intends to represent a very formal relationship between 2 strangers or between a superior person & one who is inferior. In France polite French people use “monsieur” to address a cab driver, a man in the street, a stranger. And in Italy when you say “seignior” it is considered very formal.

Very simple phrases cannot be translated without taking into consideration the cultural differences. There are several ways to convey the cultural peculiarities of the text preserving the meaning of it. The cultural peculiarities may be preserved but the footnote should be given to explain the meaning. Sometimes the cultural peculiarities cannot be preserved. Then the translator has to give the commentaries to show the intention of the author.

So we should think not only about languages as such but about translating from culture into culture.