Topic 9. The problem of translating articles and pronouns

9.1. Translation of Indefinite Articles

In every language there is a logical notion of definite and indefinite, which is a category of thinking, but not in all languages this idea of definite and indefinite is rendered by grammatical devices with the help of an auxiliary word, i.e. article, as it is observed in English.

There is no article in Ukrainian, and the notion of definite/indefinite is expressed by other language tools:

He had not an enemy on earth. (G.B.Show, H.G.Wells. The Man I Knew)

У нього не було жодного ворога в світі.

Here the indefinite article comes out in its historically original meaning “one”.

She is a Mrs. Erlynne. (O.Wilde, Lady Windermere’s Fan)

Это некая миссис Эрлинн.

Це якась місіз Ерлін.

Here the indefinite article has another meaning – “some”.

The only sensible solution is a peace which would give the Malayan people the freedom they desire. (D.W., 1952)

Єдине розумне рішення – це встановлення такого миру, який би дав малазійському народові бажану свободу.

Here the indefinite article is used in its classifying function.

Now that the law has been passed… the friendly recommendation of a foreign government… can only be regarded as interference in the internal affairs of Persia. (The Times, 1951)

Тепер, коли закон прийнято, дружні рекомендації будь-якого іноземного уряду можуть розглядатися лишень як втручання у внутрішні справи Ірану.

In this case the indefinite article steps forward in the meaning of the indefinite pronoun “any”.

The indefinite article also requires its rendering in translation, when it stands before proper names, used metonymically:

This was a Guernica, a Coventry, a Lidice. (D.W.)

Це було повторенням Герніки, Ковентрі та Лідице.

Another variant of translation:

Це була нова Герніка, новий Ковентрі, нова Лідице.

In some cases the meaning of the definite article also requires its rendering in translation:

The Europe she (England) had helped to reshape after Waterloo crumbled before her eyes.(Arthur Bryant, English Saga 1840-1940)

Та Європа, яку вона допомогла перекроїти після Ватерлоо, розвалювалась у неї на очах.

In this case the definite article fulfils the function of the demonstrative pronoun and at the same time possesses emphatic meaning.

The definite article fulfilling the function of demonstrative pronoun is used before both the proper names and common noun. Here the emphatic shade meaning, given by this article to the following word, is also present:

There is no harmony between the two foreign powers in Persia. (D.W., 1951)

Щодо Ірану нема згоди між цими двома державами. (Йдеться про суперництво між США та Англією в Ірані).

9.2. The Problem of Translating Pronouns

Personal, possessive and indefinite pronouns are used differently in English and Ukrainian. The use of Ukrainian pronouns in translation not always depends on the peculiarities of the pronouns proper. It is often determined by the specifics of a verb or verbal construction:

He has a large family; he had a large family.

У нього велика сім’я; у нього була велика сім’я.

English pronoun in nominative case with the verb “to have” is rendered by the Ukrainian personal pronoun in genitive case with preposition and a link-verb (which is omitted in present tense). Sometimes awful mistakes in rendering pronouns lead to ambiguity and implicit non-standard meanings:

Він мав брата та сестру (sounds very nasty in Ukrainian).

Just the same way with the help of objective case the English pronoun in Nominative case in Passive construction is rendered:

I am told – мені сказали

She was expected – її чекали,

He was sent for – за ним послали тощо.

The main function of personal pronouns is to replace the noun to avoid repetition. In English the pronoun often precedes the noun it replaces. In Ukrainian the same word order regarding the pronoun and noun would lead to ambiguity of expression:

Shortly before she left London with other prosecution witnesses, the witness Miss Lyons said she would go straight home. (D.W., 1959)

Незабаром після того, як свідок міс Лайонз поїхала з Лондона разом з іншими свідками звинувачення, вона сказала, що поїде прямо додому.

Among personal pronouns the pronoun “it”, which performs different functions, is the most difficult to translate. When this pronoun comes out in its basic function of a personal pronoun it is rendered by the Ukrainian pronouns „він”, „вона”, „воно” depending on grammatical gender of a Ukrainian noun. One should keep in mind that the pronoun “it” and the noun it replaces, are often separated from each other by a great number of words and even sentences. Therefore “it” might appear even in a new paragraph. In these cases it does not correspond to the noun grammatically, but logically (therefore it is called logical “it”), i.e. it doesn’t correspond directly to the preceding noun, but the noun, which expresses the main idea of a paragraph:

The British Labour Party will be doing the movement for peace a grave disservice if it supports the negative, supercilious attitude of Mr. Gaitskell on this question…

It should see that an agreement on Berlin would once again bring this important question to the forefront and make a realistic solution much easier.

Even if it does not fully accept the Soviet Union’s proposals on Berlin it should see the importance of a Berlin agreement as a stepping stone to even more basic ones.

Above all it should reject the policy of insisting on an agreement on everything before there can be an agreement on anything.

And it should tell all American and British generals not to impede negotiations by silly, bellicose utterances. (D.W., 1958)

Лейбористська партія в Англії надасть погану послугу руху за мир, якщо вона буде підтримувати негативну, пихату позицію Гейтскелла з цього питання…

Вона повинна зрозуміти, що угода щодо Берліна знову висуне це важливе питання на перший план і значно полегшить його практичне вирішення.

Навіть якщо вона повністю не прийме радянські пропозиції стосовно Берліна, вона повинна зрозуміти все значення угоди відносно Берліна як перший крок до більш важливих угод.

Перш за все вона повинна відмовитись від політики, що вимагає угоди з усіх питань, перш ніж може бути досягнутою угода з якогось окремого питання.

І вона повинна заявити всім американським і англійським генералам, щоб вони не чинили опору переговорам своїми дурними войовничими промовами.

In all paragraphs of the passage from the article “it” replaces the word combination “the Labour Party”.

“It” in impersonal constructions like “it is known”, “it seems”, “it is essential”, etc., is translated by impersonal construction with the words „як відомо”, „мабуть”, „дуже важливо”:

It is known that as well as those from South Wales, Scotland and Yorkshire, a number of representatives from Cumberland, Lancashire and Nottingham will also resist the suggested cuts. (D. W., 1958)

Як відомо, низка делегатів Кемберленду, Ланкаширу та Ноттінгему будуть також виступати проти запропонованих скорочень, як і делегати Південного Уельсу, Шотландії та Йоркширу.

The beginning interpreters are sometimes troubled with translating the pronoun “it” in the construction with the so called “precedence” it, like:

It is hard to judge by his first book.

Важко судити з його першої книги.

The “precedence” it may also introduce an object:

We still find it hard to judge from blueprints so the best thing is to let the members of the Commune discuss the sort of new homes they want. (D. W., 1958)

Нам все ще важко судити по кресленнях, тому найкращим буду надати членам Комуни обміркувати самим, які саме будинки їм потрібні.

The “precedence” it is not translated into Ukrainian. It is not translated in the construction with the conjunction “for” (for-phrase), either:

The UN proposals make it extraordinarily difficult for the most brazen liars to claim that this is a threat of aggression. (D. W., 1958)

Пропозиції ООН фактично позбавляють найбільш безсоромних брехунів можливості стверджува­ти, що ці пропозиції містять загрозу агресії.

The “precedence” it is often used in emphatic construction:

It is nationalism which gives rise to the danger of war.

Саме націоналізм і створює загрозу війни.

Emphasis in this type of constructions can be rendered in translation by different words and word combinations: „саме”, „вже”, „тільки”, „ось”, „як раз”, etc., depending on the context.

In one and the same sentence the pronoun “it” is often met in different functions and belongs to different nouns:

It is reliably reported that the board, submitting to Government stagnation policy, instead of publicly fighting it, has about 80 to 100 pit closures in mind if the position, as it sees it, does not improve. (D. W., 1958)

З надійних джерел повідомляють, що рада (спілки шахтарів), підкоряючись політиці стагнації, що проводиться урядом, замість того, щоб відкрито боротися з нею, збирається закрити від 80 до 100 шахт, якщо положення, як воно розцінюється ним, не покращиться.

In the first case “it” is subject of non-personal sentence (it is reliably reported) and translated by non-personal clause: „З надійних джерел повідомляють“; in the second case “it” replaces the word “policy” (instead of publicly fighting it) and is translated by personal pronoun of feminine gender: – „замість того, щоб відкрито боротися з нею”; in the third case it replaces the noun “board” (as it sees it), and in the fourth – the noun “position” (if the position, as it sees it) and is translated: „якщо положення, як воно розцінюється ним”.

Possessive pronouns in English are often used before the names of the parts of body, pieces of clothing, etc.:

He took his tooth-brush and brushed his teeth.

Він взяв щітку і почистив зуби.

He lighted his pipe and took the paper.

Він запалив люльку і взяв газету.

These pronouns need no translation because they are either redundant, or contradict the norms of Ukrainian:

She smiled through her tears.

Вона посміхнулась крізь сльози.

It should be noted, that the English indefinite pronoun “every” often corresponds the Ukrainian indefinite pronoun in plural „всі“:

Everybody’s present – Всі присутні.

The sentences with subject, expressed by non-personal pronoun “one”, are often rendered in Ukrainian by non-personal sentences:

At the table outside one of the cafes one can sip a glass of Jura wine…

Сидячи за столиком перед одним з кафе, можна випити стакан місцевого вина…

The pronoun “one” used to avoid repetition is relatively difficult to translate properly:

The colonial record was one of repression.

Історія колоніалізму – ця історія пригнічення народів.

In Ukrainian the indefinite pronouns are not used in this function, therefore in translation we have to resort to repetition of the noun, replaced by “one” in English.

Relative pronouns both in the function of subject and object are not rarely used as so called “condensed relatives”: in these cases they are translated into Ukrainian by a demonstrative pronoun and conjunction or by two pronouns – demonstrative and relative pronouns:

Doctor Edith Summerskill was shocked by what she saw at Port Said.

Доктор Едіт Саммерскіл була шокована тим, що вона побачила в Порт-Саїді.

The relative pronoun “what” in this function can be used as a subject:

What is claimed to be the first Indian rhinoceros born in captivity was at Basle Zoo in September.

Перший, як стверджують, що народився не на волі індійський носоріг, з’явився на світ в Базельському зоопарку у вересні.

In this case the English pronoun “what” has no lexical equivalent in translation because of the entire rearrangement of the sentence. The same way “what” is not rendered by the pronouns in cases, when the English sentence contains emphasis, as in translation it is more important to convey this very emphasis:

What is more important is the principle of the decision.

Проте більш важливим є сам принцип вирішення (питання).

Is this what our British boys gave their lives for?

Невже за це віддавали своє життя англійські хлопці?

Special attention should be paid to the use of the relative pronoun “which” in subordinate clause, that belongs to the entire statement of the main clause:

War ships were ordered to shell the town street by street, which was a barbarous thing to do.

Військовим кораблям було віддано наказ піддати місто систематичному бомбардуванню. Це був варварський акт.

For more emphasis this kind of subordinate clauses are separated into a detached sentence.

Questions for discussion:

1. How are indefinite articles translated?

2. What are peculiar cases of using definite and indefinite articles?

3. What problems of translating pronouns does translator come across?

4. What are the peculiarities of translating personal, possessive and indefinite pronouns?

5. How is logical it translated?

6. How is precedence it translated?

7. Why are possessive pronouns not translated sometimes?

8. How are condensed relatives translated?