This transformation is rarely obligatory within a structure, as it is usually caused by stylistic considerations and deals with redundancy as a traditional norm of SL, but not acceptable in TL. A typical example of such redundancy is the use of synonymic pairs, i.e. the words with the same or close referential meaning, in English: their only stay and support (Mark Twain) both words mean , . There is no need to translate them both, it is sufficient to leave one of them: or, according to the context requirements , .
This phenomenon is peculiar of English judicial documents and is often met in written language: just and equitable treatment .
The use of synonymic pairs is characteristic, actually, of all styles of written English. Very often saving this pair of identical words in translation would be perceived as pleonasm, which is redundant even in translations of official documents requiring utmost precision, e.g.:
The Treaty was declared null and void.
( ).
Condemned by almost all members of the United Nations, and regarded as an outcast and criminal system by the vast majority of mankind, it (apartheid) is able to exist and defy censure solely because of the aid and support given to it by theWesteren imperialist countries. (W. Pomeroy)
, . , , .
In this example two synonymic pairs: outcast and criminal, aid and support are used. In the first case the word completely embraces the meaning of both synonyms. Lexical meaning of the adjective outcast , is not right in this context either due to the norms of combinatory power or collocability or due to its meaning. The second pair of synonyms may be preserved without any great reserve . Participle given is omitted as its meaning is rendered by the case endings.
The phenomenon of omission is met in the materials of publicistic genre:
The bold and courageous struggle for freedom.
.
Under regular and normal conditions
It is a unique session happily and fortunately led by a unique President.
, , , .
The use of synonymic pairs does not always appear to be a stylistic device. Sometimes it is imposed by other reasons. Foe example, in scientific-technical style these synonyms serve as a means of explaining a technical term:
Burning or combustion is the process of uniting a fuel or combustible with the oxygen in the air.
, .
In this sentence special technical terms combustion, combustible, which may be unknown to a reader without special knowledge, are explained by the words in general use burning, fuel. Ukrainian words are understood by everybody and do not need explanation, therefore in translation of this sentence into Ukrainian redundancy is removed by way of omission.
|
|
|
Omissions are often caused by the fact that one or word combination, or even subordinate sentence appear redundant from the view point of their meaning:
Her hands rested side by side on her lap (J. Steinbeck).
= = .
It clear that we should not translate adverbial modifier of manner side by side as it is redundant, and this position of hands does not require any specification.
The storm was terrible while it lasted.
.
Subordinate clause of time in this function looks like a cliché and has no correspondence in Ukrainian. The following example from the W. Collins novel Moon Stone is quite interesting:
There, on the threshold of her bed-room door, stood Miss Rachel, almost as white in the face as the white dressing-gown that clothed her. There also stood the two doors of the Indian cabinet wide open.
, , . . .
The verb to stand is used twice: in its loose and bound meanings. Repetition is underlined by the use of adverb also . Preserving the repetition based on different usage plans of the verb stood , in Ukrainian is excluded, therefore the adverb is removed in translation and lexical replacement was made. Subordinate sentence that clothed her is also omitted and rendered by a possessive pronoun .
But not always omission is explained by willingness to eliminate speech verboseness. It may have other reasons. Characteristic of English is a tendency to maximal concreteness, which is expressed in using numerals, measurement units where it is motivated by semantic factors. This tendency requires using omission:
About a gallon of water was dripping down my neck, getting all over my collar and tie... (Catcher in the Rye)
, , ...
Desemantisized words are omitted, too:
What are those black things in the field? ?
One of two words is removed in translation, too: Red Indian 䳺, concert pianist , woman teacher , raw material .
Sometimes modal verbs are omitted:
He was short-sighted and could not recognize his friends, when he passed them by in the street.
³ , .
But can it be true?
?
The phenomenon of omission can be observed in translating syntactical complexes with object-predicative member, where the verbs are omitted: I am glad to hear you say so. .
Specificity of syntactical connections in English sometimes requires using the verbs, which express feelings, perception, etc., and which are omitted in translation:
I regret to say that I miss your point. , , .
Much greater economic tasks were seen to lie ahead. .
|
|
|
I am sorry to tell you that he has changed his opinion of you.
, .
I regret to inform you that your application has not been successful. , .
Sometimes it is recommended to omit semantically empty tags of declarative and interrogative sentences: British to the backbone, thats what I am (S.Maugham) 볺 ! , I cant leave the room and send myself to you at the same time, can I? (G.B.Shaw) ! It is also recommended to remove logical redundancies and repetitions to achieve what is called text compression . However it must be remembered that logical redundancy of speech and various repetitions are used by writers to characterize the personages individual manner of speaking, his way of thinking, etc. In such cases omissions are not allowed.
