The theoretical principles of faithful translation and their realization through various devices of the target language testify to the fact that referential meanings of many language units can be equivalents expressed via the same level units of the target language. For example, the proper names of people and most of geographical names, like the international words can be faithfully translated at the level of words. The phraseological/idiomatic expressions and the bulk of words expressing specific nationally biased units of lexicon are mostly translated at the level of words-combinations/phrases and sentences. Though sometimes the lexical meaning of an idiom or a unit of specific national lexicon can be faithfully turned into the target language with the help of a single word as well (when international).
In other words, a considerable number of simple lexemes and word combinations, stable and idiomatic expressions can be faithfully translated when they are taken isolated, viz. at language level. Thus, the meaning of most pronouns and numerals remains unchanged whether they are used in context or taken as separate words at language level Cf.: , fifteen ', fifty ', fifth/ sixth '/ , one-third ' , zero point nine ' ; , he , she , nobody , etc.
Similarly with many nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs and function words which are monosemantic both in the source language and in the target language: the sky , the moon , geese /swans / , lake , the island , po//f/ca/, black , white , bathe , sing , sleep , here , often , firstly -, among /, under , or , that (conjunction) ; hallo! anno, ah ax, oh ox, even , yet , etc.
A bulk of words belonging to the above-mentioned logico-gram-matical classes of words may also have two or more semantically identical referents, i.e., synonymous meanings. The latter are often stylistically marked and.should possibly be distinguished in the text under translation as well. Among these may be even such seemingly simple words as the English because , , ; courage , ; dad/daddy , /; drake / ; everywhere , or Ukrainian:
390
391
baby/kid/child; ass, donkey; ! phew, pie, pshaw, pooh!; / greenfinch, siskin. These words have one referent similarly to many different terms which are translated both at word level and at word-group/sentence level. E.g.: sprint , ; steeple-chase ; service first stroke (tennis) , ' .
A faithful conveying of a referential meaning at word level may often depend upon some extralingual factors as well. Thus, depending on the readers/listeners addressed, the translator/interpreter should use correspondingly either British or American lexical variants: lorry (Br. Engl.), truck (Amer. Engl.), tin (Br. Engl.), can (Amer. English), timetable (Br. Engl.), schedule (Amer. Engl.), sweets (Br. Engl.), candies (Amer. Engl.), bathroom (Br. Engl.), (Amer. English), maize (Br. Engl.), corn (Am. Engl.), cloak-room (Br. Engl.), coat-room (Amer. English), etc.
|
|
|
Regional peculiarities of the kind must be taken into consideration in order to achieve the necessary national orientation of a purposeful written or oral translation.
Most of compound English words having transparent componental semes are translated into Ukrainian either at the level of words (compounds) or at the level of word-combinations, the latter being formed from the componental parts which become separate words in Ukrainian: air-base ; but air-raid ; birthplace ; cross-road /; steamship ; foofn paste ; hour-hand .
The translation of compounds may sometimes look like descriptive though: breadthways /; longwise /; southward / ; tenfold ; thousandfold ; westward / .
A similar approach is often made when translating many Ukrainian structural and semantic compounds into English: the eighth part of smth.; the narrow-gauge railway; , the third part of smth./one-third of smth.; the seven-hundredth anniversary.
Since the number of notions in any language does not coincide with the number of words expressing them, a word-level translation can not always provide a faithful rendering of any single word meaning. Thence, a large number of the source language words are to be trans-
lated into the target language by meafis of word-combinations or even sentences: hi-jack ; / ; agape ( ); armistice ' / ; asyndeton ; aurist ; banting 䳺; /, ; casualize ; didacti cism .
Quite a few monosemantic words in Ukrainian are also notion-ally extended: to be affected by the fumes/to die from carbon monoxide poisoning; day and night (24 hours); coloured threads for embroidering; slightly warm/ed water; (to be) healthy looking and fleshy, beautiful, strong; be despirited/to be in the dumps; to sniff the air (about dogs); boiling/extremely hot water, division into periods; to take much trouble over smb./smth.
Various evaluating meanings (diminutive, augmentative, etc.) are expressed or rather conveyed in English and Ukrainian both at word level and at word-combination level, the former being predominant, as a rule, in Ukrainian: baggie ; catkin ( ); coatee ; hillock; floweret; manikin.
Many Ukrainian diminutives expressing also the meaning of endearment through morphological means may have in English two realizations (morphological and lexico-syntactic): mummy/ dear mum; dad (daddy), dear dad; sissy/little sister; booklet/little book; birdie/little bird; cloudlet/little cloud, small little cloud.
|
|
|
It must be emphasized, however, that more Ukrainian words expressing their evaluating meanings morphologically are rendered in English through lexico-syntactic sense units/word-combinations: a small house or a small little house; a little hand or a small little hand; a small garden or a small little garden/orchard, perfidious/cunning enemies.
Higher degrees of diminutiveness and endearment in Ukrainian diminutive words which is expressed as shown above (through suffixes and prefixes) can be conveyed in English (though not always to an equal degree) with the help of lexico-syntactic means (at word-combination level): / dear/dearly loved (beloved) mummy/daddy; / small little hands/ dear little hands; small/tiny little gnome;
392
393
the most beautiful small/tiny little fish; ⳺ 67 two small little babies/two dear kiddies; to have a little sleep, have a sweet little sleep, etc.
Negative evaluating meanings, which are mostly expressed at word level in Ukrainian, can also be rendered into English lexico-syn-tactically (at word-combination level): ( ) a veritable man of a bull; a monster of a dog; a whale of a fish; a veritable abyss; (pejorative) a venerable/ staid old man, heavy/strong wind, an almost stormy wind; (. ) monkey-business, etc.
It must be noted that some pejorative evaluating meanings can be expressed in Ukrainian and sometimes in English by morphological means. Consequently, these meanings are rendered at word level: heavy drunkard '/'; dullard /, ; kinglet /, sluggard / .
These are by far all Ukrainian and English means which can together with the diminutive/augmentative affixes considerably influence the denotative and connotative (evaluative) meaning of some notional words. The beginning translator must be well aware of this fact while selecting equivalent versions for such kind of words in the target language. Still greater care should be taken when rendering the connotative meanings of words which are not morphologically manifested.
Ways of Conveying the Meanings of Polysemantic Language Units
Unlike words with evaluative and other connotation, the denotative meaning of a bulk of words can be identified at the level of word-combinations or sentences only. These words constitute a considerable part of present-day English lexicon and are referred to as polysemantic words. For example, the denotative meanings of the verb (or noun) part can be fully displayed in the word-combinations like: to part the fighting cocks, to part company with somebody, to part one's hair, to take part in something, the sixth part of the melon, to have a small part in the event, etc.
Sometimes it may be difficult to identify without larger context the proper meaning even of such a simple polysemantic word as your. which can be in Ukrainian either , , /, , , , , , respectively. The proper mean-
ing of many other polysemantic wordstan be realized already at word-combination level. This can be seen, for example, from the translation of the verbs to break and to come in the following sentences:
He shouldn't be surprised if ³ ,
they began to break the windows, . (Galsworthy)
Bossiney broke the silence. .
(Ibid.)
If Irene broke such laws what
does it matter? (Ibid.) , ?
|
|
|
When the evening came Car- ,
rie hurried eagerly away,
reiser) .
But don't come near thewa- /
ter, or else you may be attacked ,
by sharks. (J. AIdridge) .
Stilll other meanings of these and other verbs can be realized and consequently faithfully rendered into the target language only at sentence level as in the following examples: The first prize came to me. and the 2nd and the 3rd went to students of the Stanford and Berkely Universities. (J. London) , . But being very lonely I read everything that came my way. (Ibid.) / , , .
The verb come has some quite different realizations in set/idiomatic expressions, cf.: to come under one's eye/notice - ; to come under one's thumb - ; to come under the yoke - ( ); to come unstuck - , ; what may - , ; to come Yorkshire over one - , .
Some meanings of polysemantic verbs and other parts of speech are not quite easy to identify even at sentence level, as can be seen from the examples below:
Shall I take you round the , ,
house, sir, while I send the cook . to break it to him? (Galsworthy) ?
394
395
| Translation of polysemantic words may often require a deep insight into content of a part or of the whole passage/text comprising some sentences. This can be partly seen from the meanings of the nouns sfuff and run in the sentences below: |
| Since it is always the concrete context that predetermines the real meaning of a polysemantic word, the translator has to study first of all the original passage/text thoroughly and only then suggest an equivalent which would fit in for the translation: |
Christine made a fourth at the table. (Cronin)
... it it had not been for my wife having a little money of her own, I couldn 't ha ve carried on as I have done. (J.Priestley)
But isn't there time before your train to get all your stuff together? (M. Wilson)
All that kind of antiwar talk you hear nowadays from your fellows is the worst kind of subversive stuff. (Ibid.)
Now, of course, there was as much business in machine tools at least as there had been in 1929, what with this European stuff going on. (M. Wilson)
But what happens when he gets to the heavy stuff? And it's the heavy stuff we're interested. (Ibid.)
Oh, stuff it up your nose! one of the companions said. (D.Carter)
Then I'll finish up the grids and get ready for the run just as I was going to do. (Ibid.)
... I am going to give young Dr. Anthony Haviland the run of his goddamn life. (Ibid.)
.
... , ( , ).
/?
, , - .
, , , , 1929 , 䳿 .
? .
/! - .
|
|
|
, ...
... , '.
Lately, we've had a run of '
shocking bad luck at the Depart-
ment. (Cronin) .
Their stores were already rurt
ning low. (Stevenson) ()
.
They seem to be running , ,
wild. (J.AIdridge) ( ).
It would be wrong to assume that only polysemantic notionals can realize their actual meanings at the level of word-combinations and sentences. Some meanings of functionals can also be identified only at the level of sentences or external word-groups. Among these may be even the meanings of conjunctions as, for example, that of and in the following sentence: The poem was long and he could not learn it by heart. Here and may have either the meaning of the co-ordinate conjunction / or the implicit meaning of the subordinate conjuction /. (Why could he not learn the poem by heart? - Because it was long.) - / , '.
Similarly with some other functionals whose implicit meanings, functions and sometimes even their logico-grammatical nature can be clearly established only at the level of word-groups or sentences. This becomes clearly evident from the following sentences in which the lexical and logico-grammatical nature of the word but is most explicitly realized:
He is bul a boy! /
(R.AIdington) !
All of us but a few have come , /
to this conclusion. (G. Greene) ,
.
But for his open eyes, he might
have been asleep. (Glasworthy) ,
, . The contextual environment of but, therefore, predetermines the lexico-grammatical nature of the word (and not only of this word), which may be adverb (We can not but try. - ) or conjunction (Never a week passes but he comes. - He , .)
The word but is also used in different functions in idiomatic expressions. Cf.: But me no buts, sir, interrupts the diddler, apparently in a very high dungeon. (E. Poe) -
396
397
( ), - / . The last but one - , but for - / . but for your help we should not have finished in time - , ; but then : London is a busy place, but then it is also the place where you get fhe best entertainment. (CADE) - , , .
The choice of a definite meaning out of some inherent in the semantic structure of an English language unit can also depend upon the style of the matter under translation. For example, the idiomatic expression to loose one's reason and its synonyms to loose one's mind, to go out of one's head, to go insane are confined in their use to literary speech styles, while to go mad or to go crazy are used in colloquial and low colloquial speech styles, as a rule.
Similar stylistic restrictions are observed with the use of Ukrainian equivalents and analogies of this idiomatic expression too. Cf.:
literary/neutral style: / , ' .
colloquial/low colloquial: / , , .
No need to prove that the lexical meaning of each of these variants, even when taken out of context, already predetermines at the same time the speech style, in which it can and should be used in the target language.
A considerable number of other sense units, however, which are endowed with particular emotive, stylistic or extralingual meanings, can not exaustively explicate these characteristics at the level of a word-group or even sentence, but only at the level of passage/ text. This becomes especially evident when translating belles-lettres/ publicistic and some other styles texts.1
Conveying the Meanings of Language Units at Passage/Text Level
The text as a term is in the true sense of the word a segment of written/oral speech or a whole work consisting of grammatically and
logically arranged language units fofming with their meanings its general content. Text as a speech unit may be smaller or larger, but irrespective of its dimension it always remains a macrostructure, which is not an indivisible monolith but a harmonious unity of different language units. A larger text usually falls into several constituent parts -supra-phrasal units and different types and kinds of sentences. All of them due to their communicative completeness and logical succession1 constitute something of a semantic and structural backbone of any text. These parts together with their various meanings make the general contextual stream of the text, whose content can be fully and faithfully conveyed only when all contents of each block are fully and exaustively expressed. As the blocks/supra-phrasal units are made of sentences, hence, the necessary degree of faithfulness in any translation of texts/passages can be achieved only through faithful translation of all types of their ingredient sentences.
|
|
|
It must be emphasized, however, that it is not only content (the semantic plane), in other words, not only the lexical meanings of various sense units, that have to be fully and faithfully transplanted in the process of translation. No less important is to fully convey apart from many denotative meanings of language units also their connota-tive characteristics, as well as their stylistic and structural peculiarities. A faithful translation of supra-phrasal units or passages/text of any speech style, therefore, presents a complex process, which involves a full and faithful expression in the target language of all the main constituent parts forming the semantic, structural, stylisitic and other planes of a text. In view of all this it will be expedient to emphasize that all characteristics (nothing to say about the denotative and the connotative meanings of words and the means of expression in general) are identified, as a rule, by way of a thorough analysis of the original text. This analysis inevitably involves apart from the particularities of content also the pragmatic toning/orientation, which can be exhaustively established, however, only at deep level structure of the communicative units.
It must also be added that despite the differences in their actualization, the planes of a text are impossible to separate from each other, since they are closely interconnected and form the surface and the deep structures complexity of any text. Hence it follows, that the characteristic features of each plane manifest themselves and are fully realized at text level, which can sometimes be restricted, as has
1 See: Nida .. Componentat Analysis of Meaning. - The Hague - Paris: Mouton, 1975. Hoey M. Patterns of Lexis in Text. - Oxford: Ox.University Press, 1991.
1 See: .. . -.: , 1981, .14.
398
399
been said, to a supersyntactic unit/paragraph reflecting its main structural, stylistic, pragmatic and other peculiarities. These peculiarities should be rendered in the faithful variant of the target language text/ passage as well, though usually by other than in the target language means of expression.
But whatever the divergences in the means of expression of the source language and of the target language, and irrespective of the fact that far from all the characteristic features of any text are fully reflected in its main componental parts, the translation of a text can be succefully performed only on the basis of its constituent sentences. This is because all syntactic level units are endowed with predication and modality, they have mostly a stuctural and sense completion, they are stylistically and pragmatically in full conformity with the whole text. In view of all this only the sentence can fully meet the requirements laid before a unit of translation, when the object assigned to translation is a text which usually consists of different types and kinds of sentences joined in supra-syntactic structures.
Since a faithful translation of any passage/text is performed sentence after sentence, their ideas/thoughts, the main structural, stylistic, genre and pragmatic characteristics are mostly conveyed in a consecutive succession too. Their constituent words, word-groups and set expressions/idioms functioning as different parts of the sentence or forming constituent elements of the latter (or even being independent elements in the sentence) are all first translated as single units. In other words, prior to translating the sentence as a whole (provided it is not a one-member sentence, like Winter. Bitter frost. Evening time), its parts and functionally independent elements are to be translated as separate sense units. E.g.:
All day we had been sitting in ֳ
the piano box waiting for the rain - , ,
to stop. (. Caldwell) .
As can easily be ascertained, only through translation of the component parts 1) All day, 2) we had been sitting, 3) in the piano box, 4) waiting, 5) for the rain to stop could the translation of the sentence be fully and faithfully accomplished.
Similarly in the following simple two-member sentence:
There was an old two-storey Գ-
yellow house on Fielding A venue -
thatyear. (W. Saroyan) .
This sentence too could be translated faithfully into Ukrainian only after its component parts, which also function as parts of the sentence, were translated one after another, though not necessarily in absolutely the same, as in the source language, succession. Cf.: 1) that year, 2) on Fielding Avenue, 3) was, 4) an old two-storey yellow house. There is no need to adduce any further proofs in support of the existence of a preliminary stage of translation preceding the final one, i.e., complete and faithful translation of the whole communicative sense unit. One must acknowledge, therefore, the existence of translation at all main language levels represented by the corresponding sense units. Consequently, one can speak of the existence of some language units having their separate levels of translation. This was already exemplified more than once on the foregoing pages and it will be shown in the process of translating several supersyntactic level units/paragraphs a little further. And yet a language unit in which all possible meanings pertained to other language units, which are hierarchically lower in rank than the sentence and thus function as its componental parts, are fully realized at the level of the communicative unit or text as a whole. There will be more than one chance to ascertain in that in the process of the commented translation of an excerpt from D.Parker's short story Arrangement in Black and White below. Some other excerts representing different language styles and assigned for independent translation will also testify to the pointed above statements.
The selected passage to be analysed belongs to the belles-lettres style and consequently abounds in various features characteristic of it1. Besides it represents a dialogue with many colloquialisms peculiar of spoken American English. The authoress employed many other stylistic means to make the narration lively and the development of the plot dynamic and interesting. The story is a masterly piece of psychological motivation of each character's behavior and speech part. The text abounds in many shortened and elliptical sentences and other stylistic means which are used to create some pragmatic subtext which the translator has to comprehend and then fully convey with the help of some functionally relevant stylistic, syntactic and lexical/semantic means of the Ukrainian target language.
Before starting the commented translation of the text it is expedient to repeatedly make mention of the obligatory stages that should
' See: .. . - .: . - , -, 1982.-166.
400
401
precede the very process of translation. The first of them is to read through the passage/work selected for translation and to analyse it. All attention in the course of this analysis should be paid to picking out the language units whose denotative or connotative meanings present some difficulties for translating. After this all attention must be paid to choosing in dictionaries/reference books the possible semantic, structural and stylistic variants for the language units or signs as they are sometimes called1, which present difficulties for translating. The second stage implies a regular selection from the chosen variants, which are usually more than one, the most fitting into the given sentence/passage semantic, functional or stylistic equivalents and substitutes. Only when this preparatory work is completed, the translation proper can be started.
It must also be noted that the peculiar sentence structures, the tropes, the prosodic and other means in belles-lettres texts serve the aim of creating the necessary impact on the reader/listener. That is why the regular preparatory work on the text selected for translation always takes some time, the latter being often predetermined not only by the skill and theoretical grounding of the translator but by some other factors as well. These include the ease (or otherwise) of the author's style, the abundance or absence of difficult for translation linguistic phenomena in his work as neologisms, archaisms, dialectal material or any other obscure places created by some historic events or customs, culturally biased national notions and the like. Because of this the preparatory time needed for a translation proper to begin may vary from text to text. The main methods by which the resistance of the source language text may be overcome in translation (with particular attention to selecting the means of expression) will be shown further on the pages to come.
And now in accordance with the requirements of the first stage in the preparatory work for translation, read and thoroughly analyse the passage below paying attention to difficult or obscure (if any) places you come across in each separate sentence. Put the picked out sense units down and offer one or some suitable lexical/semantic equivalents for each of them. See to it that they also suit in the speech style of the corresponding sentences and in the excerpt of this D.Parker's story as a whole.
D.Parker ARRANGEMENT IN BLACK AND WHITE (An Excerpt)
1. The woman with the pink velvet poppies turned round the assisted gold of her hair1, traversed the crowded room at an interesting gait combining a skip with a sidle, and clutched the lean arm of her host.
2. Now I got you! she said. Now you can't get away!
3. Why, hello, said her host. Well. How are you?
4. Oh, I'm finely, she said. Just simply finely. Listen. I want you to do me the most terrible favor. Will you? Will you please? Pretty please?
5. What is it? said her host.
6. Listen, she said. I want to meet Walter Williams. Honestly, I'm just simply crazy about that man. Oh, when he sings! When he sings those spirituals2. Well, I said to Burton, It's a good thing for you Walter Williams is colored, I said, or you'd have lots of reason to be jealous. I'd really love to meet him. I'd like to tell him I've heard him sing. Will you be an angel and introduce me to him?
7. Why, certainly, said her host. I thought you'd met him. The party's for him. Where is he, anyway?
8. He's over there by the bookcase, she said. Let's wait till those people get through talking to him. Well, I think you're simply marvellous, giving this perfectly marvellous party for him and having him meet all those white people, and all. Isn't he terribly grateful?
9. I hope not, said her host.
10. I think it's really terribly nice, she said. I do. I don't see why on earth it isn't perfectly all right to meet colored people. I haven't any feeling about it at all - not one single bit. Burton, - oh, he's just the other way. Well, you know, he comes from Virginia, and you know how they are.
11. Did he come tonight? said her host.
12. No, he couldn't, she said. I'm a regular grass widow tonight. I told him when I left, There's no telling what I'll do, I said. He was just so tired out, he couldn't move. Isn't it a shame?
13. Ah, said her host.
14. Wait till I tell him I met Walter Williams! she said. He'll just about die. Oh, we have more arguments about colored people.
1 For further information on the meaning of various language signs see:KoMMccapoB B.H. . - M.: . , 1973. - .213
1 the assisted gold of her hair - her hair had been dyed gold.
2 spirituals - Negro songs, religious in essence, like folk ballades.
402
403
I talk to him like I don't know what, I get so excited. Oh, don't be so silly, I say. But I must say for Burton, he's heaps broader-minded than lots of these Southerners. He's really awfully fond of colored people. Well, he says himself, he wouldn't have white servants. And you know, he had this old colored nurse, this regular old nigger mammy and he just simply loves her. Why, every time he goes home, he goes out in the kitchen to see her. He does, really, to this day. All he says is, he says, he hasn't got a word to say against colored people as long as they keep their place. He's always doing things for them -giving them clothes and I don't know what all. The only thing he says, he says he wouldn't sit down at the table with one for a million dollars. Oh, I say to him, you make me sick, talking like that. I'm just terrible to him. Aren't I terrible?
15. Oh, no, no, no, said her host. No, no.
16. I am, she said. I know I am. Poor Burton! Now, me, I don't feel that way at all. I haven't the slightest feeling about colored people. Why, I'm just crazy about some of them. They're just like children -just as easy-going, and always singing and laughing and everything. Aren't they the happiest things you ever saw in your life? Honestly, it makes me laugh just to hear them. Oh, I like them. I really do.
Note. As could be ascertained, the excerpt contains several features characterestic of the belles-lettres style. This is also proved by some ways of expression and by syntactic peculiarities of speech pertained only to present-day colloquial English of the USA. The translator has to recreate and convey faithfully the content side, the style, the artistic and syntactic peculiarities, and the pragmatic intention/the subtext only of D.Parker's highly artistic story. This can be disclosed through a complex analysis of the main planes of the excerpt. Such an explicatory analysis of the afore-cited sentences is also performed on the forthcoming pages.
Lexico-Semantic, Stylistic and Structural Analysis of Language Units/Sense Units of the Excerpt
The analysis of this excerpt, like any complex analysis of a text, should be started from the title, which is metaphorical by nature (Arrangement in Black and White). Here is a case when the real meaning of the title can be established only after a thorough semantic and stylistic analysis of the passage. Apart from this, some extralingual factors, as the once strained racial relationship between the whites and blacks in the USA, should be taken into account. And yet the title, as becomes clear from its component parts (Arrangement, between, Black, White) already discloses the main idea of the excerpt. At any rate it hints to the intention of the white woman character to get acquainted with a well-known Negro singer, performer of spirituals. This gives the clue to some suggestions conceiving the meaning of the title, which may have the following versions in Ukrainian: 1. , 2. -, 3. .
None of these suggested titles, however, is felicitous enough to be accepted as final, since neither of them fully expresses the main idea of the excerpt and the story as a whole. Each of the suggested titles fails to express the falsehood of the woman character who is not simply a white, but a racist white. Taking this negative feature of the character into consideration, one can offer some additional Ukrainian versions for the title, which might be more expressive and closer to the original sense: 1. ; 2. ; 3. ³ ; 4. .
Out of these four offered versions only the last appears to be close to the content of the story and intention of the authoress. It expresses to some extent the falsehood and the double-dealing conduct of the woman character, which is partly reflected in the title. It also hints to the hidden negative features of the main character of the story, though even this Ukrainian version does not fully express the meaning of the original title. Nevertheless, it may be the beginning to the solution of this far from easy question and serve as a basis for other versions, which may be closer to the concept of D.Parker, who has given a most vivid portrayal of a regular mentally and psychologi-
404
405
cally split character who proclaims her principle of respect to the equality of different races and acts, just on the contrary. This striking feature in the psychological state and behavior of the female character gives grounds for suggesting some more Ukrainian versions of the title, some of which may be really final: 1. , 2. , 3. , and even a single word version .
The most fitting in comparison with the preceding four suggested titles may be considered the last two of these offered versions, one of which may be chosen (with some transformation) as absolutely acceptable in Ukrainian: or .
The lengthy contemplation upon the title of the excerpt/story testifies to the difficulties facing the translator of belles-lettres, which may sometimes become insurmountable. In view of this, some losses, as a result of the great resistance of the original text, must be condoned (). Despite the difficulties, the translator should never desist from the efforts to select the most fitting target language variants for any language unit/sense unit of the source language.
It must be emphasized that the process of selecting the semantic and structural equivalents for certain sense units in the target language requires not only profound knowledge of the source language, but also, and not to a smaller degree, that of his native tongue. Hence, of paramount importance is the translator's skill in selecting among synonymous sense units of the source language the only suitable versions in the target language, as will be observed further, when analysing separate blocks of sentences from the excerpt. This aim is achieved via a thorough lexico-semantic, grammatical/structural and stylistic analysis of sense units during the process of translating each single sentence of the excerpt/passage below. It may also be interesting, and not only for an inexperienced translator, to follow the analysis beginning with the structure of the first primary predication word-group, which reads as follows: The woman with the pink velvet pop pies turned round the assisted gold of her hair... The predicate turned round 'may be erroneously understood by the student as /, which would be absolutely wrong, since turned here means . A proof to this is the
second homogeneous predicate traversed '(the crowded room) with an interesting gate combining a skip with a sidle. The Ukrainian versions/ equivalents of this participial word-group may be: 1. , 2. , , ... These two variants are possible due to the sense of the word-group (combining) a skip with a sidle (in a word-for-word translation ). Equally of interest may also be the last homogeneous predicate with its conclusion clutched the lean hand of her host, which should be transformed through addition into the following sentence: /, , .
The dialogue between the woman character and her host is of interest both from the structural/syntactic, stylistic and semantic points of view. All these dialogues are both abrupt, elliptical, and sentence-type, presenting in some places regular monologues. Their peculiar features, naturally, must also be maintained in Ukrainian. The highly emotional nature of speech presented in the dialogues of the woman character, her extensive use of subjective and objective modality often requires the employment of such means of expressing modality in Ukrainian as modal particles. This can be observed practically in most addresses of the woman, as in the following dialogues:
Now I got you! she said. !
Now you can't get away! .
!
"Why, hello, said her host. , ,-.
Well. How are you? . / ?
Apart from the use of the expressive modal particles (, , ) the highly emotional speech of the woman character abounds in wrong forms of some words. Cf.:
Oh, I'm finely. she said. , .
Just simply finely. Listen. I want . -
you to do me the most terrible . , ,
favor. Will you? Will you please?
Pretty please? . ? ,
? !
The wrong use of finely instead of the correct form fine is not easy to translate into Ukrainian, where there is no corresponding cor-
406
407
rupted form of this adverb. Hence, the stylistically possible wrong employment of the adverb with the aim of compensating the English corruption in Ukrainian translation.
Certainly of some interest, but without any difficulty for translators, may be the oxymoron the most terrible favorwhich should be in Ukrainian simply or . Of interest is also the fifth sentence (What is it?), which may have some versions, though not the word-for-word version ? or ? as the host meant some concrete idea of the noun the favor. Correspondingly, the interrogative sentence may have one of the following four faithful variants: 1. ()?; 2. ?; . ?; 4.?.
In the sixth block of sentences, certainly of interest from the point of view of translation, may be some word-groups and sentences, even the simple and constantly used concluding words he said/she said after the direct speech. These several times repeated English sentences, naturally, can not (for stylistic reasons) be translated word-for-word as / . Acceptable may be, depending on the context, the following versions: /, /, /, / and sometimes an omisionof this tag sentence altogether.
Certainly of some difficulty in the sixth sentence may be the verb meet in the utterance / want to meet Walter Williams, where it has the contextual meaning of ; hence, the Ukrainian version must be ³ and not ³.
No less interesting, though far from easy to render, are some other sense units in sentence 6 in the woman's dialogue. Among them is the sentence Honestly, I'm just simply crazy about that man in which there are some stumbling blocks worth being analysed. For example, honestly may have some faithful variants in Ukrainian: , , -, . Any of the first three versions may be used in this Ukrainian translation. As to the part of the sentence I'm just simply crazy (about that man), it may have two variants in this sentence: 1. (and not- , which may have some other meaning) or 2. ." No direct (word-for-word) translation can be suggested for the sentence
Oh, when he sings, which may have two faithful variants: 1. , ົ and 2. , ົ (with the use of the emphatic particle ).
Some difficulty may arise when translating the utterance Well, I said to Burton, when I left, it's a good thing for you Walter Williams is coloured I said, or you'd ha ve lots or reasons to be jealous. Its faithful version in Ukrainian can be achieved only through a deep inquiry into the content and style of the utterance. Probably the most difficult is to translate the repeated utterance I said, which is a kind of an inserted sentence often used in narration in Ukrainian too, but only in present form of a definite personal sentence (in reported speech). Its form is (cf.: , , etc). Hence, the only correct/faithful Ukrainian translation of this block of sentences may be as follows: / , : , , ³ , /.
Two more utterances of the block are not easy from the point of view of translation either: 1. I'd really love to tell him which can be translated as or ' and 2. heard him sing which can not mean , , which is of no importance for the host or anybody, since to hear anybody sing is no great privilege whatsoever. Only her having attended some of the singer's concerts could be qualified in certain periods of the U.S. history as a bold deed. Because of this the sentence should be translated as follows: , / . In this way the woman could show herself in the eyes of the guest as a bold, progressive and devoted to arts person.
The concluding utterance in block six of sentences presents some interest as well having practically two neutral, i.e., semantically equivalent for the context variants: ; ... / . The answer of the host (sentence 7) is pretty clear, but it requires a proper expression in Ukrainian where Why, certainly may be translated faithfully in some ways: 1. , , 2. , or even 3. , / , 4. ' .
The third utterance of this block of sentences The party's for him) may have at least two versions as well: 1. -
408
409
; 2. / ; 3. .
In the eighth block of sentences of interest may be utterance 3: Well, I think you're simply marvellous, giving this perfectly marvellous party for him and having him meet all those white people, and all. In this utterance transformations are needed in some places, the first being that of the word-group simply marvellous, which can not be translated as , but only as a substantival word-group or still more accurately /- . The participial construction/ word-group giving this perfectly marvellous party for him can also be translated in two ways: 1. or 2. / / .
Some difficulty may present the translation of the often used by the woman empty phrase and all, which corresponds not to our i , but to 볻 or 볻.
Certainly the most difficult may be the translation of the last utterance of the woman in the eighth block of sentences Isn't he terribly grateful? and the answer to it (sentence 9) I hope not, said her host.
When translated the woman's question word-for-word as ³ ? and the host's answer as - , the sense of the utterances would be completely perverted, i.e., wrong. This is because the woman made her emphasis on the adverb terribly (grateful). Consequently, the Ukrainian equivalent must be ³ - , ? The host's answer / hope not as a reaction to the emphatically stressed adverb must not be translated word-for-word either as , but as , ( ) . This answer called forth the protesting reaction of the woman character who did not quite agree with the host by saying I think it's really terribly nice - I do, which corresponds to the Ukrainian , ... / (). The concluding sentence, as had been said already, is merely an empty phrase, often used by the woman to substantiate her assuredness.
Block 10 of the woman's utterances contains some sense units which should be analysed semantically and stylistically with the aim
of finding faithful Ukrainian versionsTorthem. These utterances and word-groups are: 1. Why on earth it isn't perfectly all right / / , . Here even a broader transformation is possible: / ; 2.1 haven't any feeling about it at all - or: , or even: . It goes without saying that only one of these synonymous versions is to be used. No less interesting from the structural/stylistic and semantic points of view are other utterances that follow. For example, utterance 11: Did he come to-night? which may have some faithful realizations: 1. ? 2. / ? 3. ? Any of these variants may be taken as a faithful Ukrainian version for this sentence, though not all of the woman's cunning contemplations are quite easy to render fully and accurately into Ukrainian, as in case of There's no telling what I'll do. Only a thorough analysis of the whole story helps comprehend what the woman character meant by saying so. It becomes clear from the deeper analysis of the text, what she wanted to say by that (she was eager to shake hands with the coloured singer). The Ukrainian variants of this utterance, consequently, may be only the following: 1. / , ; 2. , ; 3. , . 4. , . Needless to emphasize, that any of these versions may well fit in the Ukrainian translation, though only one and no more can be used.
Some colloquial style utterances of the woman character may cause even difficulty for the translator, as it is with one utterance in block 12, where it contains a somewhat obscure/not quite transparent lexical meaning of the verb move. Cf.: He was so tired out, he couldn't move. A thorough semantic analysis of the context proves that the verb's semantics was not in any way connected with the state of Burton's physical ability. What the verb move really means in this context is that Burton did not react in any way to what his wife said to him after having decided to make a very courageous (in her judgement) step, i.e., shake hands with the well-known coloured singer, whom she, as a half-racist, in reality, despises. Hence, taking
410
411
into consideration the lingual and extralingual factors, the only correct/faithful translation of the utterance and its tag question (Isn't it a shame?) should have the following Ukrainian version: ³ , () . The tag-question may have respectively one of the following three versions: 1. , ? or 2. , / ? or 3. , - ?
Neither can there be only one single solution to the possible translation of the host's laconic and clearly evasive answer Ah (sentence 13) to the above-cited tag-question. His Ah may be interpreted as a neutral answer, not sympathising with the judgement of the woman. Consequently, the Ukrainian variants of it may be simply A... or , , etc. It is clear from the context, that the host did not support but sooner rejected that woman's accusation of her husband's lack of attention.
The fourteenth block of utterances, which is a regular long monologue of the woman character contains some interesting ways of expression, emphatic colloquial phrases and structures worth a more or less thorough analysis as well. Among them is already the first sentence emphatically uttered by the woman: Wait till I tell him I met Walter Williams!, which contains wishful modality and is to be expressed with the help of some Ukrainian modal particles. The most fitting in this utterance will be /-: -, , ³! or , - ...
The following utterance 'He'll just about die presents no difficulty for translators due to its transient meaning, which enables to suggest some equivalent versions in Ukrainian: 1. ³ ; 2. ³ ; 3. ³ ( ). All these three variants are synonymous and fit well in the context. Consequently, each of them may be used in Ukrainian. The next utterance (Oh, we have more arguments about colored people) contains a grammatical and logical error in the use of the indefinite pronoun/adjective more instead of many repeatedly testifying to the woman's low (if any) education and her very low cultural level.
Probably one of the most interesting structural transformations must be performed to achieve faithfulness in translation in two utterances that follow the previous one. Neither of the two, when transplanted, as they are placed in the original passage, would well fit
semantically into a good Ukrainian literary version. Cf.: I talk to him like I don't know what. I get so excited. 1. , . 2. . When translated, however, beginning with the second utterance, with the substitution of some words for a more common Ukrainian way of saying, the target language literary variant becomes more natural and more expressive, and thus more acceptable to Ukrainian colloquial speech style:
1. I talk to him like I don't know what. 2.1 get so excited. Hence, it must be transposed into:
2. /, 1. , , .
This kind of transformation through the change of placement in the row of utterances makes the Ukrainian version more logically and stylistically grounded, because the woman, as anybody else in her place, got excited first and only then talked to him (Burton) like nobody knows what. In view of this, her very mild reproach, instead of the naturally expected strong words of accusation or indignation, is much milder and weaker, and contrary to that, which might have been expected: Oh, don't be so silly. These words disclose the double-dealing conduct of this woman character, who only wanted to camouflage her false inside. This can also be clearly seen from the Ukrainian variant of the utterance: , , - ^ . These words, of course, are far from expressing any threat or strong reproach, as the woman character pretended.
Other utterances of this block containing peculiar features, which are important to know and still more to translate for a student and future translators, are as follows:
1. he's heaps broader-minded (hyperbolized), which will be more expressive and more faithful when translated antonymically as ;
2. Southerners can be translated faithfully only in a descriptive way as / ϳ ( );
3. this regular old nigger (contemptuosly) mammy should be translated as -;
4. he just simply loves her , - ;
5. he does really to this day / .
Always important for the translator is to keep in memory the
412
413
already solved problems concerning the rendition of some peculiarities of the source language or of the target language, as in the following two utterances: 1. All he says is, he says, he hasn't got a word to say-; 2. The only thing he says, he says he wouldn't sit down with one, - both these italicized colloquial structures have an identical translation: , , ...
A very interesting structural transformation has to be performed on two clauses of one sentence, which follows the above-analyzed ones. Namely: He's always doing things for them - giving them clothes and I don't know what all.
When translated without any change of placement of its clauses, the utterance will be structurally clumsy in Ukrainian: ³ - . By changing the placement of its clauses, the utterance acquires the following form: - , , . Thus, the transformation through the change of placement of some parts of the sentence makes the utterance sound absolutely Ukrainian (stylistically natural) and semantically transparent.
The choice of a lexico-semantic equivalent may sometimes cause trouble even in a seemingly explicit utterance. Cf.: You make me sick talking like that, where sick is semantically associated with sea-sick. At any rate, this meaning may prompt the hard thinking student-translator to use the verb , which perfectly substitutes the English word-group make sick in the utterance above. Hence, the faithful Ukrainian version of it may be only: , /.
The beginning translator must be aware of some peculiarities of the source language, which may have no equivalents or even analogies for some sense units in the target language. Among these are not necessarily the culturally biased national notions, dialectal, archaic, idiomatic or other elements. These may be simple grammar or phonetic mistakes/corruptions in a text/speech of characters often causing barriers for inexperienced translators, as in the following question of the woman character: Aren't I terrible? (instead of Am I not terrible?).
It goes without saying that irregularities of the kind may be observed only in speech of small Ukrainian children and almost never in speech of our grown-ups. That is why the utterance can only be
414
translated in a literary (correct) form: 1. ? or 2. , ? 3. ? Any other, even slightly corrupted Ukrainian versions are next to impossible to suggest in this case (like in other cases). As a result, the speech irregularity remains not completely expressed in Ukrainian. The short reply of the host (Oh, no, no, no. No, no.) can also have some interesting versions, which may be suggested by the translator: 1. Hi, , . , . 2. , . 3. , .
It may be even more difficult to select the right/faithful variant for the utterance, in which the woman character objects to her being not terrible to her husband and insists on the contrary: I am, she said. I know, I am (i.e. terrible). This emphatically pronounced and rather assuring utterance in her own support can not be translated word-for-word as , , (). The translator here must again resort to a structural transformation of the utterance in Ukrainian in order to make it sound absolutely natural for the readers. In this case the device of extension may be useful for I am, she said. I know, I am. Namely: ( ), - . , ( ). This transformation through extension of the complex sentence in the second part of the utterance, as well as the replacement of the verb am by
