The semantic structure of words presents a complicated problem as the so-called correlated words of the T languages are far from being identical in this respect. The only exception are some groups of monosemantic words which will be dealt with later.
Divergences in the semantic structure of words of the S and T languages are one of the primary cases of lexical transformations. These divergences or dissimilitudes are connected with certain peculiar features of a word or a group of words. Even words which seem to have the same meaning in the two languages are not semantically identical. The primary meanings of correlated words often coincide while their derivative meanings do not. Thus there is only partial correspondence in the structures of polysemantic words as their lexical semantic variants do not cover one another. Semantic correlation is not to be interpreted as semantic identity and one-to-one correspondence between the semantic structures of correlated polysemantic words in the two languages is hardly ever possible.
Such partial correspondence may be illustrated by the following analysis of the correlated words and table. Their primary meanings denoting the same article of furniture are identical. But their secondary meanings diverge. Other lexical semantic variants of the word table are: part of the machine-tool; slab of wood (stone); matter written on this; level area, plateau; palm of hand, indicating character of fortune, etc. Lexical semantic variants of the word are: , , ( , ); , ( , ) etc.
Not infrequently the primary meaning (and sometimes the derivative meanings as well) of an English word consist of more than one semantic component or some, forming the so-called bundles of semantic elements. This is usually reflected in dictionaries which give more than one Russian equivalent of each LS of the English word.
The analysis of the polysemantic word mellow shows that it can modify a wide variety of objects and notions: fruit, wine, soil, voice, man, etc. Each sphere of its application corresponds to a different derivative meaning and each meaning (consisting of several semes) accordingly has two or more Russian equivalents.
1. , , ( ); 2. , ( ); 3. ; 4. , ( ); 5. , , ( ); 6. , ( ); 7. . , . ()
It also follows from the above example that there is no single Russian word with a similar semantic structure corresponding to the word mellow and comprising all its meanings.
Different Valency
The aptness of a word to appear in various combinations is described as its lexical valency or collocability which amounts to semantic agreement. Collocability implies the ability of a lexical unit to combine with other lexical units, with other words or lexical groups. A word as a lexical unit has both paradigmatic and syntagmatic collocability. The lexical meaning of a word is revealed in either case. The contexts in which a word is used bring out its distribution and potential collocability, thus the range of lexical valency of words is linguistically determined by the lexical meaning of words, by the compatibility of notions expressed by them and by the inner structure of he language word-stock.
|
|
|
It should be noted that valency comprises all levels of language its phonological, syntactical and lexical levels. Only lexical valency will be considered here.
A detailed analysis of factual material shows that valency in the English language is broader and more flexible than that in the Russian language. This fact confronts the translator with additional difficulties, as it enables a writer to use unexpected individual combinations. It follows that valency may be obligatory non-obligatory and words accordingly fall into two categories: open or discrete words and closed or non-discrete ones. The adjective aquiline is a classical example of a word with a closed valency (. the Russian adjective ).
Every language has its established valency norms, its types of word combinations, groups of words able to form such combinations. This especially concerns traditional, obligatory combinations while individual combinations give greater scope to translators. Individual collocability is by no means arbitrary and must not violate the existing models of valency. As a writer may bring out a potential meaning of some word he is also able to produce unexpected combinations. Such individual but linguistically justifiable collocations belong to the writers individual style in the way as his epithets or metaphors and may be regarded as an effective stylistic device, e.g.
She had seen many people die, but until now, she had never known a young foreign death. (R.Godden).
, , .
Words traditionally collocated tend to constitute clichés, e.g. a bad mistake, high hopes, heavy sea (rain, snow), etc. the translator is to find similar TL clichés, traditional collocations: , , , (). The key word in such collocations is a noun, both semantically and structurally, while the modifying adjective plays a subordinate role. The key word is always preserved in translation but the collocated adjective is rendered by a word possessing a different referential meaning which expresses the same category (in this case intensity) and corresponds to the TL valency norms. For example:
a bad mistake
a bad headache
a bed debt
a bad accident
a bad wound
a bad egg
a bad apple .
It should be noted that words playing a qualifying role may be not only adjectives but also verbs and adverbs, e.g. trains run ; to sit in dry dock .
The problem of semantic agreement inevitably arises in the translation of phraseological units consisting of a verb of wide meaning and a noun (collocations or set expressions). The verb is practically desemantised and the noun is the semantic centre of the collocation.
|
|
|
The translation of the verb is determined by the law of semantic agreement, e.g. to make tea (coffee) ()
To make beds
To make faces
To make apologies - .
Every language possesses regular and compatible collocations.
After a day of heavy selling and in spite of persistent Bank of England support, the pound closed on Monday at a new record low against the United States dollar.
, - .
The richer the semantic volume of a word is, the richer is its collocability which opens up wide translation possibilities.
A detailed analysis of various collocations shows that individual and unexpected collocations in different functional styles are much more frequent in English than in Russian.
Different collocability often calls for lexical and grammatical transformation, though of the collocation may have its equivalent in Russian, e.g. a controversial question but the collocation the most controversial Prime Minister cannot be translated as -.
Britain will tomorrow be welcoming on an official visit one of the most controversial and youngest Prime Minister in Europe.
- , .
Sweden's neutral faith ought not to be in doubt.
.
A relatively free valency in the English language accounts for the free use of the so-called transferred epithet in which logical and syntactical modifications do not coincide.
I sat down to a very meditative breakfast.
.
Logically the adjective meditative refers to the subject of the sentence whereas syntactically it is attached to the prepositional object. This unusual attachment converts it into a transferred epithet. The collocation is hardly possible in Russian.
Different Usage
Traditional usage of words of word combinations is typical of each language. Traditional S.L. and T.L. usage or clichés do not coincide. The words forming such clichés often have different meanings in the two language but they are traditionally used to describe similar situations. The problem of the proper selection of equivalent words and clichés can be solved only if the peculiarities of the correlated languages are taken into consideration, e.g.
He is survived by his wife, a son and a daughter.
, . ( , .)
She never drank boiled water.
.
Sometimes different usage in partly due to different vision:
The city is built on terrace rising from the lake.
, .
As a matter of fact there two verbs (to rise and ) may be called conversives, that is, they describe the same situation from diametrically opposite angles.
Sometimes different usage is apparent in the use of semantically complete prepositions.
He wrote under several pseudonyms, many of his essays appearing over the name of Little Nell. (F.Johnson).
,
Usage is particularly conspicuous in set expressions.
The New Zealand earthquake was followed by tremors lasting an hour. No loss of life was reported.
. .
|
|
|
The fact that the US Government was finally and firmly coming to grips with crime impressed many.
, , , .
Usage plays an important part in translating orders and instructions.
Commit no nuisance .
Usage is closely linked with the history and development of the language, of its lexical system. Hence every language creates peculiar clichés, ready-made formulae. They are never violated by the introduction of additional words or by the substitution of their components.
