The emphatic role of inversion is a well-known fact, and need not be considered here. It is only to be mentioned that the stylistic function of inversion is frequently rendered lexically.
Up goes unemployment, up go prices, and down tumbles the labour vote.
, , , , .
The Prime Ministers word distorted and vicious as they are, are a tribute to the fighting capacity of the Communist Party.
-, , .
Emphatic Use of the As As model
The model asas expressing the same degree of quality may be used emphatically not in its direct function but to express the superlative degree. In this case it is as a rule combined with the pronouns any, anything, anybody. The translations of this model require lexical compensation.
As he has since admitted, he admires Rosamund Darnley as much as any woman he had ever met. (Agatha Christie)
, .
He tried as well as any man could, but he faild. (M.Halliday)
, - .
This new opera is as remote from classic grand opera as anything created in modern idiom could be.
, , .
Emphatic Negative Constructions
Negative constructions are more expressive than affirmative ones and possess a stronger emotive colouring.This is due to the fact that the category of negation indicates that the link between the negation indicates that the link between the notions expressed by the subject and the predicate is non-existant.
The negative word no is a powerful means of stressing the some member of the sentence.
Our arrangement was no announcement for few days. (A.Halley)
: .
The emphatic use of the colon in the translation attracts attention to what follows. Emphasis is also created by ellipsis.
They passed no village bigger than a hamlet and no inn better than an alehouse, but Harry was urgent to stop at one of them and seek better horses. (J.Buchan)
, , , , .
Semantic Foregrounding
The lexical possibilities of foregrounding are also considerable. A writer sometimes skillfully uses a word in an unusual combination owing to which it becomes conspicuous and acquires greater expressive value.
|
|
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the government and its Department of Citizenship and Emigration have their collective sheet fimly rooted in the nineteenth century. (A.Halley)
, , XIX .
The unusual combination collective feet cannot be preserved in Russian ( would be unacceptable) and only the semantic aspect of the combination is rendered in the translation.
Stylistic means and devices present considerable and varied problems for translation. They possess a distinct national character although at first sight they may appear to be identical. Foreground linguistic means give rise to particularly hard problems as specific national language means are brought into play by foregrounding, e.g. articles, suffixes, the passive voice, conversion, etc.
The translator must be fully aware of the function of a stylistic device and its effect, to be able to reproduce the same effect by other means, if necessary, thus minimizing the inevitable losses due to inherent divergences.
To conclude: stylistic equivalence may be achieved by different means and not necessary by the same device.
t Translation Research Group - TTT.org: Barker Lecture
Previous sectionContentsNext section
Barker Lecture
Some Difficulties in Translation
One difficulty in translation stems from the fact that most words have
multiple meanings. Because of this fact, a translation based on a
one-to-one substitution of words is seldom acceptable. We have already
seen this in the poster example and the telescope example. Whether a
translation is done by a human or a computer, meaning cannot be ignored. I
will give some more examples as evidence of the need to distinguish
between possible meanings of a word when translating.
A colleague from Holland recounted the following true experience. He was
traveling in France and decided to get a haircut. He was a native speaker
of Dutch and knew some French; however, he was stuck when it came to
telling the female hairdresser that he wanted a part in his hair. He knew
the Dutch word for a part in your hair and he knew one way that Dutch word
could be translated into French. He wasn't sure whether that translation
would work in this situation, but he tried it anyway. He concluded that
the French word did not convey both meanings of the Dutch word when the
hairdresser replied, "But, Monsieur, we are not even married!" It seems
that the Dutch expression for a separation of your hair (a part) and a
permanent separation of a couple (a divorce) are the same word. When you
think about it, there is a logical connection, but we are not conscious of
it in English even though you can speak of a parting of your hair or a
parting of ways between two people. In French, there is a strong
separation of the two concepts. To translate the Dutch word for 'part' or
'divorce' a distinction must be made between these two meanings. We will
refer to this incident as the haircut example. Some questions it raises
are these: How does a human know when another use of the same word will be
translated as a different word? And how would a computer deal with the
|
|
same problem?
We expect a word with sharply differing meanings to have several different
translations, depending on how the word is being used. (Figure 1: Two
meanings of "bank"). The word 'bank' is often given as an example of a
homograph, that is, a word entirely distinct from another that happens to
be spelled the same. But further investigation shows that historically the
financial and river meanings of 'bank' are related. They both come from
the notion of a "raised shelf or ridge of ground" (Oxford English
Dictionary, 1989, pp. 930-931). The financial sense evolved from the money
changer's table or shelf, which was originally placed on a mound of dirt.
Later the same word came to represent the institution that takes care of
money for people. The river meaning has remained more closely tied to the
original meaning of the word. Even though there is an historical
connection between the two meanings of 'bank,' we do not expect their
translation into another language to be the same, and it usually will not
be the same. This example further demonstrates the need to take account of
meaning in translation. A human will easily distinguish between the two
uses of 'bank' and simply needs to learn how each meaning is translated.
How would a computer make the distinction?
Another word which has evolved considerably over the years is the British
word 'treacle,' which now means 'molasses.' It is derived from a word in
Ancient Greek that referred to a wild animal. One might ask how in the
world it has come to mean molasses. A colleague, Ian Kelly, supplied me
with the following history of 'treacle' (Figure 2: Etymology of
"treacle"). The original word for a wild animal came to refer to the bite
of a wild animal. Then the meaning broadened out to refer to any injury.
It later shifted to refer to the medicine used to treat an injury. Still
later, it shifted to refer to a sweet substance mixed with a medicine to
make it more palatable. And finally, it narrowed down to one such
substance, molasses. At each step along the way, the next shift in meaning
was unpredictable, yet in hindsight each shift was motivated by the
previous meaning. This illustrates a general principle of language. At any
point in time, the next shift in meaning for a word is not entirely
unlimited. We can be sure it will not shift in a way that is totally
unconnected with its current meaning. But we cannot predict exactly which
connection there will be between the current meaning and the next meaning.
We cannot even make a list of all the possible connections. We only know
there will be a logical connection, at least as analyzed in hindsight.
What are some implications of the haircut, bank, and treacle examples? To
see their importance to translation, we must note that words do not
develop along the same paths in all languages. Simply because there is a
word in Dutch that means both 'part' and 'divorce' does not mean that
there will be one word in French with both meanings. We do not expect the
two meanings of 'bank' to have the same translation in another language.
We do not assume that there is a word in Modern Greek that means
'molasses' and is derived from the Ancient Greek word for 'wild animal'
just because there is such a word in British English. Each language
follows its own path in the development of meanings of words. As a result,
we end up with a mismatch between languages, and a word in one language
can be translated several different ways, depending on the situation. With
the extreme examples given so far, a human will easily sense that multiple
translations are probably involved, even if a computer would have
difficulty. What causes trouble in translation for humans is that even
subtle differences in meaning may result in different translations. I will
give a few examples.
The English word 'fish' can be used to refer to either a live fish
|
|
swimming in a river (the one that got away), or a dead fish that has been
cleaned and is ready for the frying pan. In a sense, English makes a
similar distinction between fish and seafood, but 'fish' can be used in
both cases. Spanish makes the distinction obligatory. For the swimming
fish, one would use pez and for the fish ready for the frying pan one
would use pescado. It is not clear how a speaker of English is supposed to
know to look for two translations of 'fish' into Spanish. The result is
that an unknowledgeable human may use the wrong translation until
corrected.
The English expression 'thank you' is problematical going into Japanese.
There are several translations that are not interchangeable and depend on
factors such as whether the person being thanked was obligated to perform
the service and how much effort was involved. In English, we make various
distinctions, such as 'thanks a million' and 'what a friend,' but these
distinctions are not stylized as in Japanese nor do they necessarily have
the same boundaries. A human can learn these distinctions through
substantial effort. It is not clear how to tell a computer how to make
them.
Languages are certainly influenced by the culture they are part of. The
variety of thanking words in Japanese is a reflection of the stylized
intricacy of the politeness in their culture as observed by Westerners.
The French make an unexpected distinction in the translation of the
English word 'nudist.' Some time ago, I had a discussion with a colleague
over its translation into French. We were reviewing a bilingual French and
English dictionary for its coverage of American English versus British
English, and this word was one of many that spawned discussion. My
colleague, who had lived in France a number of years ago, thought the
French word nudiste would be the best translation. I had also lived in
France on several occasions, somewhat more recently than him, and had only
heard the French word naturiste used to refer to nude beaches and such.
Recently, I saw an article in a French news magazine that resolved the
issue. The article described the conflict between the nudistes and the
naturistes in France. There was even a section in the article that
explained how to tell them apart. A nudiste places a high value on a good
suntan, good wine, and high-fashion clothes when away from the nudist
camp. A naturiste neither smokes nor drinks and often does yoga or
transcendental meditation, prefers homeopathic medicine, supports
environmental groups, wears simple rather than name-brand clothing when in
public, and tends to look down on a nudiste. There is currently a fight in
France over which nude beaches are designated naturiste and which are
designated nudiste. Leave it to the French, bless their souls, to elevate
immodesty to a nearly religious status. I trust my French colleagues will
not take offense.
The verb 'to run' is a another example of a word that causes a lot of
trouble for translation. In a given language, the translation of 'run' as
the next step up in speed from jogging will not necessarily be the same
word as that used to translate the expression 'run a company' or 'run
long' (when referring to a play or meeting) or 'run dry' (when referring
to a river). A computer or an inexperienced human translator will often be
insensitive to subtle differences in meaning that affect translation and
will use a word inappropriately. Significantly, there is no set list of
possible ways to use 'run' or other words of general vocabulary. Once you
|
|
think you have a complete list, a new use will come up. In order to
translate well, you must first be able to recognize a new use (a pretty
tricky task for a computer) and then be able to come up with an acceptable
translation that is not on the list.
The point of this discussion of various ways to translate 'fish,' 'thank
you,' 'nudist,' and 'run' is that it is not enough to have a passing
acquaintance with another language in order to produce good translations.
You must have a thorough knowledge of both languages and an ability to
deal with differences in meaning that appear insignificant until you cross
over to the other language.[ 1 ] Indeed, you must be a native or
near-native speaker of the language you are translating into and very
strong in the language you are translating from. Being a native or
near-native speaker involves more than just memorizing lots of facts about
words. It includes having an understanding of the culture that is mixed
with the language. It also includes an ability to deal with new situations
appropriately. No dictionary can contain all the solutions since the
problem is always changing as people use words in usual ways. These usual
uses of words happen all the time. Some only last for the life of a
conversation or an editorial. Others catch on and become part of the
language. Some native speakers develop a tremendous skill in dealing with
the subtleties of translation. However, no computer is a native speaker of
a human language. All computers start out with their own language and are
'taught' human language later on. They never truly know it the way a human
native speaker knows a language with its many levels and intricacies. Does
this mean that if we taught a computer a human language starting the
instant it came off the assembly line, it could learn it perfectly? I
don't think so. Computers do not learn in the same way we do. We could say
that computers can't translate like humans because they do not learn like
humans. Then we still have to explain why computers don't learn like
humans. What is missing in a computer that is present in a human? Building
on the examples given so far, I will describe three types of difficulty in
translation that are intended to provide some further insight into what
capabilities a computer would need in order to deal with human language
the way humans do, but first I will make a distinction between two kinds
of language.
Certainly, in order to produce an acceptable translation, you must find
acceptable words in the other language. Here we will make a very important
distinction between two kinds of language: general language and
specialized terminology. In general language, it is undesirable to repeat
the same word over and over unnecessarily. Variety is highly valued.
However, in specialized terminology, consistency (which would be called
monotony in the case of general language) is highly valued. Indeed, it is
essential to repeat the same term over and over whenever it refers to the
same object. It is frustrating and potentially dangerous to switch terms
for the same object when describing how to maintain or repair a complex
machine such as a commercial airplane. Now, returning to the question of
acceptable translation, I said that to produce an acceptable translation,
you must find acceptable words. In the case of specialized terminology, it
should be the one and only term in the other language that has been
designated as the term in a particular language for a particular object
throughout a particular document or set of documents. In the case of
general vocabulary, there may be many potential translations for a given
word, and often more than one (but not all) of the potential translations
will be acceptable on a given occasion in a given source text. What
determines whether a given translation is one of the acceptable ones?
Now I return to the promised types of translation difficulty. The first
type of translation difficulty is the most easily resolved. It is the case
where a word can be either a word of general vocabulary or a specialized
term. Consider the word 'bus.' When this word is used as an item of
general vocabulary, it is understood by all native speakers of English to
refer to a roadway vehicle for transporting groups of people. However, it
can also be used as an item of specialized terminology. Specialized
terminology is divided into areas of knowledge called domains. In the
domain of computers, the term 'bus' refers to a component of a computer
|
|
that has several slots into which cards can be placed (Figure 3: Two
meanings of "bus"). One card may control a CD-ROM drive. Another may
contain a fax/modem. If you turn off the power to your desktop computer
and open it up, you can probably see the 'bus' for yourself.
As always, there is a connection between the new meaning and the old. The
new meaning involves carrying cards while the old one involves carrying
people. In this case, the new meaning has not superseded the old one. They
both continue to be used, but it would be dangerous, as we have already
shown with several examples, to assume that both meanings will be
translated the same way in another language. The way to overcome this
difficulty, either for a human or for a computer, is to recognize whether
we are using the word as an item of general vocabulary or as a specialized
term.
Humans have an amazing ability to distinguish between general and
specialized uses of a word. Once it has been detected that a word is being
used as a specialized term in a particular domain, then it is often merely
a matter of consulting a terminology database for that domain to find the
standard translation of that term in that domain. Actually, it is not
always as easy as I have described it. In fact, it is common for a
translator to spend a third of the time needed to produce a translation on
the task of finding translations for terms that do not yet appear in the
terminology database being used. Where computers shine is in retrieving
information about terms. They have a much better memory than humans. But
computers are very bad at deciding which is the best translation to store
in the database. This failing of computers confirms our claim that they
are not native speakers of any human language in that they are unable to
deal appropriately with new situations.
When the source text is restricted to one particular domain, such as
computers, it has been quite effective to program a machine translation
system to consult first a terminology database corresponding to the domain
of the source text and only consult a general dictionary for words that
are not used in that domain. Of course, this approach does have pitfalls.
Suppose a text describes a very sophisticated public transportation
vehicle that includes as standard equipment a computer. A text that
describes the use of this computer may contain the word 'bus' used
sometimes as general vocabulary and sometimes as a specialized term. A
human translator would normally have no trouble keeping the two uses of
'bus' straight, but a typical machine translation system would be
hopelessly confused. Recently, this type of difficulty was illustrated by
an actual machine translation of a letter. The letter began "Dear Bill"
and the machine, which was tuned into the domain of business terms, came
up with the German translation Liebe Rechnung, which means something like
"Beloved Invoice."
This first type of difficulty is the task of distinguishing between a use
of a word as a specialized term and its use as a word of general
vocabulary. One might think that if that distinction can be made, we are
home free and the computer can produce an acceptable translation. Not so.
The second type of difficulty is distinguishing between various uses of a
word of general vocabulary. We have already seen with several examples
('fish', 'run,' etc.) that it is essential to distinguish between various
general uses of a word in order to choose an appropriate translation. What
we have not discussed is how that distinction is made by a human and how
it could be made by a computer.
Already in 1960, an early machine translation researcher named Bar-Hillel
provided a now classic example of the difficulty of machine translation.
He gave the seemingly simple sentence "The box is in the pen." He pointed
out that to decide whether the sentence is talking about a writing
instrument pen or a child's play pen, it would be necessary for a computer
to know about the relative sizes of objects in the real world (Figure 4:
"The box is in the pen."). Of course, this two-way choice, as difficult as
it is for a human, is a simplification of the problem, since 'pen' can
have other meanings, such as a short form for 'penitentiary' or another
name for a female swan. But restricting ourselves to just the writing
instrument and play pen meanings, only an unusual size of box or writing
instrument would allow an interpretation of 'pen' as other than an
enclosure where a child plays. The related sentence, "the pen is in the
box," is more ambiguous (Figure 5: "The pen is in the box."). Here one
would assume that the pen is a writing instrument, unless the context is
about unpacking a new play pen or packing up all the furniture in a room.
The point is that accurate translation requires an understanding of the
text, which includes an understanding of the situation and an enormous
variety of facts about the world in which we live. For example, even if
one can determine that, in a given situation, 'pen' is used as a writing
instrument, the translation into Spanish varies depending on the
Spanish-speaking country.
The third type of difficulty is the need to be sensitive to total context,
including the intended audience of the translation. Meaning is not some
abstract object that is independent of people and culture. We have already
seen in examples such as the translation of 'thank you' in Japanese a
connection between culture and distinctions made in vocabulary. Several
years ago, I translated a book on grammar from French to English. It was
unfortunately not well received by English-speaking linguists. There were
several reasons, but one factor was the general rhetorical style used by
French-speaking linguists: they consider it an insult to the reader to
reveal the main point of their argument too soon. From the point of view
of an English-speaking linguist, the French linguist has forgotten to
begin with a thesis statement and then back it up. Being sensitive to the
audience also means using a level of language that is appropriate.
Sometimes a misreading of the audience merely results in innocuous
boredom. However, it can also have serious long-term effects.
A serious example of insensitivity to the total context and the audience
is the translation of a remark made by Nikita Khrushchev in Moscow on
November 19, 1956. Khrushchev was then the head of the Soviet Union and
had just given a speech on the Suez Canal crisis. Nassar of Egypt
threatened to deny passage through the canal. The United States and France
moved to occupy the canal. Khrushchev complained loudly about the West.
Then, after the speech, Khrushchev made an off-hand remark to a diplomat
in the back room. That remark was translated "We will bury you" and was
burned into the minds of my generation as a warning that the Russians
would invade the United States and kill us all if they thought they had a
chance of winning. Several months ago, I became curious to find out what
Russian words were spoken by Khrushchev and whether they were translated
appropriately. Actually, at the time I began my research I had the
impression that the statement was made by Khrushchev at the United Nations
at the same time he took off his shoe and pounded it on the table. After
considerable effort by several people, most notably my daughter Yvette,
along with the help of Grant Harris of the Library of Congress, Professor
Sebastian Shaumyan, a Russian linguist, Professor Bill Sullivan of the
University of Florida, Professor Don Jarvis of Brigham Young University,
and Professor Sophia Lubensky of the State University of New York at
Albany, I have been able to piece together more about what was actually
said and intended.
The remark was not ever reported by the official Russian Press. Rather it
was reported by a Russian-language newspaper called Novoe Russkoe Slovo,
run by Russian emigres in the United States. It reported that along with
the famous remark, Khrushchev said flippantly that "If we believed in God,
He would be on our side." In Soviet Communist rhetoric, it is common to
claim that history is on the side of Communism, referring back to Marx who
argued that Communism was historically inevitable. Khrushchev then added
that Communism does not need to go to war to destroy Capitalism.
Continuing with the thought that Communism is a superior system and that
Capitalism will self-destruct, he said, rather than what was reported by
the press, something along the lines of "Whether you like it or not, we
will be present at your burial," clearly meaning that he was predicting
that Communism would outlast Capitalism. Although the words used by
Khrushchev could be literally translated as "We will bury you," (and,
unfortunately, were translated that way) we have already seen that the
context must be taken into consideration. The English translator who did
not take into account the context of the remark, but instead assumed that
the Russian word for "bury" could only be translated one way,
unnecessarily raised tensions between the United States and the Soviet
Union and perhaps needlessly prolonged the Cold War.
We have identified three types of translation difficulty: (1)
distinguishing between general vocabulary and specialized terms, (2)
distinguishing between various meanings of a word of general vocabulary,
and (3) taking into account the total context, including the intended
audience and important details such as regionalisms. We will now look at
mainstream linguistic theory to see how well it addresses these three
types of difficulty. If mainstream linguistic theory does not address them
adequately, then machine translation developers must look elsewhere for
help in programming computers to translate more like humans.
| Homepage | Theory | Technology | CLS Framework | About us |
Copyright ¿ 1999
Translation Research Group
Send comments to [email protected]
Last updated: Wednesday, January 3, 1999
68 ,
.
.
.
. .
.
, ;
.
. .
.
.
, . ,
, . .
. , ,
. .
. ,
, , .
,
.
.
.
, ,
. (, , )
.
:
;
;
; .
.
.
.
,
.
. .
.
. ,
.
.
// .
: , , .
, .
. " " .
.
.
//
. .
. :
, , -. .
.
.
.
.
: , -,
, .
.
.
.
, .
.
. ,
//
.
.
. .
.
. . -
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
. -
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
. ,
, .
/
/ .
" "
1. : (
. 2003/04 .)
2. - ( .
XIX . )
3. :
4. (
XIX . )
5.
6. " "
("-")
7.
8. " "
9.
10. : ,
,
11. ( )
12.
13. (
"Helmbrecht" ("Nibelungenlied") )
14. ( .
. )
15. (, , )
16. (, )
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23. (,
)
24.
25. :
26.
27.
28. .
(., ) .
29. ()
30.
1. . .
.. // . . ., . . - . ., ., 1989, . 243. ()
2. : , , . .
.., , 1989. () 3. -
. . .., , 1986.
4. . . , 1982.
5. .. . , 1988. ()
6. .. . , 1988. ()
7. . . .., ., 1987. ()
8. . . ., . . .., ,
1982.
9. .. .
. - . -, 1993. : .11-94, : .
56-94, $ 12. ()
10. .. . , , 1987.
: . 7-57. (); . : . 179-182. ()
11. .. , ., 1997, . 4-115.
12. Sprachnormen, Stil und Sprachkultur, Berlin, 1993;
: -356.
13. . . . .., ., 1970.
14. .. . - 2- ., . - ., 1986.
15. .. . ., 1982.
(1)
16. .. . ,
1977. () (1)
17. . . 2-, . .,
., 1967.
18. . , 1989.
19. . . . . . 363. . .,
1990.
20. : . .: . , 1959 1989.
, N 13, 1985-1990.
21. . . . - .. . ..
. . . . . .. .,
1981. (. . ., . 178.) (1)
22. . . . . . .. (. . .
, . 127) ., 1978. ()
23. . . .. - . .-
.: .., 1980.
24. . ., . .
. ., 1963.
25. . . ( ). ., 1975.
26. . .
. ., 1981.
27. . . . ., 2000. ()
28. . . 2. , 1999. () 29.
. , 1988. 30.
- . .
, 1986. -----------------------------------------------------------
(-356) -, , , 3 . ()
-----------------------------------------------------------
(1) - . , , .
" ". (1) (D)
-----------------------------------------------------------
. ,
- .. . .:
, 1975.
- .. , ., 1988, . 52-53, . 58-59.
- .. , . 49-50
- .. . ., 1976, . 20-23.
- .., .. (
). . 4-, . ., .,
" ", 1990. ()
- . . - ... - .: , 1998.
()
- . ( )
, ., . , 1970, . 7.
- .. Uebersetzungslehre in Wort und Beispiel ( . .),
. 1981, . 210 (1)
- Ը .. . . 1968. . 144-154, . 170
- .. -
. // , . 23.
- . . // , . 19.
- .. . , , 1993. ()
- .. I .
.: , 1985, . 124-125, . 152-157.
- .. . // .
. . 22. ., 1989, - . 43-53.
- .. ? //
. . .. . . .,
. . - . ., ., 1989, . 243.- . 43-52. ()
- .. . // .
, ., 1976. ()
- .., .. , ,
.: , 1972. ()
- .. . .: , 1985. -
168 .
- / .., .., ..,
.. - : . . -, 1989. - 197 .
- . / . .
. . , . . . ., 2003.
- . . . - .: ,
1990.
- . . 1999. (, )
- . . " " . . 1993
- . . . . 1999.
()
- , ,
. . 1994. ()
- .. - (
).
. . 1997.
- , .. //
- .
- , 1994. - . 85-97
- , .. .
// . . - ., 1994. - N 6. - . 60-78
- , ..
: ( . .). . .... . . / .
. . -. - ., 1995.
- , ..; , ..; , ..
// . - , 1994. - . 8-15
- , ..; , ..; , ..
, , , // --
. - , 1993. - . 131-134
- , .. // . .
- ., 1994. - N 5. - . 73-89
- , .. , //
- (, ). -
, 1994. - . 3-7
- , ..
// . - , 1993. - . 77-83
- , .. . : // . .
- , 1992. - . 25. - . 68-74
- , .. " " :
( ) //
. - , 1993. - . 49-72.
- , .. : , , . -.
/ . . . - . ... - , 1992.
- , .. //
- . - .,
1993. - . 21-24
- , ..; , ..
/ . . - . .. . - , 1993.
- , .. " " " " /
. -. - , 1992.
-
/ . .. . - ., 1992.
- , .. " " ( )
// . . - ., 1992. - N 6. - . 36-53.
- , .. / . . - . ..
. - , 1992.
- .. . ., . 1992.
- . . . ., . 1998.
- . . . 1998.
- .. . ., . 1984.
,
- . . , 1964.
- . .
. . / . . ... . . 1986. - 162 . ()
- .., ..
. , 1986. .32-37, .47-70. (. : . 241-246)
- .. . //
"". . .,., 1928.
- . e o Vanity Fair - "
", 1851, N 9.
- . . .., 1960.
- .. " " (
"" // - -
. . . 855, 23. . . -. ,
1989.
- .., .. . , 1989. . 141-145, .
236-239, . 230-231.
- . . . ., . . . - . . .
., . 330.
- .. . , 1972.
- . . // .. 5`97
- .. . ., 1976, . 15-24.
- . . 6`89.
- . , 1988.
- .. . ., 1976, . 21.
- ..
. , 1975.
- : , , . .
.., , 1989.
- .. : // .
1970. - 4. ()
- .. //
. 1970. - 4. ()
- .. -. . ., 1968 1977.
()
- .. //
. 1955.
- . . . 1930.
- . , 1988. ()
- .., . . (, ) //
. - 1999. - 4/5.
- . ., 2002.
- . . . ., 2002.
- . . . . .. , .;
., 1963. ()
- .. . , 1964. ()
- .. -- // , . 8, ., 1971.
- .. . .;., Academia, 1936.
- .. . .: 6 ., ., 1965; .3 .4. ()
- .. . ., 1968. ()
- ., - .
, .:
, 1989. ()
- " ", . ". .", 1919.
- " ", ., 1959.
- . . .. -. .-
.: .., 1980. () . 64-68, . 109-121, . 130-141
- .. . 1983. 4- .
- 1- . . . - .. . . .
. .., ., 1958. (1)
- . . .. ., ., 1964, 1965; .
.. ., ., 1962 . . ()
- .. : ? //
, . 15.
- .. . - . 1991.
- . .
( . . .). ,
2000. ()
- . . (
., . . .). , 1998. ()
- . .
. ., 1999. ()
- . . -
. , 1999. ()
- . ., 1979.
- . . . .: .
"", 2004.
- . . ., 1974.
- . . . . - 1989.
- . . . - . //
. - 1991. - 4. - . 192-200
- . . // . . . - 1988.
- . - // .. 6`98
- .. : ( . . .
) , , 1995. ()
- ... ., 1985. .2.
- ..
// . . . , . 331. . ., 1989. - .
28-37. (1)
- . . : , 1991.
- . // . ., 1991.
- . . : " " // .
. . - 1990. - 3.
- . . -
( ). , 1999. ()
- . . . ,
1999. ()
- .. . ., 1974. ( ..)()
- . . .., ., 1988.
- .. // . .19.
- . . . .., ., 1986, .
. ., . . . - .. . ., . 278. -
. . . .., ., 1988.
- . . ..
- .. . ., 1984.
(1)
- .. . (..) ., 1985. (1)
- .. . - .: - ,
1991. ()
- .., .. versus // -
- . . . 855, 23.
. . -. , 1989.
- Lederer M. La traduction aujourd'hui: le modele interpretatif. Paris, 1994.
- . ., 1988.
- .. . ., 1980.
- .. . ., 1980.
- . . .., ., 1984.
.: , 1984. - (. . ., . 238)
- . . .., ., 1973. ()
- .. - . , 1978.
- . . .., , 1982.
- .. // . .3,
., 1990. (1)
- , . . , 1990.
- .. ( . . )
, 1982. (1)
- . . .. ., 1985. (. . .
. . , . 251.) (1)
- . . . . .. . ., 1972. ()
- . . .. , 1991. (1)
- . . .. . 1976. ()
- .. (..) (
. 315) ., 1967. ()
- 12. Sprachnormen, Stil und Sprachkultur, Berlin, 1993;
: -356.
- Riesel E. Abriss der deutschen Stilistik. ., 1954. (T-356)
- Riesel E. Stilistik der deutschen Sprache. M., 1963. (T-356)
- Fleischer W., Michel G. Stilistik der deutshen Gegenwartssprache. Leipzig,
1975; (-356)
- Linguostylistics Theory and Method. Ed. by Akhamankwa O.,M.,1972; (-356)
- .. // .
., 1950.
- .. . ., 1978. (1)
- . . . . . ..,
, 1976.
- . .
. . ., . . ., , 1986.
- . . . . .. . .
. - .. . ., . 158, 1980.
- .. . ., 1988.
- . . . .., ,
1979. (1)
- .., .. .
., 1973. (1)
- . . . . . .. .,
1978. (. . . , . 135.) (1)
- . . . . .. . ., 1972. ()
- .. (
). 3- . - .: 1990.
- .., .. . ., 1979. ()
- .. . ., 1979.
- .. . ., 1987.
- .. . ., 1978. (1)
- Seleskovitch D. Zur Theorie des Dolmetschens // Uebersetzer und
Dolmetscher.Heidelberg, 1974.
- .. //
, . 23.
- ..
. // , . 15.
- .., ..
. "
", ., 1973.
- : . . . .
.., ., 1978. ( .
.) (1)
- .. . ., 1988, . 67-75.
- .. . ., 1990, . 17-33.
- .., ..
. , 1986. . 80-86; ( 97-98, 100, 102) . 225-227.
- . // . :
.
- . . " " ., . " " ., 1970. N 4.
- . . ., 1985.
- Neubert A. Text and Translation. Leipzig, 1985; (-356)
- Ljudskanow A. Mensch und Maschine als Uebersetzer, Halle, 1972; (-356)
- Theory and Practice of Translation. Ed. by L. Graehs. Peter Lang. 1978. (1)
- Newmark Peter. A Textbook of Translation. N.Y., 1993; (-356)
- : Catford J.C., Jakobson R., Jaeger G. ( ), Kade O.,
Koller W., Mounin G., Nida E., Oettinger A.G., Reiss K., Savory T., Seleskovitch
D., Stolze R., Taber Ch., Toury G., Wilss W., Winter W., Vermeer H.J., Kloepfer
R.
- . : .., , 1988, . 85-99;
.., , 1975, c. 125-133.
&