Linguistic regularities underlying translation correspondences between Russian and English official discourse noun phrases

Iurkovskaia Elena Aleksandrovna ORCID: 0000-0002-3325-4491 PhD in Philology Associate Professor, Foreign Languages Department, Irkutsk State Transport University 664074, Russia, Irkutsk region, Irkutsk, Chernyshevsky str., 15 eayur@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

The co-existence of different languages in the global information space inevitably leads to the need for an interlanguage exchange of information through translation. Translation activity is the basis of any act of communication in a foreign language. This becomes obvious at the stage of mastering a foreign language and becomes latent in the case when a high level of proficiency in a non-native language is achieved. During the oral and written perception of a foreign language message, its transformation into the appropriate semantic structure in the native language is carried out, while the reverse process takes place during the production of the message. At the same time, a significant part of translation transformations is stable, systematic and can become the object of scientific research. The theoretical apparatus and applied tools for carrying out such an analysis are offered by the scientific discipline of translation studies, whose task is "to find out how the transition from the original to the translation text occurs, what patterns underlie the actions of the translator" ^{[1, 158]}.

The subject of the research in this article is the basic patterns that determine lexical and grammatical transformations in the translation of substantive (nominal) phrases (groups) of the Russian language (RY) and the English language(s).

These patterns were revealed in the process of practical translation of legal and customs texts, therefore, they are characteristic of the official business discourse. The patterns were established on the basis of a comparison of Russian- and English-language substantive phrases demonstrating the unity of propositional content with different lexical and grammatical forms.

The research, the results of which are presented in this article, was conducted on the basis of empirical data and is of the nature of an inductive analysis. Such an approach to conducting scientific research is consistent with the understanding of the linguistic theory of translation as a descriptive theoretical discipline "dealing with the identification and description of objective patterns of the translation process, which are based on the features of the structure and rules of functioning of the languages involved in this process" ^{[2, p. 36]}. The scientific novelty of the study consists in an attempt to systematize the essential differences between the Russian and the Russian in the ways of verbal formulation of a substantive phrase, which naturally cause the need to adapt the translated text to the norms of the translation language according to certain translation correspondences through appropriate translation transformations.

Methodological basis and basic concepts of the study

The problem of scientific understanding and modeling of the translation procedure has been actively developed in Russian linguistics since the middle of the last century ^[3]. The translation model is understood as "a conditional description of a number of mental operations, performing which the translator can translate the entire original or some part of it" ^{[1, 158]}. A number of theories have gained the greatest popularity, including the theory of regular correspondences (Ya.I. Retsker, A.V. Fedorov), situational (denotative) (I.I. Revzin, V.Yu. Rosenzweig), transformational (Yu. Naida, V.V. Schweitzer), semantic (J. Catford), hermeneutical (F.N. Kryukov) models of translation. Each of the proposed concepts made a significant contribution to the development of the general theory of translation, their elements were used to develop integrated approaches to understanding the translation process, among which the works of V.N. Komissarov, which served as the methodological basis of this study, gained great popularity in Russian linguistics.

V.N. Komissarov's concept allows for the possibility of an operational description of the translation process, other than the development of an integral model, since it can be aimed at "translation methods applicable to the transmission of the values of units of the source language of a certain type" ^{[1, p. 172]}. Translation (interlanguage) transformations, which are understood as "transformations by which it is possible to make the transition from the units of the original to the units of translation" ^{[1, p. 172]}, may imply "direct switching from the original to the translation without intermediate steps" ^{[1, p. 172]}, such as, for example, referring to the denotation (situational-denotative model) or nuclear structures (transformational model).

The high frequency of the use of a certain translation transformation allows us to judge the translation correspondence, which means "a unit of the translating language that is regularly used to translate a unit of the source language" ^{[1, p. 135]}. In this study, such an unambiguous type of translation correspondence between certain structures of AY and RY is considered as a consequence of a certain linguistic pattern and as the cause of textual modifications. These correspondences are reciprocal in nature and are used in the process of translation from English to English and vice versa.

Linguistic patterns determine the mutual transformation of the structures of language and language not only in order to preserve the equivalence of translation, interpreted as "commonality of content (semantic proximity) the texts of the original and the translation" ^{[1, p. 47]}, but also ensure its adequacy, which combines equivalence "with other regulatory requirements" ^{[1, p. 229]}.

At the stage of verbal representation of the translated text, it is necessary to ensure compliance with translation standards, understood as "a set of requirements for the quality of translation" ^{[1, p. 228]}, including compliance with genre and stylistic characteristics and maximum proximity to the traditions of the translating language. In relation to some sections of the text, non-compliance with translation standards leads to a literal translation, which is "by definition inadequate" ^{[1, p. 234]}. In such situations, it becomes necessary to search for "adequate correspondences" ^{[4, p. 309]} in order to adapt the translated text, which leads to a transformation of its lexical and grammatical organization. The repeatability of a certain correspondence allows us to draw a conclusion about its systemic, natural nature, which is caused and regulated by stable differences between RH and AY, which can be represented in the form of interlanguage oppositions.

Syntactic explicitness of the substantive phrase in the versus syntactic implicitness of the substantive phrase in the

The problem of linguistic implicitness and, to a lesser extent, explicitness is one of the relevant topics of modern linguistic research. "Implicit meanings are considered in connection with the study of vocabulary, word formation, grammar" ^{[5, p. 1160]}, as a "cognitive component of the semantic structure of the text" and a way to "save language resources" ^{[5, p. 1159]}. From the standpoint of translation studies, attempts have been made to explore implicitness as a "non-verbalized information content" that requires adequate transmission during the transition from language to language ^[6].

It should be noted that the priority object of linguistic research in the field of linguistic implicitness is the method of its decoding (decoding), therefore, implicitness is mainly considered as a semantic category. In this paper, the terms "implicitness" and "explicitness" were used as a "special type of syntactic relation" ^[7] to describe the completeness of the lexical and syntactic composition of a sentence. Syntactic implicitness means partial verbalization of the transmitted meaning, while explicitness means full verbalization. The quantitative lexical and syntactic analysis of the substantive phrase of the R and A, which have similar propositional content, demonstrates that these languages differ in the way of its verbal design. At the level of textual representation, this is manifested in the fact that a significant part of nominal phrases in English official business discourse consists of fewer lexemes required to express a certain semantic content than their Russian equivalents. This observation is consistent with L.P. Cherkashina's conclusions that "in the pair of languages "English - Russian" the degree of impliciteness of the first is much higher" ^{[8, p. 170]}.

The official business model tends to have a concise syntax of a substantive phrase. This means that some elements of the propositional content are implied, but not verbally presented. In the Russian Language, the situation is exactly the opposite, it is explicit due to the active use of abstract verbal nouns. Let's compare the English sentence and its literal and then adequate translation into Russian:

A relevant postgraduate qualification and/or work experience may be required for some customs positions.

Appropriate qualifications and/or work experience may be required for some Customs positions (literal translation).

Appropriate qualifications and/or work experience may be required to enter the Customs service to fill certain positions (adequate transfer).

It becomes obvious that the literal translation of the nominal phrase is equivalent, but not adequate, since the stylistic coloring of the formal text type is violated.

In order for the English-speaking nominal group, when translated into Russian, not to lose signs of belonging to the official business style and to be adequately interpreted by native speakers of Russian, it is necessary to fill in the "lost meanings", mainly by adding nouns. In translation theory, this technique is called addition or compensation, the essence of which is that "the elements of meaning lost during the translation of the unit in the original are transmitted in the translation text by some other means" ^{[1, p. 247]}.

Two most frequent groups of nouns have been identified, which can serve as a means of compensating for the syntactic implicitness of a substantive phrase when translated from A to R.

The first group consists of classifying nouns (process, mechanism, question, problem, activity, and so on), naming the class or category to which this object or phenomenon belongs, for example,

The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) gives the government the valuations and property advice. → The Appraisal Bureau is engaged in appraisal activities and advises the government on property issues (valuation is an activity).

The second group is represented by concretizing nouns that are used to clarify the situation around an object or phenomenon, for example,

Customs agencies may watch for weaponry, counterfeit merchandise and stolen goods. → Customs authorities monitor the movement of weapons, counterfeit and stolen goods (weapons and goods are moving).

A similar asymmetry in the completeness of the lexical and syntactic composition of a substantive phrase can be traced when comparing Russian-language and English-language names of organizations that have the same functions. As a rule, the RJ specifies the function that this organization performs, whereas in the English-language name only the object of activity is explicitly represented, for example,

RF: General Directorate for Drug Control of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation (function – drug control) → USA: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) (function is not explicitly expressed);

RF: Main Department of Fire Protection (function – fire protection) → USA: The U.S. Fire Administration (the function is not explicitly expressed).

This type of compensation for the syntactic implicitness of a substantive phrase by specifying the function of an abstract noun is fixed in conventionally accepted Russian-language translations of organizations of English-speaking countries, for example,

The World Health Organization (WHO) → World Health Organization (function – health protection).

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) → The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (function – Food and Drug Administration).

The actualization of the opposition under study can also be traced in the translation of terminology, one of the essential components of the language of the official business style. Despite the fact that the terminology is characterized by lexical brevity – "fixation in the form of a term of a minimum number of identification features" ^{[9, p. 1480]}, the Russian-language variants are characterized by an explicit type of verbalization of terminological meaning, for example,

vertical cargo handling (classification)→ lift-on-lift-off (Lo-Lo),

permission to carry out external transportation (specification) → foreign carrier permit,

harmonization of customs rules (specification) → Customs harmonization,

the import value of the goods (specification) → i mport cost ^[10].

The last two examples represent a special subtype of concretizing compensation implemented through specific nouns.

In the above pairs of examples, the transition from a Russian-language term to an English-language one is carried out by reducing the number of lexical elements that verbalize the terminological meaning. Thus, there is a reverse compensation process, a translation technique of omission, which means "refusal to transfer semantically redundant words in translation, the meanings of which turn out to be irrelevant or easily restored in the context" ^{[1, p. 204]}. It is important to note that such words are redundant only in the context of English-speaking (not Russian-speaking) official business discourse.

Based on the presented theoretical assumptions and examples, it becomes possible to formulate the first regularity governing the choice of adequate translation transformations of substantive phrases in official business style texts. In the process of translation from A to R, verbal compensation (explication) of the implicit elements of the nominal phrase is required, thereby the translated Russian-language version demonstrates an expanded lexical and syntactic composition. In the case of reverse translation, the opposite process of reducing the lexical and syntactic composition of the text takes place by omitting the corresponding elements. Schematically, the effect of the first pattern is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Pattern 1

The priority of nouns in the substantive phrase versus the priority of verb forms in the substantive phrase

The second opposition represents the difference between RH and AY in the quantitative ratio of nouns and verb forms involved in expressing similar semantic content within an expanded nominal group.

One of the features of the official business discourse is the dominance of nouns over verbs ^[11]. However, this statement applies more to Russian-language texts of the official business style, which are overloaded with abstract nouns. The article notes the active use of verb forms ^[12], which leads to the need to carry out grammatical substitution in the translation process, which is defined as a translation transformation in which "a grammatical unit in the original is transformed into a unit with a different grammatical meaning" (word form, part of speech, sentence member) ^{[1, p. 180]}. Four regular grammatical substitutions of Russian-language nouns in the nominal group were established when translated into English.

1. The non-personal form of the verb gerund, for example,

The duty of the customs officer is to collect the customs duty in an appropriate amount. → A customs officer is responsible for collecting (inadequate literal translation – collection of) the proper amount of customs duty.

It should be noted that AYA allows 2 ways of translating verbal nouns, namely the noun and the gerund, for example,

c boron → collection / collecting.

It was found that in Russian, preference is given to the gerund in cases where the Russian noun denotes an action as an activity, whereas English verbal nouns usually mean the results of an activity or call procedures, for example,

Customs duty collection is one of the main customs operations. → Customs duty collection is one of the basic customs operations.

2. The non-personal form of the verb infinitive, for example,

The duty of the customs officer is to collect the customs duty in the appropriate amount ... → A customs officer's responsibility is to collect (inadequate literal translation – collection of) the proper amount of customs duty;

goods to be declared → goods to declare (inadequate literal translation – goods subject to declaration).

3. The non-personal form of the verb is a participle, for example,

declaration when placing goods under the customs procedure → declaring goods placed under the customs procedure (inadequate literal translation – declaring at placement of goods under);

4. Subordinate clauses, for example,

After the goods arrive at the customs territory, ... → After the goods arrive at the customs territory, ... (inadequate literal translation – After the arrival of goods at the customs territory, ...).

In this case, the grammatical replacement of a part of speech is accompanied by a translation transformation of the sentence division, "when two or more in the translation text correspond to one original sentence" ^{[1, p. 128]}.

Thus, the second regularity that determines adequate translation transformations of substantive groups in official-business style texts is the need for partial denominalization of the Russian-language version when translated into English by grammatical replacement of verbal nouns with verbal forms and reverse nominalization of the English-language phrase when translated into English. The scheme according to which this pattern is deployed is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Pattern 2

Postposition in RH versus preposition in th of an attributive noun as part of a noun phrase

The third pattern is based on the juxtaposition of the ways of positioning the elements of a noun phrase in RH and AY. The most common model of official business vocabulary and terminology is an attributive-nominative phrase that has a complex referential semantics, that is, linking together "both the subject, the concept (nominative) and its characteristic (attribute)" ^{[13, p. 31]}. As part of the nominative-attributive phrase, the vertex, the "head element" ^[13] (English head ^[14]) and the attributive are distinguished. In the case when the attributive value is expressed by a noun, the RH and the AYA differ significantly in the way it is verbalized.

Formally, the most frequent form of expression of an expanded nominative meaning is a compound noun, also called a "substantial compound" ^[15], which is a combination of two or more nouns expressing a single nominative meaning. A feature of the nomination using a compound noun is the "attributive value incorporated into it" ^{[16, p. 523]}.

A compound noun in English is formed according to the Attributive Noun + Head Noun model, for example,

customs duty (atrributive noun) calculation (head noun).

The Russian-language equivalent of this phrase corresponds to the Vertex model + An attribute, for example,

calculation (top) of the customs duty (attribute).

When translating these nominal phrases, a translation transformation of syntactic assimilation is used, which allows "some changes in structural components", however, "the same set of sentence members and the sequence of their arrangement" is preserved ^{[1, pp. 178-179]}.

In Russian, in adequate accordance with the compound noun, the head element is located in postposition, the attributive follows it and is used in the genitive case, or another case form controlled by a preposition (most often the preposition of), and also, in order to preserve the signs of belonging to the text to the official business style, compensation for the implicitness of the lexical composition of the phrase may be required, for example,

a customs offense → an offense in the field of customs (the literal translation, inadequate in style, is a customs offense);

a 5 percent customs duty → 5 percent customs duty (inadequate literal translation – five percent customs duty).

The number of nouns performing an attributive function can increase, while each of the newly added attributive nouns is placed in a preposition and defines the noun following it, for example,

risk management system → risk management system.

Attention should be paid to the grammatical replacement of the morphological form of the lexeme "risks". As part of the English-language equivalent, the conventional form of an attributive noun is the singular.

The effect of this pattern can also be traced in the way of registration of a possessive substantive group, in which the possessor acts as an attribute, for example,

passengers’ luggage → passengers' baggage (the literal translation of the baggage of passengers, which is inadequate in grammatical way of expressing belonging)

In accordance with the demonstrated opposition, it is possible to formulate a third pattern that must be taken into account when adequately translating official-business style texts. As part of the Russian-speaking substantive group, there is a tendency to preposition the top of the phrase. AYA uses the exact opposite model of positioning the elements of a named group. The used translation transformations of syntactic assimilation and compensation or omission make it possible to express the nominative-attributive meaning in the way that it will be most adequately perceived in the relevant linguistic community. A diagram describing the effect of this pattern is presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Pattern 3

Conclusion

As a result of practical activities on the translation of texts of the official business style of the Russian and English languages, three basic patterns have been identified that determine the process of converting substantive groups into structures similar in semantic content to the translated text. Taking into account these patterns, translation correspondences have been established that ensure adequate verbalization of the propositional content of the translated nominal group, which, in turn, require the use of certain translation transformations of its lexical and grammatical composition and syntactic organization. The revealed patterns are based on the contrasting characteristics of the substantive phrases RYA and AYA, formulated in the form of interlanguage oppositions.

According to the degree of completeness of the lexical composition of the nominal group, the Russian language demonstrates the features of syntactic explicitness, and the Russian language – implicitness, which entails the need to apply translation transformations of the quantitative lexical content of the substantive phrase. When translating from RY to RY, there is a reduction, and from RY to RY – an extensization of the substantive phrase.

According to the frequency of using abstract verbal nouns and verb forms as elements of an extended nominal group, the dominance of the first is noted in the RY, and the second of these categories in the AY. The consequence of this discrepancy is the need to carry out lexical and grammatical translation transformations of the partial composition and syntactic structure of the translated text.

According to the model of the design of the nominative-attributive meaning, the RH shows a tendency to postposition, the AY – to preposition the attributive component of the complex nominative meaning expressed by a nominal phrase. Due to this difference, the syntactic structure of the corresponding elements of the translated text needs to be adapted in the translation process.

The above transformations are aimed at meeting the requirement of the adequacy of the translation of the nominal group, which means its semantic equivalence to the original and compliance with the established norms of the translation language. The described patterns guarantee the preservation of the stylistic features of the official business discourse, as well as ensuring the correctness of the lexical and grammatical structure of the translated text.

The results of this study can be used in teaching theoretical and practical courses in translation studies, and are also of applied importance, as they offer an operational description of the procedure for translating substantive phrases based on knowledge of the deep differences between the language systems of the Russian and the Russian languages. Compliance with the discovered patterns and the translation correspondences determined by them through appropriate translation techniques helps to overcome the negative effect of language interference, which leads to the appearance of syntactic constructions in texts that are fundamentally impossible in the studied language at this stage of its development ^[17].