Translation and Teaching Translation Liubovi Homulo, lector superior, M.A.

, ULIM Usually when people speak about translation or even write about it in special literature they are seldom specific about the meaning. The presumption is quite natural everybody understands the meaning of the word. However, to describe translation intuitive understanding is not sufficient what one needs is a definition. Translation means both a process and a result, and when defining translation we are interested in both its aspects. First of all, we are interested in the process because it is the process we are going to define. But at the same time we need the result of translation since alongside with the source the translated text is one of the two sets of observed events we have at our disposal if we intend to describe the process. In order to explain translation we need to compare the original (source) text and the resulting (target) one. In translation we deal with two languages (two codes) and to verify the information they give us about the extralinguistic objects (and concepts) we should consider extralinguistic situation, and background information. Having considered all this, we shall come to understand that as an object of linguistic study translation is a complex entity consisting of the following interrelated components: a) elements and structures of the source text; b) elements and structures of the target language; c) systems of the languages involved in translation; d) transformation rules to transform the elements and structures of the source text into those of the target text; e) conceptual content and organization of the source text f) conceptual content and organization of the target text; g) interrelation of the conceptual contents of the source and target texts. In short, translation is functional interaction of languages and to study the process we should study both the interacting elements and the rules of interaction.

There exist different theories of human translation that try to explain the process of translation to a degree of precision required for practical application, but no explanation is complete so far. The transformational approach quite convincingly suggests that in any language there are certain regular syntactic, morphological, and word-building structures which may be successfully matched with their analogies in another language during translation. The denotative approach treats different languages as closed systems with specific relationships between formal and conceptual aspects, hence in the process of translation links between the forms of different languages are established via conceptual equivalence. The communicational approach highlights a very important aspect of translation the matching of thesauruses. Translation may achieve its ultimate target of rendering a piece of information only if the translator knows the users language and subject matter of the translation well enough (i.e. if the translators language and subject thesauruses are sufficiently complete). This may seem self-evident, but should always be kept in mind, because all translation mistakes result from the insufficiencies of the thesauruses. Moreover, wholly complete thesauruses are the ideal case. No translator knows the source and target languages equally well (even a native speaker of both) and even if he or she does, it is still virtually impossible to know everything about any possible subject matter related to the translation. Scientists and translators have been arguing and still do about the priorities in a translators education. Some of them give priority to the linguistic knowledge of translators, others keep saying that a knowledgeable specialist in the given area with even a relatively poor command of the language will be able to provide a more adequate translation than a good scholar of the language with no special technical or natural science background. However there are the three basic components of translation, and different approaches differ only in the accents placed on this or that component:

Meaning of a word or word combination in the source language (concept or concepts corresponding to this word or word combination in the minds of the source language speakers). Equivalence of this meaning expressed in a word or word combination of the target language (concept or concepts corresponding to this word or word combination in the minds of the target language speakers). Extralinguistic information pertaining to the original meaning and/or its conceptual equivalent after the translation. So, to put it differently, what you can do in translation is either match individual words and combinations of the two languages directly (transformational approach), or understand the content of the source message and render it using the formal means of the target language (denotative approach) with due regard of the translation recipient and background information (communicational approach). The hierarchy of these methods may be different depending on the type of translation. Approach priorities depending on the type of translation are given in Table below. Translation Type Oral Consecutive Oral Simultaneous Written (general & Written (fiction & poetry) technical) Translation Method Priorities Denotative, Communicational Transformational, Transformational Communicational Denotative

Thus, in oral consecutive translation priority is given to denotative method, because a translator is first listening to the speaker and only after some time formulates the translation, which is very seldom a structural copy of the source speech. In simultaneous translation as opposed to consecutive priority is given to direct transformations since a simultaneous interpreter simply has no time for profound conceptual analysis. In written translation, when you seem to have time for everything, priority is also given to simple transformations (perhaps, with exception of poetic translation). This

is no contradiction, just the path of least resistance in action - it is not worthwhile to resort to complex methods unless simple ones fail. It should be born in mind, however, that in any translation we observe a combination of different methods. From the approaches discussed one should also learn that the matching language forms and concepts are regular and irregular, that seemingly the same concepts are interpreted differently by the speakers of different languages and different translation users. Generally speaking all translation varieties have much in common - similar approaches, similar translation means and devices. According to physical parameters of translation process, however, translation is divided into written (or simply translation) and oral (or interpretation). Interpretation, in its turn, is traditionally divided into consecutive interpretation and simultaneous interpretation. Chuchotage and at-sight interpretation are commonly regarded as alternatives of consecutive interpretation despite minor differences in physical procedures. Written translation is also divided into several sub-categories depending on the genre of the text being translated, such as literary translation (fiction, poetry and publicistic texts), translation of official documents, etc. In consecutive interpretation the interpretation follows the source utterance, whereas simultaneous interpretation is performed simultaneously with the original speech. This time lag of the interpreter relative to the speaker is the main distinction of consecutive interpretation, which determines the peculiarities of the approach and translation devices used by the interpreter. In a similar way almost zero time lag of the interpreter during simultaneous interpretation is critical for the choice of translation devices and approaches as well as determines the necessity of using special equipment for interpretation. Without special equipment simultaneous interpretation is impossible.

The equipment for simultaneous interpretation comprises ear-phones, a microphone and a sound-insulated booth which serves as the interpreter's work-place. Because of physical and mental strain simultaneous interpretation is considered the hardest and most stressing interpretation variety that requires special skills and qualities. It is regarded as a top class of interpretation and demands special vocation and training. As it has been already mentioned all translation varieties use similar approaches and translation devices. Both in written translation and during the interpretation the translator (interpreter) may use either transformational or denotative approach. It is worth reminding here that according to transformational approach translation (interpretation) is performed by relatively small and regular syntactico-semantic fragments of the source sentences whereas the denotative approach is based on larger text fragments (at least, a sentence) with occasional equivalents. Basically, the choice of one or another approach in written translation depends on the genre of the text being translated rather than on the translation variety. In interpretation practice, however, there are two instances when the choice of approach is determined by the working environment. Consecutive interpreter generally prefers denotative approach since it is virtually impossible to memorize the entirety of the long text passages being translated and translate close to the source text. Simultaneous interpreter is bound to keep to transformational approach interpreting the source text by small fragments. It should be added that in translation the decisions made by translator are the results of thorough speculation and, ideally, are conscious, whereas in interpretation the interpreters decisions are mainly subconscious and intuitive. As concerns translation devices, they are basically the same for all translation varieties. Moreover, it is hardly possible and feasible to explain when to use which device - in many aspects translation is an art implying constant search for unprecedented decisions.

To tell the difference between translation and interpretation let us compare working environments of a translator and interpreter. Translator has all time necessary to do and check the translation. Interpreter is limited in time and cannot check and redo the interpretation. Translator has free access to dictionaries and reference material. Interpreter has no access to any outside information. Translator has no immediate contact with translation users and often is unaware of their reaction. Translator is dependent on supporting environment; interpreter is entirely selfdependent. Interpreter is in immediate and close contact with the audience reacting to interpretation mistakes. There are two main varieties of interpretation, consecutive and simultaneous. Though they have much in common and possess all mentioned characteristics that distinguish them from translation there are substantial differences in the working environments as well. 1. In simultaneous interpretation the interpreter is much more limited in time. 2. In simultaneous interpretation the length of the text translated as one batch is much shorter than in consecutive. (Although simultaneous interpretation seems continuous the flow of interpreter's speech may be divided into individual fragments.) Unlike consecutive interpretation where the interpreter may correct mistakes and slips of the tongue, simultaneous interpreter has no time for corrections and redoing. Differences in the working environment of interpreters compared with that of translators as well as differences between working environments of simultaneous and consecutive interpreters determine the peculiarities of interpretation approaches and methods. First of all, the consecutive interpreter adheres to predominantly denotative approach in interpretation whereas the basic approach of simultaneous interpretation is transformational.

Long stretches of speech to be translated do not allow the consecutive interpreter to keep close to the source text, whereas the simultaneous interpreter is forced by time limitation to translate by small fragments of the source text transforming them according to the target language grammar. However, both during consecutive and simultaneous interpretation interpreters use text compression and text development as basic translation devices. Text compression aimed at saving interpretation time and removing source text redundancy is one of the main instruments of simultaneous interpretation which allows the interpreter to keep in pace with the source text not sacrificing the content. In consecutive interpretation text compression is used as well it allows to get rid of the source text redundancy, but the main instrument of consecutive interpretation is text development. Ability to compress the source text and develop the target one from the core structure are the basic skills of an interpreter. Basic compression devices used in Russian-English translation comprise: a) transformation of the nominative structures into verbal ones; b) converting prepositional constructions into noun clusters; c) omission or transformation of words and word combinations typical of Russian style and considered redundant according to English speech standards. The second basic tool of interpretation text development is typical both for English-Russian and Russian-English interpretation. It should be mentioned, however, that text development is more usable in consecutive than in simultaneous interpretation, though simultaneous interpreters also use it. Text development in the course of interpretation is the restoration of the full composition of a course sentence starting from its syntactic and semantic core accompanied by restructuring of the source sentence in compliance with syntactic and semantic standards of the target language. Text development is performed either with note-taking or without it. It usually starts from the Subject-Predicate pair and then other sentence elements are organized around this core.

Text development is the optimal method of interpretation because it allows to organize the translation in accordance with the target language style and grammar standards rather than copy the source sentence structure. Text development is reflected in note-taking procedure, which usually includes the following information items. 1. main ideas (skeleton outline) - subject, verb, object; 2. links and separations; 3. viewpoints of the speaker; 4. tenses and modalities; 5. proper and geographical names. There are also certain recommendations for the best way to take notes. Some of them are as follows: diagonal notes are preferable for skeleton outline; left-hand margin for links and viewpoints; short horizontal line for separations; question marks for unclear points. Thus, compression and development are the basic interpretation tools and in our view they should determine the methods of interpretation training. We would recommend the following exercises. Text compression exercises for Russian-English interpretation Type l. In the course of interpretation of a Russian text into English omit redundant words; convert nominative constructions into verbal ones; transform prepositional noun sequences into noun clusters. The exercises are first done in writing, then follows oral training (interpretation). Type 2. Conversion of individual Russian prepositional nominative constructions into English noun clusters. Conversion of Russian set phrases of noun-verb type into verbs.

Text development and reduction exercises (Russian-English and English-Russian interpretation) Type l. Develop a text from the given core (first done in one language, then with interpretation, first - in writing, then - orally). Type 2. Reduce the text to the core, then develop it back. Text development exercises improve students knowledge of foreign and native language vocabulary, help to develop easiness and flexibility of vocabulary use in interpretation. Doing text development exercises students might compete for the number of sentences developed or for a better story developed from the given core. Moreover, we recommend our students to practice translation not only in class during the lessons but on their own as well. When listening to the radio or watching TV they should translate on their mind what they hear. This can be done at home, during theoretical lectures or even on their way to the university. This drill helps students to develop the skills of two-way consecutive/simultaneous translation from native language into foreign one and vice-versa. Bibliography:

1) Johnes R. Conference Interpreting Explained. New York, 1999. 2) Komissarov V.N. Linguistics of Translation. Moscow, 1981. 3) Miram G.E., Daineko V.V., Gon A.M., Taranuha L.A., Grishenko M.V. Basic
Translation. Kyiv, Elga, 2006.

4) Novikov A.I., Slyusareva N.A. Linguistic and Extralinguistic Aspects of Text

5) Retsker Y.I. Theory of Translation and Translation Practice. Moscow, 1974. 6) Shyryayev A.F. Simultaneous translator activity and methods of simultaneous
translation teaching. Moscow, 1979.

7) Staples Ch. The LOGOS Intelligent Translation System // Proceedings of Joint