Home Releases № 15. 2021

CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH AND RUSSIAN “PERIPHERAL” SYNTACTIC CONSTRUCTIONS IN TRANSLATION PERSPECTIVE

Linguistics , UDC: 81’367 DOI: 10.25688/2619-0656.2021.15.17

Authors

  • Suleimanova Olga Doctor of Philology, Professor
  • Kardanova-Biryukova Ksenia Doctor of Philology, Professor

Annotation

The paper focuses on “peripheral” syntactic constructions which include Continuative Infinitive, Absolute Participial Constructions, and Participle 2 Constructions of the type “If untreated, P” and their Russian counterparts. The above constructions do not have direct equivalents in Russian, which challenges the translators who cannot rely on conventional translation strategies. It explains the relevance of the research and determines the research objective. The authors analyze translation strategies suggested in didactic and academic literature, relate them to actual practices. The empirical data retrieved from the National Corpus of the Russian Language, ant its Russian-to-English subcorpus feature fiction and media discourse which served as empirical data source. The research reveals that in Russian-to-English translation professional translators in practice “ignore” these constructions even in literary and mediatexts translation which is presumably prompted by the lack of clear algorithms of identifying such syntactic models in the original. The authors offer contrastive analysis of the above English “peripheral” structures and the Russian syntactic structures which correspond to the English ones. The method which the authors refer to as “reciprocal projection” was employed to analyze whether similar sentences built in the Russian language could be translated using similar patterns. The authors stage a longitudinal experiment involving 1st and 4th year bachelor students of the same university, trained within the same training programme, realized by the same teaching staff. The above specified conditions of the experiment provided homogeneity of the experiment participants corpus. Students were asked to translate Russian sentences featuring the Russian counterparts of the English constructions, though not linked with a conventionally used translation pattern. The findings testify that, for example, such structures as if untreated, N will … remain on the margins of the translation theory and practice, both professional and student translators “ignoring” them, relying instead on a “safer” conditional clause. The same hold true for the counterparts of the Absolute Participial Construction. As for the Continuative Infinitive Construction it is often translated into Russian as the Infinitive of purpose. The experiment shows that, if specially trained, the students master the translation patterns. Practical translation patterns and didactic guidelines to be relied on in training professional translators and interpreters are suggested.

How to link insert

Suleimanova, O. . & Kardanova-Biryukova, K. . (2021). CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH AND RUSSIAN “PERIPHERAL” SYNTACTIC CONSTRUCTIONS IN TRANSLATION PERSPECTIVE Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", № 15. 2021, 297-315. https://doi.org/10.25688/2619-0656.2021.15.17
References
1. National Corpus of Russian Language. URL: https://ruscorpora.ru/ (In Russ.).
2. Alimov V.V. (2017). Teorija perevoda. Perevod v sfere professional’noj kommunikacii. Dlia uchebnyh zanyatiy i dlia samostojatel’noj raboty: Uchebnoje posobije. [Translation theory. Translation in the field of professional communication. For study sessions and for independent work. Tutorial.]. Moscow: LENAND. 160 p. (In Russ.).
3. Breus E.V. (2002). Osnovy teoriji i praktiki perevoda s russkogo jazyka na anglijskij [Fundamentals of the theory and practice of translation from Russian into English.]. Moscow: URAO. 207 p. (In Russ.).
4. Garbovskij N.K. (2007). Teorija perevoda [Translation theory]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moscovskogo universiteta. 544 p. (In Russ.).
5. Jespersen O. (2006). Filosofija grammatiki [Philosophy of grammar]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo inostrannoj literatury. 396 p. (In Russ.).
6. Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. (1982). Grammatika sovremennogo anglijskogo jazyka dlia universitetov [A University Gramma of English]. Moscow: Vysshaja shkola. 391 p.
7. Kozlova L.A. (2019). Kognitivnaja ekonomija i ee manifestacija v yazyke i kommonikaciji [Cognitive Economy and its Manifestation in Language and Communication]. Voprosy Kognitivnoy Lingvistiki. No 4. Pp. 37–45. (In Russ.).
8. Lich D., Svartvick Ya. (1983). Kommunikativnaja grammatika anglijskogo yazyka: Posobije dlya uchitelya [Communicative Grammar of English. Teacher’s book]. Moscow: Prosveshchenije. 304 p.
9. Najdich L.E., Pavlova A.V. (2015). Russkij glagol’nyj vid v ego svyaziah c perеvodom [Russian verb form in its connections with translation]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Jazyk i literaturа [Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Language and Literature.]. 2015. No 12(3). Pp. 118–128. (In Russ.).
10. Neljubin L.L. (2009). Vvedenije v tehniku perevoda [Introduction to translation techniques]. Moscow: Flinta; Nauka. 213 p. (In Russ.).
11. Sdobnikov V.V., Petrova O.V. (2006). Teorija perevoda [Translation theory]. Moscow: Vostok—Zapad. 444 p. (In Russ.).
12. Skalichka V. (1967). O grammatike vengerskogo jazyka [About Hungarian grammar]. Prazhskij lingvisticheskij kruzhok: Sbornik statej [Prague linguistic club: collection of articles]. Moscow: Progress. Pp. 128–193. (In Russ.).
13. Slepovich V.S. (2001). Kurs perevoda [Translation course]. Minsk: TetraSistems. 269 p. (In Russ.).
14. Suleimanova O.A. (1985). Nekotoryje semanticheskije tipy substantivov i ih aktualizatory ves’/zely i all/whole [Some semantic types of substantives and their actualizers ves’/zely and all/whole]: Diss. … kand. filol. nauk: 10.02.20. Moscow. 188 p. (In Russ.).
15. Suleimanova O.A., Kardanova K.S., Beklemesheva N.N., Lyagushkina N.V., Yaremenko V.I. (2012). Grammaticheskije aspekty perevoda [Grammatical aspects of translation]. 2 izd. Moscow: Akademija. 235 p. (In Russ.).
16. Suleimanova O.A., Petrova I.M. (2020). Ispol’zoanije eksperimenta na osnove bol’shih dannyj v kognitivnom I lingvokul’turologicheskom issledovanii russkogo I anglijskogo jazyka [Using big data experiments in cognitive and linguo cultural research in English and Russian]. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities and Social Sciences. No 13 (3). Pp. 385–393.
17. Hrakovsky V.S. (2015). Nesovershenny vid: opyt interpretacii chastnyh znacheniy [Imperfect View: Experience in Interpreting Particular Values]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Jazyk i literatura. [Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Language and Literature.]. No 12(3). Pp. 169–178. (In Russ.).
18. Close R.A. A Reference Grammar for Students of English. Moscow: Prosveshcheniye, 1979. 352 p.
19. Mittwoch A. (2008). The English Resultative perfect and its relationship to the Experiential perfect and the simple past tense. Linguistics and Philosophy. No 31. Pp. 323–351. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9037-y
20. Meyer-Viol W.P.M., Jones H.S. (2011). Reference time and the English past tenses. Linguistics and Philosophy. No 34. Pp. 223–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10988-011-9100-y
21. Shabaev V.G. (2016). Verb Nomination in the English Language: Analytical Lexemes. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences. No 9 (10). Pp. 2490–2495.
22. Souleimanova O.A. (2014). English-to-Russian Translation: Traduttore. Traditore (The Day of the Triffids). Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences. No 7 (2). Pp. 312–319.
23. Visson L. (2013). Where Russians go wrong in Spoken English. Moscow: Valent. 132 p.
Download file .pdf 120.52 kb