Definition of slang
Introduction
The interest of researchers for different types of profanity,
especially for such a specific, as slang, has always existed
And it is understandable, since slang attracts by its
metaphors,
expressiveness and "nontraditional" category: "Slang is
used in stylistic purposes: to create the effect of novelty,
unusual, different from the accepted samples for transmission
a certain mood of the speaker, to give utterance
concreteness, vividness,
it helps to avoid cliches. "
At the same slang is "an integral part of any advanced natural language, which arises as an inevitable consequence of the codification of a national language. Slang ... is the most dynamic layer of lexical-semantic system of language and it updates very quickly, so it is in concentrated form the basic concepts, a sort of linguistic ground on which many of the new language elements are validated , and then partially are digested by the standard, literary language "[Voloshin, 2000: 10 ].
There is no unequivocal relation to a question of use of a slang in various styles of speech. All this caused a need of a complex studying of a slang on a material of several languages, including English and Russian in order to promote an increase of language competence speaking, cultural development of speech and feeling of communicative expediency of the use of language means in various spheres of communication. This determines the relevance of our research.
Slang has bright national linguistic and social characteristics and is commonly used in works of fiction to create a color and image characteristics of the character.
The goal of the given course paper is:
On the basis of description of the pragmatic, functional, semantic and fiction features elements of reduced vocabulary in English and Russian languages to establish the specific ways of transferring the equivalent lexical elements in the translation.
Major Research Findings: With the help of the following objectives the author will achieve the main goal of the course paper:
1. To describe the place of slang in the lexical structure of Russian and English
languages and to give a classification of its basic types.
2. To describe the functional specification of slang and to show its role in
a literary text.
3. To analyze specific cases of transmission of the equivalent reduced vocabulary in
the English-Russian translation of the examples taken from the works of D. Salinger's "Catcher in
the Rye."
4. To classify the main ways of slang translation.
The actual language material for the analysis and description was selected by continuous sampling of the works of contemporary fiction, dictionaries, Russian and English (general and special). In total about 50 English examples were picked up from D. Salinger's work "The Catcher in the Rye", and also specialized dictionaries were used.
In the analysis of examples of lexical transformations, and also of the methods of the contextual, semantic, morphological and word-formation analysis, a method of the comparative description was used.
Work consists of introduction, theoretical and practical parts, the conclusion, the appendix and the list of the used literature.
1.2 Definition of slang
Every adult speaker has a concept of slang--knowing at the least that some words and expressions transgress generally accepted norms of formality or appropriateness and in some way do not fit the measure of what "good" language is. Despite such recognition by almost all speakers, scholars with formal training in linguistic analysis have almost ignored slang--though they acknowledge having the same intuitions about this type of vocabulary as do all speakers. In truth, most linguists have given no more thought to slang than have people who claim no expertise in language. In the English-speaking world in particular, the description of the form and function of slang has been left largely to lexicographers rather than to others who study language for a living.
Webster’s "Third New International Dictionary" gives the following definition of the term slang:
1. Language peculiar to a particular group as:
a) the special and often secret vocabulary used by a class (as thieves, beggars) and usually felt to be vulgar or inferior: argot;
b) the jargon used by or associated with a particular trade, profession, or field of activity.
2. A non-standard vocabulary composed of words and senses characterized primary by connotations of extreme informality and usually a currency not limited to a particular region and composed typically of coinages or arbitrarily changed words, clipped or shortened forms, extravagant, forced or facetious figures of speech, or verbal novelties usually experiencing quick popularity and relatively rapid decline into disuse.
The "New Oxford English Dictionary" defines slang as follows:
a) the special vocabulary used by any set of persons of a low or disreputable character; language of a low and vulgar type;
b) the cant or jargon of a certain class or period;
c) language of a highly colloquial type considered as below the level of standard educated speech, and consisting either of new words or of current words employed in some special sense."
As it is seen from these quotations slang is represented both as a special vocabulary and as a special language. This causes confusion. If this is a certain lexical layer, than why should it be given the rank of language or a dialect of even a patois, and then it should be characterized not only by its peculiar use of words but also by phonetic, morphological and syntactical peculiarities.
In general all linguists agree that slang is nonstandard vocabulary composed of words or senses characterized primarily by connotations of extreme informality and usually by a currency not limited to a particular region. It is composed typically of coinages or arbitrarily changed words, clipped or shortened forms, extravagant, forced, or facetious figures of speech, or verbal novelties. They are identified and distinguished by contrasting them to standard literary vocabulary. They are expressive, mostly ironical words serving to create fresh names for some things that are frequent topics of discourse.1
Slang consists of the words and expressions that have escaped from the cant, jargon and argot (and to a lesser extent from dialectal, nonstandard, and taboo speech) of specific subgroups of society so that they are known and used by an appreciable percentage of the general population, even though the words and expressions often retain some associations with the subgroups that originally used and popularized them. Thus, slang is a middle ground for words and expressions that have become too popular to be any longer considered as part of the more restricted categories, but that are not yet (and may never become) acceptable or popular enough to be considered informal or standard. (Compare the slang "hooker" and the standard "prostitute.")
Slang fills a necessary niche in all languages. It can serve as a bridge or a barrier, either helping both old and new words that have been used as "insiders' " terms by a specific group of people to enter the language of the general public or, on the other hand, preventing them from doing so. Thus, for many words, slang is a testing ground that finally proves them to be generally useful, appealing, and acceptable enough to become standard or informal. For many other words, slang is a testing ground that shows them to be too restricted in use, not as appealing as standard synonyms, or unnecessary, frivolous, faddish, or unacceptable for standard or informal speech. For still a third group of words and expressions, slang becomes not a final testing ground that either accepts or rejects them for general use but becomes a vast limbo, a permanent holding ground, an area of speech that a word never leaves
Slang words cannot be distinguished from other words by sound or meaning. In fact, most slang words are homonyms of standard words, spelled and pronounced just like their standard counterparts, as for example slang words for money such as beans, brass, dibs, dough, chinc, oof, wards; the slang synonyms for word head are attic, brain-pan, hat peg, nut, upper storey; drunk- boozy, cock-eyed, high, soaked, tight, and pot (marijuana). Of course, these words are alike in their ordinary standard use and in their slang use. Each word sounds just as appealing or unappealing, dull or colorful in its standard as in its slang use. Also, the meanings of beans and money, head and attic, pot and marijuana are the same, so it cannot be said that the connotations of slang words are any more colorful or racy than the meanings of standard words.2
All languages, countries, and periods of history have slang. This is true because they all have had words with varying degrees of social acceptance and popularity.
The same linguistic processes are used to create and popularize slang as are used to create and popularize all other words. That is, all words are created and popularized in the same general ways; they are labeled slang only according to their current social acceptance, long after creation and popularization.
To fully understand slang, one must remember that a word's use, popularity, and acceptability can change. Words can change in social level, moving in any direction. Thus, some standard words of William Shakespeare's day are found only in certain modern-day British dialects. Words that are taboo in one era (e.g., stomach, thigh) can become accepted, standard words in a later era. Many prove either useful enough to become accepted as standard or informal words or too faddish for standard use. Blizzard and okay have become standard, while conbobberation ("disturbance") and tomato ("girl") have been discarded. Some words and expressions have a lasting place in slang; for instance, beat it ("go away"), first used in the 16th century, has neither become Standard English nor vanished.
Language is dynamic, and at any given time hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of words and expressions are in the process of changing from one level to another, of becoming more acceptable or less acceptable, of becoming more popular or less popular.
Slang is very informal use of words and phrases for more colorful or peculiar style of expression that is shared by the people in the same social subgroup, for example, computer slang, sports slang, military slang, musicians’ slang, students’ slang, underworld slang, etc. Slang is not used by the majority of native speakers and many people consider it vulgar, though quite a few slang phrases have already come into standard usage. Slang contains many obscene and offensive words and phrases. It also has many expressions that are acceptable in informal communication. Slang is highly idiomatic. It is flippant, irreverent, indecorous; it may be indecent or obscene. Its colorful metaphors are generally directed at respectability, and it is this succinct, sometimes witty, frequently impertinent social criticism that gives slang its characteristic flavor. Slang, then, includes not just words but words used in a special way in a certain social context. The origin of the word slang itself is obscure; it first appeared in print around 1800, applied to the speech of disreputable and criminal classes in London.
Language is the property of a community of speakers. People rarely speak, or write, with only themselves as the audience. It should not be surprising then that some components and forms of language are socially motivated. Slang is one kind of vocabulary that serves the social nature of language. In an important article in 1978 Bethany Dumas and Jonathan Lighter make the crucial point that slang must be identified by its social consequences, by the effects its use has on the relationship between speaker and audience.
Dumas and Lighter posit four criteria for identifying a word or phrase as slang .3
1. Its presence will markedly lower, at least for the moment, the dignity of formal or serious speech or writing.
2. Its use implies the user's familiarity either with the referent or with that less statusful or less responsible class of people who have such special familiarity and use the term.
3. It is a tabooed term in ordinary discourse with persons of higher social rank or greater responsibility.
4. It is used in place of the well-known conventional synonym, especially in order (a) to protect the user from the discomfort caused by the conventional item or (b) to protect the user from the discomfort or annoyance of further elaboration.
They conclude that "when something fits at least two of the criteria, a linguistically sensitive audience will react to it in a certain way. This reaction, which cannot be measured, is the ultimate identifying characteristic of true slang". In other words, Dumas and Lighter's formulation requires that the type of lexis called slang be recognized for its power to effect union between speaker and hearer. Whether or not the particulars of their definition are necessary or sufficient, Dumas and Lighter are right. Slang cannot be defined independent of its functions and use.
Despite the difficulties of defining the term, slang does have some consistent characteristics.4 Slang is lexical rather than phonological or syntactic, though, in English at least, body language and intonation are often important in signaling that a word or phrase is to be interpreted as slang. Nor is there a peculiarly slang syntax. Slang expressions do not follow idiosyncratic word order, and slang words and phrases typically fit into an appropriate grammatical slot in an established syntactic pattern. Furthermore, the productive morphological processes responsible for slang are the same ones responsible for the general vocabulary, i.e., for English, compounding, affixation, shortening, and functional shift.
1.2 The problem of definition
In linguistics, where definitions at best are often imprecise and leaky, that of slang is especially notorious. The problem is one of complexity, such that a definition satisfying to one person or authority would seem inadequate to another because the prime focus is different. Like the proverbial blind men describing an elephant, all correctly, none sufficiently, we tend to stress one aspect or another of slang /11/.
There is hardly any other term that is as ambiguous and obscure as the term slang. Slang seems to mean everything that is below the standard of usage of present-day English.
Much has been said and written about it. This is probably due to the uncertainty of the concept itself. No one has yet given a more or less satisfactory definition of the term. Nor has it been specified by any linguist who deals with the problem of the English vocabulary.
“The first thing that strikes the scholars is the fact that no one European language has singled out a special layer of vocabulary and named it slang, though all of them distinguish such group of words as jargon, cant and the like. Why was it necessary to invent a special term for something that has not been clearly defined as jargon or can't have? Is this phenomenon specifically English? Has slang any special features, which no other group within the non-literary vocabulary can lay, claim to? The distinctions between slang and other groups of unconventional English, though perhaps subtle and sometimes difficult to grasp, should nevertheless be subjected to a more detailed linguistic specification”/12:68/.
Slang is informal, nonstandard words and phrases, generally shorter lived than the expressions of ordinary colloquial speech, and typically formed by creative, often witty juxtapositions of words or images. Slang can be contrasted with jargon (technical language of occupational or other groups) and with argot or cant (secret vocabulary of underworld groups), but the borderlines separating these categories from slang are greatly blurred, and some writers use the terms cant, argot, and jargon in a general way to include all the foregoing meanings /13/.
Webster’s “Third New International Dictionary” gives the following definition of the term:
Slang:
1. Language peculiar to a particular group as:
a) the special and often secret vocabulary used by a class (as thieves, beggars) and usually felt to be vulgar or inferior: argot;
b) the jargon used by or associated with a particular trade, profession, or field of activity.
2. A non-standard vocabulary composed of words and senses characterized primary by connotations of extreme informality and usually a currency not limited to a particular region and composed typically of coinages or arbitrarily changed words, clipped or shortened forms, extravagant, forced or facetious figures of speech, or verbal novelties usually experiencing quick popularity and relatively rapid decline into disuse.
The “New Oxford English Dictionary” defines slang as follows:
a) the special vocabulary used by any set of persons of a low or disreputable character; language of a low and vulgar type;
b) the cant or jargon of a certain class or period;
c) language of a highly colloquial type considered as below the level of standard educated speech, and consisting either of new words or of current words employed in some special sense.”
As it is seen from these quotations slang is represented both as a special vocabulary and as a special language. This is the first thing that causes confusion. If this is a certain lexical layer, than why should it be given the rank of language or a dialect of even a patois, then it should be characterized not only by its peculiar use of words but also by phonetic, morphological and syntactical peculiarities.
J.B. Greenough and C.L. Kitteridge define slang in the following way:
“Slang… is a peculiar kind of vagabond language, always hanging on the outskirts of legitimate speech but continually straying or forcing its way into the most respectable company.”
Another definition of slang, which is worth quoting, is one made by Eric Partridge, the eminent student of the non-literary language.
“Slang is much rather a spoken than a literary language. It originates, nearly always, in speech. To coin a term on a written page is almost inevitably to brand it as a neologism which is either be accepted or become a nonce-word (or phrase), but, except in the rarest instances, that term will not be slang”/14/.
In most of the dictionaries slang is used as convenient stylistic notation for a word or a phrase that cannot be specified more exactly. The obscure etymology of the term itself affects its use as a stylistic notation. Whenever the notation appears in a dictionary it may serve as an indication that the unit presented is non-literary, but not pinpointed. That is the reason why the various dictionaries disagree in the use of this term when applied as a stylistic notation.
Any new coinage that has not gained recognition and therefore has not yet been received into Standard English is easily branded as slang /15/.
The different and heterogeneous phenomena united under the vague term slang cause natural confusion and do not encourage scholars to seek more objective criteria in order to distinguish the various stylistic layers of the English colloquial vocabulary. The confusion is made still deeper by the fact that any word or expression apparently legitimate, if used in an arbitrary, fanciful or metaphorical sense, may easily be labeled as slang /16/.
The term “slang” which is widely used in English linguistic science should be clearly specified if it is to be used as a term, i.e. it is should refer to some definite notion and should be definable in explicit, simple terms. It is suggested that the term “slang” should be used for those forms of the English vocabulary which are either mispronounced or distorted in some way phonetically, morphologically or lexically. The term “slang” should be also used to specify some elements, which may be called over-colloquial. As for the other groups of words hitherto classified as slang, they should be specified according to the universally accepted classification of the vocabulary of the language /17/.
Slang is nothing but a deviation from the established norm at the level of the vocabulary of the language. V.V.Vinogradov writes that one of the tasks set before the branch of linguistic science that is now called stylistics, is a thorough study of all changes in vocabulary, set phrases, grammatical constructions, their functions, an evaluation of any breaking away from the established norm, and classification of mistakes and failures in word coinage /12/.
Some scholars define standard slang, the slang that is common to all those who, though employing received standard in their writing and speech, also use an informal language which, in fact, is no language but merely a way of speaking, using special words and phrases in some special sense. The most confusing definition of the nature of slang is the following one given by Partridge: “…personality and one’s surroundings (social or occupational) are the two co-efficients, the two chief factors, the determining causes of the nature of slang, as they are of language in general and of style.”
According to this statement one may get the idea that language, style and slang all have the same nature, the same determining causes /16/. Personality and surroundings determine:
nature of the slang used by a definite person;
nature of the language he uses;
kind of style he writes.
There is a general tendency in England and to some extent in the US to over-estimate the significance of slang by attaching to it more significance than it deserves. Slang is regarded as the quintessence of colloquial speech and therefore stands above all the laws of grammar. Though it is regarded by some purists as a language that stands below standard English, it is highly praised nowadays as “vivid”, “more flexible”, “more picturesque”, “richer in vocabulary” and so on /18/.
Unwittingly one arrives at the idea that slang, as used by English and Americans, is a universal term for any word or phrase which, though not yet recognized as standard English, has won general recognition as a fresh innovation quite irrespective of its nature: whether it is cant, jargon, dialect, jocular or pure colloquialism. It is therefore important, for the sake of a scientific classification of the English vocabulary, to make a more exact discrimination between heterogeneous elements in vocabulary, no matter how difficult it may be /19/.
It is suggestive that there is a tendency in some modern dictionaries to replace the label “slang” by informal or colloquial. Such a practice clearly manifests the dissatisfaction of some lexicographers with the term “slang”. This is mainly due to the ambiguity of the term /1/.
On the other hand, some lexicographers, as has already been pointed out, still make use of the term “slang” as a substitute for “jargon”, “cant”, “colloquialism”, “professionalism”, “vulgar”, “dialectal”. Thus, in his dictionary Professor Barnhart gives the label “slang” to such innovations as “grab - to cause, to react; to make an impression on”, which should be classified as newspaper jargon; “grass or pot - marijuana”, which are positively cant words (the quotation that follows proves it quite unambiguously), “groove - something very enjoyable”, “grunt - US military slang”, which in fact is professionalism; “guppy tummy, British slang - a common intestinal upset experienced by travelers”, which is a colloquialism; “hangup - a psychological or emotional problem”, which is undoubtedly a professionalism, which has undergone extension of meaning and now, according to Barnhart also means “any problem or difficulty, especially one that causes annoyance or irritation.”
The use of the label “slang” in this way is evidently due to the fact that Barnhart’s Dictionary aims not so much at discrimination between different stylistic subtleties of neologisms but mainly at fixation of lexical units which have already won general recognition thorough constant repetition on newspaper language.
Slang, according to the American poet, Carl Sandburg is “Language which takes off its coat, spits on its hands-and goes to work”.
U.M.Skrebnev defines slang as a part of the vocabulary consisting of commonly understood and widely used words and expressions of humorous or derogatory character-intentional substitutes for neutral or elevated words and expressions.
M. Goldenkov gives the following definition:
“Slang is everything which is out of the books.”
Slang is also the idiom of the life force. It has roots somewhere near those of sexuality, and it regularly defies death.
“Nonstandard vocabulary composed of words or senses characterized primarily by connotations of extreme informality and usually by a currency not limited to a particular region. It is composed typically of coinages or arbitrarily changed words, clipped or shortened forms, extravagant, forced, or facetious figures of speech, or verbal novelties”/11/.
The term “slang” is ambiguous because, to use a figurative expression, it has become a Jack-of-all-trades and master of none.
There are a lot of definitions of slang and all of them seem to be correct. They characterize this many-sided phenomenon from all the points of view.
The Oxford English dictionary provides a more judicious account: “Language of a highly colloquial type, considered as below the level of educated standard speech, consisting either of new words or of current words employed in some special sense”. In a related definition, it also describes slang as “language of a low or vulgar type” and “the special vocabulary or phraseology of a particular calling or profession”. This sums up the paradox of slang very well. People look down on it, but can hardly avoid using it.
Though some scholars ignore slang the English language contains a rich array of slang words and phrases. This can be particularly seen when examining the day-to-day language of an average speaker. Some words and phrases are perhaps not suitable for general consumption and have omitted these. Even so, many of the following will offend some people and it is worth stating that their inclusion is to provide a realistic representation of the language, not to be sensational or abusive. It’s the nature of slang that it is either used to replace taboo phrases or to playfully enhance them.
In some cases slang may provide a needed name for an object or action (walkie-talkie, a portable two-way radio; tailgating, driving too close behind another vehicle), or it may offer an emotional outlet (buzz off! for go away!) or a satirical or patronizing reference (smokey, state highway trooper). It may provide euphemisms (john, head, can, and in Britain, loo, all for toilet, itself originally a euphemism), and it may allow its user to create a shock effect by using a pungent slang expression in an unexpected context.
Slang is used for many purposes, but generally it expresses a certain emotional attitude; the same term may express diametrically opposed attitudes when used by different people. People use slang consciously and unconsciously in the course of ordinary, every day interaction. Essentially, slang allows speakers the freedom to play with and enjoy the language, make words up, adopt new expressions indiscriminately, and use language for humor, irony, sarcasm, and irreverence. Also slang allows people to name things indirectly and figuratively, especially through metaphor, metonymy, and irony. Many slang terms are primarily derogatory, though they may also be ambivalent when used in intimacy or affection. Some crystallize or bolster the self-image or promote identification with a class or in-group. Others flatter objects, institutions, or persons but may be used by different people for the opposite effect. "Jesus freak," originally used as ridicule, was adopted as a title by certain street evangelists. Slang sometimes insults or shocks when used directly; some terms euphemize a sensitive concept, though obvious or excessive euphemism may break the taboo more effectively than a less decorous term. Some slang words are essential because there are no words in the standard language expressing exactly the same meaning; e.g., "freak-out," "barn-storm," "rubberneck," and the noun "creep." At the other extreme, multitudes of words, vague in meaning, are used.
H.Wentworth and S.Flexner in their “Dictionary of American Slang” write: “Slang is the unescapable means of communication. Sometimes it is used to escape the dull familiarity of standard words, to suggest an escape from the established routine of everyday life. When slang is used, our life seems a little fresher and a little more personal. Also, as at all levels of speech, slang is sometimes used for the pure joy of making sounds, or even for a need to attract attention by making noise. The sheer newness and informality of certain slang words produce pleasure. But more important than this expression of a more or less hidden aesthetic motive on the part of the speaker is the slang’s reflection of the personality, the outward, clearly visible characteristics of the speaker. By the large, the man who uses slang is a forceful, pleasing, acceptable personality.”
The professors of Moscow Gymnasium of Humanities N.V.Pavlova and Y.A.Kuleshova state that there is something that attracts people to slang. They can use slang for different reasons:
to make an impression;
to be on a colloquial level;
to lend an air of solidity;
to be novel; to be different;
not to be understood by somebody;
to demonstrate the class that one belongs to;
to be an interesting speaker;
to enrich the language;
to induce friendliness.
Slang may appeal, or it may be disgusting. It may be popular, or may be ignored. But it is really used, so it has to arouse some interest.
It has been claimed that slang is created by ingenious individuals to freshen the language, to vitalize it, to make the language more pungent and picturesque, to increase the store of terse and striking words, or to provide a vocabulary for new shades of meaning. Most of the originators of slang, however, are probably not conscious of these noble purposes and do not seem overly concerned about what happens to their language /20/.
CHAPTER 2. FEATURES OF THE SLANG TRANSFERRING.
2.1 The problem of translation of the reduced vocabulary
The starting point for translating of a reduced vocabulary of the source
language should be considered as a possible search for analogues of reduced vocabulary of
elements in the target language. The convenience of this path lies in the
fact that such analogues are exist in any language. Since the translation
of the English slang is quite difficult, and the categories that make up
the reduced vocabulary, closely related to the vernacular, and often go into
it, then the translator can resort to the vernacular.
Why don’t you speak ordinary English?—she said coldly.
-Me? Ah thowt it wor’ ordinary.
–Почему вы не говорите на нормальном английском?— спросила она холодно.
Я штоль?— А я-то, кумекал, что мой английский самый ни на что есть нормальный [Лоуренс 2002 : 532].
2.2 Methods of Slang Translation
When we translate a reduced vocabulary lexic and vernacular,
we can use the same methods and ways of translating that are used to translate a
literary language.
First of all, there are two basic ways which the translator
follows: direct or literal and indirect transfer.
The first way is partially acceptable when translating units of the reduced lexicon as principles of translational adequacy and usual norms of target language are broken.
« What can I say? He’ll never shit a seamen’s turd» [Лоуренс 2002 : 473].
This phrase is used in reference to someone who will
never be a good sailor.
It is impossible to translate this phrase literally, as it will be violation
of usual norms of Russian, or at least because here the translator faces
with the distinctions of communicative norms of two languages: in modern
English, especially in the American one, the use of rough words of the
“shit” type — almost norm, in Russian such is unacceptable, because
Russian equivalents of English vulgarizm are much more rough.
Therefore the adequate translation of the similar phrase will be approximately such:
«А чего сказать-то? Этому щенку никогда не бывать морским волком.
It is also possible to allocate two translational receptions, relating to the first way: transcription (transliteration) and calque. Their application is possible only on condition that value of the transcribed (transliterated) or calque word is clear from a context and transfer doesn't break usual norms and adequacy and equivalence principles.
« …old Dim at the back near laughed his gulliver off—ho, ho, ho.» — «…старик Туп на заднем сиденье смеялся до полусмерти, тряся гулливером—хо, хо, хо». [Берджесс 2004 : 221].
Here the meaning of gulliver (head) is clear from the
context of the phrase.
But this technique can be used only in rare cases and only when the meaning is
clear to readers without any special comment.
More often translators resort to indirect methods of interpretation or translationtransformations.
When lexical substitutions are used, the replacement
of individual lexical items (words and collocations) of the source language
appears, lexical units transforming who are not their lexical equivalents,
that is, taken in isolation, have a different referential significance
than they sent in a translation unit of the source language. Most often, there are three
cases - specification, generalization and replace based on causal relationships (cause
and consequences of replacement of the reasons for the result). [Barkhudarov 1975:
2.3 Concretisation
Concretisation is a replacement at the left or word combinations of a source language with wider referential value a word or a word combination of translating language with narrower value. The concretisation can be lingual and contextual (speech). At the language concretisation replacement of a word with wide value with a word with narrower value is caused by divergences in a system of two languages — or because of absence in translating language of the lexical unit having so wide value, as transferred unit of a source language, or divergences in their stylistic characteristics, or requirements of a grammatical order (necessity of syntactic transformation of the offer, in particular, replacements of a nominal predicate verbal, examples of that will be given more low). So, an English noun "thing", which has a very abstract value, is almost pronominal (The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines it as "an entity of any kind", "that which is or may be in any way an object of perception, knowledge, or thought") is translated by a concrete definition: a thing, a subject, business, the fact, a case, circumstance, product, a being and so forth.
'So what?' I said.
- Ну так что же? спрашиваю я. [Селинджер : 6]
Не told us we should always pray to God…
И нам тоже советовал всегда молиться богу... [Селинджер : 6]
Reception of a specification is used as well by transfer of other words with wide value.
Dinny waited in a corridor which smelled of disinfectant.
Динни ожидала ее в коридоре, пропахшем карболкой. [Голсуорси : 17]
In general, for translation from English into Russian is characterized by replacement of the general meaning of words like the man, the woman, the person, the creature on the specific proper names or nouns such as старик, солдат, прохожий, хозяйка, собака, кошка etc. It is especially important when translating fiction in which too frequent use of words of the abstract, generalized value is inappropriate.
You could hear him putting away his toilet articles
Слышно было, как он убирает свои мыльницы и щетки. [Селинджер : 231]
2.2.2 Generalization
Generalization is the phenomenon that is inversed to concretisation - the
replacement of unit of of the source language, which has a narrower meaning with
the unit of target language with a broader meaning. [Barkhudarov
...Не comes over and visits me practically every weekend.
...Он часто ко мне ездит, почти каждую неделю.
Then this girl gets killed, because she's always speeding.
А потом девушка гибнет, потому что она вечно нарушает правила.
"Who won the game?"! said. "It's only the half"
- А кто выиграл? — спрашиваю. — Еще не кончилось.
Here generalization is combined with antonimical transfer; the verb "said" is exposed to concretisation.
2.2.4 Compensation
One of the ways to achieve the equivalency of translation is a special kind
ofsubstitution, which bears the name of compensation. This technique is
used in cases where certain elements of the text in the source language for some
reasons do not have equivalents in the target language and can not be transferred
to his means, and in these cases in order to compensate ("offset" a
semantic losscaused by that a particular unit of of the source language, remains
..My parents would have about two haemorrhages apiece if I told anything pretty personal about them.
...У моих предков, наверно, случилось бы по два инфаркта на брата, если бы я стал болтать про их личные дела.
At first sight, one might get the impression that this translation is
not completely equivalent, because the English words "tell"
and "parents" have a neutral stylistic and registry characteristics,
...Не made a speech that lasted about ten hours.
...Он отгрохал речь часов на десять.
Meanwhile, this translation, like all such cases should
be considered fully equivalent. The fact that the using of marked by style
and register words предки, болтать, отгрохать,
итд, instead of the neutral parents, tell, make and so here is nothing
more than a compensation, which compensates for the loss of the corresponding register and
If there is one thing I hate, it's the movies.
Если я что ненавижу, так это кино.
...She had on those damn falsies that point all over the place...
... У нее... в лифчик что-то подложено, чтоб торчало во все стороны...
The method of compensation clearly
2.2.5 Antonimical translation
Under this title in the translation literature a widespread complex of lexical-grammatical
Stradlater didn't say anything.
Стрэдлейтер промолчал. [Селинджер : 4]
Here the English negative construction
will be passed on Russian in the affirmative way, and the verb "to say" is
replaced by the Russian antonym "
I meant it, too.
И я не притворялся.
Here is a reverse replacement - construction of affirmative to negative, as well as a substitution of the verb mean иметь в виду, говорить серьезно on its antonym притворятся.
2.2.7 Omission
Omission is called the technique in which lexically and semantically redundantwords
A little while later I still had it with me when I, Brossard and Ackley got on the bus.—Я его всё ещё держал в руках, когда мы с Броссаром и Экли сели в автобус [Сэлинджер : 663].
When I think of some of the Persians, the Hindus, the Arabs I knew, when I think of the character they revealed, their grace, their tenderness, their intelligence, their holiness, I spit on the white conquerors of the world, the degenerate British, the pigheaded Germans, the smug self-satisfied French.—Когда я думаю о некоторых персах, индусах, арабах, которых я знал, когда думаю о качествах, которые я открыл в них, их изяществе, нежности, уме, их святости, я плюю на белых завоевателей мира: дегенеративных британцев, свиноголовых немцев, самодовольных французов [Миллер : 250].
Smug-limited, self-satisfied (
2.2.8 Addition
Addition is opposite to omission and it is an extension of the original textassociated with
the need to complete the transfer of its contents.
There are two types of attachments:
1. Giving to the text an additional information in order to convey to the
reader of the translation that the original native speakers understand original without
a clarification.
Would you like a cup of hot chocolate before you go?—Не выпьешь ли чашку горячего шоколада на дорогу? [Сэлинджер 1975 : 756].
So what?—I said. Cold as hell — Что же?— спрашиваю я ледяным голосом [Миллер 2000 : 250].
2. Grammatical addition that apply when there is no semantic similarity of the translation in the language with the semantic similarity to the language of the original lexeme and its grammatical form.
2.2.6 Descriptive Translation
Also, there is a transformation technique - a descriptive translation. This
You should’ve seen the steaks. They were these little hard, dry jobs that you could hardly even cut. You always got these very lumpy mashed potatoes on steak night, and for dessert you got Brown Betty, which nobody ate, except may be the little kids in the lower school that I didn’t know any better and guys like Ackley that ate everything [Селинджер 1960 : 240].
Вы бы посмотрели на эти бифштексы. Жёсткие как подмётка, нож не берёт. К ним всегда подавали картофельное пюре с комками, а на сладкое «рыжую Бетти», пудинг с патокой, только его никто не ел, кроме малышей из первых классов да таких, как Экли, которые на всё накидывались [Сэлинджер 1975 : 782].
Thus, we can conclude that the translation techniques,
2.3 Analysis of the transfer of slang in the translation (based
on the work of JeromeD.Selindzher "The Catcher in the Rye")
The full analysis of the slang translation is proposed in the appendix. In
this section, we consider necessary to analyze the 15 most representative
My parents would have two haemorrages apiece if I told anything pretty personal about them.
У моих предков случилось бы, наверное, по два инфаркта на брата, если бы я стал болтать про их личные дела.
It is possible to consider this transfer quite equivalent as stylistic coloring of speech of the hero story-teller is transferred. English familiar colloquial "pretty" in Russian has no in this context (pretty personal) the same stylistic coloring, therefore the use of colloquial words "предки" (in value parents) and "болтать" is compensation of an untranslatable site of the English text.
If there is one thing I hate, it’s the movies.
Если я что и ненавижу, это кино.
English "movies" belongs to colloquial style (the reduced register), and Russian equivalent — to a neutral as in Russian a special stylistic equivalent for the word "movies" isn't present. Therefore here the method of compensation was used which is expressing in replacement of stylistically painted word on the neutral.
- Delphi7 обьектілі бағыттвлғвн программалау ортасы
- Delphi визуальды бағдарламасы ортасында электронды оқулық құру технологиясы
- Delphi графикалық мүмкіндіктері
- Delphi-дің компоненттер тақтасы
- Delphi-дің компоненттер тақтасы
- Delphi-дің қолданылуы мен тағайындалуы
- Delphi - дің мультимедиалық мүмкіндіктері
- Cущность, причины и механизм инфляции
- Cущность становления и развития современной системы бизнеса
- Cущность, функции и роль предпринимательства и предпринимательской деятельности
- Cүт қышқылды бактерияларды зерттеу
- Dansul - oglinda sufletului
- Das heutige Fremdbild von Schweden
- Data Mining. Нейронечёткие модули
