CHAPTER II

TRANSFER EQUIVALENCE IN TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONAL-SITUATIVE CONTENT OF ORIGINAL

Content: The concept of translation equivalence (38). An equivalence characteristic of the first type (39 -
43). The equivalence characteristic of the second type (44 - 49). The reasons for changing the way of
describing the situation during the ¬ translation (50 - 54). An equivalence characterization of the third
type (55 - 56). The main types of semantic variation in the framework of the third type of equivalence
(57 - 63). The role of the functional-situational content of a statement in achieving equivalence in
translation (64 - 65).

38. One of the main tasks of the translator is to transfer the contents of the original to the fullest extent
possible, and, as a rule, the actual commonality of the contents of the original and the translation is very
significant.

It is necessary to distinguish between the potentially achievable equivalence, which is understood as the
maximum commonality of the content of two different languages, allowed by the differences in the
languages in which these texts are created, and translation equivalence - the real semantic proximity of
the texts of the original and the translation achieved by the translator in the process translation. The
limit of translation equivalence is the maximum possible (linguistic) degree of preservation of the
contents of the original when translating, but in each individual translation the semantic proximity to
the original to different degrees and in different ways approaches the maximum.

Differences in the systems of AI and PU and the peculiarities of creating texts in each of these languages,
to varying degrees, may limit the possibility of fully retaining the contents of the original in translation.
Therefore, translation equivalence can be based on the preservation (and, accordingly, loss) of various
elements of meaning contained in the original. Depending on what part of the content is transferred in
the translation to ensure its equivalence, different levels (types) of equivalence are distinguished. At any
level of equivalence, translation can provide cross-language communication.

39. Any text performs some communicative function: it communicates some facts, expresses emotions,
establishes contact between communicants, requires some kind of reaction or action from the Receptor,
etc. Availability in process communication of a similar purpose determines the general nature of the
transmitted messages and their language design. Let us compare such sections of speech as: “An apple
lies on a table”, “How I love apples!”, “Give me an apple, please,” “Do you hear what I said?” In each of
these statements, besides the meanings of individual words and structures and the specific content of
the entire message, one can also find generalized functional content: a statement of fact, expression,
motivation, contact search. A text can sequentially or simultaneously perform several communicative
functions — the above statements can make up a single connected text — but it cannot but have in its
content a functional task (goal of communication) without losing its communicative nature, t .e. without
ceasing to be the result of an act of verbal communication.

40. A part of the content of the text (utterance), indicating the general speech function of the text in the
act of communication, constitutes its purpose of communication. It represents a “derivative” (“implied”
or “figurative”) meaning, present in it as if in a hidden form, deduced from the whole utterance as a
semantic whole. Separate linguistic units participate in the creation of such a meaning not directly
through their own meaning, but directly, making up a semantic whole with other units, which serves as
the basis for the expression with its help of an additional meaning. Perceiving the utterance, the
Receptor must not only understand the meaning of linguistic units and their relationship with each
other, but also draw certain conclusions from the whole content, extract from it additional information
that not only tells the Source, but also why it says it , "What he wants to say with that."

41. The equivalence of translations of the first type consists in preserving only that part of the content of
the original that is the purpose of communication:

(1) Maybe there is some chemistry between us that doesn't mix. It happens that people do not agree on
the characters.

(2) That's a pretty thing to say. I would be ashamed!

(3) Those evening bells, those evening bells, how many a tale their music tells.

Evening ringing, evening ringing, how many thoughts he makes.

In example (1), the purpose of communication was to convey a figurative meaning, which is the main
part of the content of the statement. Here the communicative effect is achieved due to the peculiar
artistic image of human relations, likened to the interaction of chemical elements. Such an indirect
description of this information was recognized by the translator as unacceptable for PJ and replaced by
another, somewhat less figurative expression in the translation, which, however, provided the necessary
communicative effect.

In example (2), the purpose of communication is to express the emotions of the speaker, who is
outraged by the previous expression of the interlocutor. To reproduce this goal in translation, the
translator used one of the stereotypical phrases expressing indignation in the Russian language,
although the linguistic means that comprise it do not correspond to the units of the original.

And, finally, in example (3), the general function of the original, which the translator seeks to preserve
by all means, is a poetic effect based on sound recording, rhyme and size. For the sake of reproducing
this information, the original message is replaced by another that has the necessary poetic qualities.

As can be seen from the above examples, the goal of communication is the most general part of the
content of the utterance, characteristic of the utterance as a whole and determining its role in the
communicative act.

42. The relationship between originals and translations of this type is characterized by: 1) the
incomparability of the lexical composition and syntactic organization; 2) the inability to connect the
vocabulary and structure of the original and translation with the relations of semantic rephrasing or
syntactic transformation; 3) the absence of real or direct logical connections between messages in the
original and translation that would allow us to assert that in both cases “the same thing is reported”; 4)
the least commonality of the content of the original and translation compared to all other translations
recognized as equivalent.

Thus, in this type of equivalence, the translation seems to say “not at all” and “not at all” in the original.
This conclusion holds true for the entire communication as a whole, even if one or two words in the
original have.

53

 
There are direct or indirect correspondences in the translation. For example, the translation She lifted
her nose up in the air - “She measured him with a contemptuous look,” can be attributed to this type,
although the subjects of these proposals are directly correlated.

43. Translations at this level of equivalence are performed both in cases where a more detailed
reproduction of the content is not possible, and when such reproduction leads the Translation Receptor
to incorrect conclusions, will cause it to have completely different associations than the Original
Receptor, and thereby interfere with the proper transmission of the purpose of communication.

The English proverb A rolling stone gathers no moss describes a situation that is easily conveyed in the
Russian translation, for example: “The rolling stone of moss does not collect” (or: “moss does not
overgrow”). However, from this situation, the Translation Receptor will not be able to extract the
purpose of communication contained in the original. For him, the situation itself does not indicate
clearly enough how to relate to it, whether it is “good” or “bad”, that there is no “moss”. At the same
time, it is clear to the English Receptor that in this situation, “moss” represents wealth, goodness and
that its absence is a negative phenomenon. Thus, the situation described by the English proverb implies
the conclusion that one should not wander around the world, but sit at home and collect good. An
equivalent translation would be a Russian phrase that has the same emotive setting and reproduces as
much as possible the stylistic (poetic) function of the original (proverbial form). Since the description of
the same situation does not provide the necessary result, it is necessary to use a message describing a
different situation. An attempt to satisfy the specified requirements gives an approximate translation:
"He who doesn’t sit still will not make any good."

44. In the second type of equivalence, the common part of the content of the original and translation
not only conveys the same purpose of communication, but also reflects the same extra-linguistic
situation. A situation is a set of objects and connections between objects described in a statement. Any
text contains information about something, correlated with some kind of real or imaginary situation.
The communicative function of the text cannot be carried out otherwise than through a situationally
oriented message. One cannot imagine a coherent text that would be “about nothing”, just as a thought
cannot exist without an object of thought.

45. A more complete reproduction of the contents of the original in the second type of equivalence
compared to the first type, where only the purpose of communication was preserved, does not mean
the transfer of all semantic elements of the original. The preservation of indications of the same
situation is accompanied in translations of this type by significant structural and semantic differences
with the original. The fact is that the indicated situation is a complex phenomenon that cannot be
described in one statement as a whole, in the whole variety of its sides, properties and features. Each
statement describes the corresponding situation by pointing to some of its individual signs. One and the
same situation can be described through various combinations of its inherent features. The
consequence of this is the possibility and necessity of identifying situations described from different
angles. Sets of utterances appear in the language, which are perceived by the native speakers as
synonymous (“meaning the same thing”), despite the complete discrepancy of their constituent
linguistic means.

In this regard, it becomes necessary to distinguish between the fact of indicating a situation and the way
it is described, i.e. part of the content of the statement, indicating the signs of a situation through which
it is reflected in the statement. Those who use the language are able to recognize the identity of
situations described in completely different ways. And this means that the content of any statement
contains information that allows you to judge how the situation is described in it and what signs are
used to describe it.

46. The difference between the identification of a situation and the way it is described reflects the
uniqueness of the relationship between language, thinking and the described reality. It is clear that the
content of the statement does not include the situations themselves and their signs, but only their
mental images, transmitted in the form of some kind of information or information, i.e. in the form of
some kind of message. The nature of the reflection of the selected features and the internal
organization of information about them constitute a kind of logical structure of the message. We
emphasize that we are talking specifically about the organization of information, and not about its
specific content in an individual speech act. The distinguished features of a particular situation are
described by including them in a broad conceptual category. Units of meaning, reflect

55

Those that contain individual signs of a situation are general concepts or meaningful categories. For
example, the basis of the description of the situation “a certain object is on the table” may be concepts:
“state”, “perception”, “active action”. You can say: “The book is on the table” (state), “I see the book on
the table” (perception) or “The book was laid on the table” (active action). Another example is the
choice between the phrases: “He does not come here” (movement), “He does not exist here” (being), “I
do not see him here” (perception), “He is not invited here” (active act).

Various methods of constructing a message of the indicated type are combined by the identity of the
described situation. The generality of their content is entirely based on the extralinguistic experience of
the communicants. From real experience, we know that in order for a person to be seen in a given place,
it is necessary that he comes there, i.e. was there, was. From this it is concluded that the statements
“She almost never happens there” and “We rarely see her there” mean “the same thing”. In the
descriptions themselves, there are almost no common semantic features (common sem) that would
justify the equalization of their content.

Similarly, it is not difficult to find the real basis for the generality of the content and in other cases the
description of the situation with the help of different meaningful categories, for example:

The night has almost passed. “Dawn will come soon.”

She's not going anywhere. - She leads a solitary lifestyle.

It is well preserved. - He looks younger than his age.

We do not do such things. - This is not our part. This has nothing to do with us.

In such cases, various logical, mainly causal relationships are found between different-structured
messages.

47. Identification of a situation is a reflection in the content of a statement of some real situation
through one of the possible ways to describe it. In turn, the way of describing the situation is a reflection
in the content of the statement of those signs of the situation that are used to identify it and generalized
in the form of meaningful categories. The second type of equivalence is characterized by the
identification in the original and translation of the same situation when changing the way it is described.
The basis for the semantic identification of multilingual texts here is the universal character of the
relationship between language and extra-linguistic reality.

Just as speakers of the same language are able to identify identical situations described in different
ways, bilingual translators actually recognize speech works in different languages as equivalent on this
basis, equating them in translation, despite the lack of correspondence between their components.

48. The second type of equivalence is represented by translations, the semantic proximity of which to
the original is also not based on the commonality of meanings of the used language means. Here are
some examples of translations of this type:

Not answered the telephone.

He picked up the phone.

You are not fit to be in a boat.

You must not be allowed into the boat.

You see one bear, you have seen them all.

All bears are alike.

In the multilingual utterances equivalent in these examples, most of the words and syntactic structures
of the original do not find direct correspondence in the text of the translation. However, it can be
argued that between the originals and translations of this group there is a greater commonality of
content than with equivalence of the first type. Compare, for example, translations:

(1) That's a pretty thing to say. I would be ashamed!

(2) Did not answer the telephone. He picked up the phone.

In (1), we are talking about completely different phenomena between which you cannot discern any real
connection. The commonality of the original and the translation lies only in the fact that in both cases it
is possible to draw the same conclusions about the emotional attitude of the speaker to the previous
remark of his interlocutor. In (2) the disparate linguistic means of the original and the translation
actually describe the same

57

act, indicate the same reality, since you can speak on the phone only by picking up the phone. In both
texts we are talking about different things, but "about the same thing." It is often said about such
statements in everyday life that they “express in other words the same thought”.

49. The relationship between originals and translations of this type is characterized by: 1) the
incomparability of the lexical composition and syntactic organization; "2) the inability to connect the
vocabulary and structure of the original and translation with the relations of semantic rephrasing or
syntactic transformation;

3) preservation of the purpose of communication in translation, since, as we have already established,

preservation of the dominant function of expression is a prerequisite for equivalence;
4) preservation in the translation of indications of the same situation, which is proved by the existence
of a direct real or logical connection between multilingual messages, which allows us to assert that in
both cases “the same thing is reported”.

50. The widespread use in translations of equivalence of the second type is explained by the fact that in
each language there are preferred ways of describing certain situations that turn out to be completely
unacceptable for other languages. In English they say: We locked the door to keep thieves out, and in
Russian it seems ridiculous to describe this situation in this way (to lock the door to keep the thieves
outside), but it is quite possible to say: “so that thieves do not enter the house”. Emphasizing the
impossibility of any actions for himself, the Englishman will say: I am the last man to do it. In Russian it is
impossible to reproduce such a message, calling someone "the last person capable of doing anything."
We will have to describe this situation in translation in another way, for example: “Already, in any case, I
will not do it.” Here are a few more examples of the description of the "English way", unacceptable for
the Russian language: Give me Beethoven any time, He came off a poor second, etc.

51. The need to establish equivalence during translation at the level of a situation may also be
connected with the fact that in many cases members of a language collective constantly apply only one
way of describing a certain situation. This is especially often the case in standard speech formulas,
warning labels, generally accepted wishes, expressions of condolences, etc. Hearing a request for -58

to call someone to the phone, in Russian they will ask: “Who is asking him?”, and in English: Who shall I
say is calling? It is necessary to indicate in which direction the door opens in English with the inscription
"Pull" or "Push", and in Russian - "To yourself" or "From me." Theoretically, it is possible to warn
differently about a freshly painted item, but in Russian they will necessarily write: “Carefully, painted”,
and in English - “Wet paint”.

If the situation described in the original should be transferred to the PO only in one strictly defined way,
the choice of the translation option is as if independent of the way the situation is described in the
original text, and the communication structure in the translation is predetermined. Naturally, in this
case, the corresponding messages in the original and in translation can have the same structure only in
exceptional cases, when the mandatory methods for describing this situation in both languages
coincide. In most cases, the mandatory or preferable nature of a certain way of describing a situation in
AE is related to replacing the way it is described in the original, and establishing the second type of
equivalence in translation. Here are some examples of such replacements from translations of books by
English and American authors:

Stop, I have a gun! (R. Bradbury) Wait, I'll shoot. Reduction on taking a quantity. (J. Galsworthy)
Wholesale buyers discount. Peter's face muscles tightened. (A. Hailey) Peter gritted his teeth. He left the
ship on Tuesday. (J.K. Jerome) He went ashore on Tuesday.

Take a better man than she is, better man than I've ever met, to get away with being insulting to me! (S.
Lewis)

He was born the man who could insult me with impunity.

52. Refusal to reproduce in the translation of the situation described in the original, ie the use of
equivalence is not of the second, but of the first type, is determined only by the need for co-storage
when translating the purpose of communication in those cases when the described situation is not
associated with the necessary associations in the Translation Receptors. In J. Brain’s novel “A Place
Above,” the hero, with contempt, describes the appearance of a young

59

“from the bottom” person, says, in particular, that he has “the face behind the requests on Forces
Favorites”, i.e. "The face of the person who sends applications for performance on the radio in a concert
for military personnel." Such a situation is unlikely to be accepted by the reader of the Russian
translation as a derogatory characteristic. Therefore, translators (T. Kudryavtseva and T. Ozerskaya)
chose to establish equivalence with a completely different situation: “you see such faces on posters ...”.

53. Some signs of a specific “situation may be better known to members of the speaking collective than
other signs of this situation,” the Receptor is well aware of the often quoted Gospel story of how Christ
¬ fed five thousand breads and two fish to five thousand people , but he may not understand the
reference to the “full baskets” present in the same story, but rarely mentioned outside the Bible.

They found him over tea and one of these fishes which cover the more ground when eaten and explain
the miracle of the seven baskets full. (J. Galsworthy) Often this takes place in relation to situations
related to the history and culture of a particular people. The Battle of the Seven Days is not known in
Russian as the Battle of Gettysburg; Napoleon as the “Man of Destiny”; Duke of Wellington as “The Iron
Duke”; Scotland as “ the land of cakes ”(The Land of Cakes).

54. Particularly important is the ability of a certain situation to cause some additional associations
among the receptors of one language collective, on the basis of which they come to strictly defined
conclusions and conclusions. In other words, different situations may receive special significance in the
framework of the culture of a given collective, different from the significance that these situations have
for members of other language communities. It is known that in some nations, heading means
affirmation, while in others it means negation. It follows from this that the description of this gesture
can be interpreted differently by representatives of different nations. The message that someone was
driving on the right side of the street, for the English Receptor, indicates a violation of the rules and
seems trivial for a resident of a country where right-hand traffic is accepted.

60

Certain associations are often assigned to situations associated with events or literary works that are
well known to members of one language collective, but little known to others. A speaker in Russian will
not, as a rule, compare his interlocutor with Sir Ga-lahad, but for the English Receptor this knight of the
Round Table of King Arthur is well known so that such a comparison could be widely used by Sources
using English: Not rolled over and sat up, rubbing Ms eyes. "What time is it?" "Almost noon," his brother
answered. "You been playing Sir Galahad?"

A receptor belonging to a different linguistic community often cannot fully extract the information
contained in an indication of a seemingly familiar situation, for example: ... the usual sprinkling of those
who eat mutton four times a week. (J. Galsworthy)
For the Russian Receptor, unlike English (in England, lamb is the cheapest meat), the message that
someone eats lamb four times a week identifies a situation that does not allow any conclusions about
the social or property status of this person .

Thus, despite the extralinguistic nature of the situation, its identification in the statement has a number
of features specific to each language collective. Such features influence the nature of equivalence in the
transfer of this part of the content of the original.

55. The third type of equivalence can be characterized by the following examples:

Scrubbing makes me bad-tempered.

From washing floors, my mood deteriorates.

London saw a cold winter last year.

Last winter, London was cold.

That will not be good for you.

It may end badly for you.

A comparison of the originals and translations of this type reveals the following features: 1) the lack of
parallelism of the lexical structure and syntactic structure; 2) the inability to bind the structure of the
original and translation relations syntactic transformation; 3) preservation in translation of the purpose
of communication and identification of the same situation as in the original; 4) preservation in
translation of general concepts, with

61

the power of which describes the situation in the original, i.e. the preservation of that part of the
content of the source text, which we called the "way of describing the situation." The last statement is
proved by the possibility of semantic rephrasing of the original message into a translation message
revealing the commonality of the main sem. So, in the first of the given examples in the original and in
the translation the description of the situation is based on the concept of causality, but the location and
interconnection of individual families are different. In the original: Scrubbing makes me bad-tempered -
A causes B to have C that has (a sign) of D. Translated: “My mood deteriorates from washing floors” - C
that belongs to B acquires (a sign of) D due to the presence of A The generality of the conceptual
framework means that in the original and in the translation the situation is described by indicating its
identical attributes. Saving the way of describing the situation implies an indication of the same
situation, and the equalization of the described situations suggests that this is achieved by reproducing
the goal of communication of the original.

56. Relations between the contents of the original and translation in such cases can be classified
similarly to the formal-logical relations between the concepts: equivalence, submission, counter-
narrative, intersection. The presence of such relations can serve as an additional indicator of a greater
semantic commonality with the original in translations of this type, compared with the cases discussed
above. The commonality of basic concepts means maintaining the structure of the message when the
same features are selected to describe the situation in the original and the translation. Whereas in the
previous types of equivalence in the translation, information was saved regarding “for what the
contents of the original are reported” and “what is reported in it”, then here is transmitted also “what is
reported in the original”, i.e. which side of the described situation is the object of communication.

57. Within the framework of one way of describing a situation, various types of semantic variation are
possible. The choice of the content category, on the basis of which the situation will be described, does
not completely determine the organization of the transmitted information. Varying the semantic
organization of expression creates synonymous structures associated with a significant commonality of
sets of sem.

In this regard, in the translations of the third type there is observed both a complete coincidence of the
message structure and the use of

in the translation of the synonymous structure associated with the initial relations of semantic
rephrasing, as was the case in our example.

58. A comparative analysis of translations shows that the following types of indicated variation are most
often noted: 1) the degree of detail of the description; 2) a method of combining the described features
in a message; 3) the direction of the relationship between the signs; 4) the distribution of individual
signs in the message. 59. The degree of detail of the description. The situation can be described in a
chosen way with more or less details. It may include direct reference to a different number of details
characteristic of a given situation. As a result, synonymous messages will vary in degree of explicit ™.
Some signs will be named in some messages, while in others they will remain only implied, easily
deduced from the message, but not directly included in its composition. Such symptoms may be
considered excessive. Wed:

He knocked and entered. - He knocked and entered the room. I can’t move him. “I can't budge him.” She
sat back in a chair. - She sat leaning back in her chair.

60. In the above examples, the choice of more or less explicitness of the message depended entirely on
the Source. However, often the ratio of explicit and implicit in the message is determined by the
features of the functioning of this language system. As an illustration, you can note the great
implicability of the English language compared to Russian. In this regard, in English-Russian translations
most often there is a greater explicitness of the translation compared to the original. Here are some
examples from the translation of the novel by G. Galsworthy “The End of the Chapter” (Translated by Yu.
Korneev and P. Melkova):

I saw there was a question asked. I saw in the newspapers that there was a request. They lay watching.

They lay watching Ferz. "Will you come here, my-Miss?" Jean went. "I beg you, come here, mi ... miss."
Gene entered after him.

63

Where Jean had been locked in Dinny waited some time.

Dinny waited a bit in the room where Jean was locked.

People went into rooms as if they meant to stay there.

Everyone settled in his room as if about to settle in it forever.

The greater explicitness of the English original is relatively rare. As a rule, omission of some details in the
translation is not mandatory and can be explained by the desire of the translator to achieve greater
conciseness of presentation:

Not opened a desk drawer, took out cigarettes and offered them to Christine. (A. Hailey)

... and taking cigarettes from the table, Christine suggested.

Translators (T. Golenpolsky and V. Paperno) considered it possible not to translate the selected part of
the original, expressing an obvious idea (in order to get something from the box, you need to open it).

61. A method of combining the described features in a message. The concepts generalizing the selected
features of the situation are combined in the message according to certain rules of its construction.
Along with the phenomena common to all languages, each language imposes its limitations on the
possibility of combining individual concepts in the composition of the message.

The difference in the construction of messages often makes the structure of a message in one language
seemingly “illogical” from the point of view of native speakers of another language, causing the need for
semantic rephrasing during translation. For example, in the English sentence It was not thin and
tentative as he slid bis birth certificate from Puerto Rico across the desk, the combination of a
permanent and a tentative attribute by a composing union is unusual for the Russian language,
especially in connection with the additional time . (Compare: “He was thin and insecure when he held
out ...”.) English proverbs such as It is a good horse that never stumbles, It is an ill wind that blows
nobody good, whose meaning can be represented as “A horse that it’s not possible “^ weaves, is so
good that there are no such horses” and “The wind, which does not blow good to anyone, is so bad that
there is no such wind”, very elaborate, from the point of view of the Russian Receptor, they express a
content similar to Russian

64

According to reports “A horse with four legs and then stumbles” and “There is no silver lining.”

In this sense, the connection of the individual parts of the message may also be “illogical”. In the English
language, a diverse and often conjunctive union unites diverse thoughts that are considered
unacceptable in the Russian language, for example: Did not go into cables and died. (G. Greene) The fact
that the Court was full confirmed their reflections, and they passed on into a little room to wait. (J.
Galsworthy)

In the following example, for Russian linguistic consciousness, unification by means of a temporary
union of two informative segments of almost the same content is unacceptable: Last month another top
fugitive was captured when White Panther leader Laurence Robert Plamondon, 25, was discovered in
Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

62. The direction of the relationship between the signs. When describing the situation from different
points of view, synonymous communication can be connected with the relationship of convertibility:
“The professor takes an exam from students. “Students take the exam to the professor.” An extreme
case of such a difference is the relationship of the opposite, when the synonymy of two messages is
based on the approval of the sign in one of them and the negation of the opposite sign in the other: “He
always remembers this. “He never forgets about it”, ““ We sit at home all the time. “We will not go
anywhere”, “This task is difficult. “This task is not easy,” etc.

Similar relationships are often found between originals and translations of the type in question. Often,
conversational paraphrasing is not mandatory, but is chosen by the translator for stylistic reasons:

Do not drove on. They had their backs to the sunlight now. He drove on. Now the sun was shining in
their backs.

Do I look all right?

Do I have a decent look?

Will you marry me, Lady Aline?

Do you want me to become your husband, Lady Elin?

Especially often, this type of relationship is noted in the translation of messages in which inanimate
objects act as subjects of verbs whose meaning is related to

3-156 65

usually confronts an animate person, for example: The lounge had been redecorated since his last visit,
and had acquired several facilities. A similar way of describing the situation is much more often used in
English than in Russian. As a result, the message in the translation has a different vectoriality:

Last year witnessed a sharp increase of production in this country.

Last year, our country experienced a sharp increase in production.

As within the same language, equivalent messages may contain opposite features, for example:

The American Railroad Union excluded Negroes from its membership.

... the railway workers' union ... did not accept blacks.

The mentality and methods of these "world-conquerors" need little comment.

The mindset and methods of these "conquerors of the world" do not require extensive commentary.

"You'll make yourself ill," said Betsey, "and you know that will not be good either for you or for my god-
daughter." (Ch. Dickens)

You will bring yourself to an illness, ”Betsy noted,“ and this can end badly for both you and my
goddaughter. ” (Translated by A. Krivtsova and E. Lanna)

63. The distribution of individual characteristics in the message. Equivalent messages related to the
same way of describing the situation may differ from each other and by the distribution of features in
separate parts of the message. The possibility of combining and the sequence of descriptions of signs is
sometimes not the same in different languages. In such cases, the order of the signs in the translation
text may be different than in the original, for example:
Remarkable constitution, too, and lets you see it: great yachtsman. (J. Galsworthy)

... He is an excellent yachtsman, superbly complex and able to show it. (Translated by Yu. Korneev and P.
Melkova)

Of particular note is the possibility of redistributing features between adjacent messages. Description of
many

66

individual signs has a potential nonlocality. In a coherent text, a number of statements, as a rule,
describe situations that together constitute larger sections of reality. Therefore, in addition to choosing
the characteristics that will be mentioned in the message, the Source often has the ability to select the
message in the text where this or that characteristic will be indicated. Although the relationship
between the individual features persists, it is possible to move some features from one statement to
another as part of a description of a more complex situation. Wed for example: “Marina didn’t come for
a long time. Svetlana was waiting for her in the laboratory. Finally, she returned. = Marina did not come.
Svetlana waited a long time for her. Finally, she returned to the laboratory. "

The ability to move features in related messages is often used in translation for stylistic purposes, for
example, in order to achieve simplicity and naturalness of conversational speech:

I haven't had a joint with you, old man, since we went up to Carmarthen Van in that fog before the war.
Remember? (J. Galsworthy)

Remember how we climbed Carmarthen Van in the fog right after the war? This was our last walk with
you, old man. (Translated by Yu. Korneev and P. Melkova)

As can be seen from the above examples, semantic rephrasing is often complex in nature, at the same
time changing the way of combining features, the starting point of description, the sequence and
distribution of features, etc.

64. In the three types of equivalence described above, the commonality of the contents of the original
and translation was to preserve the basic elements of the content of the text. As a unit of verbal
communication, a text is always characterized by communicative functionality, situational orientation
and selectivity of a way to describe a situation. These signs are retained in the smallest unit of text -
utterance. In other words, the content of any statement expresses some purpose of communication
through the description of a situation carried out in a certain way (by selecting some signs of a given
situation). In the first type of equivalence in the translation, only the first of the indicated parts of the
contents of the original is preserved (the purpose of communication), in the second type, the first and
second (the purpose of communication and

67

situation), in the third - all three parts (the purpose of communication, a description of the situation and
a way to describe it). The expression “part of the content” does not mean “part of the utterance” or
“the content of the part of the utterance”. The indicated parts of the content are not linear in the
statement, one after another, so that in one part of the statement the purpose of communication would
be contained, and in the other - a description of the situation. They are expressed by the whole
composition of the statement, one through the other, forming a semantic pyramid: information about
the distinguishing features of a certain set of related objects gives a description of the situation, and the
description of the situation performs a certain function.

65. The presence in the content of the statement (text) of information about the purpose of
communication, the situation and the method of its description reflects the specifics of speech
communication, its inextricable connection with the purposeful activity of people, the surrounding
reality and the form of reflection of this reality in human thinking. This connection is universal for verbal
communication in all languages, and its universality largely determines the possibility of communicative
equalization of disagreement texts. Although, as shown above, linguistic selectivity sometimes prevents
the translation of a way of describing a situation in a translation or even requires replacing a situation to
convey the purpose of communication of the original, there is a fundamental possibility in any
translation to ensure the identity of one, two or all three most important parts of the original.