Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2015, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 144–153
UDC: 
811.111’373+811.161.1’373+008

Pragmatic difficulties in translation of common and proper names

Chernobrov A. A. 1 (Novosibirsk, Russian Federation)
1 Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation
Abstract: 

Pragmatic purposes sometimes require serious changes in translation. While translating it is necessary to go beyond the limits of purely linguistic units. Surely, simple transferring of the realities of another culture to the translated text is not enough to completely preserve all the information contained in the text. Therefore translators use special devices, on condition the culture specific unit is known and understood correctly by the translator, which is not guaranteed. Having analysed extensive material, we have come to a conclusion, that there might be five ways of transferring English culture specific units into Russian: 1) рreserving the culture specific units in the text with the subsequent commentary; 2) “descriptive” translation without preservation of culture specific units; 3) preservation of culture specific units in the text with addition of explaining words; 4) transformation, i.e. replacement of one culture specific unit with more familiar ones; 5) ignoring of culture specific units in the text. Translators prefer to use descriptive translation, mostly ignoring all the other ways of translating the “untranslatable” culture specific units. But, in our opinion, in most cases the first way i.e. a post-textual commentary, is preferable. Only the commentary permits to completely reveal all the implications and ambiguities hidden behind the background words.

Keywords: 

language and culture, translation equivalence, proper and common names, pragmatics

https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=23199332

For citation:
Chernobrov A. A. Pragmatic difficulties in translation of common and proper names. Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2015, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 144–153. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2226-3365.1502.14
References: 
  1. Vereshchagin Ye. M., Kostomarov V. G. Language and culture. 4th ed. Moscow, Russian language Publ., 1991, 260 p. (In Russian)
  2. Vlahov, S. Florin S. Theuntranslatables in translation.  Moscow, Higher School Publ., 1986, 416 p. (In Russian)
  3. Krupnov V. N.IntheTranslatorsCreativeLaboratory. Moscow, International Relations Publ., 1976, 150 p. (In Russian)
  4. Labov W. The study of language in its social context. StudiumGenerale. 1970, no 23, pp. 30–87. (In Russian)
  5. Lado R. Linguistics across Cultures. Applied Linnguistics for Language Teachers. With Preface by Ch. Fries. N.Y., 1957, 141 p. (In Russian)
  6. Neubert A., Shreve M.Translation as text. Kent, Kent State University Press Publ., 1992, 169 p. (In Russian)
  7. Superanskaya. A. V.Principles of translation of untranslatable vocabulary. The Dictionary of Great Britain. Moscow, Russian language Publ., 1978, pp. 457–480.  (In Russian)
  8. Tomakhin G. D.Theoretical Foundations of Linguo-cultural Studies. Moscow, 1984, 487 р. (In Russian)
  9. Schweitzer A. D.Translation and Linguistics. Moscow, Military Publ., 1973, 280 p. (In Russian)
  10. CollinsFirst Names AZ Guide. L., Harper Collins Publ., 1993, 276 p.
  11. Hirsch E. D., Kelt J. F., Trefil J. Dictionary of Cultural Literacy. What Every American Needs to Know. Boston, 1988, 669 p.
  12. Lado R. Linguistics across Cultures. Applied Linnguistics for Language Teachers. With Preface by Ch. Fries. N.Y., 1957, 141 p.
  13. Neubert A., Shreve M.Translation as text. Kent, Kent State University Press Publ., 1992, 169 p.
  14. Nida E.Language Structure and Translation: Essays.  Redwood, Stanford University Press Publ., 1975, pp. 185–188.
  15. Nida E.The Theory and Practice of Translation. Brill, 1969 (with C.R. Taber), 216 р.
  16. Nida E.Toward a Science of Translating.  Brill, 1964, 333 p.
  17. Searle J. R. Speech Acts. Cambridge, 1969, 203 p.
Date of the publication 06.04.2015