№ 1.

LINGUISTIC APPROACH TO TRANSLATION THEORY

1. The development of the linguistic theory of translation as an independent
branch.
2. Linguistic approach within Ukrainian translation studies.
1. Translation is considered to be among the oldest types of human
activityand there are a number of scholarly writings on the issue, somereaching
back to at least the 1st century BC.However, as a discipline, translation studies is a
relatively young science. In the second half of the 20th century, scholars began to
discuss the need for systematic research on translation and for the development of
consistent theories. This can be explained by the fact that at that time, significant
quantitative and qualitative changes took place;they largely affected the nature of
translation activity and the requirements for translation and translators.
After World War II, the scale of translation activity is growing sharply, new types of
translation are appearing; the informative types come to the fore; requirements for accuracy are
increasing; the number of technical texts is increasing rapidly and the translators with substantial
knowledge in the relevant subject area are required; the thematic diversity of texts is growing,
which is accompanied by their stylistic diversity; translation of official documents becomes
significant.
Since the 1950s, a new period in translation theory begins. Thatperiod is
marked by the formation and development of linguistic translation studies. Y.I.
Retsker published an aricle on regular correlations which was further developed
intoa theory.In this article, he put forwardthe idea ofimmediate connection between
translation studies and comparative linguistics.According to him, translationcannot
do without a solid linguistic foundation and the basis for this is the comparative
study of linguistic phenomena as well as the establishment of certain correlations
(закономірних відповідностей) between the source language (SL) and thetarget
language (TL). The author distinguished the following types of regular
correlations: 1) equivalents; 2) analogues (later termed as "variants of
correspondences "; 3) adequate substitutions. These correlations in vocabulary,
phraseology, syntax and style should form the linguistic basis of translation theory.
Dwelling on "adequate substitutions " (later called "translation techniques “),
Y.I. Retsker goes beyond "regular correlations" between the languages and makes
an attempt to describe the technology of translation. Thus, some techniques for
achieving translation adequacy were described: 1) concretization of abstract
concepts (to miss a meal - залишитися без обіду); 2) logical development of the
concept (so different in basic matters – зовсім несхожі характером і складом); 3)
antonymic translation (take it easy – не хвилюйтесь); 4) compensation (use of
other stylistic means or the same means but in another paragraph).
Y.I. Retsker was the first to substantiate the idea of the linguistic theory of
translation; he outlined further studies oflexical and phraseological, syntactic and
stylistic regularities of the translation process; he introduced conceptual notions
(terms) for describing translation operations. ( “Теорія перекладу та перекладацька
практика. Нариси лінгвістичної теорії перекладу / "Translation theory and translation
practice. Essays on linguistic theory of translation ", 1974.)
 At the same time, there was a need to clarify the very linguistic basis of
translation theory. Comparative linguistics / порівняльне мовознавство/ is not
sufficientto cover the whole range of linguistic problems solved in the process of
translation. It was necessary to outline the subject of translation theory, its place
among other philological disciplines, and its inner structure more precisely. A.V.
Fedorov - a prominent translation theorist - made his contribution to solving these
problems (“Introduction to the theory of translation”, 1953). The linguistic theory
of translation had its first appearance as an independent branch in linguistics. The
problem of translation was set as a linguistic problem which was common to all
genres and varieties of translation.
The first experiments in machine translation in the 1950s and 1960s became
a powerful stimulus for the development of the linguistic theory of translation
Machine translation practitioners were in search of some reliable rules, systems of
algorithms for transferring the signs of one language to the signs of another one.
Some consistent description of the processwas required. Still, it became clear that
researchers of machine translation and representatives of "traditional" translation
studies viewed the problem differently. The work "Basics of general and machine
translation" (1964) by I. Revzin and V. Rosenzweig was the first serious attempt to
bridge the gap. The authors “reinterpreted” the traditional theory by introducing a
number of new concepts. The emphasis was shifted to translation as a process.
The 1970s and 1980s were marked by an even more intensive development
of the linguistic theory of translation. At that time,L.S. Barkhudarov’s book
‘Language and translation’ (1975) made its appearance. By taking cases from
translations of literary texts, the scholarexamines the process of translation from
thepoint of view of general linguistics. In this case, translation is understood as the
process of transforming a piece of writingin one language into a text in another
language; the aspect of content should be kept unchanged. The author remarks that
certain semantic losses are inevitable, and the TT can never be an absolute
equivalent to the original text. The task of the translator is to minimize these
losses.
It is worth highlighting the issue of semantic correlations in translation
which is discussed among others in this book. These are the following:
a) the rendering of referential, pragmatic and grammatical meanings;
b) the role of the context and the situation;
c) the problem of translation transformations.
A linguistically narrow approach – to study translation not only as a type of
speech activity but more as a "manifestation of the language system" - was
advocated by V.N. Komissarov, which can hardly be convincing. His two books of
the period are: “A word on translation” (1973) and “Linguistics of translation”
(1980). In these works, the author suggests reasons for the expediencyof setting a
special branch in linguistics - linguistic translation studies, or linguistics of
translation. The author raises a number of issues: 1) he describes the subject,
methods and tasks of the branch,and considers the status of the general theory of
translation; 2) he deals with the problems of semantics, pragmatics and stylistics of
translation; 3) puts up the question of the principles of studying translation
including its modeling, as well as translation norms. Both works reflect different
stages of the development of a single concept. This concept is based on the
statement that the following types of equivalence are distinguished in translation:
1) equivalence at the level of the aim of communication (Do you take me for a
fool? = Що я маленька, чи що?), 2) equivalence at the level of identification of
the situation, i.e. description of the same situation in different ways (He answered
the phone. = Він зняв слухавку), 3) equivalence at the level of the way of
describing the situation (Scrubbing makes me bad-tempered = Від миття підлоги
у мене настрій псується), 4) equivalence based on the preservation of
transformational relations between syntactic structures (He was never tired of old
songs. = Старі пісні йому ніколи не надоїдали), 5) equivalence based on the
maximum similarity between the TT and the original (I saw him at the theatre. = Я
бачив його в театрі). One can observe that these types of equivalence correspond
to translation transformations (situational, semantic, grammatical, substitution).
The linguistic theory of translation has valuable achievements: a) it provided
the toolkit and inventory of translation correspondences, transformations, and b)
made an attempt to establish the criteria of translation quality.
However, the linguistic theory of translation is considered to be an aspect of
a still wider subject, which includes: the translational study of cultures and their
structure, the receptors of the ST and TTs, the historical aspects of translation
activities etc. That is, in this respect, translation is not regarded as a system of
manipulations and substitutions of certain text fragments for other text fragments
(or the whole text with another text, which depends on what is chosen as a unit of
translation). Nevertheless, the linguistic theory of translation has accumulated a
significant amount of valuable practical results and facts; but they are parts of more
general issues.
The idea that translation is not only a contact of two language systems, but
also an interaction of two different cultures, and even civilizations represents a
different approach. It was proposed by O. D. Schweitzer in the work "Translation
and Linguistics " (1973).
In the 1950s, the notion of equivalence was used to describe not only the aim
of translation, it was also a means to analyze translated texts. It used to be a system
of ideas which seems to be losing its leading role. However, more recent systems
of views have emphasized various aspects or problems that have been left out. The
examples are: the skopos or the aim of translation (which challenged the dominant
role of the ST); historical and cultural relativism (which doubted any relations of
full correspondence); localization (which blurred the line between translation and
adaptation); and cultural translation (viewing translation in terms of interpersonal
relations rather than texts). Each of these approaches means a certain change in the
system of views on translation, thus causing significant conceptual shifts. Many
discussions were caused by the fact that their participants made use of the same
terms but filled them with a completely different meaning. Modern European
theories of translation can be treated as a number of paradigms that argue the once
dominant concept of equivalence.
 As concluded by the researchers, the term ‘linguistic approaches’ has been
used to refer to: (a) theoretical models that represent translation and/or interpreting
as a (primarily) linguistic process and are therefore informed mainly by linguistic
theory (Catford 1965; Nida 1964; House 1977/1981; Hatim and Mason 1990,
1997; Davidson 2002), and (b) a range of studies that apply findings, concepts and
methods from linguisticsto explain specific aspects of the phenomenon of
translation and/or interpreting.

2. Linguistic approach to translation theory within Ukrainian

translation studies.
Concerning Ukrainian translation studies, the researcher Serhiy Dlozhevskyi
from Odessa was the first to set the basis of translation studiesas a linguistic
discipline. In 1929 p., studying P. I. Nishchinsky's translations from classical
languages, he noted that the object of translation studies is to define the nature of
deviations of the translation from the original, caused by differences in languages,
culture and the subjective perception of the translator.
When compiling the course "Translation Methodology" (for the 1932/33
academic year at the Ukrainian Institute of Linguistic Education), M. Kalynovych
and M. Zerov outlined the following aspects in translation studies:
- the theoretical aspect (including translation methodology, history of
translation and history of translation studies) and the practical aspect
(general methodology of translation;
- partial methodology of translation: - from one's native language into a
foreign language and vice versa, - and the study of business language
cliches.
They classified translation studies disciplines / перекладознавчі дисципліни/ and
introduced the history of translation studies as a separate research branch / галузь
досліджень/ in Ukrainian translation studies.
At the turn of the 1960s and 1970s, the discussions on either linguistic or
literary basis /літературознавчого підґрунтя/ of translation theory resulted in the
abstract /абстрагованого/ definition of the object of translation studies. According
to V. Koptilov, it is the study of the structural integrityof translation based on the
dialectical unity of content and form. Besides, V.Koptilov made a second attempt
in the history of Ukrainian translation studies to classify the discipline. His
classification includes:
1- translation theory /теорія перекладу/ (general, partial and specific
(genre) translation theories),
2- translation criticism /критика перекладу/ and
3- translation history /історія перекладу/.
R. Zorivchak gives an extended definition of translation studies, as a
coherent system covering the history, theory and criticism of translation; and it was
shaped into a separate complex general philological discipline at the junction of
linguistics, aesthetics, poetics and the history of literature back in in the 20s and
30s of the 20thcentury."
 O. M. Finkel came up with an idea of introducing foreign language teaching
among the issues of translation theory.
There are research works in which the theory of translation is an object of
study form a historical point of view. Y. A. Bagmut and V. G. Ivanenko consider
the development of translation theory in Ukraine during the Soviet era.V. G.
Ivanenko covers the period of over 60 years. In one of his articles, the “forgotten”
names of V. M. Derzhavin, G. Y. Maifet, M. K. Zerov, Ivan Kulik and others are
spoken about; the translation views of O. M. Finkel and M. T. Rylskyi are
described. The researcher dwells on the "burst" of translation studies in the 1920s,
on the debates of the 1950s, and the translation studies of the 1970s. The
authorconsiders the works of O. M. Finkel, M. T. Rylskyi, E. I. Starinkevich
representing the period of the 1930s-40s. The author underlines the need to: a)
summarize the previous practical and theoretical experience; b) define the aesthetic
ideal of translation; c) unify the criteria and requirements for all branches of
translation studies.
There is another problem in the theory of translation - it is impossible to
define clearly how practice supported theory or vice versa. To answer the question,
one is to study the activities of individual translators and establish the correlation
between their theoretical guidelines and practical solutions.
Along with models and concepts imported from other fields, linguistics has
consistently continued to inform studies of translation along the years. Course
material in translator training has always tended to rely on linguistic theory, in
particular text-linguistics (e.g. Nord 1988/1991) and systemic functional linguistics
(e.g. Baker 1992). More recent publications, such as Malmkjar (2005), provide
further evidence of the continued appeal that linguistic knowledge holds for
translators and translation scholars.
As can be seen from the above, there is no unanimous approach concerning
the use of terms, no clear distinction between the notions of the subject and object
of research. Ukrainian scholar O. Bilous is of the opinion that the object of the
linguistic theory of translation should be understood as a mediating
/посередницьку/ activity of intercultural communication which manifests itself in
the process of translation and is reflected in translation results. Its subject is
defined as the study of regularities /закономірності/of the translation process and
the factors influencing the very process and its result.
L.:
1.Білоус О.М. Теорія і технологія перекладу. Курс лекцій: доопрацьований та
доповнений. Навчальний посібник для студентів перекладацьких відділень. Кіровоград,
РВВ КДПУ ім. В. Винниченка, 2013. 200 с.
2.Теорія перекладу: для студентів 3-4 курсів ф-ту «Референт-перекладач», які
навчаються за спеціальністю 035 Філологія (Переклад) / Нар. укр. акад., [каф. теорії та
практики перекладу; авт.-упор. О. А. Кальниченко]. Харків: Вид-во НУА, 2020. 126 с.
3. Шмігер Т. Історія українського перекладознавства XX сторіччя. К.: Смолоскип,
2009. 342 с.
4.Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies / edited by Mona Baker and Gabriela
Saldanha. 2nd ed. London – New York, 2011. 674 p.