Comparative Study on Morphologically Motivated Lacunae (English-Ukrainian Language Pair)
The research undertaken addresses the untranslatability issue at word level in distantly-related languages. It investigates lacunary units lacking one-word correlates in the contrasted language due to structural properties viewed through the prism of their derivational categories (agentive, attributive, instrumental) in the English and Ukrainian languages. In the article, we hypothesize that lacunae constitute a special domain, which involves lexical units whose structural and content properties can be revealed by implementing a comparative analysis. We propose to analyze non-equivalent nouns with different morphological composition, suggest the ways of rendering their meaning in Ukrainian and discuss their textual realization during literary translation. Implementing J.P. Vinay and J. Darbelnet's concept of equivalence, the paper offers a contrastive analysis of referentially transparent and nontrans-parent lacunary units within derivational categories, signaling possible shifts in their morphological status, since lacunae usually represent complex language units undergoing structural and semantic transformations during translation. The research methodology assumes an integrated analysis combining comparative, structural and interpretation methods. In the first part, certain approaches to the lacunarity study are reviewed, then the interlingual correlates for the source language (hereafter-SL) are described with reference to their lexical-morphological properties. Next, the lexicographic approach is undertaken to identify the lacunae which constitute full or partial correlates in the target language (hereafter-TL). Acknowledging the asymmetry of conventional lexicographic representation, the study revealed predominance of lacunae's motivated derivational meanings. The material of substantive lacunary units of the English language analyzed in the investigation clearly suggests that their form is represented by both univerbs and specific words which actualize lacunae's lexico-grammatical properties, the morphological processes remaining productive. Constituting primarily full equivalents with different structural properties, the base derivatives in English at the interlanguage level are characterized by intensive abstraction and generalization of motivational traits. The contrastive study of English nouns and Ukrainian correlates proves that the relations of partial equivalence embrace the correlates characterized by the compositional uniformity of lexical meanings under the differences in their morphologic structure. The paper proves that the ethnolinguistic specificity might cause certain implications during literary translation. During translation derived substantives differ in word-formation models, hence one should distinguish between employing a paraphrase (group of lexemes) and substituting a word-combination by a word.
Keywords
коррелят,
сравнение,
деривационная категория,
литературный перевод,
мотивация,
безэквивалентность,
лакуна,
исходный язык,
correlate,
comparison,
derivational category,
literary translation,
motivation,
non-equivalence,
lacuna,
source language,
target language,
целевой языкAuthors
Onyshchuk M. | University of Gdansk | mariia.onyshchuk@ug.edu.pl |
Всего: 1
References
Selivanova O. (2006) Sovremennaya lingvistika: terminologicheskaya encyclopedija [Modern Linguistics: terminological encyclopedia]. Monograph. Poltava: Dovkillia-K.
Vinay J.P. and Darbelnet J. (1995) Comparative Stylistics of French and English. Juan C. Sager and M.-J. Hamel (trans. and ed.). John Benjamins.
Salm A. (1997) Vinay, J. P. & J. Darbelnet. Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation. DOI: 10.5007/5260
Fawcett P. (2001) Linguistic approaches // Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. - Translating and interpreting. Baker I. Mona (ed.) Oxford: Taylor and Francis Group, pp. 120-125.
Bykova G. (1999) Lakunarnost kak kategoria leksicheskoj sistemologii [Lacunarity as a category of lexical systemiology] // Communication culture and its formation. Voroniezh, pp. 60-63.
Kocherhan M. (2006) Osnovy sopostavitelnogo jazykoznaniya [Essentials in Comparative Linguistics]. Kyiv: Akademia Center.
Korunets I. (2004) Poriwnialna typologia anglijskoj i ukrainskoi mowy [Comparative Ty pology of the English and Ukrainian Languages]. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha.
Hoey M. and Houghton D (2001) Contrastive analysis and translation // Routlege encyclo pedia of Translation Studies. New York, pp. 45-50.
Krzeszowski T (1990) Contrasting languages: The scope of contrastive linguistics // Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 51. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Catford J. A. (2009) Linguistic theory of translation: One aspect of applied linguistics. Moscow, Librokom.
Levistkyi A. (1998) Funkcionalnyje podhody k klasifikacyi lingvisticheskich edinits sov-remennogo anglijskogo jazyka [Functional Approaches to the Classification of the Modern English Language Units]. Kyiv: KNLU.
Halliday M. (1985) Spoken and Written Language. Deakin: Deakin University Press.
Kocherhan M. (2006) Osnovy sopostavitelnogo jazykoznaniya [Essentials in Comparative Linguistics]. Kyiv: Akademia Center.
Korunets I. (2004) Comparative Typology of the English and Ukrainian Languages. Vin-nytsia: Nova Knyha.
Snitko O. (1990) Vnutrenniaya Forma Nominativnych Jedinic [Inner Form of Nominative Units]. Lviv: Swit.
Barnwell K. (1980) Introduction to Semantics and Translation: With Special Reference to Bible Translation. High Wycombe: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Szerszunowicz J. (2015) Lacunarity, lexicography and beyond: integration of the introduction of a linguo-cultural concept and the development of L2 learners' dictionary skills // Lexicography ASIALEX, v. 2, pp. 101-118.
Bauer L. (2001) Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kiyak T. (2004) Form and meaning of a language unit // Annals of Kharkiv National University. Roman-Germanic Philology Series, no 635, pp. 75-78.
Rusanivskyi V. (1988) Struktura leksicheskoj i gramaticheskoi semantiki [Structure of Lexical and Grammar Semantics]. Kyiv: Naukowa Dumka.
Kubriakova E. (1981) Tipy jazykovych znachenij. Semantika proizvodnogo slova [Types of Language Meanings. Semantics of Derived Word. Moscow: Nauka.
Balla M. (2008) Modern English-Ukrainian Dictionary. Kyiv: Chumatskiy Shliakh.
Catford J. A. (1965) Linguistic theory of translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoey M. and Houghton D. (2001) Contrastive analysis and translation // Routlege encyclopedia of Translation Studies. New York, pp. 45-50.
Baker Monika (2001) In other words. A coursebook of translation. Taylor & Francis e-Library.
Levistkyi A. (1998) Funkcionalnyje podhody k klasifikacyi lingvisticheskich edinits sov-remennogo anglijskogo jazyka [Functional Approaches to the Classification of the Modern English Language Units]. Kyiv: KNLU.
Sakal Т. (2001) Kognitivno-onosmasiologicheskoye modellirovanije proizvodnogo slova [Cognitive-onomasiologic modeling of the derived word semantics] // Romano-Germanic Philology Issues. Uzhhorod. Mystetska Liniia, pp. 103-108.
Levistkyi A. (1998) Funkcionalnyje podhody k klasifikacyi lingvisticheskich edinits sov-remennogo anglijskogo jazyka [Functional Approaches to the Classification of the Modern English Language Units]. Kyiv: KNLU.
Balla M. (2008) Modern English-Ukrainian Dictionary. Kyiv: Chumatskiy Shliakh.