TRANSLATION POSITION IN ACTIVITIES

Content

INTRODUCTION	5
1	CUT TRANSLATION PARADIGM HOW UPDATE PRIORITIES TRANSLATION ACTIVITIES	8
1.1	"Literalism" and "liberty" as the main opposition translation.	8
1.2	Adequacy" and "equivalence" in the linguistic theory of translation	16
1.2.1	Terms "value" and "equivalence".	16
1.2.2	Formal equivalence" and linguistic theory of equivalence	19
1.3	Adequacy" and "equivalence" in lingvoculture theories of translation	23
2	TRANSLATION POSITION IN ACTIVITIES	32
2.1	Interpretation of the text as one of the causes of the variability of transfer.	32
2.2	Interpreting position in activity	34
2.3	Positions associated with the orientation of the transmitting transfer culture.	39
2.4	Positions associated with the orientation of the translation on the host culture.	42
2.5	Neutralization of sense	51
3	SALES Translation X position J In TRANSLATIONS POETRY R. B ERNSA	53
Conclusion	71
REFERENCES	73

INTRODUCTION

This work is devoted to the study of translation products causing Variability s translation as the universalization of the Translation: the original is always one, and transfers can be really happens, especially in the case of texts a lot. Variability translation in this paper is considered as a manifestation of conscious and unconscious translation products.

This study is based on the hypothesis that the conscious or translation from are preset positions are one of the reasons for the emergence and existence of multiple translations texts, ie the variability of translation.

As used in the key concepts such as variation in translation, interpretation, translation position equivalence translation adequacy s translation.

Object of research are interpretive positions interpreter activities and resulting changes that occur in the translated text.

The subject of this study is the variability of the translation, which determines the position of translation.

The relevance of this study is due to the need to explain the reasons for the existence of different s translation of the same text in the host culture, and to establish criteria for comparing different translations. The notion of "translation position" allows received numerous lingo culturalogical into account the circumstances and avoid axiological categorical when evaluating translations.

Scientific novelty of this study we see that for the first time introduced the concept of "translational position" as a tool for explaining I Justification I variability translation as translation universals. This eliminates the interpretation of translation as a commitment to the ideal of "equivalence", when all transfers were seen as more or less close to the original. Because of this study was the first subject variability of translation, which is seen from the point of view clear and translational position. Study variability translation is performed not axiological point of view, but as a manifestation of variation in the activity of an interpreter positions due to various socio-cultural and interpretive circumstances.

And purposes of this study - identification and typology on the basis of activity-translation products, defining variability translation.

In connection with the target in the following tasks:

consider the notion of "equivalence s" as the foundation variant concept of linguistic theory of translation;
explore lingoculturalogical translation theory in explaining the reasons for the variability of translation;
describe the variability of translation as Interpreter universal;
determine the composition and nature of the most common positions in translation literary translation;
produce a gradation of basic translation products based on the orientation of translation convey extending or receiving culture;
verify the resulting typology for example translating s poetry R. Burns.

Translation should be evaluated in relation to the position at which the translator comes up to him. However, in the works of Russian and foreign scholars question of translation positions remains unexplored and the term "translational position" is not entered. Linguistic theory of translation uses the term "equivalence" and "value", which by their nature suggest that any translation is a more or less perfect approximation to the original. Such a position does not involve transfer of variability, considering it as just one of the ways to perfection. This position deserves attention and respect, but it is not possible to investigate all the real diversity of translation, which are made from different positions and are in various respects to the original and at each other.

Few researchers, among them B. Hohel and Popovich, isolated characteristics change text translation with respect to the original (exoticization, naturalization, adaptation, etc.), which we call translation positions. It should be noted that the term "translational position" allows in different aspects to consider translation as a way of implementing the guidelines interpreter.

By translation we understand your conscious or customer transfer from are preset setting translator to create a translated to a greater or lesser extent corresponding to the original.

Under variability understood parallel coexistence e e several translations of the same text, made with the perspective of different translation positions.

Plurality translation emerges as one of the factors of the host culture, in this respect, their conformity with the original and the original itself is not considered, as is customary in linguistic theory, as the sole determining factor, a greater interest in this aspect are the causes of discrepancies and translation of the original.

Although some scholars: B. Hohel [Hohel 1988] and Popovich [Popovic 1980] considered some changes in translation relative to the original (exoticization, naturalization, historicization, etc.), but they treated them as "local" changes unique to the specific texts, and not applicable to the translation of literary texts at all. We introduce the term "translational position" that occur when translating literary texts, which were subjected to repeated transfer.

We create our own typology of translation products, and its typological character is due to the fact that its foundation is laid the essential criterion for characterizing any translation: translation orientation to "embed" a culture of transfer or transmission of cultural characteristics of the original, that is, on the one hand orientation transmitting the culture or, on the other hand, the orientation of the original.

The study used the following methods: comparative, interpretative analysis of the text, as well as elements of stylistic analysis.

Material research are poetic texts Goethe, Robert Southey, A. On at na, Rudyard Kipling, T. Moore, DG Byron, Poe, D. Mallett (14 poems) novel C. Dickens 'David Copperfield' and their Russian translations made by various authors (20 orders). Verification of research results produced by the analysis of poems by R. Burns (117 poems) and 280 Russian translations.

The theoretical significance of the work associated with the introduction of the concept of "translational position," with the development of a typology of translation products, showing that the variability of translation is universal, not problematize in translation science. All this allows us to take a fresh look at the essential problems of literary translation and add significantly to the scientific understanding of them in lingvokulturologicheskom aspect.

The practical significance of this study is that its results can be used in lecture courses and special courses on translation theory, the theory of intercultural communication can be used in the practice of teaching translation, editing and translation criticism, in practical translation work.

1 CUT TRANSLATION PARADIGM HOW UPDATE PRIORITIES TRANSLATION ACTIVITIES

1. 1. "Literalism" and "liberty" as the main opposition translation.

Historically, the variability in the translation described by the opposition "literalism - freedom." These t endentsii translation succeeded each other, and the liberty of literalism or transfer is largely dependent on the genre of the original. There are genres in which can only be a literal translation: official documents, forms, correspondence, etc., otherwise the genre requirements are violated. P reimuschestvenno literally translated sacred texts, although there are cases of arbitrary interpretation of Scripture.

More translators of the ancient world were discussing the question of the degree of closeness to the original translation. In earlier versions of the Bible prevailed literal adherence to the original at. At the time it was thought that the translation must accurately transfer "original letter" and the translator must always follow the original, h is sometimes led to ambiguities of translation. Literalism early translations of the Bible stemmed, as the AV Fedorov, not so much of a conscious theoretical principle but of piety, of "awe" before the biblical texts [Fedorov, 1983: 25].

Later, some interpreters n reimuschestvenno secular texts tried to justify theoretically the right to greater freedom in relation to the original, do not need to play the character, and the meaning or even the overall impression of the original. Even in those early statements about what goals should be pursuing a translator, you can find the beginning of theoretical debates of our time on the admissibility of the literal or free translation [Semenets, Panas, 1989: 256]. At the time of formation of the Roman Empire Roman authors "copied" the Greek texts exposing them to significant changes and adapting them as they saw fit. However, later in the patristic era to the center of translation problems put forward the problem of "equivalence", as translated in the main religious texts [Venuti 2004: 14]. Meanwhile Cicero translated into Latin speech secular Greek authors as follows: "I have translated these texts not as a translator and as a writer, keeping ideas and forms, but in a language that can be understood by my readers (students). However, I did not translate every word, and kept the overall style of the game and the language "[cf. by Venuti 2004: 14].

St. Jerome (St. Jerome) - the most famous of all the translators, the "father of Translation", describes its strategy in the translation of the Old Testament into Latin from the Greek as follows: "in Greek I translate word for word, and conveys a sense of" [cf. by Munday 2001: 20], suggesting that in the sacred translation derogated from strict adherence to the "letter" of the original. St. Jerome believed that translate literally impossible and unacceptable as close adherence to the letter of the original leads to absurd translations distorting the meaning. If transfer, focusing on the transfer of meaning (sense-for-sense), then the content of the original will not be distorted on. However, St. Jerome, who talks about the transfer of meaning, just became the ancestor of equivalent translation.

E. Hang and D. Pollard use the concept of "literal» (word-for-word) and "semantic translation» (sense-for-sense) to describe the translation of the Chinese tradition in translating the texts from Sanskrit. During the so-called first phase (Han dynasty) made mostly of literal translations, just passed the syntax of the original. The main trend of the time was transliteration, as a result of transfers were completely incomprehensible to readers without a theological education. In the second phase dominated by a reverse trend: the tendency of a free translation - the original text "polished" the translator to make it more artistic. As a result of translation processing and the original greatly different from each other. In the third phase (Tang Dynasty), much attention was paid to the style of the original, and was used as a free and literal translation, depending on the type of text [Hung and Pollard 1997: 368].

Thus, "literalism" and "liberty" are formed in the practical translation work as a generalized manifestation of the basic translation products, these trends were not unique to the European, but also for the Eastern culture that allows us to treat this as a basic opposition Interpreter universals.

In West th culture literal questions and a free translation for 1,000 years after St. Jerome were inextricably linked to the translation of the Bible and other religious and philosophical texts. The Roman Catholic Church demanded transfer interpreter transfer "right": the church-sanctioned sense. Any translation deviates from the conventional "correct" interpretation, was considered heretical and censored or banned. Such transfers were considered crimes against the church [Munday 2001: 22].

Tendency to focus on the original was described as "accuracy" of translation («accura cy»), «loyalty» («faithfulness») or later - "equivalence". However, the concept of "loyalty" of translation has changed somewhat over time. In antiquity, the term "faithful translator» («fidus interpres») and meant to, by assumption A. Lefebvre, "fidelity" to the initiator of translation, ie pragmatic adaptation [Ibid: 23].

In the XV century. in Europe at the forefront trend adaptation or "domestication» («domestification») translation, ie assimilation yatsiya foreign text and the linguistic and cultural and values, and the host culture. Over the years, this trend is becoming more and more dominant smiling.

In the XVI century. It has become fashionable to translate secular texts, "improving" them "for the sake of the enlightened public." When this all cleaned or edited excerpts of the original, do not suit interpreter. For example, in the translations of Shakespeare into French were allowed not only a change of subject, composition, but also the names and locales, which became French [Galeeva 1997: 5]. At the same time the translator takes a position in the original adaptation of their culture, the criteria of "acceptability" ("acceptability" - G. Toury). However, there is also the opposite position of the translation associated with the desire to transmit and display translator national identity script, pass it to the "national spirit", to acquaint the reader with a different, his new cultural situation [Galeeva 1997: 5].

Only to the XVII century. "Fidelity" translation ceased to understand how each word is a literal translation of the original and was seen as the best possible transfer of the original meaning [ibid: 23]. In the XVII century. England made mostly of free translations of Greek and Latin classics. Translation method that prevailed in this era, was named the term "imitation» [Amos 1920/1973: 151]. The purpose of the interpreter is not to surpass the original author, but rather to convey the "spirit" of the original in translation (its energy and inspiration from the author). This approach to translation theory can be regarded as a prerequisite D. Dryden, who followed the English tradition of poetry and translation formulated the basic translation trends. D. Dryden considered himself a supporter of free translation, or so-called "paraphrase", the purpose of which is to transfer the meaning of the text.

D. Dryden identified three types of translation, leading to different results, which is why these types of translation can recognize translation positions:

Metafraz - literal or a literal translation;
Paraphrase - Translators should not the transfer of individual words, and the transfer of meaning. At the same time allows for different changes compared with the original, the main thing - the transfer of meaning (sense-for-sense), basic ideas, but the interpreter does not follow every word of the author;
Imitation - "translator forget about words, and about the meaning of" is, in fact, and is an adaptation. Translator takes from the original idea of the text only, sometimes not even transmits all the meanings of the original. Imitation - it is an attempt translator living in a later period, to write as would write on the same topic the author, who lived up to it, ie not translate literally and not to transfer all copyright sense, but to write as the author would have written if he was a contemporary of the translator.

In the future, many translators have tried to formulate the principles of translation is not yet scientifically and empirically based, among them E. Dole. Trying to define the requirements for translation and interpreter activity, E. Dole formulated the following principles of translation:

Translator must understand the meaning of the original, but the translator may also explain the fact that, in his opinion, would be incomprehensible to readers;
The translator must know perfectly the original language and the target language;
The translator must avoid a literal translation;
The translator should avoid unusual shapes;
The translator must possess eloquence, the translation should be natural [Dolet 1540/1997: 14].

With requirements for translation, developed E. Dole echo "transfer rules" put forward by A. Tytler at the end of the XVIII century. [Tytler 1797: 15]:

The translator must fully convey the meaning and original ideas;
The style and manner of writing in translation must match the style of the original;
The translator should be as natural and easy to read as the author of the original.

A. Tytler believed that "a good translation for readers produces equivalent communicative effect, by which to overcome the differences between languages and cultures" [ibid: 16]. Agreeing with J. Dryden, A. Tytler recommends that translators use "paraphrase", since this translation simulates ideas and styles of foreign language text, but the text does not appear explicitly translated.

It should be noted that in XVIII. the main trend in the translation was the transfer of the "spirit" of the original - a term perceived by St. Jerome, who knew them under Mr. sacredness. Alno D interpretations have been deprived of this information and become a simple metaphor. In the XIX century. attention has focused on the discussion of transferability [Munday 2001: 27]. F. Schleiermacher believed that the translator should translate into German is not so, as the author would have written if German was his mother tongue, and so that the reader after reading the translation appeared the same impression as the German reader from reading the original on native language [Schleiermacher 1813/1992: 42]. F. Schleiermacher believed translation process improvement and improvement of the host culture and language and even the method of forming the first: if the translation from German sounds like a German text, ie culture enriched by "foreign". To achieve this result, the translator must focus primarily on the original language and the content of the original text. The more accurate the translator conveys speed and norms of the source language, the more "foreign" the text will appear to the reader. F. Schleiermacher proposed the idea of " inostranizatsii »(foreignising) text translation. In this reader translation closest to the original reader. The reader W German translation should feel that it reads exactly translate from German th and not from any other language. Sometimes a foreign language translated not only texts, but the whole literature of transmitting culture genres can be borrowed, but this is possible only if the readers are "tuned" to the perception of foreign text, and if the culture there is a need for translated literature [Ibid: 43] . However, in the same era (XIX c.) In Britain believed that translation can never surpass not only original, but also "to reach a height of the original", so it is always preferable to read the original work, and not in translation [Bassnett 1991: 69 -70].

Many Russian scientists and writers also addressed the issue of sexual and letters free translation (VA Zhukovsky, PA Vyazemskij, AA Fet, Karamzin). The problem of literal and free translation viewed from antiquity to the present day and is still relevant and interesting (AV Fedorov, Schweitzer AD), although it needs to be clarified, since fl and the opposition have never met in a pure e ed form, but functions as a trend.

All major Russian writers of the XVIII century. in varying degrees, have been associated with translations. B Moreover, as a rule, translation began their literary activity, as translated text's authoritative source of authoritative culture easier logged into the host culture than his own. Translation in this situation becomes a way of creating a literary name.

While formed Russian literature, and it was formed, including through contributions through borrowing plots tekstopostroeniya ways, sometimes entire genres. Therefore, writers often started its activities with the translation and tried to justify theoretically the greater freedom interpreter. These viewpoints can be attributed to "pre-theoretical period" as translation theory as such at the moment has not yet emerged [Russian writers ..., 1960: 242]. These are the writers and poets like VK Trediakovskii, MV Lomonosov, AD Cantemir, AP Sumarokov VV Kapnist, GR Derzhavin AN Radischev, DI Fonvisin, NM Karamzin, VA Zhukovsky. VK Trediakovskii wrote that "the translator of the creator name differs only", that is equivalent to an interpreter as the original writer. The implication here is not the desire to achieve creative consonance with the author of the script, and the desire to compete with him, beat him, to do better than he did, to make the text interesting own culture, which is characteristic of the time translations. According to VK Trediakovsky, while translating the principle: "If the creator was convoluted, the translator should be convoluted" [Trediakovskii 1849: 493], thereby recognized the unacceptability of literal translation and is given by one of the leading translation positions the nineteenth century. - Adaptation onnaya translation position. Pushkin wrote about the inadmissibility of literal translation examples poetry translation into French of Milton: "There is no doubt that trying to convey in words Milton word Chateaubriand could not keep in his translation of the meaning of fidelity and expression. The literal translation can never be true. Each language has its own pace, in their own way conveys a sense, has its rhetorical figures, which can not be translated into another language literally "[Pushkin 1937-1959: 144]. AS Pushkin thought expressed by the author of the original should be perevyrazheno translator [Russian writers ..., 1960: 242].

I. Vvedenskii, translated works of Charles Dickens and William Thackeray, allowed very free treatment of the original text: up to make it as much as inserts "from themselves" Russification details of everyday life (what we later called adaptive your translation ). I. Vvedenskii deliberately tried to be intricate original authors - Ch Dickens and Thackeray W. [Fedorov 1983: 98]. And it's probably not a coincidence and not a lack of the translation, and a manifestation of conscious translation position, which finds its place in a number of translations.

NV Gogol sometimes offered to move away from the words of the script in order to be closer to his spirit. AK Tolstoy believed that one should not translate words, and sometimes even make sense, and most importantly convey the "impression" that is difficult to determine. Transfers while usually precede the preface, which explained his translator Interpreter position because each translator pursued a definite purpose, which could rarely be described in terms of equivalence [ibid: 245]. Position of the authors and interpreters in an environment where culture was sectarian in nature, literate people were few, and the reading audience is usually made available the original and translation, was the fact that on the basis of the original to create their own "experience." Accuracy of the translation to the original (ie, the equivalence of the original and translation) was not considered as a precondition that the transfer is successfully logs into the host culture, the translation was considered initially as a Variation activities. We can assume that at the time there was just the greatest variety of options as a result of various translation, express translation products associated primarily with improving trends in translation.

However, the opposition "literal - free "is not always productive, as it does not cover the entire space of translational activity, largely determined by cultural factors and traditionally limited discussion actually t ranslation, ie Values literalism and liberties, and ultimately transfer as replacement text in one language text in another language. Everything else here is called "extra-linguistic factors", without considering that these factors and determine the nature of translation [Galeeva 2004: 22].

Currently, the ratio of the translation inevitably changed since the dissemination of culture texts went beyond the narrow circles of educated people and become widespread. On the other hand, due to the expansion of cultural contacts and fewer people reading original texts, translations will inevitably began to perform in the culture of the original function, as a substitute for the original, and not parallel to it in the text of the host culture. Accordingly, the requirement of equivalence or adequacy became a staple of the theory of translation.

Opposition "literal - free" opposition "semantic - communicative" introduced P. Newmark, characterized in that it clarifies the nature of the position: a translation in this case is not simply just a formal, ie clearly following the "letter" of the original, and semantic, ie transmitting meaning and focused on outbound / transmitting culture, on the one hand; translation and performing in the host culture specific function required of the host culture, on the other hand. orientation when translated to transmit culture, on the one hand, and on the receiving culture, on the other hand, coincides with two trends that underpin lingvokulturologicheskij translation theory, as well as the typology of translation products described in the second chapter of our work.

Another opposition, embracing the diversity of translation products is introduced A. Lefebvre opposition «translatio / traductio» [Lefevere 1998: 5].

Extremes of variation, multiple transfers of the same text, made with different translation positions are "Broadcast» (translatio) elements like a faithful reproduction of the original text, the embodiment of the ideal of "faithful translation" and "traduktsiya» (traductio), ie the maximum free reproduction of the original text, amounting to malouznavaemogo hidden borrowing cultural shift [Pavlov 2005: 176].

"Broadcast» (translatio), correlated with a literal translation, prevailed in the transmission of sacred texts, and perhaps it is this, and what is needed to get the exact equivalent of the original text, replacing him in the host culture, explains the widespread translation of this principle in intercultural interaction. On respect for the principle insists domestic linguistic theory of translation [ibid: 177]. Broadcast (translatio) regulates the linguistic components of the translation process, not too oblivious to other significant aspects of translation. A. Lefebvre, who coined the term, noted that translatio impossible in principle, since the exchange of signifiers in the intellectual vacuum, ignoring the cultural, ideological and poetic content is doomed to failure [Lefevere 1998: 7]. This seems to be some limitations of formal literal approach to translation, which has long stuck in lingvistichekoy translation theory.

When translating literature until the twentieth century. was spread throughout traduktsiya (traductio), ie cultural shift that due to the relatively small number of languages in circulation, lack of copyright m, a relatively small number of consumers of translation, which are also largely owned by foreign languages. A. Lefebvre believed traduktsiyu (traductio) main culture-Translation phenomenon. Traduktsiya attaches equal importance to both linguistic and cultural-ideological component of the translation, which comes to the fore in a meaningful lyrics culture. The question of how to translate, due to the fact the language of culture which the transfer is and how this culture is authoritative for the host culture. Traduktsiya due to various kinds of deviations of the original text to create your own culture without reference to the authority of the previous crop, declaring all these texts their [Galeev, 2006: 135].

The term "traduktsiya» (traductio) broader than the term "free translation" because it includes within its scope are, in essence, the phenomenon of translation as borrowing genre and its individual elements, a shift in culture tekstopostroeniya methods, motives, archetypes, values and other cultural phenomena. Therefore, the opposition «translatio / traductio» seems close, but more preferred and capacious than "literal / free" translation. This allows the opposition to consider the whole set of translation products, which are located in the space specified by it, and causes variability of translation as a multiplicity of different translations of the same text.

In A. Lefebvre talking primarily about cultural conditioning and translatio traductio: Variability translation reduced to three Lefer A. Translation of model: Model Jerome, model and model Horace F. Schleiermacher (Lefevere, 1998). A. Lefebvre notes that the modern notion of equivalence, consider the equivalent mainly from a linguistic point of view and is not expected variability can be reduced to the principles of translation Jerome (331-420 AD), the chief of which is that "there is a text, and this text you want to move in a different language as accurately as possible. " This model arose from the translation of the Bible (as the central cultural text) that needs to be translated very precisely, and Ranney sama m m ideal ohm precision was word for word translation, in which a word is replaced by another and the translated word is written directly by the word of the original, t . e actually created a pony. Translation of this model will inevitably be reduced solely to the linguistic level [Galeev, 2006: 136]. But Jerome himself, whose name is called this model in his letters discussed what is called in modern translation theory semantic translation , namely, transmission of the "spirit" (divine inspiration) Bible. What different content called by one name "spirit", made some uncertainty in the discussion of translation: desakralizovanny "spirit" became uncertain and unproductive metaphor, which, nevertheless, used by many writers on translation.

Another translation model released A. Lefebvre, is the model of Horace (65 BC-8 BC), pragmatic in nature. These include inaccurate translation, taking into account the wishes of the customer (originator of). Pragmatic model assumes orientation when translated into the recipient host culture and adapting the text in relation to the requirements of the initiator / client transfer. Historically model Horace preceded Jerome model, but she was in her shade as much as fourteen centuries, since it was mainly in her interpretation of the situation, and it was not an authoritative sacred text. Frequently cited statement of Horace "faithful interpreters» (fidus interpres), but it should be clarified that the interpreter was not faithful to the text and its customers or initiators of translation. Model Horace associated primarily with the pragmatic aspects of translation, with specific settings and tasks that put the translators [Lefevere, Bassnett 1998: 3].

The third model in the concept of translation A. Lefebvre called hermeneutic model translation F. Schleiermacher (Lefevere, 1998). F. Schleiermacher pays great attention to the orientation of the translation to the original culture. He believes that the translations from different languages to be different and wear characteristics of the original culture, it enriches the host culture. F. Schleiermacher argues that translations from different languages into German and sound should be read in different ways: the reader should see the Spaniard in Spanish and Greek in Greek. If all translations read and sound the same (as it was with Victorian translations of classics), lost the identity of the original, blurred in translation. Model F. Schleiermacher notes the need for "inostranizatsii» (foreignising) translation. At the same time denied the privileged position of the host language and culture and affirms the need to preserve "otherness" of the original text [Galeev, 2006: 137]. In our study, this correlates with a number of translation products, namely, from a position she exoticization, ie pass the elements typical for transmitting culture and unknown, unusual in the host culture. REMARK with even this "German translation will be perceived in the host ku lture as translated from the German," as well as her istoriziruyusch Translation th position it - text sounds " now "as" then "made a deliberate archaism old texts.

In this model, covers the development of strategies by which the text of one culture could penetrate the "text" and "conceptual lattice» (textual and conceptual grids) another culture and operate in this culture. The most obvious form of relationship between text and conceptual grids - this analogy, which leads to a blurring of the differences between cultures and the texts they produce. Analogy - a simple way of relations between cultures, as it adapts to the original culture of the host culture, whose prestige is perceived as superior.

A. Lefebvre offers a multidimensional approach to translation, which in itself explains the diversity of translations of the text in the culture and the fact that these translations are often absolutely different with respect to each other and to the original text: first, the text can be translated with different positions, i.e. in the host culture can arise equally from uschestvovat practically limited translations of the same text; Secondly, if we are talking about the adequacy, it is likely to be determined by not only the linguistic circumstances, and adequacy of translation solutions [ibid: 138].

Thus, under lingvokulturologicheskij translation theory, which is opposed to the linguistic theory of translation, it is assumed and expected explained the possibility of the existence and equitable in the host culture of several translations of the original text by different interpretations of the translators of the original text. On the one hand, and may be explained by the variation in translation - as the availability and functioning of almost equal in the host culture of the various translation options, which may differ significantly from both the original and from each other, and on the other hand, may be explained and positionality as a manifestation of conscious translator otreflektirovannoy and translation position and the translation from the point of view of this position.

1.2 "Adequacy" and "equivalence" in the linguistic theory of translation.

1.2. 1. Terms "value" and "equivalence".

The fact is the possibility of translation activity of many different translations. One reason for this is that each translator not only understands his own text, but also takes a position and, from this position, translates the text. Variability translation is often a consequence of an express position that the translator takes in activity.

Since the presence of any translational position ay be defined relative to some basis for comparison , it is necessary to introduce such a foundation. In linguistic theory of translation, which occupies a leading position in the domestic tradition of translation, as a basis for comparison and evaluation of the original texts and their translations favor the concept of "equivalence", which in itself does not suggest variability. H By contrast, postulates the existence of a single optimal and equivalent text translation, and all translations of the text are considered in terms of more or less closer to the ideal. The fact that the translations of the same text can be and very often fundamentally different E is ignored and is not included in this paradigm, so many centuries of translation activities simply fall out of the theory. In our study, the idea of "equivalence" or "literal" translation corresponds with your exoticization and orientation and transfer to the transmit culture. The idea of "equivalence" for many years, dominates the domestic theory of translation. However, in most cases, the transfer of "equivalence" and exists as elusive ideal for translators, which aspire to. In the host culture coexist and operate the translations of the same original text, made from the perspective of different translation products that are the object of study in this paper.

After centuries of debate about what the literal translation is better or free, in the twentieth century. perevodovedy more clearly tried to systematize the issues of translation and appealed to linguistic issues [Munday 2001: 35].

Rea dy for one of the major challenges of modern times was the question of equivalence as a measure of assessing the proximity to the original translation. 1960, 1970 g g. marked the heyday of linguistic theories. At that time there equivalence theory, a hundred Bill and e normative principles that guided E translators for many years.

In 1959 Jakobson began to consider questions of value equivalence of words in different languages. He noted that between words in different languages can not exist complete equivalence [Jakobson 2000: 114]. Jakobson believed that translation involves the replacement in another language is not of individual words and entire messages. As a result, we should obtain two equivalent messages in different languages. However, their elements different in different languages, as they belong to two different sign systems (languages), which are variously reflect reality. Equivalence problem of word meanings in different languages based on differences in the structure and terminology of different languages, and not on the inability of language to convey a message written in another language. Thus, Jakobson laid the foundations of linguistic theory and the second equivalence in translation.

Interlanguage (linguistic) equivalence - basic and rather complex concept of the theory of translation. When comparing texts in different languages invariably raises the question of equivalence and translation [Leonardi 2000: http://accurapid.com .: 2000]. At the moment, especially in the domestic translation theory widely held view that it is the degree of equivalence of the two texts - in the original language and the language transforms - an indicator of the success of the translation [Vasin 2000: http://accurapid.com .: 2000] while the question of the variety or translation position arises. From this position with The path of the translation process is to find and transfer the closest equivalent of the source language into the target language [Pym 1992: 38].

In the science of translation at the moment is not clear to the understanding of equivalence. Some, mainly foreign linguists hold extremely negative views on equivalence (A. Chesterman, G. Toury), and called equivalence empty concept, explaining that many perevodovedy determined by translation equivalence and the equivalence through translation, so you can do without this notion, and instead explore a set of relations that exist between the initial test and the translation [Chesterman 1997: 10].

According to G. Turi, the notion of equivalence is not significant for the theory and practice of translation [Toury 1995: 86]. It only needs to make a general notion of translation. Given the fact that linguistically equivalent translation can not always be considered a success in terms of conveying meaning, it is difficult not to agree with this statement. A. Lefebvre believes that full equivalence does not exist and all they can count on interpreters and readers, this kind of "optimal approximate equivalence» [Lefevere 1980: 30]. It should be noted that, given the differences between the languages, with this statement is hard to disagree.

In general, the equivalent is called "unit of speech, with the matching function with others, the ability to perform the same function as the other unit of speech" [Akhmanova 1966: 132], although this structural unit is not defined, and unproductive debate about the translation unit is still underway in domestic theory of translation. In the most general case, you can cheat amb that "elements of the two languages that are functionally relevant to each other within a given context, act as equivalents used in translation" - this is the approach to functional equivalence [Gak, Lwin 1980: 234]. Thus, the "equivalence" - it ootnoshenie equivalence between primary and secondary texts or individual segments.

A number of scientists believe that p onyatie adequate translation is broader than the concept of equivalence in translation [Mikhailov, 1990: 125]. " Equivalence "category more specific and narrow, generally means close enough match those two KSTOVO [Chesnokov 2003: 109]. M. Mikhailov allocated adequate translation as an intermediary between the literal and free translation [MI Mikhailov 1990: 126]. According to TA Kazakova, fully equivalent translation is impossible, since different languages differ in grammatical structure, word count, not to mention the cultural differences, which also affects the method and result of the conversion [Kazakov 2002: 153].

"Equivalence" as axiological characteristic transfer while presented as something perfect, then why should strive translator, but can not always achieve this. "Equivalence" itself suggests movement in only one direction - to the ideal, "to how it should be", and does not take into account the fact that the translations can be fundamentally different from the original phenomenon and otreflektirovannoy your interpreter and associated with this position of s changes in the translation. In this huge translation heritage almost until the twentieth century. linguistic paradigm remains outside evaluation as translators while not sought nor equivalence or adequacy.

Based on the foregoing, A. Pym considers the category of "perfect equivalence" and "less than ideal equivalence" with the help of quantitative relations (=,>, <, #, ~). In this case there are p Various types of equivalence: "absolute equivalence" - TT = V, "the relative strong equivalence" - TT ~ Y, weak relative equivalence "- TT ~ Y," conflicting equivalence "- CT1 ~ Y ~ Y CT2, but CT1 CT2 #) [Pym 1992: 70].

AV Fedorov advises the issue of distinguishing the concepts of "adequacy" and "equivalence" to abandon the foreign-language terms, and offers the following terms: The term "value" means "match", "respectively," "proportionality". However, this term can be replaced by a lengthy and Russian term "usefulness", which applied to the translation means:

Compliant with the script for the function (the usefulness of transfer)
pravdannost of choice of means in translation.

"Usefulness" translation means exhaustive transfer semantic content of the original and full functional stylistic conformity him [Fedorov 1983: 125-127]. However, this term is not stuck in a modern translation studies and more common and are developed by the terms "value" and "equivalence".

AD Schweitzer also recognize the concept of "value" and "equivalence". He relates these two concepts based on the dichotomy of translation as text and translation as a process. Both categories are evaluative-normative. " equivalence "results-oriented translation, correspondence generated as a result of metalinguistic communication text definiteness original parameters. " And dekvatnost ", in turn, is connected with the flow conditions interlingual communicative act, with a choice of translation strategy that meets the communicative situation. Thus, if " equivalence "answers the question as to whether the final text of the original text, the" value "answers the question as to whether the process of data transfer communicative conditions [Schweitzer, 1988: 95]. AD Schweitzer summarized all the above differences of these concepts in the form of a table:

Category	Character category	Object category	Content category
Equivalence	Regulatory evaluation	Translation as a result	Value for texts
Adequacy	Regulatory evaluation	Translation as a process	Match communicative situation

Thus, most scholars believe the concept of "equivalence" and the concept of "value" close enough, while most agree that the concept of "value" is more general and broad, and the notion of "equivalence" more specific and narrow.

1.2. 2. "Formal equivalence" and linguistic theory of equivalence.

Qualitatively new step in the development of the concept of "equivalence" is considered the introduction of Eugene th th Neid (Nida, 19, 64) The concept of th " dynamic equivalence "and" functional equivalence . " Introducing the concept of " dynamic equivalence "was due to the fact that the formal equivalence, accuracy, literalism is not always provide high quality translations, especially literary translation of the text. Theory Yu Naida based on his practical work on translating the Bible into various exotic languages. The main idea in theory Yu found - the transition to a functional definition of words I value (unlike conventional while the allegation that the word has a fixed value). With Lovo acquires meaning only in context and can cause different reactions from readers, depending on which culture they belong [Nida 1964: 107], which is consistent with the structuralist ideas, under whose influence was always Yu found. Yu Naida replaced traditional notions of "literal / free" transfer to the concept of "formal equivalence" and "functional equivalence." " formal equivalence " is focused on the structure of the original language, which determines the accuracy of the translation. The message is in the target language should match as closely as possible the different elements of the message in the original language [ibid: 159]. "Functional equivalence" implies the possibility of variability, because in order to transfer to the host culture performs the same function as in the original culture, often require significant restructuring and processing text, change many of its components. However, this does not involve any new positions translator, excellent second position of the author of the original text. If changes are compared with the original text, they are made to the text, it became clear the host culture media. In this regard, the translator is definitely focused on the host culture and the host culture on the reader.

In the author's concept of talking about the coincidence imple tion to the recipient of the source text, one language support with the reaction of the recipient of the translated text, speakers of other languages or a similar communicative effect. Really talk about such coincidences in contact cultures far removed virtually impossible. This is possible only in conditions of close contact of cultures, speaking related languages. Thus, the concept of dynamic equivalence, in fact, is its actual negation: equivalence "dynamically" shifted to the side, is its absence.

The notion of equivalence is considered from different points of view: from the linguistic, cultural, etc. lingvokulturologicheskij Introduction Yu found the concept of "formal equivalence" actually marked the rapid development of linguistic theory of equivalence, which prevailed in the domestic theory of translation. P onyatie "dynamic equivalence", on the other hand, provided a basis for theories lingvokulturologicheskih equivalence.

It should be noted that the concept of Yu Naida correlated and complementary to the concept of equivalence MA K. Hellideya. Through the notion of equivalence he defines translation as text and translation are the two mutually equivalent text in different languages. "Translation - a relationship between two or more texts that play the same role in the same situation" [Halliday 1978: 44]. MAK Halliday believes that equivalence is a contextual concept that is not associated with the use of some grammatical or lexical Sgiach phenomena, so it can not be measured. In view of this, it is impossible to accurately determine the threshold of equivalence and give a strict definition of this concept [Halliday 1966: 125].

This conclusion can be considered fair, this is what suggests variability translation. However, later in the national linguistic translation theory was an attempt to determine the extent of equivalence and give its definition from a linguistic point of view. D THIS concept considered VN Komissarov, Popovich, AD Schweitzer, VS Vinogradov, R.-Beloruchev Mignard, I. Left and O. Kade.

The early ideas Yu Naida the functional equivalence was close O. Kade German linguist, who in search of equivalence criterion focuses on assessing the impact of the translated text in a particular communicative situation. However, in his early works he considered equivalent from a purely linguistic point of view, and mostly considered formal correspondence texts to each other [Kade 1979: 57].

In general, O. Kade notes that the lack of absolute identity between the two texts in different languages is not the only obstacle to understanding, especially that one and the same text can exert different effects on different recipients. The intention of the sender is never completely identical to the recipient and the effects of impacts on different recipients can never be identical [Kade 1978: 72].

The notion of "equivalence" in theory VN Komissarov and considered from a linguistic point of view, with virtually no etsya takes into account cultural factors. In addition, the data being transmitted, according to VN Komissarov, WMO DIT only the content - that is only part of the meaningfulness of the text. H e is taken into account the diversity of goals that may be put before a translator ignored the functional adequacy of the text. hile X stated equality of contents, and dekvatnost translation in this theory is assessed by formal rather than substantive grounds, as they are obvious and manifest in the text, while while the content of elusive. Highest quality while delivering one translation, which has the highest affinity - the proximity of morphemes, which is absolutely unacceptable and often even more absurd in many kinds of translation. Thus, this theory is rather speculative and not to judge the activity interpreter.

VS Vinogradov also examines the notion of "equivalence" from a linguistic point of view, and in connection with the translation of th. Given the equivalence of the original translation VS Vinogradov identifies six models of translation: Situational th (th denotational) model, semantic model th, th transformational model, th communicative model infor th model, language correspondence [Vinogradov 2001: 25-29]. However, in these models is considered purely a translation from a linguistic point of view, that does not imply and does not account for substantial variability s translation.

Also in line with the linguistic approach to equivalence worked R. Mignard-Beloruchev. He believed that "is equivalent translation" is impossible, and therefore developed the concept of "unit malfunctioning." In terms of mistakes, as suggested by P. Mignard-Beloruchev can express quantitative information loss in translation. As such units only he understood the level of components [Mignard Beloruchev-1980: 23]. Of course, when assessing proposed by P. Mignard-Belorucheva criterion of "mistakes" any translation position is automatically displayed beyond adequacy, and such transfer can not be considered adequate or equivalent, although its substantive quality will be high.

Somewhat different, more tekstoorientirovanny approach observed in theory A. Popovich. He believes that the equivalence in a general sense should be considered at the language level, so the equivalence should look at the structure of the text, ie in style. According to A. Popovich, only at this level product passes from one language to another as a uniform education. At the same time transfer can never be an exact copy of the original. When the translator starts to work with the original text, it must first understand the original interpretation, and then translate. Specificity translation by A. Popovich, lies in the unity of the theme and language. Thus, Popovich proposes to consider a text equivalent, primarily as a stylistic STI [Popovic 1980: 84].

In the theory of equivalence established Popovich, linguistic and stylistic considered factors (which was not included in other theories), but does not take into account cultural factors, although it is in our opinion, is of great importance in the translation and plays a crucial role in the equivalence translation and original, as well as issues of variability translation. Text translation, equivalent to the original language (phonetic, morphological, lexical-semantic, syntactic) level is often unclear to the reader receiving culture because of the large difference in the system of concepts, the reader may be incomprehensible to those or other realities, etc. , So that you may need to "re-writing" of the text, and can appear and coexist in parallel several translations of the same text.

In order to simplify may be to achieve a positive result of linguistic. Simplification, neutralization and explication yayut combined under the umbrella term "standardization". "Standardization" is read from the norm in translation to / from major European languages [Ulrich, 1999, April 3]. This is seen as a prerequisite for the presence of positional variation: No translation is reduced to only one possible option, since along with the explicit transfer, neeksplitsitny possible and easy transfer.

Summarizing all the above, it should be noted that in the foreign and domestic translation studies there are many theories of equivalence, but there is no single and its exact definition, measurement criteria are not selected measures of equivalence. Within each equivalence approach is considered from different points of view, some theories little correlation with each other, but some of them complement each other. W ith their synthesis e can try to build a more complete definition of equivalence.

The complete equivalence, encompassing both semantic and pragmatic level, as well as all relevant types of functional equivalence is an ideal construct, while all researchers claim to objectivity and consistency of their results [Olomskaya, Patukova 2002: http://depfolang . kubsu.ru.]. The fact that various different languages share semantic space theoretically even eliminates the possibility that multiple elements may be equivalent to [Pym 1992: 40]. The very notion of equivalence contradicts the nature of language as a system, because if the same system two elements are equivalent, one of them is doomed to extinction [Vendryes 1968: 381]. Equivalence - is not a natural relationship between the systems of the two languages, ie equivalence - is an artificial concept, but need equivalence as a criterion for the correctness, translation efficiency [Pym 1992: 49]. When the question arises, how many kinds of equivalence exists, and what kind of species, many supporters of the linguistic theory of equivalence are at an impasse in the first place because of the complexity of the term [Snel Trampus 2002: 48]. Perhaps linguistic equivalence theory into account not all the factors that affect the process of translation.

Linguistic theory of equivalence, the foundations of which were laid Yu found, focusing on the "formal equivalence and oh," ignores the dynamic component of the theory of Yu found. Due to this, the concept of "equivalence" in the framework of the linguistic theory of translation becomes too rigid and somewhat one-sided, not taken into account cultural factors, and is possible only a single translation closest "to the ideal." P oetomu beyond linguistic theory of equivalence is set translation options, which in terms of formal equivalence could not bring s smiling "to the ideal."

It should be noted that as the basis for judgments of equivalence in linguistic theory of translation was always understood the original, and this attitude towards it in this paradigm is quite natural. However, the relationship to the original as "sacred" text pledged translated sacred texts is not always there, especially in the secular translation. Attitude to the original as a base incentive for interpretive activities based on it was spread widely and at least provided a basis for a large variation in the content transfer.

1. 3 "Adequacy" and "equivalence" in lingvoculture theories of translation.

Questions and equivalence ktualny mainly for European translation theory, working with the Indo European languages. When translated into Asian languages, all these concepts do not work, because the culture is organized fundamentally different, and for the transfer culture understands what he wants to see and take [Lefevere 1998: 23].

The concept of "equivalence" and "value" are considered in the European tradition, not only in linguistic theories, since historically it is the most relevant to the concept of translation theory, they are currently under discussion in the broader context, taking into account not only linguistic, but also many other factors.

In this perspective, performed Started researchers such as A. Neubert, Yu Naida, MA K. Halliday, S. Ross, G. Jaeger, J. Catford, J. House, G. Turi, and A. Lefebvre.

Lingvokulturologicheskij translation theory takes into account not only the language, but also cultural factors that have a significant impact on the translation. Itself account of these factors allows interchange of a broader approach to equivalence, in which the possibility of different measure of variability translation.

And Story concept of "equivalence" began with Yu activity was found, but first developed linguistic aspect of the term associated with the formal equivalence. That equivalence, understood from this perspective, does not explain all of manifolds I translation of the long history of translation, let researchers pay attention to the dynamic component of the theory of Yu found. Translation, understood dynamically, and dynamic equivalence suggest the variability and establishing criteria and dynamic equivalence for each translation in connection with the dynamic conditions under which this translation was created.

Introducing the concept of dynamic equivalence is obviously connected with the fact that in real activity Translation sacred texts for rare languages Yu Naida faced with situations where formal equivalence translation does not lead to the desired communicative effect. Formal equivalence, as defined by Yu Naida, "focused on orig Inal," where the aim is to allow direct comparison of multilingual texts. When formal equivalence is mandatory to save a part of speech in translation, lack of articulation or rearrangement of the original proposal, the preservation of punctuation, splitting into paragraphs, and the application of the principle of concordance (ie translate a specific word is always the same correspondence). In addition, all idioms kalkiruyutsya, any deviation from the original letters are explained in the footnotes, etc. In this case we are talking about the literal word for word translation, which is applicable for a number of translation purposes.

Dynamic equivalence, in turn, "is focused on the reaction of the receptor" and seeks to ensure equality impact on the reader and the translation of the original. Thus there is an adaptation of vocabulary and grammar to translate sounded "as the author would have written in another language." Translation, which aims to create a dynamic equivalence is based on the principle of "equivalent effect". Translation on the principle of dynamic equivalence aims at complete naturalness means of expression, and the recipient is invited to a mode of behavior, the relevant context of his own culture [Nida 1978: 119].

Translation between the two poles (between strict formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence full) there are a number of intermediate types, representing different kinds of literary translation [ibid: 12 0]. And the same time the idea and allows for the possibility of variant solutions, depending on the chosen translation positions and explains the emergence of several different translations of the same text.

Inadmissibility literal translation Yu Naida proves using the concept of "information load." He believed that the literal translation of the first message egruzhaet information with a high degree of th th neo distributions, unusual forms, making it difficult to decode. To achieve its objective the translator must constantly focus on the reaction of the recipient, although it is worth noting that this is not always the reaction can be predefined.

It is assumed that the necessary impact on the translation of the recipient can be achieved only under the condition that the translation will not be alien to their cultural and ethnic facts or based on these facts associations. That is, the principle of dynamic equivalence supplemented by the requirement to transfer a significant adaptation of the host culture. However, this requirement seems to us too hard, and in this case, the translation is not sposobstvovat s enrichment culture translation when "foreign" is taken as "own", although this position is quite common translation in translation activities, and such transfers are often found in fiction.

Obviously, the formal equivalent translation may not be natural, and the greatest affinity is defined in the concept Yu found, first of all, equality recipients reaction that is possible only when dynamic equivalence [Nida 1978: 119]. Apparently have the term "formal equivalence" means that a certain kind of equivalence unnaturalness, and even some inferiority when compared with dynamic equivalence. However, the dynamic equivalence of the author of this concept is understood in a very broad sense, and its criteria are not well defined.

The concepts of "formal" and "dynamic" equivalence actually correspond orient ation and the outcome ing and receiving culture, adhered by th perevodovedov majority, which in itself is already a Translation positioning. In fact, it is not about choosing which position is preferable as the only possible translation for this text "either / or" and the possibility of coexistence of the position of "both / and", and hence the origin and parallel coexistence of the host culture several different translations, performed with different translation positions.

Most clearly expressed in this orientation is often repeated thesis: traditional question - "true if the translation?" - Needs to be clarified - "for whom?" [Nida 1978: 129]. However, it is not clear that Yu Naida understands the "receptor-oriented." T his is a position on a very broad and vague, as the audience translation heterogeneous.

Permission Yu found the concept of "dynamic equivalence" e metaphorical in nature and representing an alternative e "formal equivalence" meant, in fact, the rejection of the principle of linguistic equivalence as such, and the transition to other lingvokulturologicheskie position where the so-called "extralinguistic factor "and it turned out to be decisive in this case was about oppositions Culture 1 - 2 Culture, audience 1 - 2 audience." dynamic equivalence "that take into account all factors dichotomous, in fact, constitute a waiver of linguistic equivalence as such, understood as equality of one text to another as the replacement of one text to others. "Dynamic equality" texts - the essence of their inequality, because the speaker itself does not establish clear criteria for comparison [Galeeva 2005: 17]. The transfer of the rules of the original language is minimized, the host culture reader does not feel that it is a translation [Nida 1964: 166].

Introduction Yu I found the concept of "dynamic equivalence" theory of translation in marked orientation to the reader, or the orientation of the receiving culture in translation. However, achieving an equivalent effect often seems impossible, then it is very difficult to measure and describe, especially if the rules of the original language and the target language are very different from each other [Lefevere 1992: 6-7].

P. Newmark denies approach Yu found, based on the orientation of the host culture to readers. He emphasizes that too large differences between the language and culture of the original and translation language and culture will always be a difficulty in translating [Newmark 1981: 38]. To overcome these differences, P. Newmark proposes to replace the traditional terms "literal / free translation" on the terms "semantic" and "communicative translation". Communicative translation is that the translator tries to make the reader a translation of the same effect as the original author to the reader. Semantic translation is that the translator tries to pass as close as possible the semantic and syntactic structure of the original language, as well as contextual meaning of the original. It should be noted that the notion of "communicative translation" is similar to the concept of "dynamic equivalence" Yu found, and the notion of "semantic translation" with the term "formal equivalence." However, P. Newmark believes that in most cases it is impossible to achieve an equivalent effect and criticizes the concept of "dynamic equivalence", because he believes that in this case the reader "all presented on a silver platter and everything is explained in detail" [ibid: 40].

In fact, the history of translation theory can be represented as the changing relations following two categories: "equivalence" and "function fessional." However, it should be noted that they may co-exist as equal possibilities, depending on various factors, not mutually exclusive. "equivalence" is understood as "accuracy", "value", "correct", "correspondence", "identity" or "fidelity to the original." "The function of fessional" - the potential to produce a translated text different effects (social, cultural, etc.), as well as contribute to the development of language and culture [Venuti 2000: 5]. The notion of "function fessional" wide enough, it shows how the translated text associated with the host language and culture, it is here overcome the narrowness and rigidity of the linguistic approach. In the 1960s and 1970s, the possibility of different versions of the translation has been limited by the requirements of linguistic equivalence, and functionalism was seen as the solution to exit the theoretical impasse, since it was impossible to describe the equivalence relation for each type of text and translation of each situation, and 1980s and 1990s, the dominance of functionalism, the concept of "equivalence" has been revised, and it included those factors that were previously considered deviations of the original text [Ibid: 6].

Subsequently, the concept of "equivalence" was considered not only linguistic, but also cultural, and pragmatic point of view, although "different equivalence" concept is not quite logical, because the variability of equivalence is only the presence of translation products.

German translation theorist and e, A. Neubert and G. Jaeger, pushing th t the idea of "communicative equivalence" and communicative significance of the text [Jaeger 1978: 149], which takes into account the concept of linguistic equivalence, but A. Neubert unlike G. Jaeger puts "communicative equivalence" in the broader context of social interaction, implemented by means of a text interaction [Neubert 1985: 143]. Communicative equivalence - a characteristic of the target text, suggesting the presence of a communicative value, which, if not completely identical communicative value of the original text, the common expectations and awareness of the recipient's carrier target language. Communicative equivalence is historical and is associated with verbal interaction, as well as - with targeted transfer.

Based on the concept of "equivalence" A. Neubert distinguishes two types of transfer (not adhering to the traditional classification literal and free translation): "the exact modeled" and "accurate to term." "Accurate modeled" (or pragmatically adequate) reconstructs aimed pragmatics "A" means the IL in pragmatics "B". In this new text on the IL created not just by the grammatical and semantic substitutions, but by pragmatic reconstruction. The translator should strive for a pragmatics that best serves the purposes of translation. "The exact term for translation" (translation or fully adequate in relation to PCOS) directly takes over all the relationships and all the rules that are typical DICE [Neubert 1978: 196]. In essence, this approach gives the possibility of variant relations in translation.

Depending on the type of pragmatic relations A. Neubert distinguishes four types of translation:

t Type 1 - the texts of Linguistics and PYA similar goals, which are based on common or potentially common consumers. Text DICE not specifically designed for the audience IL (scientific, technical Lita eratura, advertising texts, etc.);
u t 2 - t The text DICE contains information that meets the specific requirements of DICE audience in a particular situation, the specific text Linguistics (legal texts, leaflets, local press, the literature on social, political, economic issues);
u t 3 - t The text of fiction. These texts appear and are interpreted in a particular social situation, they are timeless and gain value for all people, while not lost national characteristics DICE and its specificity;
t Type 4 - e ti texts stem from the need to inform the audience about the events of the IL in DICE or in PCOS, but in terms of audience DICE (literature for foreign countries) [Neubert 1978: 197 - 198].

This classification is based on the type of transfer and type of text it is stated that each type of text should be translated differently, taking into account its specificity. This idea was put forward by A. Neubert, suggests the presence of variability and translation position, which is specified depending on the type and genre of the text. However, this approach does not provide and does not describe the situation of variation of transfer and the presence of translation products within a particular type and genre of text and, furthermore, does not explain the fact various translations of the text.

A. Neubert tightly binds with equivalent behaviors, social environment and social functions: the text and its translation appear in the form of a complex field of social interaction in the cat Oromo each translated text "reflects a new version of the social life of Noah ...» [Neubert 1985: 145 ]. This approach is largely sociological and applicable to discourse in general and not only to literary translation, with the original text relies factor host culture and is seen with her points of view, the grounds and criteria.

Equivalence criterion texts according to J. Catford, is the equivalence of the situation, often to be found in its culture. A comparison of the original and the translation should be done at the level of broad thematic connections in view of similar realities and turns similar themes, similar psychological attitudes, associations, writer and translator approach to the same situation and so forth. Thus, it is not about the actual linguistic and the socio-cultural context. This approach to equivalence means nothing else, as a justification for the existence of variability as possible in the culture sets are often very different translations of the same text. Thus, J. Catford defines an equivalence with cultural products, taking into account the psychological factors. It should be emphasized that the notion of equivalence in J. Catford too broad, with this understanding too difficult to identify its criteria and replace them to specific texts.

Considering the problem of equivalence of the original and the translation and causes several different translations of the same text, S. Ross (Ross, 1981) indicates that it is insufficient to convey the author's intention in the translation, as in this case would have to admit that there can be only one correct translation. Actually translation reflects the original understanding of the interpreter, and all understanding - this is one of the possible interpretations of the text is based on external factors. We can only speak of the similarity to the original translation, which allows four different treatments:

There is a single work, and concluded in the text output from text or from the author's intentions. If the interpreter interprets it correctly, then the translation can be objectively true - this approach captures the essence of the theory of equivalence.
Translation - is a complex process that takes place under the influence of many factors. Transfer all equivalent contained in the original is impossible. Choices are needed, and hence the fundamental multiplicity of solutions as sets and positional variability, and the presence of several different translations.
Translation - this heuristic process, an attempt to build a bridge between different worlds and eras. Therefore, the objective of translation does not happen, at best achieved successful disclosure differences worlds. From this perspective, the translation is one of the possible worlds , which can be set as many different versions of the art text translation. According to this provision may be explained by the presence and sets the text and translations that coexist in the host culture, and the global translational activity in the field of artistic text shows that the translation of the same, especially kulturoznachimogo text can be really happen much.
Translation - these are different forms of the original statements that stand against him "many-to-one." There is no perfect translation, but the translation can be great or bad according to certain criteria [Ross 1981: 15].

S. Ross uses only the concept of "equivalence", but does not work in the linguistic, and activity-related paradigm. The author of this concept offers to compare the equivalence of the translation with the relationship between an object and its picturesque image. Image, such as a person depends on the choices an artist makes of many factors, so it is infinitely multiply [Ibid: 17].

As well as J. Catford, Started under the functional approach, J. House, believes that when translating text in one language is replaced functionally equiv entnym text in another language [House 2002: 97]. In his theory of J. House takes into account cultural factors and introduces the concept of "cultural filter and th."

Functional equivalence includes two types of translation: "hidden» (covert) and "open» (overt) contributions that stand out in the typology of text-oriented source code [Ibid: 98].

Public transfer functions in the host culture, in its structure, it is very reminiscent of a quote, it is equivalent to the original e n at all levels of language, and genre to register [Ibid: 99]. Hidden translation has in the host culture status of the original, pragmatic he is not considered transfer. Original is not considered unique to transmit culture. To achieve this "originality" in a hidden translation, the translator uses "cultural filter" (a concept introduced by J. House). Thus, the "cultural filter" - is the means by which the translator compensates missing in the host culture, especially the culture of the original. Translator in this case looking at the original text reader's eyes the host culture.

Working within the framework of cultural approach and the maximum given in his theory of cultural factor, G. Turi argues that the rules determine the type and degree of equivalence, expressed in actual text translation. Equivalence can relate to any type of relations that characterize the transfer under certain circumstances [Toury August 19 of 5: 74]. This statement implies either that equivalence does not exist at all, or that it is a very vague concept. G. Turi defines as functional equivalence is a relative concept, namely that set of relations that can be used to distinguish between appropriate and not appropriate for a given culture methods of translation. The entire set of possible relationships is the potential equivalence, then there is something purely theoretical at chityvaya the fact that the concept of linguistic equivalence does not always work in practice, as even when the criteria of equivalence translation is not always clear to readers of the host culture.

In addition, G. Turi uses the term "equivalence" within the meaning of the text is also invariant, this approach allows multiple translations of the same text.

A. Lefebvre (A. Lefevere), one of the founders of her widespread in Western European translation studies linguistic and cultural approach to translation («Translation Studies»), adheres to an entirely different perspective. He believes that the translation - it is rewriting the original text (http:www. Anukriti). Asking Translation Studies cultural and historical perspective, A. Lefebvre emphasized that the translator is the doer, and translation - it is not supporting (and therefore inferior) and nesamotsennaya activities, and activities that lead to the formation and enrichment of cultures [Galeev, 2006: 131]. Indeed translation - is a form of creating new texts, ie, rewriting. Each rewriting, for whatever purpose it had been taken, reflects a certain ideology and poetics of the original author, moreover, functioning in the literature, and through it in society, translation as rewriting controls literature, it affects the choice of the new trends. Translated as "rewriting literature makes function as defined in a particular society" [ibid: 132]. While on the equivalence of the translation and the original on the linguistic level are not talking.

One of the first definitions of "translation as rewriting" still belongs to St. Augustine. When Augustine was faced with the fact that some of the pages of the Bible, not quite correspond to the patterns of behavior that required its followers to the church, he suggested that these paragraphs should be interpreted simply, "rewritten" and then they will match the teachings of the church. In a similar situation are many modern interpreters. Their activities affected by the fact that they occupy a certain position in a certain public institutions. According to A. Lefebvre, translation as rewriting may have ideological incentives or produced in the framework of a particular ideology, depending on whether the translator agrees with the dominant ideology of his age or not, or poetic incentives and be produced within a certain poetics [Lefevere 1992: 7] .

On the translation process, which resulted in a literary work or not to accept a different culture, influenced by the following factors (also can be called factors that allow and explaining the variation in translation): power, ideology, institutions, poetics. Rewriting occupies among these factors is not unimportant place. "Rewriting" have always existed: From the Greek slaves, who collected an anthology of classical Greek literature to modern translators trying to enter the original in the host culture. Their role has changed for two reasons: at least in Western civilization ends with a period when the book was central to the teaching and transmission of values, and the gap between the literature of "high" and "low" level, which began in the middle of the XIX century. That led to the rewriting I "high" and "low" [Ibid: 2]. Unprofessional or not very educated reader does not read literature written by the original author, it reads the translation done as rewriting [ibid: 4].

Authors rewrite translation-create for the reader an image of the writer, the work, the genre, sometimes even of literature in general. These images exist side by side with real images, and even compete with them. With the help of translation, rewriting can be projected image of the author and / or his work in another culture, bringing the author and / or his work beyond the transmission of culture [Ibid: 9]. contained in these statements as a prerequisite for explaining the positional translation activities.

Translators - rewriting to some extent adapt original texts and manipulate them, mainly in order to better fit these texts in a dominant ideological or poetic flow era. Writer (author of the original) is often in opposition to the dominant ideology in the culture of translation, and the translator (rewriting) adapts the work within the dominant ideology [Lefevere 1992: 15].

There are also other approaches to the problem of adequacy when it is not considered at all, and this view is developed within the framework of the ideas we variability translation. Can not assert unequivocally that the translation must be radically different from the original, this is not always the best approach, but centuries of experience in translation work and new translations of the text suggests that the variability of the translation and interpretation from the point of view of translation conscious position, and not only striving for adequacy, are motivated resume translation and the emergence of new variants of the same text. In some cases, especially in literary translation, s The problem of translation is not to pass unchanged the original text in the target language, and that to be the original text expander, develop it. A. Chesterman believes that the translator can change the text of the original, is in this case Yas figure [Chesterman 1997: 2].

In linguistic theories are not always considered or relied not very important extralinguistic factors. Since these factors were "extra" in the framework of linguistic linguistic theory of translation, they were not provided and were treated as "noise" and not as a significant factor in translation work organization. However, often it is from these factors and determines how will transfer. This situation is due to the fact that the linguistic theory of translation originally emerged and developed as a theory to consider translation as a substitute for one another text, and the path to that is through the replacement of text fragments in one language corresponding fragments of text in another language. Where you can not find sufficient and optimal equivalents proposed system transformations [Galeev, 2006: 130]. Overall AN Kryukov calls this approach vicariously transformational ontology translation, thus emphasizing its mechanistic and countering them with activity-based ontology translation, where the translator acts primarily as a figure [Kryukov, 1989: 55].

As a basis for comparison of different translations of the same text we selected the notion of equivalence. Generalized his approaches to the problem of equivalence discussed in the ne rvoy chapter of this study:

B ost theories equivalence considers mainly linguistic factors, as a result of the narrow definition of equivalence is obtained. However, the approaches A. Neubert and S. Ross are, in our view, more complex, and comprising bo lshinstvo factors (culturally curious, social, linguistic factor s).
Very important and affect the translation factors (cultural, social, etc.) in the linguistic theories of equivalence called extralinguistic, so they are not given proper attention, they are considered in the overall series as minor. However, translating this phenomenon, especially the socio-cultural and these "extra-linguistic" f actors define his character.
That translation position, including a translator and as I figure with reflection and interpreter and the original text, and each translation as a one of the possible interpretations in the original text and translation determines the possibility of variation, which is itself a translation universals. vicariously In transformational ontology concepts dominate adequacy and equivalence in translation. In the syakaya variability seen as more or less successful approximation to the original, I do not tolerance content and / or interpretive variability.
In our study, the idea of "equivalence" or "literal", which for many years dominated in Russian translation theory, translation corresponds with your exoticization and orientation when translated to transmit culture. However, the translation of "equivalence" and exists as elusive ideal for translators, which aspire to.

2 TRANSLATION POSITION IN ACTIVITIES

2.1 Interpretation of the text as one of the causes of the variability of transfer.

Linguistic theory of translation does not provide enough objective explanations variability translation, as part of its transfer was considered as a replacement for another one text, and the path to that is through the replacement of parts of the text in one language corresponding fragments of text in another language. Selection exact equivalents translation of the original text was considered key to a successful translation.

Considering the translation process as the transformation of the original text in the target text, II Revzin and VY Rosenzweig find it necessary to distinguish between two ways to perform this conversion: "proper translation" when there is an immediate transition from one language units to units of another language, and "interpretation" when the interpreter first clarifies what the reality is behind the units of language in the original, and then describes this reality by means of language translation [Rosenzweig 1983: 93].

In linguistic theory of translation and nterpretatsiya considered a form of translation, based on the address to the extra-linguistic activity, in contrast to the translation itself, carried out according to the rules of the transition from the means of expression belonging to the same linguistic system, to the means of expression belonging to another language system [Parshin 1995: 13].

Interpretation is often, in fact, personal experience writer or translator of it make sense, which is incorporated in the text [Barsht 2003: 16]. From the point of view of the problem of understanding and interpreting text translation problems also considered K. Cohn: "Depending on how you understand the lyrics, you will reflect it in his translation. This is especially true of texts containing a equivocation, that is, in most cases, literary texts »[Round-table Discussion 2003: 22]. With this possible ama st determines the emergence of multiple translations of the same text, depending on how the translator understands the source text. Linguistic theory of translation makes the necessary assumptions regarding the interpretation of the text, it does not define, but refuses to allow b, determined that the translation also conscious and installing a certain result or that due to your installation or from are preset pragmatic change in the text of the translation with respect to the original text.

When the object of translation becomes x udozhestvenny and cultures of significant text, it always contains a set of all existing and potential interpretations (interpretations) and can not have one only true interpretation: "understanding of the whole text tends to Freedom: no two are exactly alike understandings the same work "[Bogin, 1996: 2]. T The text of another culture, like any culture texts, in general, can get very different interpretations, as soon as these interpretations are performed by different people. Any text, as well as its semantic and syntactic structure, allows e t give almost unfettered many interpretations, and artistic text can not in general have only a one oh oh only true interpretation and, theoretically infinitely number of interpretations and is not limited [Pause 1983 385].

Artistic text translation from one language to another is always an interpretation of the original text and leads necessarily to a particular understanding of the schemes tekstoobrazovaniya, perevyrazhayuschih a schema author smyslopostroeniya [Bogatirev 2003: 13]. process of re-translation and the emergence of different interpretations of the same text is almost infinite character, forming a kind of continuum of text translations made from the point of view, as interpretive readiness interpreter and translation priori different positions.

The interpretation of the text by the translator always affects its belonging to a different culture, a means of understanding which may be quite different than in transmitting culture.

Translation as a secondary activity, "not only because playback reproduces once already reflected the reality of the original author, but also because the generative, creative, synthesizing activity of the translator is always a second stage, following the first - stage receptive activity, analyzing, interest rpretiruyuschey" [ Bogin, 1999: 63].

Among the factors that impede adequate understanding and perception of T1 include: differences communicative situations producer / recipient and the sender / recipient, and differences in their systems of codes, types of cultural time, transmitting norms, values, beliefs and social and cultural system of the source and the target language, Availability Linguo-ethnical barrier comprising, in addition to purely linguistic barriers (differences in source system and the target language, the language of their rules and regulations), also extra-linguistic knowledge, ie specific components of the national culture, textual gaps caused by the specification of the text itself (its content, form, poetics and tricks website, genre and type of reader for whom it is intended.)

On mismatch interpretations-translation and misunderstanding affects "the difference between the point of view of the author's contemporaries, which includes accounting literary and social background, and the point of view of" offspring ", entitled this background do not know", ie historical, social, cultural contexts, as well as cultural space, the differences between the original culture and the culture of translation [Zholkovsky, Goldfinches 1975: 153].

Thus, different interpretations or "different understanding" interpreters of the same source text can be considered one of the major causes of variability translation and appearance of several variants of translation and the original text. Variability of the translation may be caused by two main reasons:

difference in the interpretation and understanding of the meaning of the original translator;
revealed and realized your translation, ie translator intentionally alters, adds or omits any sense in his translation.

The object of our study is the variation due to the presence of conscious phenomena and translation position from which depend on changes in the translation from the original.

2. 2 Interpreting position in activity

Absence clear criteria for equivalence can be explained by the nature of the transfer and, with s transfer may be performed with different yatsya clearly otreflektirovannyh, as well as customer specified transfer position.

The original text is created for a specific purpose and for a specific readership. Translation in turn also created for a specific purpose and for a specific audience, featuring e ysya from the original audience. Translation - it's kind of a bridge between cultures, which the translator seeks to "transfer" [Bukhtoyarov 2004: 48]. A number of researchers believe that p erevodchik in its activities should be guided by this target audience [Newmark 2003: 47]. Another common approach to understanding the role of translation in the activity - a functional approach, in which it is believed that the translation must be performed in the host culture, the same function as the original in transmitting culture.

If the interpreter is not from are preset setting to create a certain type of translation, and he's not on intact ene specific audiences host culture, he must decide what he wants to achieve the goal his translation.

Translation capabilities can be schematically summarized into a scale, which are the extreme points of equivalence or literal translation and free translation or rewriting. Between these extremes are placed different interpretations or different understanding of the translator of the original text and translation various positions with a focus on transmitting or receiving culture.

Linguistic equivalence has been considered by us in the first chapter, the various interpretive possibilities in the first paragraph of the second chapter, and the focus of our study is on Translation positions that are sufficiently far removed from lingvistichekoy equivalence and gravitate toward rewriting th. Extreme manifestation of translational position can be considered as a transfer consideration of "rewriting" (A. Lefevre.) In this case n To translate - a "rewriting" of the original, allowing various changes with respect to the original text. The number of "rewriting" of world literature in translation is very large, since the language as an expression (and storage) culture is merely an element in the cultural exchange, known as translation. The main factor contributing to "rewrite" is the lack of actual need to be converted into certain periods [Galeev, 2006: 132].

A. Lefebvre wrote that e he European culture with 500 g. n. e. to about 1800 was predominantly bilingual or even Multilingual. There was a recognized "language of power": first Latin, then French. These languages were known to all who claim to be scientists, priests, or cultural community. Of course, these people are also owned by their native languages, as well as in many cases, and a few others. That is, European culture between 500-1800 years. was bi (multi) lingual culture circles. Therefore, until the XIX century. the original is often considered only as a starting point for the work, and as a way to improve the translation of the original; interpreter tried to create a work that surpasses the original, different from it. In this case, the translation becomes a kind of rivalry between translators: Who can translate better, who can surpass the original author, as well as competition with the author of the original [Lefevere 1992: 16]. Therefore, the question of equivalence while almost did not get up. Chief at the time was not equivalent to the original creation of the translation, and the creation of a translation, surpassing the original and developing original or others made earlier translations in some meaningful way. In this case you would not actually translations and texts - analogs in one way or another approaching to the original and to develop a culture of translation.

Breakup of sectarian culture occurs about 1800 After a start to differ different potential audience translations that serve the needs of different consumers. Those who do not know the original language, but are able to read texts in their native language, read the translation for information and reflection. Those who know the language of the original, at least theoretically, read transfer, treating it as an intellectual and aesthetic game.

In the XX century. due to the fact that the turnover of the translation includes new languages, and the number of people who speak foreign languages is reduced, ie, decreases the ability to read the original, there was interest in AET accuracy of translation equivalence, since the translation inevitably functions instead of the original, and, consequently, increasing interest in the translation and the original correspondence.

In our opinion, translation principles underlying T. Savory, can be considered the basis for the allocation of various translation products and the possible appearance of a variety of options translations of the same text, especially if the text kulturoznachimy logged into the host culture. When translating translator chooses for himself one of these principles and in accordance with them n performs translation.

F. Schleiermacher noted that in translation there are two opposing trends: "as far as possible translator leaves the author alone, and the reader brings to it" and "translator leaves the reader in peace and closer to it's original» [Schleiermacher 1813/1992: 43] . P erevodchik should combine these two trends and find a point between them, and it will position the translator. However, this process is complicated by the fact that the system of ideas and values and ways of expression may be different in the target language and in their original language. Different translations of the same source text can coexist harmoniously, and sometimes hard to tell which of them is superior to the other translations. Only the combination of all of these options will allow foreign language translation of the text log to the host culture. However, there are things that can be expressed in only one language, so do not raise the issue, as the author would have written this work in the target language [Op. cit.: Schleiermacher 1813/1992: 44].

The presence of translation products is closely linked with the concept of "Ord azchik" or "initiator translation» - initiator of translation (K. Nord), which often determines what will transfer. Customer, or initiator of translation, has always played an important role in the translation of the text and its entry into the host culture. Customer may transfer the reading public, publishing, social organization, etc., but sometimes it becomes and the translator himself, in that case if he elects the text for translation. A. Lefebvre (Lefevere, 1998) believes that the way in which children will transfer, influenced by three factors; and it can be assumed that these factors also affect the position of the translator:

Needs and expectations of the audience - depending on the needs and expectations of the audience translator elects its strategy and selects the text for translation.
Strategy, which selects a translator when making the transfer, formed akazchik s s s translation or initiator . Customer meters may be about the church (this trend was observed mainly in the Middle Ages), the reading audience with their requirements and expectations, various community organizations, etc. M very important controlling factor m ohm m funktsioniruyuschi is fiction, is patronage (patronage). This l eople, institutions, public institutions, etc. Nourish can perform individual persons, groups, religious and social organizations, political parties, social classes, publishing and media. Patrons trying pref esti system fiction in line with their ideology. Ideology limits the choice and development of the form and content of a work of art [Lefevere 1992: 15]. P okrovitelstv of implies that writers and translators work with the requirements set out in someone from outside interests. For example, in India, in the XVIII century. Many poets allow their patrons for n isyvat authorship of their works.
Prestige is receiving or transmitting culture and their language . In the Middle Ages the audience preferred to read the texts, including translations into Latin, as this language is dominant in the whole of Europe, and knew most of his reading audience. Prestige original culture often determines the position of the translator: the texts of the prestigious culture interpreters treated with more respect than the texts of the few prestigious cultures.

Text that is central to their culture, not necessarily take the same position in the host culture. Popularity of the translated text in the host culture may be more or less than the original popularity in transmitting culture. If the interpreter to "improve" the original text, the author of the original may become more popular in the host culture than in the transmission [Kuhiwczak 2003: 120]. Some authors consider that n erevodchik entitled to correct the "flaws" of the original in different spheres (poetic, style, etc.) [Weston 2003: 148]. In a culture that has low prestige, contributions from more prestigious culture is more likely to adapt.

Translation position determining variability translation, often leading to significant changes meaningfulness translation with respect to the original, with translations sometimes diverge so that they are difficult to correlate with each other and with the original.

HG Gadamer also treats translation as a dialogue, stressing that the translator must endure to be understanding of the meaning in the context in which the participant lives conversation [Gadamer 1988: 147]. When this translation is understood not simply as a repetition of the process of creation, but as an interpretation. The text appears as an attempt to present something in a new light [Gadamer 1988: 149].

As a rule, because of the complexity of tasks translator takes longer a one second positions and activities, since each of the positions leads to the solution of their problems and to different results in the translation. O n acts as both the sender and the recipient, combines these two roles simultaneously [Koster 2002: 28]. Thus, the position of the recipient translator combines the original text, the translator and the recipient translate, secondary reflection on the translated text. In turn, each of these products involves a host of other, and above all positions understanding or thought-activity products translator [Zakharova 2002: 112], which are embodied in various embodiments, the translation of the same text.

Thus, in our view, review and analyze different translations of the same text should be in terms of having them in the translation products. Translation quality should be evaluated in relation to the position it with which suitable translator to translate. However, in the works of foreign and domestic scientists question of translation positions remains unexplored and the term "translational position" is not entered. Although some scholars: B. Hohel [Hohel 1988] and Popovich [Popovic 1980] considered some changes in translation relative to the original (exoticization, naturalization, historicization, etc.), but they treated them as "local" changes unique to the specific texts, and not applicable to the translation of literary texts at all. We introduce the term translation position that occur when translating kulturoznachimyh literary texts, which were subjected to repeated transfer.

It should be noted that, in our opinion, the term "translational position" means a method for implementing the translation process in all its aspects, and depending on whether conscious or specified by the customer install an interpreter.

By translating your conscious we understand the customer or from are preset translation translator installation to create a translated to a greater or lesser extent corresponding to the original.

Under variability understood parallel coexistence of several different translations of the same text made from the perspective of different translation positions.

In this paper, we create our own typology of translation products , the typological character of its due to the fact that its foundation is laid the essential criterion for characterizing any translation - translation orientation to "embed" a culture of translation and whether the transmission of cultural characteristics of the original, ie, on the one hand focus on transmitting culture, or on the other hand focus on the original. Accordingly, in the science of translation varies two global trends translation or translation perspectives: focus mainly on the original text (retrospective) and the orientation of the host culture [Koster 2002: 27]. In pa bots B. Hohela and A. Popovic these extreme points are called "naturalization" and "exoticization" translation, where they act as a purely local characteristic of the lexical content translation: take into account the realities of their transmission, etc. Us "naturalization" and "exoticization" regarded as positions, defining the nature of translation, and the basis for further typology. Translation of these trends, and follow all other translation positions that are located inside each of them. Us in the following translation ydelyayutsya position:

Orientation to transmit culture (the orientation of the original, source culture). It is the orientation of the original culture says F. Schleiermacher [Schleiermacher 1813/1992: 42], assuming that the translations from different languages to be different: translation from German to sound like a translation from German - it enriches the host culture "German content". Here we highlight the following:

1.1. n ozitsiya exoticization;

1.2. and storiziruyuschaya position (position historization), ie translation is "now" as "then", intends structed archaization old texts;

Orientation to the host culture (target culture):

2.1. position of modernization - the translation of texts of another era "as it is now," modernizing the text;

2.2. ideological position, that is, changes related to political, religious, etc. oh conjunctures;

2.3. n ozitsiya naturalization, ie Removing features of the original, "protrusion" of his, rewriting terms of norms of the host culture (ballad translated epics a);

2.4. and daptatsionnaya position:

2.4.1. poetic translation position;

2.5. n ozitsiya semantic deviation:

2.5.1. build meaning;

2.5.2. adding new meanings;

2.5.3. romanticizing translation (rewriting);

2.5.4. mimicking e in translation (rewriting).

This classification can be summarized in the following table:

Interpreting trends	Orientation to transmit culture	Orientation to the host culture
Translation position	Position exoticization	Position modernization
		Ideological position
	Position historization	Position naturalization
		Adaptive position: a) poetichecheskaya position
		Position semantic deviation: a) To increase sense; b) adding new meanings; c) I romanticizing translation; d) e mimicking translated

Consider the data translation position in more detail and illustrate their various examples translation of literary texts, translation performed with various positions. vast majority of items associated with the orientation of the receiving culture, because culture predominantly "tend to take someone else as his" making it very fact of its culture.

2. 3. Positions associated with the orientation of the transmitting transfer culture.

B. X Ohel, A.Popovich, AV Fedorov say about exoticization , Kotor should be considered as th Translation th th positions , and because it is associated with conscious and installing an interpreter for the translation view so that it felt it "inokulturny origin ": a kind of" foreign accent. " Exotics zatsiey is called a singularity, not a traditional thematic, linguistic, stylistic elements of the original transferred to the translation. It is an election elements typical of the original culture and unknown, unusual in the culture to which the transfer. The ratio of the cultural context of the author and translator is recognized as the opposition "his-alien", which is implemented in the translation process, depending on the setting of an interpreter in the form of approximation to the original or estrangement from him ( exoticization-naturalization ) [Popovic 1980: 196].

In this case, the translator conveys a national coloring in the translation of the original. The closer the product in its category to national life, to life, and in its style - to folklore, the more evident the national coloring. In this translation task becomes more difficult as the national coloring is perceived as something familiar, native only to those for whom this is their native language, but readers perceive culture [Fedorov, 1958: 321]. Thus, it is evident that to a large extent determined by the translational position of the text and its type.

This position becomes the greatest significance in the present time, when the formation of cultures actually completed, and is interested in culture to learn from "foreign" text as "alien", not adapting it to their own culture.

As an example exoticization consider when translating translation Rudyard Kipling poem «The Gipsy Trail» (V. Dymshits translator). The word «patteran» V. Dymshits translates transliteration. Since it is not clear to the reader comments Russian explains: "pateran - signs, tufts of grass or leaves, which Gypsies celebrate their way." Such ekzotizmy make translation difficult to accept the host culture readers. Compare this with the translation became the classic "So for the next star of the nomadic Gypsy" (G. circles). Translated by G. Kruzhkov avoids exoticism, therefore, the word «patteran» he translates as "nomadic gypsy star."

Follow the Romany patteran

North where the blue bergs sail.

Follow the R omany patteran

Sheer to the Austral light

Where the besom of God is the wild South wind,

Sweeping the sea floors white

Translated by Dymshitz

Let leads you through the world -sign pateran

To the North, to the floating ice

Let leads you through the world -sign pateran

Heading South flashes

Where the Lord's broom sweeps clean seas

Wild southern blizzard.

Translation by Kruzhkova

So go ahead! - For nomadic gypsy star -

By blue icebergs Icy seas.

So go ahead! - For nomadic gypsy star -

Before roaring southern latitudes

Where a fierce storm, as God's broom

Ocean sweeps dust.

As another case exoticization in translation can be considered a literal translation of the prose poem Goethe «Erlknig», made M.Tsvetaeva (see Appendix).

B. Hohel, A Popovic and AV Fedorov isolated historicization (in our typology and storiziruyusch th numeral I ). And storizatsiey called e t th Themed smiling and language processing and th regarding termination th smiling all the translated text or part thereof, arising of semantic and stylistic code of the original author. Translator thus strives to adhere to the true copyright code (poetics) [Popovic 1980: 191]. AV Fedorov believes that, if the interpreter is not suited to the translation of texts written in a different era, from a position of historicization and specific uses, modern elements of speech (eg, words denoting the realities of our time and life), it is inevitable contradiction of time and setting action carries it nowadays, in our everyday life, the reader imposes Association, views that do not agree with any script, nor with the text translation [Fedorov, 1958: 329].

An example of translational position historization the translation feature, kulturoznachimyh texts can serve as a translation of Hamlet's famous soliloquy «To Be or not To Be», Boyko made in 2004. And the second does not translate your modern and deliberately arhaizuet it through the use of obsolete words, which usually refer to poetizatsii and elevated vocabulary.

Boyko approach to translation of Hamlet's monologue, which was repeatedly transferred and is still being translated into Russian, with historicizing position , so the translation, written in our days, deliberately stylized "antique". The purpose of the translator - translate so that the text written in our days, contemporary author, sounded as if it was written, though, and in Russian, but in the age of Shakespeare.

To achieve this effect, the author uses an archaic, obsolete words with corresponding labels in the dictionary: "sling" ( obsolete ). "flesh" ( obsolete ). "dream" ( Book ). "surging Dreams" ( Book ). , "death ( high .) sleep "," vanity "( obsolete ). "vanity ( obsolete ). mundane ( Book ). "," in the sweat and groan ( high ). "," ascend "( Book .) "pale shadow" ( obsolete ). "welcome" ( obsolete .) "rest" ( obsolete .) "times" ( obsolete ). "flour" ( obsolete ). (we isolated them in translation in italics) . Famous line «to be or not to be»

Бойко, 2004 г.

Жизнь или смерть – ребром стоит вопрос:
Как лучше по уму – перетерпеть
Пращи и стрелы яростной судьбы
Или вооружиться против бед
И побороть их. Умереть, заснуть –
Не более; и сном преодолеть
Боль в сердце, тысячу родных ударов,
Наследуемых плотью; вот финал
Вполне желанный. Умереть, заснуть –
Заснуть, быть может – грезить. Эй, постой
В том смертном сне нахлынувшие грезы,
Когда мы сбросим суету мирскую,
Должны нам передышку дать; итак,
Вот почему столь долговечно горе:
Кто ж выдержит бичи и спесь времен,
Тирана злобу, гордеца презренье,
Тщету любви, медлительность закона,
Надменность власти и пинки, что терпит
Приличный человек от недостойных,
Когда бы сам кинжалом обнаженным
Мог свой покой добыть? Кто скорбный скарб
Всю жизнь таскать в поту и стоне станет?
И только страх чего-то после смерти
В стране неведомой, из чьих пределов
Никто не возвращался, гасит волю:
Уж лучше здесь опять страдать привычно,
Чем к неизвестным мукам вознестись.
Так совесть наша переходит в трусость,
Решимости румянец прирожденный,
Покрывшись бледной тенью мысли, чахнет,
А дерзкие и громкие затеи
Вдруг начинают течь куда-то вбок,
Теряя облик действий. – Впрочем, тише...
Прекрасная Офелия... В молитвах
Помянешь, нимфа, все мои грехи.
(http:// www. stihi.ru)

W. Shakespear

To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing, end them. To die, to sleep –

No more, and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to; 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep -
To sleep, perchance to dream - ay, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause; there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life:
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th' oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despis'd love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th' unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin; who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards [of us all],
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action. - Soft you now,
The fair Ophelia. Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins rememb'red.

As another example, the historicization of the translated text can be considered a translation of the 66th sonnet by William Shakespeare, performed Rumer O. (1947) - see Appendix.

2. 4. Positions associated with the orientation of the translation on the host culture.

Translated there historization opposite principle clearly expressed language of modernization of the original text, the introduction to the translation of specific modern words, giving it the character of our contemporary text. A similar principle is responsible trends as close as possible to the target text to the modern reader [Fedorov, 1971: 146], ie, eventually approaching a translator to its host culture and contributes to the translation changes according to this principle.

Reader translation of any work relating to the more or less distant past, should receive from him the same experience that could get from his original readers in their native language, its modern creation. Thus, if in the original language has features that subsequently became archaic, but are not such in writing works, then play them in a translation from another language using elements carrying coloring "old", it would be wrong. AV Fedorov calls this functional-historical principle, and in our terminology is the position of modernization .

As an example, the modernization of the translated text can be considered a translation of the 66th sonnet by William Shakespeare, performed Boris Pasternak (1940). This sonnet, like most other kulturoznachimyh texts repeatedly translated and is still being translated into Russian: N. Herbel (1880), F. Czerwinski (1904), Moscow Tchaikovsky (1914), B. Pasternak (1940), O. Rumer (1947), A. Vasilchikova B. Kouchner Dudin and other translations. B. Pasternak comes to translating a sonnet with the position of modernization .

66 сонет В. Шекспира

Перевод Б. Пастернака (1940 г.)

Tired with all these, for restful death I cry,

As, to behold Desert a beggar born,

And needy Nothing trimm’d in jollity,

And purest Faith unhappily forsworn,

And gilded Honour shamefully misplaced,

And maiden Virtue rudely strumpeted,

And right Perfection wrongly disgraced,

And Strength by limping Sway disabled.

And Art made tongue-tied by Authority,

And Folly doctor-like controlling Skill,

And simple Truth miscall’d Simplicity,

And captive Good attending captain Ill.

Tired with all these, from these would I be gone,

Save that, to die, I leave my love alone.

[Цит. по Белякова 2003: 40].

Измучась всем, я умереть хочу.

Тоска смотреть, как мается бедняк,

И как шутя живется богачу,

И доверять, и попадать впросак,

И наблюдать, как наглость лезет в свет,

И честь девичья катится ко дну,

И знать, что ходу совершенствам нет,

И видеть мощь у немощи в плену,

И вспоминать, что мысли заткнут рот,

И разум сносит глупости хулу,

И прямодушье простотой слывет,

И доброта прислуживает злу.

Измучась всем, не стал бы жить и дня,

Да другу будет трудно без меня.

[Цит. по Белякова 2003: 42].

The purpose of the translator - translate and thus to translate sounded as if the original was written by the "here and now", in the modern era, contemporary author. Translator deliberately makes your text more understandable to readers osovremenivaya it. Therefore Pasternak does not use obsolete words (as in the original or in translation O. Rumer adapted historization position), and modern, colloquial words with corresponding labels in the dictionary: "anguish" ( Accel .) "Toil" ( simple .) "Joking" ( Accel .) "Goofs" ( Accel .) "Go into the light" ( Accel .) "Roll to the bottom" ( Perrin., Accel .) "No go" ( Accel .) "Pass for" ( Accel .) "Gag" ( Perrin ., Accel .) "Straightforward" ( Accel .).

Translators in some degree adapt original texts and manipulate them, mainly to these texts fit into the dominant ideological or poetic flow era [Lefevere 1992: 8]. The writer is often in opposition to the dominant ideology in the culture of translation, the translator therefore need to adapt the product within the dominant ideology and to make certain changes his translation.

We also have Russian poet and translator of the XIX century. You can watch smoothing, softening sharp features original, associated with more advanced ideology and aesthetics of the original author and not peculiar to the interpreter. VAZhukovsky first made a very loose remake Burger ballad "Lenore" (under the title "A yudmila"), and many years later VAZhukovsky wrote the second translation, which weakened and softened "blasphemous" speech heroine and smoothed Dictionary, too rough in his eyes [Fedorov 198 8: 138]. example of this position can serve as a translation excerpt from a poem by Rabindranath Tagore from his anthology Gitanjali («Song"), for which the author won the Nobel Prize, as well as his own translation of the poem into English (see Appendix).

Another example of translation, in which changes are made on the basis of ideological position , already in domestic practice can serve as a translation free translation ballads Robert Southey "Berkeley Hundred Rukh", made VA Zhukovsky in 1814 Ballad was banned by the censor in 1815 In the mid-1820s. VAZhukovsky new attempt to print a ballad (now called "The Witch"). In this regard, the censor made him the following note: "The Ballad of" old lady ", now called naya" Witch ", subject to all prohibitions scheniyu as a play in which the devil triumphs over the church, above God" [English poetry ... 2000: 350]. To publish a ballad, VA Zhukovsky had radically rework 41-42-th stanza, where it was the appearance of the church of Satan. Approaching translation from ideological position as censorship forbade him disagreement with the Orthodox in TSerk about yu, VA Zhukovsky fulfilled another translation, published in 1849 In this translation Satan "dared to enter into the temple of God" and "waiting before the door" in contrast to the first translation, in which he enters the temple, and the temple into a "fiery furnace." Thus, in the second translation of the original version appears opposite sense: the victory of the church over the devil. In the original version, as well as in the original, laid the opposite meaning: the victory of Satan. Here are 41 th and 42 th verse of the original and two translations of this verse VA Zhukovsky (1814 preserving the meaning of the original, and in 1849 made an ideological position).

R. Southey. A Ballad Showing How an Old Woman Rode Double And Who Rode Before Her

And in he came with eyes of flame

The devil to fetch the dead,

And all the church with his presence glowed

Like a fierce furnace red.

He laid his hand on the iron chains,

And like flax they mouldered asunder,

And the coffin lid that was barred so firm

He burst with his voice of thunder.

Перевод В.А. Жуковского (1814 г.)

И он предстал весь в пламени очам,

Свирепый, мрачный, разъяренный;

И вкруг него огромный Божий храм

Казался печью раскаленной!

Едва сказал: «Исчезните!» цепям –

Они рассыпались золою;

Едва рукой коснулся обручам –

Они истлели под рукою.

[Английская поэзия … 2000: 176-177].

Перевод В.А. Жуковского (1849 г. – идеологические изменения)

И он предстал весь в пламени очам,

Свирепый, мрачный, разъяренный;

Но не дерзнул войти он в Божий храм

И ждал пред дверью раздробленной.

И с громом гроб отторгся от цепей,

Ничьей не тронутый рукою;

И в миг на нем не стало обручей….

Они рассыпались золою.

[Английская поэзия … 2000: 350].

B. Hohel allocates opposite trend exoticization naturalization (in our terminology position naturalization ), ie the removal of the original features, "protrusion" of his, rewriting in terms of the norms of the host culture (translated as epic ballad ).

One of the "paradoxes of translation" is the requirement to transpose the text into the culture of the recipient and simultaneously maintain "inokulturny" flavor. In the past, the latter requirement was not so hard, as evidenced by, inter alia, some Russian translations of the XIX century., In which the original text was subjected to complete Russification. Therefore, this position was mainly distributed to the middle of the XIX century., When the culture was interested in their own development through the texts in their own language, not in getting people's texts. Translations of this kind A. Lefebvre called texts peers who develop a culture of translation, without being an exact copy of the original, but rather their rewriting . This kind of translation is often met in the Russian translation of foreign literature in XVII-XVIII centuries.

No doubt about the fact that if the translator himself is significant and held a poet or a writer, he can "overshadow" is translated their website. Perhaps these translations are not in direct translations modern sense of the word, and play the role of creative review / interpretation of the source text, and therefore, of course, of great interest and artistic value [Maslennikov, 2006: 75]. Although such transfers in at least acquaint the reader with the transmitting culture and creativity of the original author, but rather "naturaliziruyut" and "domesticate" the text.

Some texts have already reached readers in the double translation through intermediate language, in this case the number of changes compared to the original text has increased significantly. Especially long unlucky in Russian books English authors. Almost all of them are brought to Russian readers in the double translation - with the French version. Such a fate befell the "Robinson Crusoe" and "Gulliver's Travels" as fluent English speakers in the country at that time was not enough.

I. Vvedenskii (1813-55 gg.), Russian public figure, translator, translated Charles Dickens and Thackeray, knew English and French. 1841 to 1853. inclusive, he wrote a number of critical and historical articles and translated from English to Russian recovery em Dickens novels, and W. Thackeray, F. Cooper, C. Norton, and other works.

However, E. Genieva dedicated to research creativity W. Thackeray, notes that "approach developed in translations close to him (I. Vedenskiy) in temperament and style of Charles Dickens, he involuntarily transferred to works W. Thackeray. Bile and irony W. Thackeray I. Vvedenskii replaced light, funny joke; self-righteous, "facilitated" Thackeray, entering his work fascinating passages or omitting those that seemed to him boring. So violated artistic unity prose writer whose stories - not exciting detective, like Charles Dickens, and psychological in nature - are particularly affected by any changes "[geniuses Shishlina 1989: 22].

Consider the cases of naturalization in the translation of the novel Charles Dickens 'David Copperfield', carried out by IM Vvedenskii (1850). I. Vvedenskii naturaliziruet translation of the novel Charles Dickens, making it more familiar to the Russian readers and making significant changes in the translation, which were highlighted in italics us, and those phrases that are absent in the original and have been made to transfer Vvedensky, we have identified underlined.

C. Dickens «David Copperfield»	Перевод И. Введенского
- «My love, because it’s five, and we were to have dined at four» [Dickens 1955: 616].	Да, вотъ ужЂ пять часовъ, мой ангел, а мы обЂдаемъ обыкновенно въ четыре [Введенский 1850: 82].
- «On the contrary, my love», said I, «it’s a few minutes too slow» [Dickens 1955: 616].	СовсЂмъ напротив, душенька, отстаютъ нЂсколькими минутами, - замЂтилъ я [Введенский 1850: 82].
«Don’t you think, my love», said I, «it would be better for you to remonstrate with Mary Anne?» [Dickens 1955: 616].	Не мЂшало бы тебе сдЂлать выговоръ Мери-Анне, как ты думаешь, душенька? – сказалъ я [Введенский 1850: 82].
«But, my love,» said I [Dickens 1955: 617].	Однако жъ, мой ангелъ… - сказалъ я [Введенский 1850: 82].
«No, no! please!» cried Dora, with a kiss, «don’t be a naughty Blue Beard! Don’t be serious!» [Dickens 1955: 617].	НЂт, нЂт! Пожалуйста, - воскликнула Дора, цЂлуя меня в лобъ. – Не будь же таким бирюкомъ. Ты вЂдь не Синяя Борода, Доди! [Введенский 1850: 82].
Dora was hardly less affectionate to my aunt than to me, and often told her of the time when she was «a cross old thing» [Dickens 1955: 629].	Дора полюбила бабушку почти такъ же, какъ меня, и часто рассказывала ей о томъ времени, когда она представляла ее себЂ «сердитою, брюзгливою старухой» [Введенский 1850: 103].
She never attacked the Incapables, though the temptation must have been severe [Dickens 1955: 629].	Она не нападала на кухарокъ бесталанныхъ, хотя поводы къ такимъ нападенямъ представлялись на каждомъ шагу [Введенский 1850: 103].
«…at dewy eve, in the shadows of night» [Dickens 1955: 735].	Отрывок из письма - …въ собственномъ сознани моем обратятся въ подобе нЂсколькихъ благодатныхъ росинокъ, освЂжительно падающихъ на мой костеръ, объятый пламенемъ... [Введенский 1850: 103].
Chapter XXXI. A Greater Loss [Dickens 1955: 433].	Глава XXXI. Вящая потеря [Введенский 1850: 248].
She had long ago bought, out of her own savings, a little piece of ground in our old churchyard near the grave of «her sweet girl» as she always called my mother [Dickens 1955: 434].	Съ нЂкоторого времени она откупила на собственные деньги небольшой клочекъ земли на нашемъ старом кладбищЂ, подлЂ могилы «своей незабвенной благодЂтельницы», какъ она обыкновенно называла мою мать [Введенский 1850: 248].
After some search, it was found in the box, at the bottom of a horse’s nose bag [Dickens 1955: 434].	ДальнЂйше поиски обнаружили, что покойникъ не безъ причины дорожилъ «старымъ тряпьемъ» [Введенский 1850: 248].
I observed that the latter always spoke of himself indefinitely, as «a man», and seldom or never in the person singular. «A man might get on very well here, Mr. Copperfield», said Markham – meaning himself [Dickens 1955: 350].	Я заметилъ, что онъ отзывался о сЂбе въ какихъ-то неопределенныхъ выраженияхъ, называлъ себя «батракомъ» и почти никогда не говорилъ о сЂбе в первомъ лице. «Батраку здесь очень нравится, мистеръ Копперфильдъ» - сказалъ Маркгемъ, подразумевая себя [Введенский 1850: 107].
Secondly, that something peculiar in the temperature of my pantry, made the brandy bottles burst [Dickens 1955: 375].	Во-вторыхъ, атмосфера моего чулана заключала въ сЂбе ту особенность, что въ ней откупоривались сами собою пробки отъ моихъ бутылокъ съ водкой, отчего и сама водка испарялась въ нихъ съ удивительною быстротою [Введенский 1850: 149].
He said it was the gentlest profession in the world, and must on no account be confounded with the profession of a solicitor: being quite another sort of thing, infinitely more exclusive, less mechanical, and more profitable. We took things much more easily in the Commons [Dickens 1955: 377].	Это, по его словамъ, благороднЂйшая професся въ мрЂ, которую притомъ, ни подъ какимъ видомъ, не должно подводить подъ одну категорю съ ремесломъ обыкновенного стряпчего. У проктора свой опредЂленный, исключительный родъ занятй [Введенский 1850: 152].
…into a hall where there were all sorts of hats, caps, greatcoats, plaids, gloves, whips and walking-sticks [Dickens 1955: 379].	Въ коридорЂ висЂли стройной группой всевозможные ряды шляпъ, картузовъ, фуражекъ, сюртуковъ, плащей, шинелей и тутъ же были всяке перчатки, хлыстики, палки [Введенский 1850: 155].
I could think of the captivating, girlish, bright-eyed, lovely Dora. What a form she had, what a face she had, what a graceful, enchanting manner [Dickens 1955: 380].	Я думалъ только о плЂнительной, свЂтлоокой ДорЂ. Какой чудный станъ, какой ликъ, какя грацозныя, очаровательныя манеры [Введенский 1850: 157].
Dora was talking to an old gentleman with a grey head. Yes, he was grey [Dickens 1955: 380].	Дора разговаривала со старичкомъ, украшеннымъ сЂдыми волосами. Онъ былъ сЂдъ, какъ лунь [Введенский 1850: 158].
There is no doubt whatever that I was a lackadaisical young spooney [Dickens 1955: 383].	Это значитъ, что я былъ въ ту пору легкомысленнымъ и чуть ли вовсе не безмозглымъ молокососомъ [Введенский 1850: 162].
Mr. Omer, hearing his daughter’s footstep before I heard it, touched me with his pipe and shut up one eye [Dickens 1955: 429].	Заслышавъ шаги дочери, мистеръ Омеръ дотронулся до меня чубукомъ и прищурился однимъ глазомъ [Введенский 1850: 243].
I bade good-night to Mr. Omer and directed my steps thither, with a solemn feeling [Dickens 1955: 429].	Я попрощался, и грудь моя волновалась какимъ-то торжественнымъ чувствомъ [Введенский 1850: 243].

Thus, we can conclude that I. Vvedenskii takes when translated Charles Dickens novel "David Copperfield " position naturalization , naturaliziruya his translation for the Russian reader, making it more intuitive and you know, at the expense of the translation there are numerous changes, we noted above.

As another example displays positions naturalization in translation can be distinguished contributions Rudyard Kipling poem «Belts», made S. Stepanov, "Buckles" (see Appendix); as well as the translation of the poem Rudyard Kipling "The Gipsy Trail ", made by G. Kruzhkov and who later became a popular song (see Appendix).

Consider this kind of semantic position deviation on the example of translation of the poem Poe (E. Poe «The Raven») and ironic paraphrase of this poem, made Voznesensky.

After the appearance of numerous translations of Poe s poem "The Raven" and nteres creativity Poe began to gradually fade away. "The formal sophistication" of his works, so once contributed to their popularity in Russia, Art ala repel them from the beginning reader and perceived by society as a purely literary game. In 1960. it became so clear that A. Ascension in his poem "Oz" gave no proper translation, and "ironic paraphrase of" Edgar Allan Poe's poem "The Raven" (Leyzerovich, 2002).

Parodied usually popular, well-known texts, ie those texts that were translated several times. If parodied repeatedly translated text, then we can talk about the parody translation .

Voznesensky takes from the original only " motive ": the repetition of the last word in each stanza poems s, but changes and plot, and style, and the style of writing, and a method of constructing a poem. Therefore, we can conclude that Voznesensky parodies uet original , ie is "parodic rewriting" of the original in the host culture. A. Ascension takes the form of the original, which "sends" the reader the translation to the original text. Comic effect is created by including recognition of the source text and the complete replacement of its contents. About dnako about riginal and translation are so different from each other that we can conclude that Voznesensky parodies not the original, and the many translations that have been made by various authors. In this parody is a reaction to the number of transfers or indication that this t text took a significant place in the host culture. Parody occurs when the appearance of a large number of translations of the same source text does not increase quality, but on the contrary qualities of translation deteriorate ed.

(E. A. Poe. The Raven)

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore -
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chambler door. «Tis some visitor,» I muttered, «tapping at my chambler door -
Only this and nothing more.»

А. Вознесенский 1964 (Из поэмы «Оза», по мотивам Э. По)

В час отлива возле чайной

я лежал в ночи печальной,

говорил друзьям об Озе и величьи бытия.

Но внезапно чёрный ворон

примешался к разговорам,

вспыхнув синими очами,

он сказал:

«А на фига?!»

Я вскричал: «Мне жаль вас, птица,

человеком вам родиться б,

и царем быть, и рабом,

счастье высшее - трудиться,

полпланеты раскроя...»

Он сказал: «А на фига?!»

«Будешь ты великий ментор,

бог машин, экспериментов,

будешь бронзой монументов

знаменит во все края...»

Он сказал: «А на фига?!»

Оза, роза ли, стервоза, вот метаморфоза…[Американская поэзия….1983: 552].

In REM n e Voznesensky "Oz" is used colloquially th vocabulary, lexical and Reduced Single: "yes the fig" (simple., Accel.) "Stervoza" (simple., branes.) "Mura" (simple.) "lackey" (Accel., despised.) "Starve" (Perrin., Accel.) "Kick the bucket" (simple). etc. especially well represented in the artistic style of conversational speech, due to the very structure of artistic works [Kryukov, 2006: 32].

Reduced vocabulary of style in this poem is adjacent to the vocabulary of high style, "metamorphosis" ( Book .) "slave" ( Perrin., Book .) "King" ( obsolete., Book .) "Greatness" ( high ).; "byti e" ( Book ).; "eyes" ( obsolete .) "Blasphemy" ( obsolete., Book .). Thereby creating a comic effect. A ll these words, even the vocabulary of high style, the translator uses ironic ec ki. Reduced contrast and high vocabulary allows him to achieve an ironic effect. All poem based on the contrast and the oxymoron: the lyrical hero talking with friends about the greatness of being "in the low tide near the tea hour" at the end of a crow suddenly calls "scum" x Otchet argue about "the greatness of being." Instead of "never more "repeats by a" yes to fi ha. "

EM Maslennikov calls this phenomenon "text-parody" (Maslennikov, 2003). Parody and comic effect is supported by the recognition of the reader object of parody. Recognizability of the text as text parody promotes switching registers, change the form or system of stylistic devices (which is also observed in the above example). In addition, a striking example of intertextuality and rewriting the text to be translated.

Parodic texts as a kind of comic based on the principle of balancing the two opposite actions - analogical comparison with the form of the prototype and the violation of his substantive side. Exaggerated analogy with the shape combined with the switching of authorial intention in terms of content. Influenced by analogy n and n rototipny meaning imposed new content, more often the opposite of copyright content. Such interaction analogy and deformation appears on the external level and explicate most characteristic ironic imitation. However, parody is more important content of this deformation, which suggests the emergence of additional, hidden meanings [Eliseev 2003: 41]. All that we see in the poem Voznesensky.

2. 5. Neutralization of sense.

B. Hohel t say also about neutralizing sense that we do not give out as Interpreter position as the main reason for this phenomenon VM Zhigalina Assuming an "unfortunate translation solution," a poor understanding of the text or "bad translation" [Zhigalina 2005: 104 ]. Danno essence of phenomena in translation is that the meaning of that in the original nomination objectified means indirect, in the translated text objectified means direct nomination. Thereby depriving translator reader to think and understand, look for the deeper meaning of the text, all the reader has already been given (the recipient host culture) explicitly, no need to look in the text of any deep meaning, no need to think about the read, everything is clear. Most likely, the position of neutralization sense not the intention interpreter, as it lost much of the meaningfulness of the text and the translation quality is deteriorating, but it's pretty frequent phenomenon that allows us to speak of it as a kind of translation position [Zakharova 2002: 112] that VM Zhigalina wa s called a "bad translation solutions" [Zhigalina 2005: 104]. "Bad translation solution" occurs when there is a difficulty in understanding the translation or interpretation of the original text. This entails a substantial distortion of the author's program for (almost always) true transfer content [ibid: 105]. Formula meaningfulness artistic text allows you to set whether or not a bad translation solutions in the text ne fers. If the richness of content = (sequence of propositions, the sum of) + + semantic configuration ideas that define spiritual space [Galeeva 1997: 38], it is obvious that if the translated text will be missing one of the last two elements of the formula, the richness and This text will be broken, which corresponds to an unfortunate translation solutions. Literary translation task is to recreate the same program understanding, which was alozhena s original author (GI goddess). "Bad translation solution" (VM Zhigalina) or "neutralization of meaning" (NV Zakharova) is due to failures in understanding raspredmechivayuschego (GI goddess), since this level of understanding of the responsibility to use person / translator own experience in handling on the ideal reality as given in the original text.

B. Hohel insists that the primary task of the interpreter is not to replace one or another language means the source language («source language») adequate means of the target language («target language»), and to find the means , which are responsible for the use of resources in the original source language [Hochel 1991: 41].

As an example, the neutralization of meaning in the translation look poem D. Mallet «Edwin and Emma »and its translation made by VA Zhukovsky "Elvina and Edwin." In the original, because of the large differences in the origin and God tstve love Edwin and Emma (from VAZhukovskogo name changed to Emma Elvin) let boys father and his sister Hannah, she was constantly near the lovers and prevented them to be together. However, the translation VAZhukovsky omitted all verses pertaining to the evil and envious sister boys, so in translation occurs neutralization meaning "envy the sisters."

D. Mallet «Edwin and Emma»

Перевод В.А. Жуковского «Эльвина и Эдвин»

His sister, who, like Envy formed,

Like her in mischief joyed,

To work them harm, with wicked skill

Each darker art employed.

С холодностью смотрел старик суровый

На их любовь – на счастье двух сердец.

«Расстаньтесь!» - роковое слово

Сказал он, наконец.

But, oh! His sister’s jealous care,

A cruel sister she!

Forbade that Emma came to say,

«My Edwin! live for me».

Она пришла; но взор любви всесильной

Уже тебя, Эдвин, не воскресит:

Уже готов покров могильный,

И гроб уже открыт.

Do. Benjamin notes that the hallmark of such a transfer is that in most cases it transmits information or insufficient number of meanings, there is practically no artistry. However, in most cases the quality of the translation depends on the quality of the original: the better the original text was written, the less the translator raises the question of untranslatable text of the original or any of its elements [Benjamin 2004: 82].

In ysheopisannye translation positions explain the emergence of several different translations of the same text. Variability translation occurs when interpreters occupy different positions in the translation of the original understanding of the text, which determines their future work on translation of the text, respectively, each of them understands the original in its own way, and it's understood Iman and is reflected in the translation.

Discussions about what translation regarded as adequate, maintained constantly, but whatever position Interpreter interpreter is not held, it should strive to pass meaningful invariant in which most fully preserved mosaic original semantic [Zakharova 2002: 112].

In the third chapter we will look at what positions are identified in the translation of poetry R. Burns, which will confirm the position of positional translation work.

3. SALES Translation X position J In TRANSLATIONS POETRY R. B ERNSA

Consider n roillyustriruem and described in the second chapter translation position samples translations of poems by R. Burns, made with different translation positions. Practical material choice because translations of poems by R. Burns at different times engaged in various translators, among which there are also poets (Marshak, In. Zhukovsky, etc.) Translators texts are considered: S. Marshak, On . Senkovsky, Vasily Zhukovsky, T. Schepkina-Kupernik Kozlov, S. Petrov, O. Chyumina, Mikhailov, Kurochkin, V. Kostomarov, V. Fedotov, etc. We analyzed 117 poems by R. Burns and options for their translation (280 transfers). Revealed January 8 cases of translation products in the translation by R. Burns poems into Russian, made by different authors :

the orientation of the transmitting culture:
- exoticization position;
- historization position;
with a focus on the culture of the host:
- position of modernization;
- ideological position;
- position naturalization;
- adaptive position:
- poetic position;
- semantic position deviation:
- adding new meanings;
- build meaning;
- romanticizing translation;
- mimicking the translation;
neutralization of sense.

Among these products, we have considered the position of historicization, poetic position, position deviation sense - increasing sense position semantic deviation - mimicking the translation in the translation by R. Burns met.

In the analysis of practical material revealed the following translation positions:

Orientation to transmit culture:

1.1. Position exoticization

Consider the cases exoticization translated poems by R. Burns. To do this, compare R. Burns poem «The Ronalds of the Bennals» and its Russian translation, made by S. Marshak - "Girls of Tarbltona."

R. Burns «The Ronalds of the Bennals»

In Tarbolton, ye ken, there are proper young men,

And proper young lasses and a’ man:

But ken ye the Ronalds that live in the Bennals,

They carry the gree frae them a’ man.

[Р. Бернс 1982: 46].

Перевод С. Маршака «Девушки из Тарблтона»

В Тарблтоне, право,

Есть парни на славу,

Девицы имеют успех, брат.

Но барышни Рналдс,

Живущие в Бнналс,

Милей и прекраснее всех, брат.

[Бернс 1982: 47].

When translating Marshak borrows the name of another poem by R. Burns «The Tarbolton Lasses», which has not been translated S. Marshak, but both these poems are linked site of action and actors: the family of William Ronald (William Ronalds), who lived with his wife and two daughters on a farm near the village of Tarbolton Bennalz [English poetry ..... 2000 2 88]. In his translation by S. Marshak transcribes all the titles and names, putting stress («the Ronalds» - «Rnalds», «the Bennals» - «Bnnals», «Tarbolton» - «in Tarbltone"), ie there is no naturalization or adaptation for Russian lingual host culture, and there is an opposite trend - exoticization, but in our terminology, this translation exoticization position . Uncomplicated poem about "the Scottish village where they live are great guys and girls" can occur in any culture and in any language, there is nothing typical Scottish. S. Marshak, using exotic names, makes the poem "Scottish", although they are quite difficult to Russian readers. Naturally, the replacement of Scottish names that effect frequency in the text make it "forenizirovannym" unacceptable, however difficult the village's name could be replaced by a neutral word "village", "The village in", etc. To facilitate the perception of these realities, S. Marshak puts stress in all unfamiliar words (ie all the titles and names, which may cause difficulties correct reading due to improper setting accents in Russian reader s), however, the realities were not removed.

Another example exoticization in translation is the translation of a poem by R. Burns "My Bony Mary ", made Marsha S. com" Wines razdobud me a pint. "

R. Burns «My bony Mary»

Go fetch to me a pint o’ wine,

And fill it in a silver tassie.

[Бернс 1982: 242].

Перевод С. Маршака «Вина мне пинту раздобудь»

Вина мне пинту раздобудь,

Налей в серебряную кружку

[Бернс 1982: 243].

When translating this poem Marshak transmits all realities: «a pint o 'wine» translated as "wine me a pint", and «a silver tassie» (which means «silver cup or goblet ») is translated as" a silver cup, "that is, in this case, the translator does not relieve the realities, and, being guided translation for transmitting culture , tries to keep all the features of the translation of the original dynamism and fun atmosphere, realities, short high-frequency vocabulary conferring poem dynamics, etc. In terms of our research is translational position exoticization .

In the analysis of R. Burns poems and translations of us was found only two examples of the translation products with a focus on broadcasting culture, as transfers are mainly embedded in the host culture. This is explained by the fact that in the poems of R. Burns there are many dialects and colloquial words which are almost impossible to convey in translation, because you can not replace the Scottish dialect dialect words of Russian. Recommended transformation in this case is to neutralize the features of the original, leading to the incorporation of translation in the host culture, that naturalization is the most common translations of your poems by R. Burns.

Orientation to the host culture

2.1. Position modernization

As an example, displays the position of modernization can be noted in the translation translation of a poem by R. Burns «The Answer», made by T. Shchepkina-Kupernik. To do this, compare R. Burns poem «The Answer» and his two Russian translation: translation by S. Marshak, "Reply to the letter" and translation T. Shchepkina-Kupernik "Hostess Uochep houses".

This poem is addressed to R. Burns Elizabeth Scott, wife of the owner of the estate Uochop, and her niece, Alison Cockburn, which R. Burns met in winter 1786 Acquainted with the poems of R. Burns, E. Scott did not believe that they could write a simple peasant boy who worked in the field. All of this is outlined in the letter R. Burns winter 1787 R. Burns replied to this letter, Mrs. Scott ironic poem «The Answer» [English poetry .... 2000: 310]. This explains the ironic and the dynamic nature of this poem.

R. Burns «The Answer»

Перевод С. Маршака «Ответ на письмо»

Guidwife,

I mind it weel in early date,

When I was beardless, young and blate,

An’ first cou’d thresh the barn,

Or haud a yoking at the pleugh,

An’ tho’fu’foughten sair enough,

Yet unco proud to learn.

[Бернс 1982: 204].

Сударыня,

Как этот год от нас далек,

Когда, безусый паренек,

Я молотить ходил на ток,

Пахал впервые поле

И хоть порой бывал без ног,

Но рад был этой школе.

[Бернс 1982: 205].

Dynamic rhythm sets used R. Burns short high-frequency vocabulary: «date», «beardless», «young», «thresh», «barn», «proud», «learn», etc. Dynamic and slightly ironic character of the first stanza of the poem R. Burns «The Answer» saved and transferred to the translation by S. Marshak, "The answer to the letter." Rhythm of the poem by S. Marshak dynamic (as in the original), used a short high-frequency vocabulary, creating rhythm of the poem: "year", "far", "beardless boy", "plow", "field", "sometimes", "no legs "," glad ", etc. (All of these features are noted in italics). Hero of the poem, though tired from hard work, but he does not complain to their share and still hilarious: "And even though it is sometimes no legs, but was glad that school." S. Marshak modernizing your translation, making it modern, using colloquial vocabulary: "beardless" ( Accel ., disapproval .) "Boy" ( decr., caresses ., Accel .) "No legs" ( Accel., jocular. ). Thus, in a translation by S. Marshak transmitted and reflected all senses of the original author, saved the dynamic rhythm of the original. S. Marshak modernize the transfer, modernizing it and making it more familiar and understandable to readers.

Translated by T. Shchepkina-Kupernik not saved the dynamic rhythm of the original and slightly ironic tone. Moreover, change of tone from ironic to justify even the name "Hostess Uochep houses" where used diminutive "hostess" sets the reader on an acquittal way. Poem loses its irony, dynamism, but appears pensive and dreamy character "dreaming the plow", "wearily trudging across the field" (all of these changes are noted in italics). Thus, we can conclude that T. Schepkina-Kupernik do not occupy a position t modernization unlike S. Marshak.

Перевод Т. Щепкиной-Куперник «Хозяюшке Уочеп-Хауза»

Хозяюшка!

Я помню, в молодые годы,

Юнец неловкий, безбородый,

С серпом ли на гумне,

За плугом ли бредя устало,

Лишь об ученьи все, бывало,

Тогда мечталось мне.

[Бернс 1982: 508].

Consider the examples of naturalization when translated poems by R. Burns. To compare this poem R. Burns «John Barleycorn» and its Russian translations made S. Marshak and O. Senkovsky.

At the heart of R. Burns poems are popular beliefs about gay spirits who live in the beans, leave them during threshing grain barns in winter, spring and returning to the field to bring life and joy in the ripening grain [English poetry .... 2000 2 86] R. Burns poem so fun and dynamic. The basic meaning of a poem by R. Burns - "gaiety", "game", his hero - a cheerful and life-affirming character who does not fall into despair, despite all the misfortunes that fell on them ("Kings vow to destroy him", "walked through it plow, "" it buried in the ground, "etc.). However, in the spring of John Barleycorn again "cheerful" and "threatens spears enemies", in fact in the poem metaphorically describes the process from growing grain to beer brewing, which in itself symbolizes fun. Quickening rhythm of the poem, which makes it a dynamic, fun.

R. Burns «John Barleycorn»

There was three kings into the east,

Three kings both great and high,

And they hae sworn a solemn oath

John Barleycorn should die.

They took a plough and plough’d him down,

Put clods upon his head,

And they hae sworn a solemn oath

John Barleycorn was dead.

But the cheerful Spring came kindly on,

And show’rs began to fall;

John Barleycorn got up again,

And sore surpris’d them all.

[Английская поэзия …2000: 77-79].

Further analyze the two translations in terms of translation products.

Перевод О. Сенковского «Иван Ерофеевич – Хлебное зернышко»

Были три царя на Востоке,

Три царя сильных и великих;

Поклялись они, бусурманы,

Известь Ивана Ерофеича Хлебное-зернышко.

И вырыли они глубокую борозду, да и бросили его в нее,

И навалили земли на его головушку;

И клялись они, бусурманы,

Что извели Ивана Ерофеича Хлебное-зернышко.

Но как скоро пришла светлая веснушка,

И полились теплые дождики,

Иван Ерофеич Хлебное-зернышко встал из могилы

К великому страху нехристей.

[Р. Бернс: 139-141].

O. Senkovsky takes in translating a poem by R. Burns Interpreter position naturalization , changing the genre to a native Russian. otlandskaya W ballad became translated Russian epic and Scottish farmer "has become a Russian peasant" [Ertner 2004: 123]. Spirit, wintering in the "granary Ayrshire" moved to overgrown bearded needles good old Moore. John Barleycorn renamed Ivan Yerofeyich Bread-seed. Into compliance with the changed s stylistics kings became kings, but not Russian, and "busurmanskimi" ie infidel [Smirnov http://magazines. Ru], strangers. Thus, O. Senkovsky maximum naturaliziruet his translation to Russian readers, bringing it to the readers of the host culture.

The text translation many words with diminutive suffixes, which is typical of Russian fairy tales, "freckle", "fellow", "grain", "full-polnehonko", "rains", "sun", "head" ( text in italics). The translated text is as close to folklore and fully adapted to the perception of the Russian reader: all English replaced Russian realities - kings (kings) are "kings", "Busurmanov", "infidels." Also changes the style of the poem. Poem translated O. Senkovsky loses its liveliness, cheerfulness, not peculiar epics, where there is an epic celebration of heroes. So , in this translation of the author's meaning is lost - "gaiety", "game", but rather acquires epic poem features.

Such transfers are interesting and original, although most are independent works, "translations based on" when the translator takes from the original only motive or just a hero, but it changes the style and manners (although interpreters often indicate that it is a translation ) [Zhirmunski 1979: 125].

It should be noted that in translating e S. Marshak passed the author's intent - meaning of the poem "gaiety", "game". His hero, despite all adversity, do not despair, do not lose heart, it is still hilarious (and hero of the poem R. Burns). Quickening rhythm of the poem, which makes it very dynamic, cheerful, saved disyllabic size S. Marshak, as well as R. Burns uses short, high-frequency vocabulary.

Poem translated by S. Marshak remains the same cheerful, life-affirming as a poem by R. Burns.

Перевод С. Маршака «Джон Ячменное Зерно»

Трех королей разгневал он

И было решено,

Что навсегда погибнет Джон

Ячменное Зерно.

Велели выкопать сохой

Могилу короли,

Чтоб славный Джон, боец лихой,

Не вышел из земли.

Травой покрылся горный склон,

В ручьях воды полно...

А из земли выходит Джон

Ячменное Зерно

Все так же буен и упрям

С пригорка в летний зной

Грозит он копьями врагам,

Качая головой.

[Бернс в переводах С. Маршака: 125-127].

Another example of naturalization translation is a translation Kozlov "Rural Saturday night in Scotland." Consider R. Burns poem «The Cotter's Saturday Night» and two variants of translation of the poem into Russian: in translation T. SHCHepkinoj-Kupernik "Saturday Evening villager" and translated Kozlov "Rural minutes Saturday night in Scotland." Compare these two variants of translation and the original.

R. Burns «The Cotter’s Saturday Night»

From scenes like these, old SCOTIA’s grandeur springs,

That makes her lov’d at home, rever’d abroad:

Princes and lords are but the breath of kings,

“An honest man’s the noble work of GOD:”

And certes, in fair Virtue’s heavenly road,

The Cottage leaves the Palace far behind:

What is a lordling’s pomp? a cumbrous load,

Disguising oft the wrench of human kind,

Studied in arts of Hell, in wickedness refin’d!

[Бернс 1982: 140-141].

All these meanings are transferred to the translation T. SHCHepkinoj-Kupernik: also praised "the greatness of his native Scotland," "foreign countries honor," emphasizes that the simple but honest people on the path to God is much closer than the rich, "shacks without palaces, lead forward "simple peasants are" paths benefactors in humility "(noted in italics), ie fully preserved in the translation copyright e meanings inherent in the original.

Перевод Т. Щепкиной-Куперник «Субботний вечер поселянина»

Вот в чем родной Шотландии величье –

Любовь своих и чуждых стран почет.

Власть королей дает чинов различье,

Но благородство только бог дает.

Лачуги, не дворцы, ведут вперед

Стезею добродетели в смиреньи:

Мирская роскошь – часто тяжкий гнет,

Под ней – нередко гнусное творенье,

Коварство адское, пороков изощренье.

[Бернс 1982: 141-142].

However, the translation Kozlova, called "Rural Saturday night in Scotland" and in the first eighteen lines it really is about Scotland and Scottish peasants in the nineteenth line poet turns to "Holy Russia" calls her "our mother earth" and glorifies its greatness worldwide famous "your squads and fleets miracles", "bashful virgins and Russian beauty." Appear typical Russian realities "kings", "Russian virgins" characteristic Russian ballads appeal "Holy Russia", "Mother Earth" (all these features are marked in italics). Koslov points before his transfer, it is not proper translation and "free imitation of Burns", which in itself involves a significant divergence from the original. Thus, we can conclude that Kozlov comes to its translation from the position of naturalization , which explains the changes made to them in the translation. R. Burns writes about Scotland and glorifies its greatness, and Kozlov, naturaliziruya R. Burns poem to host Russian culture, writes about Russia, not Scotland (all of these changes are noted in italics).

Перевод И. Козлова «Сельский субботний вечер в Шотландии»

А я к тебе, к тебе взываю я,

Святая Русь, о, наша мать-земля!

Цвети, цвети, страна моя родная!

Меж царств земных, как пальма молодая,

Цвети во всем, и в доле золотой

Счастлива будь, и счастье лей рекой!

Страна сердец, и дум, и дел высоких!

О, как гремят везде в краях далеких

Твоих дружин и флотов чудеса

И русских дев стыдливая краса!

Верна царям и верою хранима,

Врагу страшна, сама неустрашима,

Да будут честь и нравов простота

И совести народной чистота

Всегда твоей и славой, и отрадой,

И огненной кругом тебя оградой,

И пред тобой исчезнет тень веков

При звуке струн восторженных певцов!

[Бернс 1982: 499]

R. Burns poem "The Jolly Beggars "fun and dynamic, his characters are funny tramp who gather every evening in the pub at" Pussy Nancy "(" Poosie Nansie "). This meaning is preserved and translated by S. Marshak, and translated by S. Petrov. However, Petrov uses many colloquial, native Russian expressions naturaliziruya or rusifitsiruya his translation: "a swarm of bats - a swarm of bats", "cheerful Halacha - the poor", "hobo brothers ( Accel., jocular .) means the company "," sudarka " ( pic. from madam , obsolete .) "from booze ( simple ). EQA ( simple ). "" intoxicated, any ( simple .), is used to mean sweetheart ", etc., which takes the reader from the English jolly zucchini in a typically Russian beer (all of these changes are noted in italics). Petrov even Russified name: instead of "merry beggars" appears "necessity is the mother a whore." The word "necessity" has thesauruses litter " Sabir . , obsolete . "And means" beggars, beggars. "

R. Burns «The Jolly Beggars»

When lyart leaves bestrow the yird,

Or wavering like the Bauckie-bird,

Bedim cauld Boreas blast;

When hailstanes drive wi’ bitter skyte,

And infant Frosts begin to bite,

In hoary cranreuch drest;

Ae night at e’en a merry core

O’randie, gangrel bodies,

In Poosie-Nansie’s held the splore,

To drink their orra dudies.

His doxy lay within his arm;

Wi’ Usquebae an’ blankets warm,

She blinket on her Sodger:

An’ ay he gies the tozie drab

The tither skelpan kiss.

[Бернс 1982: 386]

Перевод С. Маршака «Веселые нищие»

Когда, бесцветна и мертва,

Летит последняя листва,

Опалена зимой,

И новорожденный мороз

Кусает тех, кто гол и бос,

И гонит их домой,-

В такие дни толпа бродяг

Перед зарей вечерней

Отдаст лохмотья за очаг

В какой-нибудь таверне.

У очага сидел солдат

В ремнях, с походным ранцем,

Пред ним любовница была,

От хмеля, ласки и тепла

Пылавшая румянцем.

[Бернс 1982: 387]

Перевод С. Петрова «Голь гулящая»

Когда, как рой нетопырей,

Листву пожухлую Борей

По воздуху гоняет,

Когда морозец молодой –

От инея уже седой

И за щеки щипает,

Тут к Дусе-Нанси в поздний час

Веселые галахи –

Бродяжья братья собралась

Пропиться до рубахи.

И от сивухи окосев,

К солдату на колени сев,

Забавилась сударка.

И целовал горюн в уста

Свою хмельную любу.

[Бернс 1982: 441]

Consider the cases of adaptation of the translated text in the host culture with examples of literary translation of the text. In 1816 VAZhukovsky performed Arrangement R. Burns poem «John Barleycorn» for children and called it "oatmeal." This poem can not be called proper translation of a poem by R. Burns «John Barleycorn», but rather an adaptation works for children, in which the "beer" is replaced by "jelly." With explores noted that in general VAZhukovsky always poderkival "futility" literal translation or "bare imitation" and claimed that "all borrowed must be reborn to become poetry" [Zhukovsky, 1985: 300]. This explains the trend VAZhukovskogo in most cases adapted or naturalize their own translations for Russian readers. In this poem VAZhukovsky describes the process of growth of oat grain and cooking jelly in an understandable and accessible to children form: oat grain compared with a small child and how it grows, "sleeping in the cradle", "eating and drinking", " not piknet "," look "," sucks like a baby "," crawled out of shroud ", etc. (Italics in the text), then sprout leaves "family home" - "grain" (as a grown child) and samples ivaetsya own. VAZhukovsky takes from the original only "character" - "grain", but completely changed and the plot, and the manner of IPR ma.

R. Burns «John Barleycorn»

There was three kings into the east,

Three kings both great and high,

And they hae sworn a solemn oath

John Barleycorn should die.

They took a plough and plough’d him down,

Put clods upon his head,

And they hae sworn a solemn oath

John Barleycorn was dead.

But the cheerful Spring came kindly on,

And show’rs began to fall;

John Barleycorn got up again,

And sore surpris’d them all.

[Английская поэзия …, 2000: 77-79].

В.А. Жуковский «Овсяный кисель»

Дети, овсяный кисель на столе; читайте молитву;

Смирно сидеть, не марать рукавов и к горшку не соваться;

Кушайте, светы мои, на здоровье; Господь вас помилуй.

В поле отец посеял овес и весной заскордил.

Слушайте ж, дети: в каждом зернышке тихо и смирно

Спит невидимкой малютка-зародыш. Долго он, долго

Спит, как в люльке, не ест, и не пьет, и не пикнет, доколе

В рыхлую землю его не положат и в ней не согреют.

Вот он лежит в борозде, и малютке тепло под землей;

Вот тихомолком проснулся, взглянул и сосет, как младенец,

Сок из родного зерна, и растет, и невидимо зреет;

Вот уполз из пелен, молодой корешок пробуравил;

Роется вглубь, и корма ищет в земле, и находит.

[Английская поэзия …2000: 336-338].

Another example of adaptation to the host culture of translation is the translation of a poem by R. Burns «John Barleycorn», made M. Mikhailov. This translates the author's intent, the meaning of the poem "gaiety", "game". His hero, despite all adversity, do not despair, do not lose heart, it is still hilarious (and hero of the poem R. Burns). Quickening rhythm of the poem, which makes it very dynamic, fun. Mikhailov, as well as R. Burns uses short, high-frequency vocabulary, "come", "leaves", "cheerful", "fresh", etc.

М. Михайлов «Джон Ячменное Зерно»

Когда-то сильных три царя

Царили заодно –

И порешили: сгинь ты, Джон

Ячменное Зерно!

Могилу вырыли сохой,

И был засыпан он

Сырой землею, и цари

Решили: сгинул Джон!

Пришла весна, тепла, красна,

Снега с полей сошли.

Вдруг Джон Ячменное Зерно

Выходит из земли.

И стал он полон, бодр и свеж

С приходом летних дней!

Как раз заснет змея-печаль,

Все будет трын-трава…

[Бернс 1982: 452].

Another example of adaptation to the host culture of translation is the translation of a poem by R. Burns «From the Heron Ballads ". Compare ballad R. Burns «From the Heron Ballads "(1795) and its Russian translation, made by S. Marshak. During the parliamentary elections of 1795 R. Burns wrote four election ballads in support of the candidate of the Whig Party. Translated into Russian first of these ballads [English poetry .... 2000: 2 47]. Originally found many realities that are not transferred to the translation by S. Marshak: "Galloway", "Lord", "Knight", "Kirouchtree", "Saint Mary 's Isle "," Duke "," ribband and star »(these changes are noted in the text and translation of the original italics). S. Marshak adapts to his translation of Russian culture and the host does not pass in his translation of the original many realities that have temporal or local character, apparently th, considering that they will not understand Russian readers, and will complicate the understanding of the text, ie is in our terminology, this translation is an example of adaptation translational position . S. Marshak poem made of situational universally valid, removing ekzotizmy, which are the names, titles.

R. Burns «From the Heron Ballads»

Thro’ Galloway and a’ that,

Whilk is the Lord, or belted Knight,

That best deserves to fa’ that?

Or wha e’er wi’ Kirouchtree met,

That has a doubt of a’ that?

Tho’ wit and worth, in either sex,

Saint Mary’s Isle can shaw that,

Wi’ Lords and Dukes let Selkirk mix,

For wheel does Selkirk fa’ that.

A lord may be lousy loun,

Wi’ ribband, star and a’ that.

С. Маршак «Предвыборная баллада»

Кого из нашей знати

Иль из народа мы пошлем

Решать дела в палате?

Кто не ходил к нему хоть раз

В открытые ворота?

Достойных парней и подруг

В краю у нас немало,

Но Селькерк любит светский круг,

Как Селькерку пристало.

Что лорд в блестящих орденах

Бывает глуп и прочее.

[Burns 1982: 336-339].

As another case of adapting the translation should be noted translation of a poem by R. Burns "Yon wild Mossy Mountains ", th execution S. Marshak" Rockies ".

R. Burns «Yon wild mossy mountains»

Перевод С. Маршака «Скалистые горы»

Yon wild, mossy mountains sae lofty and wide,

That nurse in their bosom the youth o’ the Clyde;

Where the grous lead their coveys thro’the heather to feed,

And the shepherd tents his flock as he pipes on his reed.

Not Cowrie’s rich valley, nor Forth’s sunny shores,

To me hae the charms o’ yon wild, mossy moors.

[Бернс 1982: 210].

Скалистые горы, где спят облака,

Где в юности ранней резвится река,

Где в поисках корма сквозь вереск густой

Птенцов перепелка ведет за собой.

Милее мне склоны и трещины гор,

Чем берег морской и зеленый простор.

[Бернс 1982: 211].

Translated by S. Marshak traced withdrawal realities, as well as a number of inaccuracies that do not affect the overall meaning of the poem, but it facilitates the perception of readers of the host culture: the shores of the Firth of Forth «Forth's sunny shores» translated as "crack mountains," valley " Cowrie's valley »just as slopes, river Clyde (the Clyde) translates simply as "river», «mossy moors» translated as "sea and green space», «grouse» («grouse") is translated into a "quail" character disappears from the translation of the shepherd leading his flock and playing the fife: original «the shepherd tents his flock as he pipes on his reed», and this corresponds to the translation translation of the previous line, and the image of the shepherd is absent in the translation by S. Marshak " quail chicks leads the "(all of these changes are noted in italics). Translated clear tendency to adapt to the host culture of readers, and it is in our terminology - adaptive translation position .

Consider the cases of adding new meanings translated poems by R. Burns. To analyze this poem by R. Burns «I hae a wife o 'my ain» and five translations of the second stanza of the poem in Russian, made by various authors: S. Marshak, Kurochkin, D. Sviyazhskim (Minayeff), O. Chyuminoy, T. Shchepkina-Kupernik.

R. Burns. «I hae a wife o’ my ain»

I hae a penny to spend,

There, thanks to naebody;

I hae naething to lend,

I’ll borrow frae naebody.

[Бернс 1982: 362]

Перевод С. Маршака

Своим трудом я нажил грош,

И сам истрачу я его.

Что у меня взаймы возьмешь?

И я не брал ни у кого.

[Бернс 1982: 363]

Перевод Т. Щепкиной-Куперник «У меня есть жена»

Есть и грош у меня: за него

Не обязан ничем никому.

В долг я дать не могу ничего,

Но не должен и сам никому.

[Бернс 1982: 523]

Перевод Д. Свияжского (Минаева) «На чердаке»

День и ночь – сутки прочь;

Так я век проживу.

Снится бедность мне в ночь, -

Нищета на яву.

[Бернс 1982: 521]

Перевод О. Чюминой «Песня»

В долг ничем я не ссужаю

Из соседей никого,

Но и сам не занимаю,

У соседей ничего.

[Бернс 1982: 522]

Перевод В. Курочкина «Песнь бедняка»

Чем живу я – и сам не пойму;

Никому не обязан зато.

Я помочь не могу никому,

Да и мне не поможет никто.

[Бернс 1982: 520]

Translated D. Sviyazhsky (Minayeva) occurs adding meaning "s poverty", the hero suffers from his poverty, he is so poor that he can not live like this anymore, poverty haunts him "in a dream and in reality." However, in this poem the meaning of R. Burns ("poverty"), and that given the opposite meaning "despite poverty hero free, neither of whom is independent and cheerful» - «thanks to naebody», «I'll borrow frae naebody» ie sense of "pride" and not "poverty".

The meaning of "freedom, independence, pride" has been translated by S. Marshak: "In my own work I have made a penny," "And I myself spent it," "I did not take none"; translated by T. Shchepkina-Kupernik "not obliged to anything anyone" "But he should not and no one"; translated O. Chyuminoy "But he did not occupy, neighbors have nothing"; translated by V. Kurochkin "Nobody is obliged but" (these changes are noted in italics).

In P. Burns poem fun, playful, and some Fra gmenty this poem: «I hae a penny», «Naebody cares for me, I care for naebody» found in the English and Scottish songs with a playful and even comic character [English poetry 2000 .... 2, 31]. W utlivy, cheerful character of the original is transmitted in all translations, although Kurochkin poem called "The Song of the poor", but his character does not complain of poverty, nor laments his condition, that is, there is no sense adding "poverty", conveys a sense of " independence and pride. " However, translated by D. Sviyazhsky (Minayeva) on the one hand it is added meaning "poverty", and on the other hand is not transmitted "fun" and "playfulness" of the original. Thus, we can conclude that D. Sviazhsky suitable for transfer to the position deviation sense, since it is added meaning .

Consider other cases adding new meanings in translation from the original. To compare this poem R. Burns «John B arleycorn» and free translation VAZhukovskogo "Confessions batiste Shawl."

R. Burns «John Barleycorn»

There was three kings into the east,

Three kings both great and high,

And they hae sworn a solemn oath

John Barleycorn should die.

They took a plough and plough’d him down,

Put clods upon his head,

And they hae sworn a solemn oath

John Barleycorn was dead.

But the cheerful Spring came kindly on,

And show’rs began to fall;

John Barleycorn got up again,

And sore surpris’d them all.

[Английская поэзия … 2000: 77-79].

В.А. Жуковский «Исповедь Батистового платка».

Я родился простым зерном;

Был заживо зарыт в могилу;

Но Бог весны своим лучом

Мне возвратил и жизнь и силу.

И долговязой коноплёй

Покинул я земное недро;

И был испытан я судьбой, -

Ненастье зная, зная ведро.

Зной пёк меня, бил тяжкий град,

И ветер гнул в свирепой злобе-

Так, что я жизни был не рад

И горевал о прежнем гробе.

Но было и раздолье мне!

Как веселился я, бывало,

Когда в час ночи, при луне.

Вокруг меня все засыпало!

Когда прохладный ветерок

Меня качал, ко мне ласкался,

Когда веселый мотылек,

Блестя, на колос мой спускался.

[Английская поэзия …2000: 80-82].

Through transfers VAZhukovskogo R. Burns entered the Russian cul ture as a romantic poet. VA Zhukovsky, himself a romantic poet, the poem brings typical romantic motifs: this can be seen at the lexical level due to obsolete vocabulary: "bowels of the earth" ( obsolete .) "Fierce anger" ( Accel .) "Expanse" ( obsolete .) "Fate" ( obsolete .) "Hard" ( obsolete .) "Bucket" ( obsolete .) "Grieve" ( obsolete., simple .) "Snuggle" ( obsolete .).

There is a change of style of the original, used low-frequency vocabulary words long, typical of romantic poetry (in accordance with the romantic Representat ION, which are available for VA Zhukovsky), the poem loses its zhizner adostnost, cheerfulness. Hero VA Zhukovsky, unlike gay hero R. Burns, prone to reflections on the meaning of life, to the digression. Thus, the translation does not make sense the author '- "gaiety", "game", respectively, and cheerful, undefeated hero turns into a romantic. VAZhukovsky as romantic poet brings to his translation of the romantic features and so cheerful hero turns into a romantic. Romance tekstoobrazujushchie features penetrate the Russian poetry even from where they originally were not: R. Burns, who has a romantic and texts here does not manifest itself as a romantic poet. Such position can be described as a sense position deviations since the translation appear different meanings .

Another example of adding new meanings in translation from the original translation is by R. Burns ballad "Tam O 'Shanter "by Russian language adapted S. Marshak. At the heart ballads R. Burns is folk legend about a farmer who raised the bazaar propyl money lost his hat, and, not knowing how to justify to his wife, wrote a story that when he returned home, he was attacked by evil forces . In R. Burns ballad hero constantly spent time in a tavern in Kirktone Jin (Kirkton Jean). This pub used disreputable and locals ironically nicknamed him «Leddies' House». In his ballad R. Burns ironically beat this title: R. Burns cut the word «Leddies' House» to "L - s House "(modeled on the" Lord 's House ", as the word because of the bans censorship« Lord »often reduced to «L - d») [English poetry .... 2000: 2 66]. Thus, given a certain ambiguity that gives the ballad R. Burns irony. However, the translation of the floor brought about misleading S. Marshak, who mistakenly translated "L - s House "as" God's house. " Because of this misunderstanding S. Marshak had to introduce the missing original characters in P. Burns, "servant of the church" and the sexton, "for a meeting with whom, Tam went to church on Sundays (in the house of God), and spent the entire evening with them, but for some reason not in prayer, and for "full circle" (all of these changes are noted in italics), so in translation by S. Marshak Doba vlyaetsya additional meaning : "religiousness", absent in the original. The meaning of "religiousness" translated mixed with blasphemy because to sit with a glass of beer in the church was unacceptable. However, the original hero R. Burns Tam O'Shenteru put the blame completely opposite circumstance - that on Sundays he goes not to the church and to the tavern to drink beer that was convinced his righteous wife over for him trouble.

R. Burns «Tam O’Shanter»

С. Маршак «Тэм О’Шэнтер»

That at the L – d’s house, even on Sunday,

Thou drank wi’ Kirkton Jean till Monday.

[Бернс 1982: 414]

Ты в праздник ходишь в божий дом,

Чтобы потом за полной кружкой

Ночь просидеть с церковным служкой

Или нарезаться с дьячком!

[Бернс 1982: 415]

2. 5. 2. Romanticizing in translation

Consider the examples of romanticizing translation. To compare this poem R. Burns «Sun and Moon »and its Russian translation, made Chyuminoy O. (" sun and moon "). In R. Burns poem spring and awakening of nature contrasted with sadness hero who broke up with his favorite. However, his character still enjoys spring and birdsong. Rhythm of the poem is quite dynamic, uses high-frequency, short words ("Past", "at Last "," Birds "," Sing "," Glad "," Sad "), etc., which is not very sets the reader on a romantic or a sad mood.

R. Burns «Sun and Moon»

The winter is past, and the summer’s come at last,

And the little birds sing on every tree;

Now everything is glad, while I am very sad

Since my true love is parted from me.

[Бернс 1982: 548].

Перевод О. Чюминой «Солнце и месяц»

Растопились снега,

Зеленеют луга,

Омываемы светлой волною;

Только в сердце печаль,

И кого-то мне жаль,

Кто сюда не вернется весною…

[Бернс 1982: 549].

When translating O. Chyumina romanticized R. Burns poem, rhythm changes, using an outdated, book vocabulary, character istic for romantic lyrics: "omyvaemy th" ( obsolete., high .) "sorrow" ( obsolete .) "Melt" ( Perrin., Book .). Also, instead of sadness of leaving his beloved appears sense of sadness and anguish of a man who will not come back, there is the meaning of "despair, longing," which is absent in the original and the translation makes more romanticized . In our terminology, this translation position romanticizing.

Another example of romanticizing a translation of a poem by R. Burns «Ken ye what Meg o 'the mill has gotten» and its Russian translation, made Fedotov "Meg from the mill." With equal contributions Fedotov with the original and the translation by S. Marshak "Wedding Maggie."

R. Burns «Ken ye what Meg o’ the mill has gotten»

O ken ye what Meg o’ the mill has gotten,

An’ ken ye what Meg o’ the mill has gotten?

She’s gotten a coof wi’ a claut o’siller,

And broken the heart o’ the barley Miller, -

[Бернс 1982: 306].

Перевод С. Маршака «Свадьба Мэгги»

Ты знаешь, что Мэгги к венцу получила?

С крысиным хвостом ей досталась кобыла.

Вот именно это она получила.

[Бернс 1982: 307].

Перевод В. Федотова «Мэг с мельницы»

Кто знает, что Мэг от отца получила,

Какой ее долей судьба оделила?

Приданое в виде бесхвостой кобылы –

Вот что она в дар от отца получила.

[Бернс 1982: 524].

R. Burns poem cheerful, playful and dynamic. Dynamic rhythm created by the Use Hovhan I shortly oh, oh high and colloquial vocabulary and. Witty and cheerful tone poem preserved and translated by S. Marshak, his translation was smiling too dynamic. Fedotov admits in his translation of significant changes brings to his translation of romantic motives , stings spine oh the poor Maggie, with the cost of which is rigidly fate, but in the original question about it yet. Fedotov uses the book, high vocabulary inherent romantic poems: "share" ( obsolete ). "destiny" ( obsolete ). "Odelia" ( Book ). "receive a gift" ( high ).; thus romanticizing the original, which lacks the romantic theme, but rather clearly heard cheerful tone. Translated they lost and the meaning of "gaiety of the game" is not passed (these changes are noted in italics). In our terminology, this translation position romanticizing .

As another single case of position romanticizing the translation should be noted translation of a poem by R. Burns «A red red rose », made by T. Shchepkina-Kupernik. To do this, compare R. Burns poem «A red red rose »and translation T. Shchepkina-Kupernik" Love is like a rose. " Translated T. Schepkina-Kupernik reinforces the romanticism of the original, the poem becomes too sublime and pathetic by the use of the epithet s "unearthly" having a litter in the dictionary " high . "And" blossomed "in the dictionary litter" outdated . "As well as comparison of love with" soft song "and" melody with unearthly sound ", which has no counterpart in the original. The poem is not like a declaration of love to his simple peasant girl. In our terminology, this translation position romanticizing .

R. Burns «A red red rose»

Перевод Т. Щепкиной-Куперник «Любовь как роза»

O my Luve’s like a red, red rose,

That’s newly sprung in June;

O my Luve’s like the melodie

That’s sweetly play’ed in tune.

[Бернс 1982: 318].

Любовь моя – алая, алая роза,

В июньский расцветшая зной;

Любовь моя – нежная, нежная песня,

Мелодии звук неземной!

[Бернс 1982: 553].

Thus, as a result of the analysis of R. Burns poems and their translation into Russian, it was found that the translation of these poems by various authors prevail translation position with a focus on the host culture (identified January 6 cases), and with a focus on broadcasting culture revealed all 2 cases . In most of the cases, interpreters rather try anyway naturalize or adapt your translation for readers host culture, to make it more intimate Russian readers lam, remove the difficulty of understanding.

Perhaps in examining and analyzing other practical material would be obtained different results and found instances of other translation products, but in our study, we decided to limit the practical stuff and stop smiling on poems by R. Burns.

Generalize the results of the analysis discussed in the third chapter of practical material in a pivot table, reflecting general trends in the translation of poems by R. Burns:

Interpreting trends	Orientation to transmit culture (2 cases)	Orientation to the host culture (1 6 cases)
Translation position	Position exoticization (2 cases)	Position modernization (1 case)
		Ideological position (1 case)
	Historization position (not revealed)	Position naturalization (3 cases)
		Adaptive position (4 cases) a) poetic position (not revealed)
		Position semantic deviation: a) To increase sense (not identified); b) adding new meanings (4 cases); c) position romanticizing (3 cases); g) parodying the original position (or other transfers) in translation - not found

Chapter Summary 3

The analysis of poems by R. Burns and Russian translations were neck of vle but:

Dedicated positions us translation verified by the example of translation of texts by R. Burns into Russian, which is found the following translation position: exoticization, modernization, indoctrination, naturalization, adaptation and semantic deviation.
When translating poems by various authors R. Burns dominated translation position with a focus on the host, not the transmitting culture. This is explained by the fact that R. Burns poems there are many dialects and colloquial words that are difficult to convey in translation.
In most of the cases, interpreters rather try anyway naturalize or adapt its translation to the host cultures readers I expected to make it closer to Russian readers, to remove the difficulty of understanding.

Conclusion

In this dissertation study attempted typology conscious or from are preset positions translator in terms of two trends: the orientation of the transmitting or the receiving culture, as well as analysis of cases of translation products for n To translate texts.

Initially in this study as a basis for comparing different translations of the text and identify the various positions in the translation work we have considered the concept of "equivalence". Were analyzed and linguistic equivalence lingvokulturologicheskie theory proposed by both foreign and domestic scientists.

As a result, we have assumed that "equivalence" as a measure of "accuracy" of the translation does not allow to develop a clear relationship to the world of translation practice. The opposite trend is allocated variability equivalence translation, which in this study is considered not only as a derivative of equivalence, but as an expression of clear and otreflekti Rowan translation position.

First study the variability of transfer is made not from the standpoint of axiology and, as a manifestation of an interpreter positions in activity: translation in this respect acts as a "rewriting". At the same time explains the appearance and parallel coexistence of the host culture of several options (and in some cases many variants) the translation of the same text. This approach covers a considerable amount of translated texts, including kulturoznachimyh and characterizing uet translation work until the twentieth century.

Variability is determined, first, the natural differences in the understanding and interpretation of the text. Artistic and kulturoznachimye texts presuppose different interpretations, as they contain many meanings which are understood differently translators. Second, variability is defined positions which may be conscious are preset customers transfer or caused by other circumstances.

Based on the analysis of different approaches to translation, we found that the possibility of the existence and equitable in the host culture, several translations of the original text due to different interpretations of the translators of the original text is for many centuries universals of translation activity. We proved this position in the second and third chapters of research on material of texts written before the nineteenth century., When the original is not "fetishized," and the notion of "equivalence" has not yet become dominant in the translation work.

In Danno m study we proposed definition translation position, tired of the most typical composition Wiley translation positions in literary translation. typologize Then we selected our e positions and Translation. T akzhe we compared several different translations of the same original, identify and characterize the different positions interpreter and changes that occur in the translated text from the point of view of conscious translation position.

The refinement of the typology of translation products was undertaken Yata attempt to define them in terms of two trends: the orientation of the transmitting or the receiving culture. NW Next, the analysis was neck of practical material revealed that in general the translation orientation prevails on the host culture. Specifically, when translating e R. Burns poems into Russian by various authors in translation prevailing trend is to focus on the host culture and its associated translation positions are crucial in ne fers R. Burns poems.

Thus, the present study showed that the translation position, conscious or from are preset, are one of the reasons for the emergence and existence of multiple translations kulturoznachimyh texts, ie the variability of translation.

Perhaps in the future, the study of translation products by comparing the original text and translation, as was done in this study should be carried out kulturoznachimyh texts having multiple versions of the translation at different times and by different authors, perhaps even in different languages.

List of used literature

Arnold IV The style of modern English language (style decoding). - L.: Education, 1981. - 235.
Akhmanova OS Glossary of linguistic terms. - Moscow: Sov. Encyclopedia, 1966. - 608.
Barsht K. Three literary criticism. Star. - number 3. - Moscow: International Relations, 2003. - Pp. 15-18.
Bogin GI Reflexivity and impulsivity in Communication / / Communication culture and its formation. - Voronezh, 1996. - S. 2-5.
Moscow: Higher School, 1978. - S. 157-167.
Vinogradov VS Introduction to Translation Studies (general questions and lexical). - M.: RW 2001. - 224.
HG Gadamer, Truth and Method. Wasps new philosophical hermeneutics. - M.: Thought, 1988. - 234.
VG Gak, YN Lwin The rate of exchange. French. - Moscow: International Relations, 1980. - 360C.
Galeeva NL Basics activity theory of translation. - Tver: Tver State University, 1997. - 79.
Galeeva NL Parameters artistic text and translation. - Tver: Tver State University, 1999. - 154.
AN Girivenko From the history of Russian literary translation of the first half of the XIX century. Romantic era. - Moscow: Nauka, 2002. - 280.
Zhirmunski VM Comparative Literature East and West. - Leningrad: Nauka, 1979. - 493 p.
Zholkovsky AK, Goldfinches YK the concept of "theme" and "poetic world" / / Works on sign systems. - Issue 8. - Tartu, 1975. - S. 153-158.
VA Zhukovsky Aesthetics and Criticism. - M.: Thought, 1985. - 324.
Kartashov IV Gogol and romanticism. - Kalinin: Kalin. z oo. y n-m, 1975. - 125.
Komissarov VN General theory of translation (Problems of translation in the light of foreign scientists). - M.: CheRo, 1999. - 134.
VN Komissarov Theory of Translation (linguistic projects asp). - Moscow: Higher School, 1990. - 250.
Kryukov AN Theory of Translation. - M.: MKVI, 1989. - 176.
Latyshev LK The rate of exchange. Equivalence and ways to achieve it. - Moscow: International Relations, 1981. - 248.
A. Leyzerovich U.S. Poets in Russian. From Edgar Allan Poe to Emily Dickinson. - 2002. - Bulletin number 9. - S. 12-20.
Mignard Beloruchev RK-General theory of translation and interpretation. - Moscow: Military Publishing, 1980. - 237 p.
Mikhailov M. Bilingualism and linguistic influence. - Cheboksary, 1990. - 356.
Naida Yu Science translate / / Problems of Linguistics. - № 4. - M: Thought, 1970. - P. 25-34.
SI burns, Shvedova N. Yu Dictionary of Russian language. - M.: Azbukovnik, 1997. - 944 p.
Parshin, theory and practice of translation. - Moscow: Higher School, 1995. - 167 p.
By E. Philosophy Creativity / / Poems. Stories. Essay. - M.: Fiction, 1999. - S. 715-725.
Popovich A. Problems of literary translation. - Moscow: Higher School, 1980. - 199 p.
Pushkin AS Fuller. Works. Op. : In 12 tons. - M.: Fiction, 1937-1959. - T. 6. - 354 p.
Retsker Frenkel Translation and translation practice. - M.: Intern. Relations, 1974. - 216.
Rosenzweig VY Canadian Journal of translators META. Notebook interpreter. - № 20. - M.: Higher School, 1983. - C - 91-102.
Russian writers of literary translation. - M.: Thought, 1960. - 255.
Sdobnikov VV Petrov OV Translation theory. - NN: Nauka, 2001. - 45 2.
Semenets Island E, Panas AN History translation. - Kiev Kyiv. g wasps. u n - t, 1989. - 292 p.
AA Smirnov Abstracts of the report by AA Smirnov. Problems and possibilities of literary translation. - Moscow: Raduga, 1935. - 33.
Trediakovskii VK Works. - St. Petersburg: Education, 1849. - 649 p.
Fedorov AV Introduction to the theory of translation (linguistic problems). - Moscow: Publishing House of Foreign Literature, 1958. - 374 p.
Fedorov AV Art of Translation and Life Literature: Essays. - Leningrad: Sov. Writer, 1983. - 352.
Fedorov AV window to another world / / The Poetics of Translation. - Moscow: Raduga, 1988. - S. 137-138.
Fedorov A. The general theory of translation (linguistic problems). - Moscow: Higher School, 1983. - 303.
Fedorov AV Essays General and comparative stylistics. - M.: Graduate School, 1971. - 195.
Hohel B. Time and space in the translation / / The Poetics of Translation. - Moscow: Raduga, 1988. - P. 82-90.
Chesnokov MS Methods for recovering metaphorical tropes Taxpayers. Dis. ... Cand. Philology. Sciences. - St. Petersburg, 2003. - 196 p.
Chukovskij KI High Art. - Moscow: Soviet Writer, 1968. - 384.
Schweitzer AD Theory of Translation. - Moscow: Nauka, 1988. - 378 p.
Schweitzer AD Theory of Translation: status, issues, issues. - Moscow: Nauka, 1988. - 215.
Shiryaev AF Translation as an object of scientific study of complex / / Linguistic problems of translation. - M.: Thought, 1982. - P. 68-78.
Ertner DE metaphorical concept in poetic texts by Robert Burns and Russian translations. Dis. ... Cand. Philology. Sciences. - Tyumen, 2004. - 190 p.
Amos FR Early Theories of translation. - NY: Octagon, 1920/1973. - P. 230.
Bassnett S. Translation Studies. - L & NY: Routledge, 1991. - P. 260.
Chesterman A. Memes of Translation. - Helsinki: Finn Lectura, 1997. - 212 p.
Dryden J. Ovid's Epistles / / WP Ker Essays of John Dryden. - Oxford, 1926. - 223 p.
Gumbrecht HU Literary Translation and its social conditioning in the middle ages. - Yale: French Studies, 1974. - 150 p.
Halliday MA K. The comparison of languages / / Macintosh A., Halliday MA K. Patterns of language. -London, 1966. - P. 120-128.
Jakobson R. On linguistic aspects of translation / / The translation studies reader / Ed. L. Venuti. - L ondon & NY: Routledge, 2000. - P. 113-118.
Lefevere A. The pragmatics of translating a national monument / / Dutch crossing (Translation issue). - № 12. - 1980. - P. 27-33.
Lefevere A. Translation, rewriting and the manipulation of literary fame. - London: The Cromwell Press, 1992. - 169 p.
Munday J. Introducing Translation Studies. Theorie s and Applicatio ns. - NY, L ondon: Routledge, 2001. - 245 p.
Neubert A. Text und Uberzetzung. - Leipzig: Enziklopaedie, 1985. - 168 s.
Newmark P. Approaches to translation. - Oxford: Pergamon, 1981. - 240 p.
Newmark P. A Textbook of Translation. - New York, 1988. - 234 p.
Nida EA Toward a science of translating. - Leiden: Brill, 1964. - P. 182-192.
Ross CD Translation and similarity / / MD Rose. Translation Spectrum. - Albany, 1981. - P. 13-25.
Toury G. Descriptive translation studies and beyond. - Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1995. - 331 p.
Toury G. In search of a theory of translation. - Telaviv, 1980. - 314 p.
Toury G. Translation, literary translation and pseudotranslation. Comparative criticism, vol. 6 - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. - P. 73-85.
Translation History and culture. Ed s. S. Bassnett, A. Lefevere. - Cassell: University Press, 1990. - 180 p.

Ослабление буквализма

ингвистическая эквивалентность/буквализм

Различные интерпретации

Нормы перевода ужесточаются

Переводческие позиции с ориентацией на передающую культуру

Переводческие позиции с ориентацией на принимающую культуру

Переписывание/вольный перевод

TRANSLATION POSITION IN ACTIVITIES