The peculiarities of technical translation in the sphere of trade

The term «vocabulary» is used to denote the system of words and word-groups that the language possesses.

The term «word» denotes the main lexical unit of a language resulting from the association of a group of sounds with a meaning. This unit is used in grammatical functions characteristic of it. It is the smallest unit of a language which can stand alone as a complete utterance.

The term «word-group» denotes a group of words which exists in the language as a ready-made unit, has the unity of meaning, the unity of syntactical function, e.g. the word-group «as loose as a goose» means «clumsy» and is used in a sentence as a predicative / He is as loose as a goose/.

Lexicology can study the development of the vocabulary, the origin of words and word-groups, their semantic relations and the development of their sound form and meaning. In this case it is called historical lexicology.

 Another branch of lexicology is called descriptive and studies the vocabulary at a definite stage of its development.

a) Language units

The main unit of the lexical system of a language resulting from the association of a group of sounds with a meaning is a word. This unit is used in grammatical functions characteristic of it. It is the smallest language unit which can stand alone as a complete utterance.

A word, however, can be divided into smaller sense units - morphemes. The morpheme is the smallest meaningful language unit. The morpheme consists of a class of variants, allomorphs, which are either phonologically or morphologically conditioned, e.g. please pleasant, pleasure.

Morphemes are divided into two large groups: lexical morphemes and grammatical (functional) morphemes. Both lexical and grammatical morphemes can be free and bound. Free lexical morphemes are roots of words which express the lexical meaning of the word; they coincide with the stem of simple words. Free grammatical morphemes are function words: articles, conjunctions and prepositions (the, with, and).Bound lexical morphemes are affixes: prefixes (dis-), suffixes (-ish) and also blocked (unique) root morphemes (e.g. Fri-day, cran-berry). Bound grammatical morphemes are inflexions (endings), e.g. -s for the Plural of nouns, -ed for the Past Indefinite of regular verbs, -ing for the Present Participle, -er for the Comparative degree of adjectives.

In the second half of the twentieth century the English word building system was enriched by creating so called splinters which scientists include in the affixation stock of the Modern English word building system. Splinters are the result   of clipping the end or the beginning of a word and producing a number of new words on the analogy with the primary word-group. For example, there are many words formed with the help of the splinter mini- (apocopy produced by clipping the word «miniature»), such as «miniplane», «minijet», «minicycle», «minicar», «miniradio» and many others. All of these words denote obects of smaller than normal dimensions.

On the analogy with «mini-» there appeared the splinter «maxi»- (apocopy produced by clipping the word  «maximum»), such words as «maxi-series», «maxi-sculpture», «maxi-taxi»  and many others appeared in the language. When European economic community was organized quite a number of neologisms with the splinter Euro- (apocopy produced by clipping the word «European») were coined, such as: «Euratom» «Eurocard», «Euromarket», «Europlug», «Eurotunnel» and many others. These splinters are treated sometimes as prefixes in Modern English.

There are also splinters which are formed by means of apheresis that is clipping the beginning of a word. The origin of such splinters can be variable, e.g. the splinter «burger» appeared in English as the result of clipping the German borrowing «Hamburger» where the morphological structure was the stem «Hamburg» and the suffix -er. However in English the beginning of the word «Hamburger» was associated with the English word «ham» and the end of the word «burger» got the meaning «a bun cut into two parts». On the analogy with the word «hamburger» quite a number of new words were coined, such as: «baconburger», «beefburger», «cheeseburger», «fishburger» etc.

The splinter «cade» developed by clipping the beginning of the word «cavalcade» which is of Latin origin. In Latin the verb with the meaning «to ride a horse» is «cabalicare» and by means of the inflexion -ata the corresponding Participle is formed. So the element «cade» is a combination of the final letter of the stem and the inflexion. The splinter «cade» serves to form nouns with  the meaning «connected with the procession of vehicles denoted by the first component», e.g. «aircade» - «a group of airplanes accompanying the plane of a VIP» , «autocade» - «a group of automobiles escorting the automobile of a VIP», «musicade» - «an orchestra participating in a procession».

In the seventieths of the twentieth century there was a political scandal in the hotel «Watergate» where the Democratic Party of the USA had its pre-election headquarters. Republicans managed to install bugs there and when they were discovered there was a scandal and the ruling American government had to resign. The name «Watergate» acquired the meaning «a political scandal», «corruption». On the analogy with this word quite a number of other words were formed  by using the splinter «gate»  (apheresis of the word «Watergate»), such as: «Irangate», »Westlandgate», »shuttlegate», »milliongate» etc. The splinter «gate» is added mainly to Proper names: names of people with whom the scandal is connected or a geographical name denoting the place where the scandal occurred.

The splinter «mobile» was formed by clipping the beginning of the word «automobile» and is used to denote special types of automobiles, such as: «artmobile», «bookmobile», «snowmobile», «tourmobile» etc.

The splinter «napper» was formed by clipping the beginning of the word «kidnapper» and is used to denote different types of crimesters, such as: «busnapper», «babynapper», «dognapper» etc. From such nouns the corresponding verbs are formed by means of backformation, e.g. «to busnap», «to babynap», «to dognap».

The splinter «omat» was formed by clipping the beginning of the word «automat» (a cafe in which meals are provided in slot-machines). The meaning «self-service» is used in such words as «laundromat», «cashomat» etc.

Another splinter «eteria» with the meaning «self-service» was formed by clipping the beginning of the word «cafeteria». By means of the splinter «eteria» the following words were formed: «groceteria», «booketeria», «booteteria» and many others.

The splinter «quake» is used to form new words with the meaning of «shaking», «agitation».  This splinter was formed by clipping the beginning of the word «earthquake». Ther following words were formed with the help of this splinter: «Marsquake», «Moonquake», «youthquake» etc.

b) Word-building

Word-building is one of the main ways of enriching vocabulary. There are four main ways of word-building in modern English: affixation, composition, conversion, abbreviation.  There are also secondary ways of word-building: sound interchange, stress interchange, sound imitation, blends, and back formation.

c) Affixation

Affixation is one of the most productive ways of word-building throughout the history of English. It consists in adding an affix to the stem of a definite part of speech. Affixation is divided into suffixation and prefixation.

d) Suffixation

The main function of suffixes in Modern English is to form one part of speech from another; the secondary function is to change the lexical meaning of the same part of speech. (e.g. «educate» is a verb, «educatee» is a noun, and « music» is a noun, «musicdom» is also a noun).

There are different classifications of suffixes:

1. Part-of-speech classification.  Suffixes which can form different parts of speech are given here:

a) noun-forming suffixes, such as: -er (criticizer), -dom (officialdom), -ism (ageism),

b) adjective-forming suffixes, such as: -able (breathable), less (symptomless), -ous (prestigious),

c) verb-forming suffixes, such as -ize (computerize), -ify (micrify),

d) adverb- forming  suffixes , such as : -ly (singly), -ward (tableward),

e) numeral-forming suffixes, such as - teen (sixteen), -ty (seventy).

2. Semantic classification. Suffixes changing the lexical meaning  of the stem can be subdivided into groups, e.g. noun-forming suffixes can denote:

a) the agent of the action, e.g. -er (experimenter), -ist (taxist), -ent (student)

b) nationality, e.g. -ian (Russian), -ese (Japanese), -ish (English),

c) collectivity,  e.g. -dom (moviedom), -ry (peasantry, -ship (readership), -ati ( literati),

d) diminutiveness, e.g. -ie (horsie), -let (booklet), -ling (gooseling), -ette (kitchenette),

e) quality, e.g. -ness  (copelessness), -ity (answerability).

3. Lexico-grammatical character of the stem. Suffixes which can be added to certain groups of stems are subdivided into:

a) suffixes added to verbal stems, such as : -er (commuter),    -ing      (suffering),  - able (flyable), -ment (involvement), -ation (computerization),

b) suffixes added to noun stems, such as : -less (smogless), ful (roomful), -ism (adventurism), -ster (pollster), -nik (filmnik), -ish (childish),

c) suffixes added to adjective stems, such as : -en (weaken),  -ly  (pinkly),    -ish     (longish),    -ness   (clannishness).

4. Origin of suffixes. Here we can point out the following groups:

a) native (Germanic), such as  -er,-ful, -less, -ly.

b) Romanic, such as: -tion, -ment, -able, -eer.

c) Greek, such as: -ist, -ism, -ize.

d) Russian, such as:  -nik.

5. Productivity. Here we can point out the following groups:

a) productive,  such as : -er, -ize, --ly, -ness.

b) semi- productive, such as: -eer, -ette, -ward.

c) non- productive ,  such as: -ard (drunkard), -th (length).

 Suffixes can be polysemantic, such as: -er can form nouns with the following meanings: agent, doer of the action expressed by the stem (speaker), profession, occupation (teacher), a device, a tool (transmitter). While speaking about suffixes we should also mention compound suffixes which are added to the stem at the same time, such as -ably, -ibly, (terribly, reasonably), -ation (adaptation from adapt).

There are also disputable cases whether we have a suffix or a root morpheme in the structure of a word, in such cases we call such morphemes semi-suffixes, and words with such suffixes can be classified either as derived words or as compound words, e.g. -gate (Irangate), -burger (cheeseburger), -aholic (workaholic) etc.

 e) Prefixation

Prefixation is the formation of words by means of adding a prefix to the stem. In English it is characteristic for forming verbs. Prefixes are more independent than suffixes. Prefixes can be classified according to the nature of words in which they are used: prefixes used in notional words and prefixes used in functional words. Prefixes used in notional words are proper prefixes which are bound morphemes, e.g. un - (unhappy). Prefixes used in functional words are semi-bound morphemes because they are met in the language as words, e.g. over- (overhead) (cf over the table).

The main function of prefixes in English is to change the lexical meaning of the same part of speech. But the recent research showed that about twenty-five prefixes in Modern English form one part of speech from another (bebutton, interfamily, postcollege etc).

Prefixes can be classified according to different principles:

1. Semantic classification:

a) prefixes of negative meaning, such as : in- (invaluable), non- (nonformals), un- (unfree) etc,

b) prefixes denoting repetition or reversal actions, such as: de- (decolonize), re- (revegetation), dis- (disconnect),

c) prefixes denoting time, space, degree relations, such as : inter- (interplanetary) , hyper- (hypertension), ex- (ex-student), pre- (pre-election), over- (overdrugging) etc.

2. Origin of prefixes:

a) native (Germanic), such as: un-, over-, under-  etc.

b) Romanic, such as: in-, de-, ex-, re- etc.

c) Greek, such as: sym-, hyper- etc.

When we analyze such words as : adverb, accompany where we can find the root of the word (verb, company) we may treat ad-, ac-  as prefixes though they were never used as prefixes to form new words in English and were borrowed from Romanic languages together with words. In such cases we can treat them as derived words. But some scientists treat them as simple words.  Another group of words with a disputable structure are such as: contain, retain, detain and conceive, receive, deceive where we can see that re-, de-, con- act as prefixes and -tain, -ceive can be understood as roots. But in English these combinations of sounds have no lexical meaning and are called pseudo-morphemes. Some scientists treat such words as simple words, others as derived ones.

There are some prefixes which can be treated as root morphemes by some scientists, e.g. after- in the word afternoon. American lexicographers working on Webster dictionaries treat such words as compound words. British lexicographers treat such words as derived ones.

f) Composition

Composition is the way of word building when a word is formed by joining two or more stems to form one word. The structural unity of a compound word depends upon:

a) the unity of stress,

b) solid or hyphenated spelling,

c) semantic unity,

d) unity of morphological and syntactical functioning.

These are characteristic features of compound words in all languages.  For English compounds some of these factors are not very reliable. As a rule English compounds have one uniting stress (usually on the first component), e.g. hard-cover, best-seller. We can also have a double stress in an English compound, with the main stress on the first component and with a secondary stress on the second component, e.g. blood-vessel. The third pattern of stresses is two level stresses, e.g. snow-white, sky-blue. The third pattern is easily mixed up with word-groups unless they have solid or hyphenated spelling. Spelling in English compounds is not very reliable as well because they can have different spelling even in the same text, e.g. war- ship, blood-vessel can be spelt through a hyphen and also with a break, insofar, underfoot can be spelt solidly and with a break. All the more so that there has appeared in Modern English a special type of compound words which are called block compounds, they have one uniting stress but are spelt with a break, e.g. air piracy, cargo module, coin change, pinguin suit etc.

The semantic unity of a compound word is often very strong. In such cases we have idiomatic compounds where the meaning of the whole is not a sum of meanings of its components, e.g. to ghostwrite, skinhead, brain-drain etc. In no idiomatic compounds semantic unity is not strong, e. g., airbus, to blood transfuse, astrodynamics etc.

English compounds have the unity of morphological and syntactical functioning. They are used in a sentence as one part of it and only one component changes grammatically, e.g. these girls are chatter-boxes. «Chatter-boxes» is a predicative in the sentence and only the second component changes grammatically.

There are two characteristic features of English compounds:

a) Both components in an English compound are free stems that are they can be used as words with a distinctive meaning of their own. The sound pattern will be the same except for the stresses, e.g. «a green-house» and «a green house». Where as for example in Russian compounds the stems are bound morphemes, as a rule.

b) English compounds have a two-stem pattern, with the exception of compound words which have form-word stems in their structure, e.g.  middle- of- the- road, off-the-record, up-and-doing etc. The two-stem pattern distinguishes English compounds from German ones.

g) Ways of forming Compound words

Compound words in English can be formed not only by means of composition but also by means of:

a) reduplication, e.g. too-too, and also by means of reduplication combined with sound interchange , e.g. rope-ripe,

b) conversion from word-groups, e.g. to Mickey-mouse, can-do, makeup etc,

c) back formation from compound nouns or word-groups, e.g. to blood transfuse, to fingerprint etc ,

d) analogy, e.g. lie-in ( on the analogy with sit-in) and also phone-in,  brawn-drain (on the analogy with brain-drain)  etc.

Terminological words are also relatively context – free though the context often helps to identify the specific field to which the term belongs. In the sentence “These rifles are provided with a new type of foresight”, the context clearly shows that the meaning of “foresight” is that of military term and therefore all other meaning of the word can be disregarded. The context may also help to understand the meaning of the term in the text when it can denote more than one specific concept. For instance, in the US political terminology the term “state” can refer either to a national state or to one of the states within a federal entity. The following context will enable the translator to make the correct choice:

 “Both the state and Federal authorities were accused of establishing a police state.”

In the first case term “state” is contrasted with “Federal” and will be translated as “штат”, while in the second case it obviously means “государство”.

As a rule, English technical terms (as well as political terms and terms in any other specific field) have their permanent equivalents in the respective Russian terminological systems:

Magnitude – величина, oxygen – кислород, surplus value – прибавочная стоимость, Embassy – посольство, Legislation – законодательство.

Many Russian equivalents have been formed from the English terms by transcription or loan translations:

Computer – компьютер, electron – электрон, Congressman – конгрессмен, impeachment – импичмент, shadow cabinet – “теневой кабинет”, nuclear deterrent – ядерное устрашение.

e) Handling context – bound words

The words dealt with in the previous chapter are relatively independent of the context so that they have a definite meaning which is reproduced in many texts as it stands. This in not the case, however, with most words in the English vocabulary who’s meaning in any sentence largely depends on the context in which they are used. True, all words have meaning of their own which are defined in dictionaries but the context may specify or modify the word`s meaning, neutralize or emphasize some part of its semantics. And before looking for an equivalent, the translator has to make a careful study of the context to identify the contextual meaning of the word that should be rendered in translation. This meaning is the result of the interaction between the word semantics and the methods of its actualization in the speech act.

Most of the words arc polysemantic, that is, they have several meanings. As a rule, the words are used in the sentence in one of its meanings and the context must show what meaning has been selected by the speaker at cut off all other meanings irrelevant for the particular act of communication. If somebody complains that “Few Europeans speak Mandarin”, the context inequivocally shows that it is the Chinese language that is meant and not a Chinese imperial official or the Chinese fruit. If the same idea is expressed in a more ambiguous way, for instance, “Few Europeans know the first thing about Mandarin”, the context of the sentence may fail to indicate the relevant meaning beyond any doubt but the rest of the text or the circumstances of communication will certainly do that.

The context has also a decisive role to play in the selection of TL equivalents to the words of the original. We know that in most cases, the meaning of a SL word can be rendered in TL by a number of regular equivalents. Variable equivalents can be found only to the polysemantic words but also to the monosemantic words as well as to a semantic variant of a polysemantic word, that is, to one of its meanings which can be actualized in the course of communication.

In such cases after the translator has ascertained word meaning the word has in the original text he still has to choose one of the regular equivalents which fits the context best of all.

Accordingly, “the UN ambitious program of providing food for the people of the earth” will be translated as “грандиозная программа ООН” while the “ambitious plans of South African racists” will be rendered as “чистолюбивые планы южно-африканских расистов”.

The English-Russian dictionary is the translator`s best friend and assistant in finding the appropriate equivalent. Sometimes the context tells the translator that one of the dictionary equivalents to the given word can be well used in TT. Even if the entry in his dictionary does not provide him with an equivalent that fits his context, the translator can use the dictionary data to facilitate the solution. Suppose he comes across a sentence in ST which runs as follows:

The United States worked out a formula which later came to be known as dollar diplomacy.

None of the equivalents suggested by I.R.Galperin`s “New English-Russian Dictionary” (формула, рецепт, шаблон) fits the context of the sentence which deals with a stage in the US political history. But combining this data with context the translator will look for a Russian substitute for a “political formula” and may arrive at such terms as “политическая доктрина” or “политическая программа”: США выработали политическую доктрину, которая впоследствии стала именоваться “долларовой дипломатией”.