CC BY
34PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES
CONSTRUCTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH SENTENCE'S STRUCTURE AND ITS
TRANSLATION INTO RUSSIAN
Nurova G.
Department of Uzbek Language and Literature, Faculty of Philology,
Samarkand State University, Uzbekistan
Abstract
The article examines the specifics of the constructive analysis of the English sentence and the strategy of its translation into Russian. The author draws attention to the fact that the expansion of the main and secondary members of the English sentence leads to difficulties in translating them into Russian. In most cases, it is possible to preserve the syntactic constructions of sentences. However, the existing differences in the grammar of the English and Russian languages necessitate the correct choice of translation strategies. Using the examples of the English-language literary texts and journalistic materials with the author's translation, the article shows that changes in the constructions of English sentences occur when using strategies of antonymous translation, concretization, generalization, compensation and modulation (semantic development). Literal translation allows one to preserve the syntactic and grammatical structures of English sentences with the expansion and complication of the main and subordinate parts.
Keywords: English sentence's structure, constructive analysis, translation into Russian, translation strategies, literary texts' and journalistic materials' examples.
In the scientific linguistic researches1, the issue of the need to differentiate the categories of obligatory and optional in the syntax is considered. The study of these phenomena allows a deeper analysis of the structure of sentences and assess the possibilities and feasibility of their expansion and complication. Scientists2 point out the significant importance in the sentences of the model-required and optional components. They cannot be reduced to a single model, so it is important to conduct a thorough constructive analysis in each specific case. The model is an abstract category that allows one to give a formal description of the grammatical content of the considered syntactic construction. Model obligatory and optional categories are distinguished by linguists depending on the participation or non-participation of components in the formation of a certain syntactic model. A model can have different sentence constructs, but the latter can contain components that are not represented in the original model. In connection with this circumstance, the model and the construction cannot be considered identical concepts. In this research work, the emphasis was placed on this, since it is a general property of the syntax of structures that allows one to create structures of any type.3
Our analysis has shown that elementary syntactic units in linguistics are the basic units of constructive syntax that have a minimum volume. As part of an ele-
1 Brown E.K., Miller J.E. Syntax: A Linguistic Introduction to Sentence Structure. London, Hutchinson, 2017. P. 41.; Crystal D. A Little Book of Language. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 2010. P. 78; Curme G. A Grammar of the English Language. v. III, Syntax, Boston, 1981. P. 50; Gardiner A. The Theory of Speech and Language. Oxford, 1969. P. 93; Harris Z. String Analysis of Sentence Structure. The Hague, 1962. P. 82; Leech G., Svartvik J. A Communicative Grammar of English. London, Longman, 2016. P. 63.
2 Long R. The Sentence and Its Parts. Chicago, 1961. P. 95;
Nida E. A Synopsis of English Syntax. Norman, 1960. P. 37;
mentary syntactic unit, there can be only one communicative, in this case it is called non-predicative one, if it has several communicatees, then it is considered predicative one. Communicative function of the language is very important. In English, it is realized through the use of non-predicative and predicative elementary syntactic units. The peculiarities of the nature of the primary predicativeness of a syntactic unit allow scientists to distinguish three types of elementary predicative syntactic units: sentences, sentensoids and representative sentences. At the same time, structurally non-discrete non-predicative elementary syntactic units have a universal character in the constructive syntax.4
In the context of the constructive analysis of the English sentence's structure one of the fundamental concepts is the concept of elementary syntactic structures, which include non-communicative units of phrases. In other words, it is important to determine the simplest structures that can be expanded and complicated in order to increase their communicative capabilities. It allows starting analyzing the corresponding language means, as well as the peculiarities of their change when translating from English into Russian, taking into account syntactic and grammatical differences between the two languages. One should pay attention to the fact that the attributive word combination, despite the fact that it is a unit of communication belonging to nominative syntactic structures, in the scientific literature is
Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London, Longman, 2015. P. 113; Swan M. Practical English Usage. Oxford University Press, 2009. P. 141.
3 Бурлакова В.В. Синтаксические структуры современного английского языка. М.: Просвещение, 2013. С. 110.
4 Иванова И.П., Бурлакова В.В., Почепцов Г.Г. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка. М. : Наука, 2016. С. 88.
also considered as an elementary syntactic structure (it is an exception). An attributive phrase can have the main communicative load due to the presence of a folded proposition with a high level of communicative dynamism. The communicative perspective of an attributive phrase determines its development and communicative power, which, in turn, depends on the author's intention. Adjectives represent the most comprehensive part of speech due to their special semantics; therefore, defining constructions with them have many semantic links between their components. The meaning of the attributive phrase is mainly conveyed by the adjective; therefore, the attribute often becomes the semantic center of the utterance.5
Constructive analysis of the English sentences showed that the syntactic processes in it were very diverse, which was expressed by the wide possibilities for expanding the principal and subordinate parts of the sentence. We focused on the problems of the emergence of difficulties in translating the corresponding syntactic structures of the English language into Russian. In the scientific literature6, overcoming translation difficulties is based on the use of special translation transformations (translation strategies): syntactic assimilation or literal translation, concretization, generalization, antonymic translation, compensation and modulation or semantic development. We studied the peculiarities of their use in relation to extended and complicated principal and subordinate parts of the English sentence using examples of literary texts and journalistic materials with our translation. Practical research has shown that in each specific case for an adequate translation a translator must choose the most appropriate of the above strategies in order to fully convey the author's intention and style into Russian. We also have identified certain patterns in the use of different strategies. In particular, with syntactic assimilation (literal translation), an English sentence is transmitted into Russian practically unchanged due to the selection of the necessary equivalents. The rest of the strategies imply some kind of syntactic and grammatical modifications due to the differences between the two languages. For example, "I mean, literally we were just all set to get outside and just celebrate something that was so beautiful, so good"7. - "Я имею в виду, буквально мы все были готовы выйти на улицу и просто отпраздновать что-то такое прекрасное, такое хорошее " (translation strategy is literal translation). "Не told me to come right over, if I felt like it"8. - "Сказал, хоть сейчас приходить, если надо" (translation strategy is concretization).
The principal parts of the sentence are the subject and the predicate, which form the grammatical basis of the sentence. A distinctive feature of the principal parts
of the sentence is their independence from other words in the sentence, while the form of the remaining words of the sentence may depend on the subject or predicate. In English as in Russian, there are simple and complex constructions of subject and predicate. When translating extended principal parts of the English sentences, the translation strategies described above are applicable, their choice depends on a large number of factors, in particular, the presence or absence of corresponding equivalents in the translation language, the need for additional clarification of the realities existing in English for native speakers of the Russian language, differences in syntactic and grammatical constructions of two languages, the desire to convey the imagery of the author's language and the literary techniques used by it, etc.
Depending on the chosen translation strategies, the extended principal parts of the English sentences can remain unchanged, can be narrowed down or further extended. For example, "You're a pain in the neck"9. - "От тебя одни неприятности " (translation strategy is compensation (replacement) was applied, as a result of which the principal parts of the sentence were changed).
The purpose of the subordinate parts of the sentence is to explain the principal parts, while they may have with them other subordinate parts that additionally explain them. In English as in Russian, definitions, additions, circumstances and other subordinate parts of the sentence are presented. When conducting a practical study on the difficulties of translating them from English into Russian, we were guided by the same strategies discussed above. The principle of choosing specific translation strategies was the same in each case. A constructive analysis of sentences in English and their translation into Russian showed that in general the expanded subordinate parts of the English sentences retain their expanded composition, however, the expansion method may differ, depending on the chosen translation strategy. For example, "She doesn't like gardening"10. - "Она не любит заниматься садоводством" (translation strategy is concretiza-tion). In this example, taking into account the context, the translator decided to clarify that it does not mean gardening in general, but personal participation in this matter, so the addition when translated into Russian turned out to be structurally more complicated. In general, it is worth noting that the use of translation strategies such as concretization and generalization always entails additional expansion or reduction of extended subordinate parts of the English sentences. With anto-nymic translation, as well as compensation and modulation (semantic development), subordinate parts can retain their expansion (in the case of coincidence and
5 Кочетова М.Г. О развитии грамматики современного английского языка // Филологические науки. Вопросы теории и практики. 2017. №6-3 (72). С. 117.
6 Кучерова Л.Н. О некоторых аспектах структуры англий-
ского предложения // Вопросы языкознания. 2014. № 9.
С. 53; Левицкая Т.Р., Фитерман А.М. Пособие по пере-
воду с английского языка на русский. М.: Высшая школа, 1973. С. 92; Матросова Н.И. Очерк функционального
синтаксиса английского языка. М.: Наука, 2010. С. 128.
7 Cole M. The Ladykiller. London: Headline Book Publishing plc, 1993. P. 74.
8 Cary J. The African Witch. London: Thistle Classics, 2003. P. 61.
9 Butler G. Coffin Underground. London: Fontana Press, 1991. P. 109.
10 Burley W.J. Wycliffe and the Scapegoat. London: Corgi Books, 1987. P. 42.
similarity of grammatical constructions), but most often their reduction or additional expansion is observed. Each case of translation is unique, so we only point out the general tendencies of changes in the expansion of the principal and subordinate parts of the English sentences when they are translated into Russian. The skill and creativity of the translator also play a significant role in this issue and have a great influence on it, because, in essence, the translator acts as a co-author of the texts he translates, which is especially noticeable in the example of fiction. However, this trend persists in the journalistic materials that we have analyzed.
In an English sentence, the predicate takes the main place and can have from one to four verbs in its composition. It should be noted that in the scientific literature there is an extensive classification of the types of predicate complication. Moreover, all the formulas we have considered in the framework of constructive analysis have stable structures, which ensures the harmony of the language and the accuracy of the formulated expressions. In the dissertation research, we presented all the known types of predicate complication, since the translator must be fluent in them in order to carry out a high quality and authentic translation while preserving the author's intention and style of the original texts. When translated from English into Russian, complicated predicates are retained: the modal characteristic of the connection between the action and the subject; specific characteristics of the action; the appearance of action; the expected action; the subject's attitude to action; the reality of the action; feasibility of the action; positional characteristic of the action. Our analysis of the use of translation transformations (translation strategies) in relation to complicated predicates of the English sentences showed that they can be transmitted into Russian not only in a complicated, but also in a simplified form. In particular, the application of the modulation translation strategy (semantic development) can lead to a simplification of the English predicate in a sentence in Russian. For example, "There's never been anything like it to support our incredible movement. We won states that we weren't expected to win"11. - "Никогда не было ничего подобного, чтобы поддержать наше невероятное движение. Мы выиграли в штатах, где победы от нас никто не ожидал".
Analysis of the scientific literature has shown that the complication of the members of the English sentence is provided by the constructions of a complex addition, a complex subject and the method of isolation. In the Complex Object, the completeness / incompleteness of the coverage of the perceived situation is gram-
matically expressed in a complex addition with the infinitive and the participle I, the relevance / irrelevance of perception can be established in conditions of syn-chronicity, simultaneity of the perceived situation and the situation of perception. In Complex Subject, the main components in addition to the infinitive are the noun in the general case or the pronoun in the nominative case. The infinitive in this construction can be used in all forms. Predictable in a sentence can be verbs expressing perception, assumption, statement, awareness, knowledge. Isolation is the selection of one or more members of a sentence, which leads to a violation of traditional syntactic connections in the sentence and becomes a semantic and intonation highlighting of these linguistic units. Separation simultaneously implements two important functions: it becomes a component of the rhematic component of the sentence and a means of expressing the subjective modality of the author of the text. The translation into Russian of the extended subordinate parts of the English sentence also became the focus of attention in this study.
As a result of analyzing the use of translation transformations (translation strategies) on specific examples, we came to the conclusion that when a literal translation from English into Russian of a complex addition or isolation, the syntactic constructions of sentences are preserved. A complex subject and isolation when translating into Russian often needs to use a strategy of concretization, since Russian speakers are not as immersed in local events as the English-speaking population, for an adequate perception they need clarifications and explanations. For example, "Joe Biden is not likely to leave the fight"12. - "Джо Байден вряд ли сдастся без боя в предвыборной гонке". A complex subject, a complex addition and isolation often need generalization, since the imagery of the English language when conveying some realities may not be characteristic of the Russian language. Moreover, it is important for a Russian-speaking reader to convey the essence of messages with his usual speech formulas. For example, "The next moment, my eyes fell on a large ballot box standing on a table nearby"13. - "Потом я увидел ящик с бюллетенями рядом на столе". Anto-nymic translation may be due to the inconsistency of grammatical forms in English and Russian. For example, "He is known to be not doing wrong things"14. -"Известно, что он всегда действует правильно". Translation strategies compensation (replacement) and modulation (semantic development) are required, in particular, when it is important for the Russian speakers to further clarify the essence of messages, taking into account the Russian linguistic realities. For example,
11 Donald Trump 2020 Election Night Speech Transcript, November 4, 2020. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.rev. com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-2020-election-night-speech-transcript (reference date: August 10, 2021).
12 He Could Have Seen What Was Coming: Behind Trump's
Failure on the Virus // The New York Times. October 2, 2020. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.ny-times.com/2020/04/11/us/politics/coronavirus-trump-re-
sponse.html (reference date: August 10, 2021).
13 Eardley N. Election results 2019: Boris Johnson returns to power with big majority // BBC. News. December 13, 2019. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50765773 (reference date: August 10, 2021).
14 Landler M. In Pandemic U.K., Brexit Is an Afterthought, as Is Trump // The New York Times. October 30, 2020. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.ny-times.com/2020/10/30/world/europe/pandemic-uk-brexit-trump.html (reference date: August 10, 2021).
"There is no one to be expected to win"15. - "Нет прогнозов о победе какого-либо кандидата" (compensation). "We want to make America great again "16. - "Нам всем необходимо, чтобы Америка снова стала великой страной, как это уже было в истории" (modulation).
Thus, our analysis showed that in the overwhelming majority of cases, when translating the English sentences with the expansion and complication of the principal and subordinate parts into Russian, it becomes possible to preserve their syntactic constructions. However, there are also significant differences in grammar of the English and Russian languages, therefore, in each specific case, it is important for the translator to choose the right translation transformations. Moreover, the choice of a translation strategy depends largely on the presence or absence of stable phrases in the Russian language, which, from the point of view of conveying the content of the text and the author's intention and style, can be equivalent to the English sentences, but using other constructions. Changes in constructions occur when using strategies of antonymous translation, concretization, generalization, compensation and modulation (semantic development). With literal translation, it is possible to preserve the syntactic and grammatical structures of the English sentences with the expansion and complication of the principal and subordinate parts.
References
1. Brown E.K., Miller, J.E. Syntax: A Linguistic Introduction to Sentence Structure. London, Hutchinson, 2017. 364 p.
2. Burley W. J. Wycliffe and the Scapegoat. London: Corgi Books, 1987. 112 p.
3. Butler G. Coffin Underground. London: Fontana Press, 1991. 327 p.
4. Cary J. The African Witch. London: Thistle Classics, 2003. 317 p.
5. Cole M. The Ladykiller. London: Headline Book Publishing plc, 1993. 324 p.
6. Crystal D.A Little Book of Language. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 2010. 315 p.
7. Curme G. A Grammar of the English Language. v. III, Syntax, Boston, 1981. 353 p.
8. Donald Trump 2020 Election Night Speech Transcript, November 4, 2020. [Electronic resource]. URL: https ://www. rev. com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-2020-election-night-speech-transcript (reference date: August 10, 2021).
9. Eardley N. Election results 2019: Boris Johnson returns to power with big majority // BBC. News. December 13, 2019. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50765773 (reference date: August 10, 2021).
10. Gardiner A. The Theory of Speech and Language. Oxford, 1969. 436 p.
11. Harris Z. String Analysis of Sentence Structure. The Hague, 1962. 410 p.
12. He Could Have Seen What Was Coming: Behind Trump's Failure on the Virus // The New York Times. October 2, 2020. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/us/politics/coro-navirus-trump-response.html (reference date: August 10, 2021).
13. Landler M. In Pandemic U.K., Brexit Is an Afterthought, as Is Trump // The New York Times. October 30, 2020. [Electronic resource]. URL: https ://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/world/eu-rope/pandemic-uk-brexit-trump.html (reference date: August 10, 2021).
14. Leech G., Svartvik J. A Communicative Grammar of English. London, Longman, 2016. 312 p.
15. Long R. The Sentence and Its Parts. Chicago, 1961. 328 p.
16. Nida E. A Synopsis of English Syntax. Norman, 1960. 288 p.
17. Parris M. Let's face it, Trump got many things right // The Sunday Times. November 6, 2020. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/lets-face-it-trump-got-many-things-right-bfvf5kk02 (reference date: August 10, 2021).
18. Putin Canceled South Stream, but Russian Newspaper Blames U.S. // Poligraph.info. September 3, 2019. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.pol-ygraph.info/a/putin-canceled-south-stream-but-rus-sian-newspaper-blames-u-s-/30144823.html (reference date: August 10, 2021).
19. Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London, Longman, 2015. 427 p.
20. Swan M. Practical English Usage. Oxford University Press, 2009. 344 p.
21. Бурлакова В.В. Синтаксические структуры современного английского языка. М.: Просвещение, 2013. 426 с.
22. Иванова И.П., Бурлакова В.В., Почепцов Г.Г. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка. М.: Наука, 2016. 315 с.
23. Кочетова М.Г. О развитии грамматики современного английского языка // Филологические науки. Вопросы теории и практики. 2017. №6-3 (72). С. 115-124.
24. Кучерова Л.Н. О некоторых аспектах структуры английского предложения // Вопросы языкознания. 2014. № 9. С. 52-59.
25. Левицкая Т.Р., Фитерман А.М. Пособие по переводу с английского языка на русский. М.: Высшая школа, 1973. 315 с.
26. Матросова Н.И. Очерк функционального синтаксиса английского языка. М.: Наука, 2010. 320c.
15 Parris M. Let's face it, Trump got many things right // The
Sunday Times. November 6, 2020. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www. thetimes.co. uk/edition/comment/lets-face-it-trump-got-many-things-right-bfvf5kk02 (reference date: August 10, 2021).
16 Putin Canceled South Stream, but Russian Newspaper Blames U.S. // Poligraph.info. September 3, 2019. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.polygraph.info/a/putin-can-celed-south-stream-but-russian-newspaper-blames-u-s-/30144823.html (reference date: August 10, 2021).
