• Українська
  • English
ISSN 2415-8712 (Online)
   ISSN 1682-671X (Print)

Partial Equivalents in Persian-Ukrainian Translation of Classical Poems

1Bocharnikova, A
1PhD (Philology) Institute of Philology, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv 14, Tarasa Shevchenko Blvd., Kyiv, 01601, Ukraine anna.bocharnikova3@gmail.com
Shodoznavstvo 2021, 88:183-200
Section: Languages and Literatures
Language: Ukrainian

The problem of partial equivalence in translation has been the subject of scientific research for many decades, but on the basis of Persian-Ukrainian translation it still remains less studied. Lexicographers use a rather simple classification of partial equivalents: a situation where one word of the source language corresponds to two or more in the target language, and vice versa, a situation where two or more words of the source language correspond to only one in the target language. Although it’s been used while translating texts by some researchers, it is convenient mostly for lexicographers. When translating real texts, we proceed from the postulate that the full lexical equivalent must reflect all aspects of the source language word and any word of the target language that has differences in at least one aspect of the meaning is automatically a partial equivalent. The most complete seems the division of meaning into five components: lexical (denotative), grammatical, stylistic, evaluative and cultural. The analysis of translation activity shows that translators are consistently and unmistakably aware of and take into account only the first two components. This article analyzes the differences in all components of the meaning of a word on the basis of the Persian classical poems. The reason for choosing these texts is the special significance of poetry for understanding the Iranian culture and at the same time the author’s desire to eliminate at least some difficulties that have suspended translation activity in the field of Persian poetry in Ukraine. To create the overall picture, we selected 18 works by eleven Persian poets from Rudaki to Hatef Esfahani. Total amount of partial equivalence cases identified among lexical units specific for poems is 74. Differences were analyzed for each of the five components of meaning, illustrated with examples, and it was found that for each of the components, differences occur both in isolation and in combination with other components. At the same time, cases of partial equivalence caused by differences only in isolation for one of the less obvious to translators components of meaning (stylistic, evaluative or cultural) comprise almost one third of total cases.

Keywords: classical Persian poetry, classification of partial equivalents, components of word meaning, partial equivalents, translation

Повний текст (PDF)

  1. Berkov V. P. (2004), Dvuyazychnaya leksikografiya: Uchebnik, Astrel’, Moscow. (In Russian).
  2. Bocharnikova A. M. (2013), Pers’ka poeziya: teksty, komentari, pereklady, Gordon, Kyiv. (In Ukrainian).
  3. Bocharnikova A. M. (2010), “Chastkovi ekvivalenty v perekladnyh pers’kyh slovnykah”, in Studia Linguistica: Zbirnyk naukovyh prats’ do 80-richnoho yuvileyu profesora Nikitinoyi Fionilly Oleksiyivny, Vyp. 4, Kyiv, pp. 305–10. (In Ukrainian).
  4. Zhmayeva N. and Yuhymets’ S. (2019), “Do pytannya vyznachennya kryteriyiv otsinyuvannya adekvatnosti perekladu”, Naukovyy visnyk PNPU im. K. D. Ushins’koho, No. 29, pp. 104–19. (In Ukrainian). https://doi.org/10.24195/2616-5317-2019-29-9
  5. Malen’ka T. F. (2003), “Osoblyvosti zasvoyennya pers’koyi klasychnoyi poeziyi, filosofiyi ta mystetstva ukrayins’koyu poeziyeyu XIX–XX st.”, Visnyk KNU imeni Tarasa Shevchenka. Shidni movy ta literatury, No. 7, pp. 58–71. (In Ukrainian).
  6. Spisok lichnyh imen (1983), Persidsko-russkiy slovar’, Ed. by Yu. A. Rubinchika. V 2-h t., T. 2, Russkiy yazyk, Moscow, pp. 773–87. (In Russian).
  7. Gows R. H. and Prinsloo D. J. (2008), “What to say about mañana, totems and dragons in a bilingual dictionary? The case of surrogate equivalence”, in Proceedings of the XIII EURALEX International Congress, Barcelona, pp. 869–77.
  8. Jakobson R. (1959), “On linguistic aspects of translation”, in On Translation. Cambridge, pp. 232–39. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674731615.c18
  9. Koller W. (2001), Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft, Quelle & Meyer, Wiebelsheim.
  10. Leonardi V. (2000), “Equivalence in Translation: Between Myth and Reality”, Translational Journal, Vol. 4, No. 4, available at: https://translationjournal.net/ journal/14equiv.htm (accessed 27 August 2021).
  11. Lixiang L. (2018), “Partial equivalences in bilingual dictionaries: Classification, causes and compensations”, Lingua. 214, pp. 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.08.001
  12. Marolova D. and Gjorgjevska E. (2015), “Equivalence in Translation through German, French and Macedonian Examples”, International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR), Vol. 24, No. 7, pp. 405–11.
  13. Matulewska A. (2014), “In quest for sufficient equivalence, Polish and English insolvency terminology in translation. A comparative study”, Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 38 (51), pp. 167–88. https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2014-0038
  14. Müllerová Shiflett M. (2012), “Functional equivalence and its role in legal translation”, English Matters, Vol. III, pp. 29–33.
  15. Moin M. (1996), Farhange Farsi, Dar 6 jeld. Jelde 1, Amir Kabir, Tehran. (In Persian).