The antonymic device is employed in the following cases:
1. When in the target language there is no direct equivalent for the sense unit of the source language. For example, the noun “inferiority” and the adjective “inferior” (like the verb phrase “to be inferior”) have no single word equivalents in Ukrainian. So their lexical meaning can be conveyed either in a descriptive way or with the help of the antonyms “superiority,” “superior”: The defeat of the Notts in last season’s cup semi-finals was certainly the result of their physical and tactical inferiorit…(M.Star). Поразка клубу «Ноттінгем Форест» у торішньому півфінальному матчі на кубок була наслідком переваги супротивників у фізичній та тактичній підготовці.
The meaning of some English word groups can also be conveyed in Ukrainian automatically only: Baines was reading a newspaper in his shirt sleeves. – Бейнзсидів без піджака і читав газету. Half an hour ago Walter for his life would have hardly called her by name. – Ще півгодини тому Уолтер нізащо в світі не назвав би її по імені. “Do you mind this?” – Ви не заперечуєте?
2. when the sense unit of the source language has two negations of its own which create an affirmation: In those clothes she was by no means nonelegant. У цьому вбранні вона була досить елегантною. My mother…not to be dislike this character. – Моїй матері …ніби
( здавалось) сподобалась ця думка.
3. in order to achieve the necessary expressiveness in narration: I don’t think it will hurt you, baby. – Думаю, вам воно не зашкодить, люба. A shell fell close. – Неподалік вибухнув снаряд. I hope you’ll stay.- Сподіваюсь, ви не втечете. It makes all the difference in the world. – Ні, не все одно;
4. to avoid the use of the same structure close to each other in a text: Keep your head.- не падай духом/ вище голову. Mr. Stricklandwasawomanofcharacter. – Міс Стрікленд була жінкою не без характеру; тобто була жінкою з характером. Mostofthestaffisnotaway. – Більшість співробітників ще на роботі ( ще не розійшлися). Savina said nothing. – Савіна мовчала; тобто нічого не відповіла.
Conclusions
Translation has a polysemantic nature. It means the process of conveying the meaning of a word or sentence from one language into another language. Translation can be performed in written or oral form. It also referred to any sense-to-sense conveying even if the lexical meanings of the componential parts which make up the language units are not substituted for their equivalent lexical meanings in the target language.
The importance of translating and interpreting in modern society has long been recognized, because not a single contact between persons speaking two languages can be established without the help of translators or interpreters. It helps the student to master the expressive means in the source language and corresponding means in the target language.
There are the following ways of translating: literal translating, verbal translating, consecutive verbal translating, interlinear way of translating and literary translating. Numerous branches of national economies keep up with the up-to-date development and progress in the modern world thanks to everyday translating/ interpreting of scientific and technical matter covering various fields of human knowledge and activities.
Nowadays translation of scientific and technical matter has become a most significant and reliable source of obtaining all-round and up-to-date information on the progress in various fields of science and technology. It is also used to share achievements and to enrich national language and culture. The linguistic significance of translation remains unchanged. It promotes enriching the lexicon of the target language.
Translating helps the student to master the expressive means in the source language and the corresponding means in the target language. In the process of translating the students establish sets of equivalent substitutes in the target language for the corresponding lexical, grammatical or stylistic phenomena of the source language. Depending on the notion expressed by the source language word it may be conveyed in the target language sometimes through a word-combination or even through a sentence i.e. descriptively.
The descriptive way of conveying the sense of language units implies their structural transformation which is necessary to explain their meaning with the help of hierarchically different target language units. The antonymic translating is employed for the sake of achieving faithfulness in conveying the content or expressiveness when an affirmative in sense or structure language unit is conveyed as a negative in a sense or structure but identical in content language unit or vice versa.
A list of literature used
1. Аристова Н.Б. Основы перевода. – М. : Изд.-во л-ры на иностр. яз., 1959.- 256 с.
2. Бархударов Л.С. Мова і переклад: питання загальної і окремої теорії перекладу. - М.: Міжнародні відносини, 1975. – 235 с.
3. Бархударов Л.С. Язык и перевод.- М.:Междунар. отношения, 1975. – 238 с.
4. Беляева М.А. Грамматика английского языка. - М.: Высшая школа, 1984. – 318 с.
5. Блох М. Я. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка: Учебник. Для студентов филол. фак. ун-тов и фак. англ. яз. педвузов. — М.: Высш. школа, 1983.— 383 с.
6. Граур А. Научно-техническая революция и задачи интернационализации научно – технической терминологии. - // Интернациональные элементы в лексике и терминологии. Харьков: Вища школа. 1980.- 137-138 сс.
7. Комиссаров В.Н. Слово о переводе. - М.: Междунар. отношения, 1873. – 213 с.
8. Крупнов Н.В. Курс перевода. – М.: Междунар. отношения, 1979. – 232 с.
9. Кунин А.В. Фразеология современного английского языка. – М.: Междунар. отношения, 1972. - 287 с.
10. Суперанская А.В. Теоретические основы практической транскрипции. – М.: Наука, 1978.- 282 с.
11. Федоров А.В. Основы общей теории перевода. – М.: Высш. школа, 1983. – 303 с.
12. Collins V. H. A book of English idioms. – Л.: Учпедгиз, 1960. – 258 с.
13. Galperin I.R. Stylistic. – М.: Высш. шк., 1981.- 334 с.
14. Korunets I.V. A course in the Theory and Practice of translation. – K.: Высш. шк., 1986. – 174 с.
15. Korunets I.V. Theory and Practice of Translation. – Вінниця: Новакнига, 2000. – 446 с.
16. Nida E. Componential Analysis of Meaning. – The Hague – Paris: Moton? 1975. – 269 p.
17. Povey J., Walshe I. An English Teacher’s Handbook of Educational Terms. 2 nd. Rev. Ed. – M.: Vyssaya Scola, 1982. - 381 p.
18. Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. A University Grammar of English. - М., Высш.шк., 1982. – 391 с.
19. Swan M., Walter C. Good Grammar Book.- Oxford University Press, 2001- 317 c.