Russian-to-English interpreting and translation of constructions with the predicative nado

Koptev Daniil Alekseevich ORCID: 0000-0002-2771-8755 Graduate student, Department of Linguistics and Translation Studies, Moscow City University 129226, Russia, Moscow, 2nd Selskokhoziaistvennyi prd., 4, bldg. 1 koptevdanbusiness@outlook.com

This work is devoted to the study of strategies for interpreting constructions from Russian into English with the predicative of necessity.

Russian Russian is a Russian language. The problem and relevance of the study are confirmed by the lack of works in which the translation of the predicative should act as an object of research, as well as its high frequency in the Russian language, according to the National Corpus of the Russian Language – 109th place in the list of the most commonly used words of the Russian language ^[1]. It is logical that adequate interpretation is possible only with the use of developed and objective strategies and tactics, which are not observed for predicative interpretation. Meanwhile, the mismatch of syntactic structures and the lack of the most appropriate equivalent for the word under study introduces certain difficulties into the interpretation process, as a result of which even at the highest level occasional constructions may appear, cf.: We just need to thank them for being able to do what they could in the most difficult conditions and with those limited resources. they did – We just be grateful to them for the limited resources they managed to achieve a lot ^[2], and often such fragments are omitted altogether.

The object of this study is the predicative. The subject of the study is an analysis of the features of the Russian-English interpretation of the studied word.

The hypothesis of the study is to analyze official oral translations of public speeches at the highest level in order to identify the state of translation of constructions with the studied predicative for subsequent identification and explanation of the most frequent translation strategies.

The purpose of this article is to identify recommendations for improving the quality of translation of constructions with the studied word by presenting the most frequent and adequate interpretation strategies for constructions with the studied predicative.

The first stage of the research was the formation of an empirical base using the continuous sampling method to select the required amount of material from the websites of the President of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation kremlin.ru and mid.ru , YouTube channels of the President of the Russian Federation, the United Nations for 2011-2022. A total of 400 contexts with the word need have been selected. This number of selected contexts is due to the natural frequency of use of the studied word in speech. The use of these sources is due to their accessibility, the large volume of contexts and the quality of translation. Thus, video sources are, among other things, an extensive database of oral presentations and their simultaneous translations from Russian into English since 2011. Websites contain an extensive number of transcripts of oral presentations, which makes it easier to find the word under study.

In order to comply with the trends of modern linguistics, innovative methods are also used in the work, in this case, corpus research, which continues to occupy one of the most important roles in the development of linguistics and translation studies, allowing combining classical research approaches and modern research methods ^[3]. Corpus studies involve the construction of an inductive hypothesis based on the statistical processing by the corpus of the cases of use of the unit under study contained in it ^[4]. This is exactly the method used in this study.

Finally, the work was also performed using valence analysis – the ability of a predicate to control actants, i.e. its left and right valences ^[5].

The second stage of the research was the study of the theoretical features of the studied word, in particular the category of modality. The meanings of words cannot be perceived in isolation from their coloring. It can be said that the category of modality reflects the nature of human language as a means of expressing human thinking and evaluating what is happening ^[6]. In other words, within the framework of this article, we can say that the speaker evaluates whether it is necessary to take any action.

Necessity can be understood as the presence of circumstances that (according to the subject of the modal situation) should make the potential relevant ^[7].

As is well known, modality is a category that provides a link between an utterance and a non-linguistic reality. F. R. Palmer develops this idea, emphasizing that the speaker's connection with the actual state of judgment is formed in the sphere of propositional modality. The plan of unrealized events that did not happen and are only possible is assumed by the event modality ^[8].

The latter refers to actions and events that have not yet occurred, but are potential and may occur. This category is divided into deontic and dynamic modalities.

Deontic modality refers to external conditions and is used to force others to do what the speaker thinks. Examples of such a modality are permissive permission, an order – You can come in; You may come in, when the figure has no influence / weak influence on what comes from an external source, as well as a binding command – You must come in, which is relevant to this study, since it can be interpreted as You need to enter. Thus, according to this classification, the studied word can be attributed to the deontic modality. Dynamic modality refers to the category of internal conditions contained in an acting individual – its examples are ability and desire ^[8].

It is logical that modality can be expressed in various ways. Statistically different ways of using it are explored in his work by J. Holmes. Having selected over 350 lexemes, the author determined their frequency and came to the conclusion that modal verbs are most often used to express modality – 36.8% in oral speech and 42.4% in written speech, with the most frequent being will, would, may, could, might, must, can't, shouldn't, ought to, would ^[9]. Note that the construction ought to was not found in the research building, and the word must was used ~ 5 times less than should.

Speaking of necessity, it is impossible not to mention a similar category of obligation. At the moment, there is no consensus in linguistics on whether they are one whole ^[10], two completely different categories ^[11], or form a connection with each other according to the part–whole model, where obligation is part of necessity ^[12]. Some authors consider the modality of duty as an instruction to perform an action, which may be conditioned by laws, traditions, rules, and personal experience. In turn, the modality of necessity is considered as the compulsion / inevitability of action, expressed by the desire of the subject ^[13].

Within the framework of this article, the task is not to distinguish between these categories, therefore, we believe that ought is included in the category of meanings that the word under study may have – You need to think first and then speak (in other words, you must first think and then speak), along with other categories.

There are also ideas for differentiating lexemes for two types of modality. It is proposed to use units for indebtedness, the main components of which are duty, duty – must, must, forced. For necessity, units with the main component of necessity are offered – it is necessary, it is necessary, it is necessary ^[14]. However, such a distinction does not seem logical, since words with the necessity component, as shown above, can often express duty / obligation.

The authors note that the use of constructions with the word necessary is often characterized by varying degrees of expression stating the possibility, desirability, necessity, and obligatoriness of the named action ^[15]. The analysis of the linguistic material also revealed the ability of words to bring the meanings of inevitability and intention into contexts.

In addition, contexts with the word must have a proper prescriptive characteristic, the semantics of necessity is expressed with an emphasis on the meaning of necessity ^[12]. Thus, adequate translations of constructions with the studied predicative should correspond to the categories described above.

The third stage of the study was a practical analysis of the studied word. It was decided to pay special attention to the comparison of oral and written translations, which made it possible to almost double the volume of translations studied. Therefore, 370 additional examples of written translations were selected (30 contexts were not translated), and certain conclusions were reached. The comparative analysis was carried out on the basis of the English-language versions of the websites of the President of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, which contain official written translations of oral speeches.

To begin with, let's note the difference in translation options between oral translation (UP) and written translation (PP). Thus, complete coincidence (i.e., the coincidence of the subject and predicate) was found in 69 contexts out of 370 (18.6%). A partial match was found in 110 contexts (29.7%). A complete discrepancy is observed in 191 contexts (51.6%). However, it cannot be argued that such high indicators reflect the unsatisfactory quality of the UP or PP – such results are rather due to the difference in approaches to translation. Within the framework of the UP– it is primarily a quick (syntactically convenient) transfer of basic information, while in PP it is possible to convey more shades of the original utterance. In other words, often both translation options are adequate, although they differ.

Let's look at some of the features of translating contexts with complete coincidence. Despite the large number of transmission options – 20 for 69 contexts, the frequency distribution is uneven. So, most of these options relate to the phrase we need (19 contexts or 27.5%), omission strategy (18 contexts or 26%) or we should (9 contexts or 13%), despite the fact that 12 options are used once. The graphical representation makes it possible to visually examine the uneven frequency of translation options.

Fig. 1. The coincidence between the UP and PP

Let us proceed to the analysis of some frequency nonrandom left and right valences. It was found that one of two constructions is most often used in denial in the UP – we should not or omission (six contexts each – 16.7%), for example, Do not forget that using gas is also a response to another global challenge – We should not forget that gas use is also a response to another global challenge ^[16]; it should also be noted the subjectless construction of don't (four contexts), cf.: Do not use this for some kind of escalation in interstate relations - But don't use it to fire tensions between states ^[17]. Two constructions are used twice and 14 constructions are used once. In PP, the most frequent construction is omission (six contexts), followed by we don't need and don't (three occurrences each). Two variants are used twice and 15 contexts are used once. It seems that such a large number of translation options indicates the lack of a unified translation strategy, which is why translators often have to come up with translation options on the go, which does not always benefit the translation. The graphical representation looks like this.

Fig. 2. Comparison of translations of UP and PP with negatives

Let's turn to the consideration of translations of the construction we need (17 contexts). The two most popular options in the UP are we need, cf.: We need to form our own digital platforms – We need to create our own digital platforms ^[18] (five contexts) and we should, cf.: In the coming years, we need to further strengthen our unity so that we work as a team – In the in the coming years we should strengthen unity more, so that we would work as one team ^[18] (four contexts), two more contexts are used twice and four contexts once each. There is a lot of commonality in PP – the most popular variant is the phrase we need with 8 occurrences, four contexts are used twice and the phrase it should be once. Note that the contexts in which the we + modal verb construction is used account for 64.7% in UP and 82.3% in PP. Visually, this can be represented in the following form (the left half of the diagram is PP, the right half of the diagram is UP).

Fig. 3. We need translations of the construction in the UP and PP

Let's turn to the consideration of translations of the construction, I must say (23 contexts), which is more often than others semantically empty or insignificant, and therefore omitted – 10 such occurrences in the UP, three more variants are used twice and seven different variants that are used once. In PP, the situation is similar – omission is most often used (seven occurrences), however, the "restoring" construction I must have the same result, cf.: And I must say, the effect has been good – And I must say, the effect has been good ^[19], it should be used three more times, cf.: I must say that these discussions are understandable – It should be noted that we understand what these debates are all about ^[20], twice we should, and four more variants are used once each. A graphical comparison of the translations looks like this.

Fig. 4. Variants of the translation of the construction, it should be said, in the UP and PP

Let's move on to the consideration of the UP as a whole. Note that the use of the pronoun we is the predominant variant in translation (regardless of the presence of the pronoun we in the original – 17 contexts) – 182 occurrences out of 400. In second place, with a significant margin, is the restoration of the subject (36 contexts), followed by the impersonal pronoun it (23 occurrences), you (18 occurrences), one and they (15 occurrences each) and I (mainly for constructions, I must say – eight out of 13 occurrences). The distribution of predicates in translation is shown in the figure.

Fig. 5. Predicates in the oral translation of the word it is necessary

In general, it was found that most often constructions with the studied word are omitted (78 such occurrences or 19.5% of all contexts). The second most popular construction is we should (70 occurrences), and the third is we need (62 occurrences). Moreover, 87 translation options (for 400 contexts) have been found for constructions with the word need, which indicates the lack of a unified translation strategy, which is why translators often have to come up with translation options on the go, which does not always benefit the translation.

In PP, the situation is somewhat different – the we need construction is most often used (60 occurrences). Omission is also popular, but it is used in 44 contexts. Note that there are five constructions that are used more than 10 times in the UP – omission, we should, we need, we have to (34 occurrences), restoration of the subject (vs) + should be (16 occurrences). There are eight such items in PP – we need, omission, we must (31 occurrences), we should (29 occurrences), it is necessary (19 occurrences), vs + must be (18 occurrences), vs + should be (16 occurrences), we have to (14 occurrences). A total of 79 translation options were found.

The use of the pronoun we is also prevalent in PP – 135 occurrences. Next comes the restoration of the subject (57 occurrences), the impersonal pronoun it (49 occurrences), they (20 occurrences), this (16 occurrences), I and you (12 occurrences each). The distribution of predicates is shown in the figure.

Fig. 6. Distribution of predicates in the PP of the word it is necessary

It should be noted that there are more passive constructions in PP – 88 (despite the fact that there are 30 fewer contexts). The passive was used in 50 cases.

As a result, it was found out that the translation of sentences with the predicative must largely depends on the context, often constructions with this word can be omitted. When transferring, it is recommended:

1) use the pronoun we (except in cases where the original explicitly suggests a pronoun of a different order – you, you, him, etc.) and a suitable verb – should, need (or have to).

It can be assumed that among all English modal verbs, need is the most capable of conveying the general meaning of statements with the word must, without giving the translated sentence additional meanings not inherent in sentences in the original language, for example, the more categorical modality of the must inherent in the modal verbs must or have to.

The frequent use of an omission strategy, on the one hand, may indicate precisely the absence of a translation strategy, and on the other hand, a large number of semantically empty contexts, or contexts in which the transfer of modality can be neglected without a significant loss in meaning. This question presents a research perspective.

The high frequency of the we should construction, as well as the verb should in general, can be explained by the fact that the political type of discourse pays increased attention to diplomatic translation ethics and awareness of the use of translation manipulation, i.e. in this case, a more careful expression of the modality is necessary, for which the verb should is more suitable. This may also be related to the lack of a translation strategy, which is why translators often resort to this "cautious" option.

The relatively low frequency of the verb have to can be attributed to the specific characteristics that this unit gives the context – a high degree of necessity, as well as the need due to external pressure, which rarely manifest themselves in sentences with the word need.