Analysis of the deep-level translation model. Macro analysis.
The transformational subcomponent is believed to eliminate the gap in the categorical subcomponent.
The need for this relates to the fact that in any translation task, the translator of a translation agency must use more or less than four transformation syntactic processes, namely, removal, insertion, rearrangement and / or replacement. Each of these processes is double in nature, ie, not mandatory (its adoption depends on the interpreter’s own preferences), or compulsory (the interpreter is compelled to apply it to make correctly constructed sentences in the target language). It goes without saying that languages show significant differences in the application of transformational functions and allow using various means for applying additional ones. These qualitative and quantitative differences allow us to strengthen the mandatory and additional syntactic changes in the translation. In other words, the changes motivated using the mandatory transformational set of functions, as mandatory syntactic changes and motivated by the application of additional functions, as additional syntactic changes.
Two practical advantages can be obtained from the adoption of this procedure. Firstly, the equivalence of various formal (syntactic) structures that have the same semantic meaning can be seen even interlinguistically. Secondly, the equivalence of officially similar structures possessing different meanings can also be easily seen. The third advantage can also be added, namely, the complex structures can be easily constructed with the reference to their core, that is, a deep structure.
At this level, the model switches to analyzing a significant number of mandatory and additional changes that occur at a level higher than the micro-level. To explain this requirement, the existing model assumes an independent broad level of analysis, called the macro-level analysis.
The main difference between the macro-level and the micro-level comes from the direction of analysis. On the one hand, the micro-level moves in the supply area as the maximum unit of syntactic description. The macro-level, on the other hand, moves in the text area. In this sense, the macro-level constitutes all the variables of structure, culture, style and rhetoric that contribute to the occurrence of changes on levels other than the syntactic level. Therefore, it is divided into several components, each of which takes into account the specific variable from the above.
However, this difference cannot be exaggerated. Instead, these two levels should be considered unitary, since both are consistent with the traditional notion that a sentence is a locus of structural and stylistic variations.
Meaning must be the main task of the entire translation. However, the size of this interest depends on the type of meaning passed by the lexical elements of this text. As for the translation, the translator must do everything possible to convey as much of the original meaning as possible in the target language. But since we know that the process of conveying the meaning is not a direct process, therefore, the translator often has to perform some semantic corrections to accomplish this task. In our case, such semantic corrections are analyzed as semantic shifts, which may be mandatory or optional. The former are dictated by the inevitable semantic gaps between the source language and the target language. Such gaps are mainly caused by some cultural and conceptual differences between the two languages. The latter, in turn, arises when the translator tries to preserve the essence of the original meaning by applying some means of semantic polishing.
The analysis of both types of changes must be performed, extracting semantic relations in the lexical units of the source text then investigating the possibility of transferring similar relations in the language of translation by similar or different formal devices. It should be mentioned here that the emphasis should be made in the light of the immediate situation in which the source text can function; otherwise the analysis will be vague.