Transformations in Translation

In the process of translation a SLT as a whole or its segments may undergo varied modifications that
are known in the theory and practice of translation as translation transformations. The term 'transformation'
is polysemantic and there are different meanings that are associated with this word in translation studies
including intralinguistic translation [Нелюбин 2003].
Translation transformations are defined by L.S. Barkhudarov as numerous and varied in their quality
inter-lingual changes which are made to achieve adequacy in translation in spite of discrepancies in the
formal and semantic systems of a SL and a TL [Бархударов 1975: 190].
An understanding of translation transformations offered by V.S.Vinogradov connects it with two
stages in a translator's work: the first presupposing perception of a SL text is divided into two phases: pre-
translational (a translator perceives a SL text after first (second, if necessary) reading, analyses its sense)
and translational perception (immediate perception of concrete words, phrases, utterances at the moment of
their translation); the second phase connected with re-creation by means of TL of what has been perceived
in a SL text is also divided into two phases: transpresentation and artistic identification of translation
[Виноградов 2004]. The author discusses various transformations in both phases of the second stage and
points out that changes are indispensable in translation as the translator does not look for a ready
correspondence in a TL utterance for this or that unit of translation, but he transpresents («перевыражает»)
the sense of the phrase.
One more very important aspect is revealed in translation transformations by L.K. Latyshev who
defines them as conscious deviations from objectively possible language parallelism in order to achieve
communicative and functional equivalence of a SLT and a TLT [Латышев 2003]. This approach to
translation transformations requires satisfying a strict principle of their motivatedness, that is the use of
transformations in translation should always be due to some causes. In the author's opinion causes of
translation transformations include two major factors: (a) a SL text as a determinant of translation
modifications and (b) a lingua-ethnical barrier as another important determinant. Both these factors are so
complex and comprise important facets that they deserve a careful consideration.
A SL text as a determinant of its transformations contains the following features:
1) textual content comprising denotative, significative connotations, the
interpreter's level of content, intra-lingual content, structural content;
2) functions of a text including intellectual informative, emotive, aesthetic, nominative,
voluntative, phatic. A lingua-ethnical barrier includes linguistic (proper) and ethno-cultural factors: a)
linguistic factors comprise discrepancies between two language systems on various language levels,
language norms, speech norm; b) ethno-cultural barrier refers to pre-textual information stock of SL and TL
speakers.
It is obvious that textual parameters of a SLT should be reproduced in translation as fully as possible
which impels the translator to make varied modifications on the levels indicated above. As investigations
show there are differences in the lingua-ethnical competence of a SL and a TL reader which may become
too serious a barrier to ignore. The importance of the two factors is hard to overestimate especially now that
modern views on translation activity regard it as a bi-lingual, bi-ethno-cultural process, as a dialogue of two
mental worlds and two world-views.
In further discussion of translation transformations it is useful to keep apart related aspects of
transformations: transformations as modifications of a SL text made on various levels, transformations as
certain operations made in particular conditions of activity and transformations as translator's techniques
caused by certain translation difficulties and problems.

Levels of translation transformations, operations and techniques of translation

These aspects of translation refer to the 'nuts and bolts' of the translation craft and business, yet in
translation studies scholars often use respective terms indiscriminately, especially often mixing levels of
transformations and techniques of translation. Suffice it to mention that even well known classifications of
textual modifications confuse transformations proper and techniques of translation. The term operations of
translation is reserved by us to those cases when a translator makes use of ready dictionary correspondences
to translate a given unit by merely replacing it.
 Besides, there is one more aspect of translation transformations which is connected with the
understanding of the mechanism of transformations. This problem initially linked with lexical
transformations gave rise to a heated discussion that revealed its principal significance in understanding the
nature of any transformations. In 1980 J.I. Retsker published in the journal "Tetradi perevodchika" his
famous article «Что же такое лексические трансформации?» [Рецкер 1980] which brought to
light this burning issue of translation practice. The author contrasted two diametrically opposite views on
the understanding of lexical transformations expressed, on the one hand, by L.S.Barkhudarov [Бархударов
1975] and, on the other hand, by T.R.Levitskaya and A.M. Fiterman [Левицкая,
Фитерман 1976].
L.S.Barkhudarov argues that lexical transformations should be understood as substitutions of some
lexical units (words and stable word combinations) in a SLT by lexical units in TL which are not their
dictionary equivalents , that is such units which taken outside the given context possess a different
referential meaning. E.g. She had said that she was in bed and ill (W. Thackeray, Vanity Fair) - Она
писала, что она больна и лежит в постели (пер. М. Дьяконова).
The supporters of the other approach to lexical transformations believe that there are no absolute
equivalents in any two languages and since translation itself is regarded as a kind of transformation which
presupposes the retention of semantic invariant of a source text content rather than its surface structure, i.e.
the form of expressing this content, is liable to change, cf. school leavers - выпускники, instant coffee -
растворимый кофе.
In this debate Ya.I. Retsker backs up the first approach for which he gives several reasons: firstly,
such TL correspondences as given above are qualified as dictionary correspondences that do not result
from any contextual modifications; secondly, what the authors mean by a surface structure of a lexical unit
is its inner form pointing at a particular feature of an object chosen to name it which very seldom coincides
in different languages accounting for the differences in nomination techniques, and finally, the use of
translation transformations is a creative artistic process which lets a translator exceed the limitations of
dictionary equivalents and offer something proper and adequate lor a given situation.
In connection with the discussion of the nature and mechanism of lexical transformations it seems
reasonable to apply the above given understanding to any other transformations including grammatical and
stylistic. For example, when rendering English sentences with an active voice predicate it is not always best
to retain it in translation, but use instead a passive voice construction as there may be other factors active in
a given speech situation. The same goes for stylistic devices as there may be shifts in the choice of proper
devices in place of ready formal correspondences to produce in a TLT a desirable stylistic effect. Such
examples are discussed later in connection with respective types of transformations.
The first important problem arises in connection with classification of transformations made on
different levels which is due to the difference of opinion on the notion of 'levels'. In many books on
translation the authors single out transformations that correlate with language levels. One of the most
popular classifications of transformations offered by prof. V.N. Komissarov takes into account the character
of modifications and singles out lexical, grammatical and lexico-grammatical transformations [Комиссаров
1999а]. L.K. Latyshev and A.L. Semenov differentiate between two classes of transformations:
structure-layer and content [Латышев, Семёнов 2003]. The former include categorical morphological,
syntactical, stylistic and lexical, while the latter involving a change in the content representation of a
situation include redistribution of semantic components, situational semantic transformations
(instrument - instrumental use, event - perception of an event, measure - result, etc), explication of implicit
content. In the section devoted to methods of translation J.-P. Vinay and J. Darbelnet consider them on three
levels: lexis, structural organization and message [Вине, Дарбельне 1978]. In their approach to this problem
T.R.Levitskaya and A.M. Fiterman also use a language-level classification of transformations (lexical,
grammatical and stylistic), though, as is obvious from the previous discussion, they treat transformations in
a very broad sense contrasting them to lexical and grammatical equivalents [Левицкая, Фитерман 1976].
In a systematic way translation transformations were considered and classified by prof. Ya.I. Retsker
in close connection with the theory of regular correspondences which distinguished between adequate
substitutions (later named 'lexical transformations') and equivalent, variant and contextual correspondences
[Рецкер 2004]. Transformations are classified by the author into lexical (comprising differentiation,
concretizing, generalization оf meaning, sense development, antonymic translation, entire phrase
modification, compensation for losses), grammatical (full - with complete sentence restructuring and partial
with partial restructuring) and stylistic (expressive-emotional concretizing due to the necessity to follow the
principle of expressive-stylistic compatibility (in the terminology of V.G. Gak) and expressive-pragmatic
concretizing).
In our classification of translation transformations from the point of view of the level on which they
are made we proceed from the understanding of the object of translation which has been defined above as
speech units, i.e. texts. Accordingly, a translator resorts to various modifications either of fragments
(segments) of a text or a whole text. Transformations involving segments of a text may refer to the elements
of the semantic, lexical, morphological, syntactical (with two sublevels - that of a phrase and that of a
sentence) levels, whereas textual transformations are active on the level of a text as an entity. All the above
mentioned levels of transformations with the exception of the semantic level may involve changes on two
planes: content and form. Correspondingly, in real practice of translation various transformations overlap
affecting various aspects of a speech unit: semantic, syntactic and pragmatic. Below are given examples of
different-level transformations, but for the sake of illustrations we point out only those which apply to a
particular type:
a) lexico-semantic, А я вот сиди и работай на него как каторжный!.... (Чехов. Юбилей) - So I
have to sit here and slave away for him (пер. К. Кук).
Instead of using dictionary correspondences of the word каторжный (convict, prisoner, felon,
culprit, criminal) the translator resorted to a number of transformations including lexico-semantic,
replacing the word within the comparative word-group by the phrasal verb on the basis of several common
semantic components: cf. (работать как) каторжный - человек, сосланный на каторгу [каторга -
содержание заключённых в тюрьмах с особо суровым режимом и с привлечением к тяжёлому
физическому труду] (БТСРР) - slave away - work continuously like a slave [a slave -someone who is
legally owned by another person and works for them for no money].
b) morphological, ...а заглянешь в душу - обыкновеннейший крокодил (Чехов. Медведь)
- ...yet gaze into her soul and what do you find - a regular hyena (C. Cook)
Since the English word regular is used as an intensifier there is no need to use it in the superlative
degree.
c) syntactic I (phrase level), Сестра опять всю ночь не спала (Чехов. Чайка) - My sister had
another sleepless night (C. Cook). Syntactic II (sentence level), И бедняк может быть счастлив
(Чехов. Чайка) - People can be poor and still be happy (C.Cook). d) textual level (text as an entity), the
title of the book by V. Grossman "Bce течет..." and its translation transform "Forever Flowing"
(Tr.Thomas P. Whitney) make sense only in the context of the entire book.
Techniques of translation relate to a translator's concrete actions and particular ways of translation
which bring about a certain modification or transformation of a SLT. L.S. Barkhudarov described his
transformations in terms of four basic techniques: (a) restructuring (or transpositions), (b) substitutions, (c)
additions and (d) omissions (or deletions) [Бархударов 1975]. In his opinion, all the major classifications
of translator's techniques boil down to those four.
A much broader classification of techniques of translation was advanced by J.-P. Vinay and J.
Darbelnet [Вине, Дарбельне 1978] who singled out seven types:
1) borrowing
2) loan translation
3) word-for-word translation
4) transposition
5) modulation
6) equivalence
7) adaptation.
The authors point out that the technical ways and means of translation are limited and can be
exhaustively described in terms of those seven above which are enumerated according to the degree of
difficulties of translation. In the classification they refer the first three techniques of translation to direct (or
literal) translation thanks to structural or/and metalinguistic (notional) parallelism in the two languages. The
remaining four techniques are associated by the authors with non-direct translation and are due to either
structural or metalinguistic discrepancies or 'empty cells'. It seems that such a broad approach to techniques
of translation can hardly be justified as, for one thing, the first three types are in fact connected with the
choice of the unit of translation rather than techniques, and, for another thing, the four phenomena
'modulation', 'adaptation', 'equivalence' and transposition may be qualified as varieties of substitutions which
are caused by different factors: modulation is due to the necessity of expressing a certain message in a usual
way which is acceptable in TL (cf. No vacancies - Номеров нет (объявление в гостинице и т.п.),
adaptation is used to render a SL situation which does not exist in a TL community (cf. greet one another
with a holy kiss (from the New Testament) is not translated into English word-for-word, but is adapted into
give on, another a hearty handshake all around equivalence is used to render the satin situation in a way that
is typical of a TL, so it is always syntagmatic in it» character, involves a message as a whole and refers to
stable units and cliche1 including proverbs, sayings, phraseological units (cf. Too many cooks spoil the broth
- У семи нянек дитя без глазу), while transposition is just another term to use alongside 'substitution'.
Thus, the given classification confuses techniques of translation and their causes, techniques of translation
and units /ways of translation, but at the same time it neglects some other important techniques which are
active in the process of translation.
Thus, we can take for a basis L.S. Barkhudarov's classification and supplement it with one more
type, namely entire message modification ('целостное преобразование'). This system of techniques of
translation comprising five types underlies various translation transformations on all tin levels discussed
above, used alone or in various combinations.
 Basic Transformations in the Process of Translation

At the sentence level, the most common transformations every translator makes are 1)
omission, 2) addition, 3) transposition, 4) change of grammatical forms, 5) loss compensation, 6)
concretization, 7) generalization 8) antonymic translation, 9) meaning extension, 10) metonymic
translation, 11) sentence integration, and 12) sentence fragmentation. These transformations are
caused by differences in the grammar and vocabulary of the source language (SL) and target
language (TL).

A few examples.
1. Omission. Summer rains in Florida may be violent, while they last. Летом во Флориде
бывают сильные ливни. From the point of view of the Russian language, the clause "while they
last" is redundant and would make the Russian sentence sound very unnatural if it were to be
translated.
2. Addition. The policeman waved me on. - Полицейский помахал мне рукой,
показывая что я могу проезжать. Or: ''Полицейский рукой просигналил (показал), что я могу
проезжать. The compact English phrase "to wave on" has no compact equivalent in Russian.
3. Transposition. Transposition involves changing the order of words in the target text
(TT) as compared to the Source text (ST). Typically, an English sentence has a
"subject+predicate+object+adverbial adjunct+place+time" word order: A delegation of Moscow
State University students arrived in Gainesville yesterday. Вчеpa в Гейнзвиль прибыла группа
студентов из Московского государственного университета. A typical Russian sentence would
generally have a reverse word order: time+place+predicate+subject+object+adverbial adjunct.
4. Change of grammatical forms. For example, in the Russian translation of Prime
Minister Tony Blair was hit by a tomato, the original Passive Voice construction is changed to an
Active Voice construction: ...в британского премьера попал помидор...
5. Loss-of-meaning compensation involves adding to or reinforcing a TT in one place to
compensate for something that hasn't been translated in a different place in the ST: I ain't got no time
for that kind of thing! - to compensate for the double negation in You ain't seen nothin' yet! an
emphatic syntactic construction can be used in the Russian translation - To ли еще будет!
6. Concretization is used when something in the TL is usually expressed using concepts
with narrower meaning or when preserving the original concepts with broader meaning would result
in an awkward translation: There were pictures on all the walls and there was a vase with flowers on
the table. - На всех стенах комнаты висели картины, а на столе стояла ваза с цветами.
7. Generalization is used when something in the TL is usually expressed using concepts
with broader meaning or when preserving the original concepts with narrower meaning would result
in an awkward translation: She ordered a daiquiri. (= a sweet alcoholic drink made of rum and fruit
juice) - Она заказала коктейль. Or. There used to be a drugstore (a Walgreens pharmacy) around
here. I need to buy some soda water. - Здесь раньше был магазин. Мне надо купить
газированной воды. In the latter example, translating drugstore or Walgreens pharmacy as аптека
or аптека "Уолгринз " would not only be baffling to a Russian - because in Russia they do not sell
газированную воду in аптеках - but it would also be unnecessary as for the purposes of
communication магазин is just as good in this context. The more specific drugstore or Walgreens
pharmacy is translated here by the more general term магазин.
8. Antonymic translation involves translating a phrase or clause containing a negation
using a phrase or clause that does not contain a negation or vice versa: I don't think you're right. - Я
думаю, что вы не правы.
9. Meaning extension or sense development involves translating a cause by its effect or
vice versa: You can't be serious. - Вы, должно быть, шутите. (Cause is translated by its effect:
Since you can't be serious, it follows that you must be joking). In the above example, meaning
extension is combined with an antonymic translation. Another example: He answered the phone. -
Он поднял трубку. You can't speak on the phone unless you have lifted the receiver. The effect
"answered" in the ST is translated by its cause "lifted the receiver" (="поднял трубку") in the ТТ.
 10. Metonymic translation. A metonymic translation is similar to meaning extension.
Metonymy is a figure of speech in which one word or phrase is substituted for another with which it
is closely associated, as in the use of Moscow for the Russian government. Using a part for the
whole, the whole for one of ifs parts, or one of two contiguous concepts for the other are typical
metonymic figures of speech. E.g.: School broke up for the summer recess. - Занятия прекратились.
Все ушли на летние каникулы. (Или: Начались летние каникулы.)
11. Sentence integration involves combining two or more sentences into one: Your
presence isn't required. Nor is it desirable. - Ваше присутствие не требуется и даже
нежелательно.
12. Sentence fragmentation involves splitting one complex or compound sentence into
two or more simpler sentences: People everywhere are confronted with the need to make decisions in
the face of ignorance and this dilemma is growing. - Люди везде сталкиваются с необходимостью
принятия решений при отсутствии достаточной информации. Эта проблема возникает все
чаще и чаще. Both sentence integration and sentence fragmentation are prompted by considerations
of text cohesion and coherence. Cohesion is the network of surface relations which link words and
sentences in a text. Coherence is the network of conceptual relations which underlie the surface text.
Both concern the ways stretches of language are connected to each other. In the case of cohesion,
stretches of language are connected to each other by virtue of lexical and grammatical dependencies.
In the case of coherence, they are connected by virtue of conceptual or meaning dependencies as
perceived by language users.

Classification of translation transformations according to techniques of translation

Transpositions cover: all cases of restructuring, so naturally here refer transformations made on
the syntactic level which result in changes in word order. They can be divided into two kinds depending on
the nature of a unit undergoing restructuring, its size and syntactic functions: (a) re-patterning on the level
of a word-group, (b) re-patterning on the level of a sentence.
Re-patterning I (on the level of a word-group or a phrase) is caused by differences in the structural
patterns of correlated SL and TL word-groups and phrases. Quite often such changes are accompanied by
morphological (part-of-speech) or syntactical substitutions, e.g.
Алёшка, стуча зубами, стал сказывать про Тыртова (А. Толстой) His teeth chattering, Alyosha
began explaining about Tyrtov (tr. By A. Miller)
The Russian verbal adverbial phrase is replaced by the English absolute construction (syntactical
substitution) which makes a respective re-patterning obligatory.
Re-patterning II (on the level of a sentence) can be further subdivided into three sub-types:
(a) changes in the word order within a sentence or a clause, e.g. It was very tiring to stoop all the
time (E. Blyton/ Идти всё время согнувшись было очень утомительно (пер. В. Исакович).
The restructuring of the English sentence is caused by the change in the sentence-type, the
difference in their theme-rheme structure and is
accompanied by other transformations (addition, morphological substitution).
There is no re-patterning of Russian sentences which are characterized by two features: 1) a verb-
predicate is intransitive so there is no direct object in them and 2) a sentence begins with some adverbials
(of manner, place), e.g. Км, в этом краю, очень много озёр. - Up in that lake country were many, many
lakes.
(a) changes in the order of clauses within a complex or a compound sentence, e.g. Disposed as
she then was to calculate upon that vague basis which allows the subtraction of one sum from another
without any perceptible diminution, she was happy (Th. Dreiser).
(b) Девушка была счастлива; она находилась в том настроении, которое позволяет
вычитать одну сумму из другой без заметного ущерба для последней (пер. М. Волосова).
Re-patterning II is caused by the difference in the theme-rheme organization of the English and
Russian sentences and is accompanied by a number of other transformations (syntactical, lexical and
morhological substitutions, omission).
(c) changes in the order of sentences, e.g. Photographers came. The tragedy had interested
the local press. - Трагедия заинтересовала местную прессу. Пришли фотографы.
 The main cause of the re-patterning here is the grammatical meaning of the Past Perfect form which
expresses priority of the action denoted by it to an action in the Past Simple which in Russian has to be
signaled by the order of respective sentences.
Substitutions unlike the previous technique underlie transformations made on various levels:
lexical, stylistic, grammatical (morphological and syntactic). Lexical substitutions include several subtypes
depending on the character of changes in the lexical meaning of a SL unit:
a) concretizing - a SL word with an abstract, broad and general meaning is replaced by a TL word
with a concrete, narrow and specific meaning, e.g. After dinner I sat and waited for Pyte in my room over
the rue Catinat (Gr. Greene).
После ужина я сидел у себя в комнате на улице Катина и дожидался Паша (Е. Голышева, Б.
Изаков). The English word dinner has a broad meaning (dinner - the main meal of the day, taken in the
middle of the day or in the evening - LDCE) which has to be concretized in translation into Russian
where there are two words with more specific meanings {обед - основное прием пищи, еда
(обычно в середине дня) и ужин - вечерняя еда, последний прём пищи перед ночным сном - БТСРЯ).
b) generalization - a SL word with a concrete, narrow, specific meaning changed for a TL word
which has an abstract, broad, general meaning, e.g. Отец умер ровно год назад, как раз в этот день,
пятого мая, в твои именины (А. Чехов)
It's exactly a year ago today that Father died, the fifth of May-your birthday (K. Cook).
The Russian word is more specific in meaning since it reflects Christian habits and is different from
the word group день рождения (именины - у
православных и католиков личный праздник кого-либо, приходящийся на день, в который
церковь отмечает память одноимённого святого БТСРЯ), while the English word birthday is day that
is an exact number of years after the day when you were born (LDCE).
c) sense development - a SL word is replaced by a TL word the meanings of which denote notions
connected with each other through cause-result links. Since such links are usually connected with an action
mere may be basically 6 varieties of such transformations:
result - cause
result - action
action - result
action - cause
cause - result
cause - action
e.g. When I opened my eyes she had lit the lamp (Gr. Greene) (action/ Когда я открыл глаза, лампа
была зажжена (К. Cook) (resultant state)
d) antonymic translation - a SL word is translated by its TL antonym which as a rule brings about
changes in the grammatical structure of a
sentence, namely an affirmative sentence often becomes negative and vice versa a negative sentence may
turn into an affirmative one,
e.g. "He will not be long ", she said as though I needed comfort for his absence (Gr. Greene)
Теперь он скоро придёт, — сказала она, будто я нуждался в утешении (К. Cook).
Compensation - the replacement of a SL word which has no ready correspondence by a TL unit with
an approximate / close meaning or an acceptable way of referring to an object named. Compensation can be
of two types:
1) semantic compensation which is used as a means to compensate for sense losses especially
while translating culture-bound and nationally specific units and thus render the intended meaning in an
acceptable form for the target reader, e.g. five-and-ten-cent store trade ^Warren) – дешёвые магазины
(В.А. Кухаренко), from soup to nuts and a Corona Corona (Warren) — полный обед - от супа до
десерта и дорогой сигары (В.А.Кухаренко).
2) stylistic compensation which can be local and non-local and is employed to compensate for
stylistic losses that may be due to differences in stylistic reference of correlated units, compare English
correspondences used to translate Russian young people's slang, буча (драка) - a scrap, a brawl,
пятихатник - 500 roubles, каша (вещевой рынок) -flea market.
 Grammatical substitutions refer to various changes of grammatical (morphological) forms and
syntactic structures that include several kinds of modifications:
a) part-of-speech characteristics, e.g. Когда дочь переехала к родителям, ей вначале было очень
одиноко. -When she moved to stay with her parents, their daughter felt very lonely at first (pronominal
substitution);
...в российского министра образования чуть не попало яйцо - Russia's Minister of education was
nearly hit by an egg (passivization); Он не очень хорошо сходится с людьми - Не is not a terribly good
mixer (the Russian verb-adverb phrase is translated by the English adjective-noun combination;
Он копит деньги на покупку дома - Не is saving money to buy a car (the Russian deverbal noun is
translated by the English infinitive); Рабочие требовали повышения зарплаты и сокращения рабочего
дня -The workers demanded higher pay and shorter working hours (the Russian deverbal noun denoting
increase or decrease in size, volume, range is replaced by the English adjective in the comparative degree);
Я ему обрадовался - I was glad to see him (me Russian verb denoting emotional behavior is often
replaced by the English phrase: to be (turn, get, grow, become) + adjective); Проект бюджета
представлен на рассмотрение правительства России - The draft budget was submitted for
consideration by the Russian government (the Russian noun+noun pattern is often replaced by the English
adjective-noun phrase).
b) parts-of-a-sentence substitutions: Visitors are requested to leave their coats in the cloakroom -
Посетителей просят оставлять верхнюю одежду в гардеробе (the subject of the English passive form
is replaced by the Russian direct object of the active form); Last week witnessed an intensification of the
diplomatic activity - На прошлой неделе наблюдалось оживление дипломатической деятельности (the
English subject denoting adverbial modifiers is replaced by Russian adverbial modifiers).
c) syntactic substitutions: / never even once saw him brush his teeth - Я не видел, чтобы он чистил
зубы (the English simple sentence is replaced by the complex sentence in Russian); // was so dark that I
couldn 't see her - Я её в темноте не мог видеть (the English complex sentence is translated by the simple
Russian sentence); John kept whistling "Song of India" while he shaved - Джон брился и насвистывал
«Индийскую песню» (subordination in the English sentence is replaced by coordination in the Russian
sentence); It was hot as hell and the windows were steamy - Жара была адская, все окна запотели
(English syndetic linking is replaced by asyndetic linking in Russian).

Additions are complex lexico-grammatical transformations which bring about changes in the
lexical elements of a SLT that are accompanied by grammatical changes. As a result of additions one or
more words are added in translating an original utterance which are a sort of extension to it. Additions are
caused by a number of factors:
a) the difference in the word-building, combinatorial, grammatical and other features of SL and
TL, e.g. / '11 have him call you - Я скажу ему, чтобы он позвонил тебе.
b) the absence of a ready-to-use lexical correspondences in TL for a certain unit of translation
which makes it necessary to resort to periphrastic explanations or cultural comment, e.g.
Его встретили с хлебом-солью - Не was met with the bread and salt of hospitality.
c) ellipsis of some elements in a SLT where they are considered redundant, but which have to
be restored in a TLT since they are compulsory in it, e.g. Everybody heard the President's energy message
- Все прослушали послание президента о проблеме нехватки энергоресурсов в США. &) stylistic
demands in keeping with the norms of TL, e.g. A few minutes later nurse Davis, starched and curious,
arrived - Через несколько минут вошла сестра Дэвис, вся накрахмаленная, едва сдерживая
своё любопытство.
Omissions represent changes in a SLT which are opposite in nature to additions, though they
are also qualified as complex lexico-grammatical transformations. Omissions result in dropping some
elements from a SLT which may be caused by a number of factors:
a) the difference in combinability of SL and TL, e.g. English favours pair synonyms the origin
of which has historical and cultural roots that have to be translated by single word correspondences in
Russian, e.g. The treaty was declared null and void-Договор был объявлен недействительным.
b) well-established traditions of expressing some information, e.g. English unlike Russian
prefers to use detailed descriptions of size, volume, weight and оthеr measurements [Хайруллин 1997]
which are looked upon as redundant in Russian and are usually replaced by their functional analogues, e.g.
Every inch of his face expressed amazement - На его лице было написано изумление.
 c) the desire to create compression in an English sentence which is often achieved thanks to
frequent uses of participial, infinitival, gerundial phrases, complex object, complex subject and other
complexes, e.g. Как сообщается, свыше 30 автомашин застряли в пути на 12 часов из-за снежных
заносов - More than 30 cars are said to have stuck twelve hours in snow drifts.
Translation practice shows that omissions are more frequently made while translating from Russian
into English in contrast to additions that are usual when translating from English into Russian.

Integral modifications are such changes which involve the whole semantic and formal
structure resulting in profound modifications of the
speech unit. According to S.P. Romanova and A.L. Koralova, integral modifications may take place
on two levels: the level of a word-group and the level of a sentence [Романова, Коралова 2004].
On the level of word groups they usually occur when translating phraseological units which may
correlate in SL and TL in sense, but differ in their form, e.g. to be born with a silver spoon in one's mouth -
родиться в сорочке; to set the fire to - пустить красного петуха. But more often than not we resort to
integral modifications when rendering the whole utterances, e.g. The others can go right along the road. -
Остальные пусть проваливают.
The comparison of integral modifications with odier translation transformations shows that integral
changes are of a higher order as they are usually accompanied by some other transformations, such as
concretizing or generalization of meaning, antonymic translation and some others that refer specifically to
constituent parts of an utterance which are rendered in some modified form, e.g. Have you ever in all your
born days seen the like?—Ты когда-нибудь за всю свою жизнь видел что-нибудь подобное
(generalization). I had the right of way - Вы должны были уступить мне дорогу (sense development).
It stands to reason that a translator may resort to integral modifications in two ways:
(1) when there is a ready correspondence in TL to render a given SL speed, unit which
presupposes a complete transformation. This is a case when dealing with various well-established notices,
warnings, etc that have a fixed form, cf. Video controlled - Ведется видеонаблюдение; Fragile -
Осторожно стекло; Mind your head ~ Осторожно, низкий потолок.
(2) when a translator refrains from using a dictionary correspondence and thinks of a different
way of translating a certain unit in a given context that In finds more appropriate for a given occasion, cf.
Except for those two things life is nau-se-at-ing - Без удовольствий и власти жизнь - ко-ш-ишар. Thus in
the former case integral modifications are regular and constani while in the latter case they are individual,
optional and contextual.
(3)