Apart from the pragmatics of linguistic signs, there are also the pragmatics of individual speech acts. In a concrete act of speech the Source has to do with the specific Receptor upon whom he tries to produce the desired effect, and from whom he would like to elicit the desired reaction.
This second type of pragmatics is also present in translation events. A translation event is a kind of speech act and it is performed with a certain pragmatic purpose as well. But here we are confronted with a more complicated process than in ordinary speech.
A translation event is pragmatically oriented in two directions. On the one hand, it is translation which means that its primary purpose is to give the closest possible approximation to the original text. This orientation towards a foreign text is one aspect of its pragmatics. [11; 59]
But on the other hand, a translation event is a concrete speech act in the target language. Therefore, it is not just an act of interlingual communication between the Source and TR, but also an act of speech communication between the Translator and TR. This involves two important implications. First, a translation event may be pragmatically oriented toward a concrete TR, and, second, it is the result of the activities of a concrete translator, who may have some additional pragmatic motivation, may pursue some aims beside and beyond the true reproduction of the original text.
As long as translation is not just an exercise in producing an equivalent text in another language but a pragmatic act under specific circumstances, its results can be assessed both in terms of its loyalty to the original and its ability to achieve the purpose for which it has been undertaken. This necessitates the introduction of the concept of the "pragmatic value" in translation, which assesses its success in achieving this pragmatic super-purpose.
As has been pointed out, the additional pragmatic goal of the translation event may depend either on the particular type of TR or on the translator's designs beyond his call of duty as a no-nonsense transmitter of the original message.
The users of the translation often make judgements of its quality exclusively on its merits as an instrument in achieving some specific aim. If in doing it, the translation departs from the original text, so much the worse for the latter.
Sometimes books written for adults are translated for children's reading with appropriate alterations made in the course of translation. Presumably any text should be differently translated depending on whether it is for experts or laymen, for staging or screening, and so on. [11; 64]
As to the specific aims pursued by the translator, they may also bring about considerable changes in the resulting text with no direct bearing on the original. Each translation is made in a certain pragmatic or social context, and its results are used for a number of purposes. The translator is assigned his task and paid for it by the people for whom his work is not an end in itself but an instrument for achieving some other ends. Aware of this, the translator tries to make his work meet these "extra-translational" requirements, introducing appropriate changes in the text of translation. Sometimes these changes are prompted by the desire to produce a certain effect on the Receptors, which has already been mentioned.
The specific goal, which makes the translator modify the resulting text, often means that, for all practical purposes, he assumes an additional role and is no longer just a translator. He may set himself some propaganda or educational task, he may be particularly interested in some part of the original and wants to make a special emphasis on it, he may try to impart to the Receptor his own feelings about the Source or the event described in the original. In pursuance of his plans the translator may try to simplify, abridge or modify the original message, deliberately reducing the degree of equivalence in his translation.
It is clear that such cases go far beyond the inherent aspects of translation and it is not the task of the translation theory to analyse or pass a judgement on them. But the translator should be aware of this possibility for it will have an impact on his strategy.
In many types of translation any attempt by the translator to modify his text for some extra-translational purpose will be considered unprofessional conduct and severely condemned. But there are also some other types of translation where particular aspects of equivalence are of little interest and often disregarded.
When a book is translated with a view to subsequent publication in another country, it may be adapted or abridged to meet the country's stan dards for printed matter. The translator may omit parts of the book or some descriptions considered too obscene or naturalistic for publication in his country, though permissible in the original.
In technical or other informative translations the translator or his employers may be interested in getting the gist of the contents or the most important or novel part of it, which may involve leaving out certain details or a combination of translation with brief accounts of less important parts of the original. A most common feature of such translations is neglect of the stylistic and structural peculiarities of the original. In this case translation often borders on retelling or precis writing.
A specific instance is consecutive interpretation where the interpreter is often set a time limit within which he is expected to report his translation no matter how long the original speech may have been. This implies selection, generalizations, and cutting through repetitions, incidental digressions, occasional slips or excessive embellishments.
It is obvious that in all similar cases the differences which can be revealed between the original text and its translation should not be ascribed to the translator's inefficiency or detract from the quality of his work. The pragmatic value of such translations clearly compensates for their lack of equivalence. Evidently there are different types of translation serving different purposes.
Linguistics and typology of texts.
By means of analysis the translator is to identify what type of texts needs to be translated. The same as during the asessment of translation it is rrequired to have a clear picture of the text type to avoid incorrect charateristics of text asessment. Typology of the texts that complies with translation process and spread for all types of texts is the reason of correct asessment of translation. There is a number of tries to develop such a typology of texts that will allow to make sonclusions regarding the principles of translation or regarding the choice of special methods of translation. This fact reveals the understanding that the methods of translation are not only identifird by readers group and specification of translation.
One of the visible achievements of modern linguistics is the impetuous development of its new branch - the linguistics of the text - within last decades. This new linguistic discipline, the object of which is the coherent text - the completed sequence of the statements, united with each other by semantic connections, has put before itself a task to state the essence of these connections and ways of their realization, to find out the system of grammatical categories of the text with its substantial and formal units, to describe the essence and organization of conditions of the human communication using the material of the text.
From this brief list of the purposes and tasks of the new trends its affinity to the theory of translation becomes clear. [12; 87]
The connection between linguistics of the text standing on the early stage of its development, and the theory of translation, first noticed Yuriy Nida. On his opinion, the theory of translation should take into account some common attributes of the texts, which he has named " the universals of discourse ". To them belong:
1). Various ways of marking of the beginning and the end of the text;
2). Ways of marking of transitions between internal divisions of the coherent text;
3). Temporary connection;
4). Spatial connections;
5). Logic relations (for example, the reason and the consequence);
6). Identification of discourse' participants;
7). Various means of apportionment of this or that elements for focusing on them the attention or for the emphasis;
8). Author involvement, that is, his position and his point of view. [15; 105]
The markers of the beginning and the end of the text include the standard formulas such as " once upon a time " (жили были) and " they lived happily ever after " (и стали они жить поживать, добра наживать).
The markers of internal transitions are the traditional ways of introduction of new divisions of the text such as “on the other hand, however... ” (однако, с другой стороны), “ then all of a sudden..." (и вдруг), “in contrast with all this” (в отличие от всего этого) еtc.
To the markers of the temporary relations belong prepositions of time, the temporary phrases such as “ the next morning ” (на следующее утро), “all that day ” (весь день), relative times such as Future Perfect and Past Perfect, sequence of tenses, e. g. “he said he came”, a sequence of events reflected by the order of words.
Among markers of the spatial relations there are spatial prepositions such as “long way off" (далеко-далеко)