Отсюда Л.С.Бархударов делает законо

Отсюда Л.С.Бархударов делает закономерный вывод, что «текст перевода никогда не может быть полным и абсолютным эквивалентом текста подлинника», однако остается непонятно, как это совместить с тем, что «неизменность плана содержания» была указана в качестве единственного определяющего признака перевода. Если исходить из такого определения, то было бы логично сделать вывод, что, поскольку нет неизменности содержания, то нет и перевода.
Второй подход к решению проблемы переводческой эквивалентности заключается в попытке обнаружить в содержании оригинала ка¬кую-то инвариантную часть, сохранение которой необходимо и достаточно для достижения эквивалентности перевода. Наиболее часто на роль такого инварианта предлагается либо функция текста оригинала, либо описываемая в этом тексте ситуация. Иными словам, если перевод может выполнить ту же функцию (например, обеспечит правильное использование технического устройства) или описывает ту же самую реальность, то он эквивалентен.

К сожалению, и этот подход не дает желаемых результатов. Какая бы часть содержания оригинала ни избиралась в качестве основы для достижения эквивалентности, всегда обнаруживается множество реально выполненных и обеспечивающих межъязыковую коммуникацию переводов, в которых данная часть исходной информации не сохранена. И, наоборот, существуют переводы, где она сохранена, неспособные, однако, выполнять свою функцию в качестве эквивалентных оригиналу. В таких случаях мы оказываемся перед неприятным выбором: либо от-казать подобным переводам в праве быть переводами, либо признать, что инвариантность данной части содержания не является обязательным признаком перевода.
Третий подход к определению переводческой эквивалентности можно назвать эмпирическим. Суть его заключается в том, чтобы не пытаться априори решать, в чем должна состоять общность перевода и оригинала, а сопоставить большое число реально выполненных переводов с их оригиналами и посмотреть, на чем основывается их эквивалентность.

Результаты (английский) 1:

Hence the Hp Barhudarov makes a logical conclusion that "text translation can never be complete and absolute equivalent of the text of the original, however, remains unclear, as it combined with the fact that" the immutability of content plan "was listed as the sole defining characteristic of translation. Assuming such a definition, then it would be logical to conclude that, since there was then no content immutability and translation. The second approach to solving the problem of translation equivalence is to try to discover the contents of the original Ka ¬ kuyu-the invariant part, which is necessary and sufficient to achieve equivalence translation. Most often the role such invariant is offered or any feature of the original text or described in this text. In other words, if you can perform the same function (e.g., ensure proper use of technical devices) or describes the same reality, then it is equivalent. Unfortunately, this approach does not give the desired results. No matter what part of the content of the original nor elected as a basis to achieve equivalence, always detected many actually performed and ensure cross-language communication translation, in which the portion of the source information is not saved. Conversely, there are translations, where it is stored, unable, however, to perform its function as the equivalent of the original. In such cases, we find ourselves before an unpleasant choice: either from-seem similar transfers in law be translations, or acknowledge that the invariance of this part of the content is not mandatory sign translation. The third approach to the definition of translation equivalence can be called empirical. The essence of it is to not try to decide a priori, what should be the commonality of the translation and the original and compare a large number actually performed translations from their originals and see what is the basis of their equivalence.

Результаты (английский) 2:

It makes L.S.Barhudarov logical conclusion that "the text of the translation can never be complete, and roughly equivalent to the original text", but it remains unclear how it is combined with the fact that "the immutability of the content" was listed as the sole defining characteristic of translation . Based on this definition, then it would be logical to conclude that, because there is no invariance of content, there is no translation.
The second approach to the problem of translation equivalence is to try to detect the content of the original ka¬kuyu some invariant part, the preservation of which is necessary and sufficient to achieve the translation equivalence. Most often the role of such an invariant feature offered with either the original text or the text described in this situation. In other words, if the translation can perform the same function (for example, ensure the correct use of a technical device) or describe the same reality, then it is equivalent.

Unfortunately, this approach does not give the desired results. Whichever part of the contents of the original or elected as a basis to achieve equivalence, always found a lot of really performed and provide cross-language translations communication in which this part of the initial information is not stored. Conversely, there are translations, where it is stored, unable, however, to perform its function as equivalent to the original. In such cases, we face an unpleasant choice. Either on-sound similar transfers the right to be translations, or to admit that the invariance of this part of the content is not a mandatory feature of the translation
A third approach to the definition of translation equivalence can be called empirical. Its essence is not to try to decide a priori what should be a community translation and the original, and to compare a large number of transfers actually carried out with their originals and see what is the basis of equivalence.

Результаты (английский) 3:

here л.с.бархударов makes a logical conclusion that translation can never be complete and absolute equivalent text подлинника» remains unclear, however, how to combine with the fact that "the consistency of the plan content" was listed as the sole defining attribute translations. based on this definition, it is logical to conclude that since there are no lines, no translation.the second approach to the problem of translation equivalence is an attempt to discover the contents of the original ка¬кую - инвариантную part, the preservation of which is necessary and sufficient to achieve equivalence in translation. most often the role of a инварианта or function is proposed, the original text, or as described in the text situation. in other words, if the translation can fulfill the same function (for example, would provide the proper use of technical devices) or describes the same reality, he is equivalent to.unfortunately, this approach does not yield the desired results. whatever part of the content of the original text or run as a basis for achieving equivalence always has many real experience and providing межъязыковую communication translation, in which the part of the information is not preserved. conversely, there are transfers, where she maintained, unable, however, to fulfil its function as equivalent to the original. in such cases, we find ourselves in the difficult choice: either from spoken such transfers in the right to transfer or accept that the invariance of this part of the content is not a mandatory sign translation.the third approach to the definition of translation equivalence is empirical. the essence of it is not to attempt a priori to decide what should be the common translation with the original, and to compare a large number of real remittances from their originals, and see that, based on their equivalence.