FILOLOGIJA 2012 (17)
ISSN 1392-561X
ENGLISH-LITHUANIAN INTERPRETER'S FALSE FRIENDS:
PSYCHOLINGUISTIC ISSUES
LAIMUTĖ KASPARE
Military Academy of Lithuania
[email protected]
Keywords: interpreter s false friends, psycholinguistic issues, semantic structure of the word, interference, foreign language learners, translators, interpreters.
It is well known that no two languages divide the semantic space in the same
way; that is why semantic equivalence between words of different languages is only
relative. Externally similar words in different languages are no exception to this: it is
only sometimes that they are full equivalents, very often they share only one or a few
meanings, or none at all. In practice they can therefore be easily confused not only by
foreign language learners and speakers but also by translators and interpreters.
Externally similar words have been part of the lexical systems of various languages either as a result of meaning divergence of cognate words or an indirect
borrowing through intermediary languages. In linguistic studies various terms have
been coined to define them (lexical pseudo-equivalents, interlingual homonyms/analogues, deceptive doubles, deceptive cognates, lexical parallels, unreliables, look-alikes, tautonyms, etc.); in translation studies these words are known as interpreter's
false friends (faux amis), the term coined by Koessler and Derocquigny in 1928, the
authors of the first Dictionary of English-French False Friends. Although the term
'false friends' has been criticized for being both too long and explicit (Budagov
1976, 267), it is useful insofar as it reminds of pitfalls that are in store for anyone
dealing with different languages, because the category potentially includes lexemes
the external form of which may be individually perceived as foreign. The probability
that these words will have the same semantic structure as in their native language is
unreliable, the degree of unreliability depending on different aspects of the semantic
structure and predicted or expected norms of usage. Thus the term 'false friends' in
fact defines a psycholinguistic category: dealing with false friends one cannot ignore
the foreign language learner, speaker, translator or interpreter.
67
The phenomenon of false friends (FF) has received a lot of attention from scholars1, although "they never granted it the status it deserves in mainstream research"
(Hayward and Moulin 1984, 190). Yet the significance of false friends is considerable if one takes into account not only the high frequency of the words involved but
also the importance of clear understanding and exact translation in the scientific,
political, commercial fields as well as in many others. The present paper focuses on
a number of psycholinguistic issues in connection with the phenomenon of EnglishLithuanian FF. Basing its findings on the study of research literature on the question
and examples of usage, it aims at discussing the reasons of them being a stumblingblock for the foreign language users.
Comparative analysis of both related and non-related languages presents a large
corpus of formally similar or identical lexemes: even in many non-related languages
this phenomenon would reach the proportion of 10 to 20% (Veisbergs 1998, 12).
A considerable share of these lexemes, however, has differences in their semantic
structures (e.g. English dislocate "to disturb the normal connection, esp. in a joint
in the body; disrupt, put out of order": Lith. dislokuoti "to deploy, to station"; E. a
cabin "a compartment in an aircraft or ship for passengers", also "a small shelter or
a house": Lith. kabina - "a compartment"; E. career "one's advancement through
life and profession", Lith. karjera means only professional advancement). The first
pair of lexemes can be ascribed to the category of absolute false friends, when no
meanings are shared; the other two pairs are partial false friends, as the words have
some common meanings. Used as equivalents in another language, FF lead to false
associations, wrong use, distortion of text, imprecision, misunderstanding, disregard
for the right stylistic colouring and other numerous translation problems. In order to
demonstrate that the problem is of importance, the following extracts from translations can be quoted:
(1) The reading hall ofLSC stores *prospects (Lith. prospektai — E. prospectuses or brochures) of registration of securities and periodically receives copies of issuers' annual and semi-annual reports... (Lithuanian Securities Commission 1999,
39).
(2) 'Merry Christmas, everyone,' I said with a gracious smile. 7 expect we 11
see you all at the Turkey Curry Buffet' (Fielding 1996, 305) translated
— Visiems linkiu linksmu Kalėdų, — palinkėjau elegantiškai šypsodamasi. — Tikiuosi susitikti kalakutienos troškinio *bufete (vakarėlyje, pobūvyje) (Fielding 1999,
266).
(3) The cow kicked the minister's son translated
1
Beheydt& Colson (1996), Budagov (1976), DonNilsen (1977), Gorbahn-Orme & Hausmann (1991),
Gottlieb (2002); Granger & Swallow (1988), Hammer (1976, 1979), Hartmann (1991), Hartmann &
James (1998), Hayward & Moulin (1984), Le Huche (1975), Lipczuk (1992), Malone (1982), Markov
(1997), McCulloch (1998), Muravyev (1969), Nicholls (1995), Pateau & Barrie (1999), Perkins (1977),
Sansome (2000), Sheen (1996, 2000), Spence (1987), Spillner (1991), Veisbergs (1997, 1998), Viberg
(1999), Weberova & Skochova ((2000), Wilczyńska (1992), Woulfe (1981). In Lithuanian linguistics
FF have been investigated by Aprijaskytė & Pareigytė (1972, 1975), Aprijaskytė (1982), Laptėvaitė
(1978); Gudavičius (1977); Gaivenis (1987).
68
Karvė įspyrė *ministro (pastoriaus) sūnui (an English film on television,
1999).
Examples above demonstrate that false friends can be found not only in oral interpreting (3), which can be attributed to various external factors, such as haste, etc.,
but also in published texts. With the recent influx to Lithuania of mass media, films,
music and literature from the West, translation problems caused by false friends are
even more numerous than before.
FF can be words, whose etymons in another language developed different meanings, but they can also be words directly or indirectly borrowed from the language
under comparison, or enter the vocabulary of each contrasted language by borrowing
from a third language directly or through an intermediary language. Whenever any
two languages are in contact, loan words (particularly in non-scientific, non-technological language) tend to take on to varying degrees lives of their own, the phenomenon described as a semantic shift - generalization, specialization, amelioration,
pejoration, etc. Baker writes: "Once a word or expression is borrowed into a language, we cannot predict or control its development or the additional meanings it might
or might not take on" (1992, 25). Gudavičius also emphasises the unpredictability
of the "semantic fate" of the loan word (1977, 39). The appearance of FF can be attributed to the peculiarities of the vocabulary of each language, i.e. by the pressure
of the system. In the new language, with the loss of former semantic links, borrowed
words easily acquire new meanings, which differ from the etymon. It is obvious that
the more exposed a language has been to language contacts, especially through intermediary languages, the higher the possibility of false friends.
It is not always, however, that semantic differences of the loan words are the
result of their development under the influence of the language into which they have
been borrowed. As Gottlieb (1972) rightly points out, very often the word becomes
a false friend because only one meaning of a polysemous lexical unit is borrowed at
a time. Later the same word may be borrowed again for a different meaning. As this
usually happens during a long period of time, the word in the original language may
have changed its meaning in the process. There are cases when a borrowed word
does not change its original meaning for centuries, while in the source language the
word is either substituted by another word or changes its meaning. Often, however,
loan words are semantic equivalents, especially if borrowed directly for a specific
purpose. It would be interesting to find out about how, why and when divergences
occurred in these languages, i.e. to follow lexical pseudo-equivalents diachronically,
but this is beyond the scope and aim of our research.
As has been mentioned, FF, even though they often are the result of complicated processes of borrowing from different languages, cannot be identified with the
^
concept of loan words. Loan words are the phenomenon of a language system and
jdo not cause particular problems after they have been adapted into the system. FF, Sš
however, are usually explained by the phenomenon of interference, when the seman- I;
tic structure of the word in the native language is identified with that of the formally
J
similar word in a foreign language. Thus loan words can become FF when two or i>
69
more language systems are being used, i.e. in translation/interpreting and in learning
foreign languages. Thus almost all FF are loan words, but loan words are not necessarily FF. The question is whether it is formal or semantic similarity of these words
or both that causes wrong associations. All sorts of didactic implications depend on
the answer to this question and researchers offer different opinions.
Most Lithuanian and foreign authors (Aprijaskytė and Pareigytė 1972; Aprijaskytė 1982; Gottlieb 1972; Laptėvaitė 1978; Lipczuk 1992; Piesarskas 1987;
Wilczińska 1992, etc.) agree that false friends are the result of the well-known
phenomenon of interference. In sciences, from which the term has been borrowed,
interference means a certain impact, a mutual or one-sided influence. In linguistics,
the term is understood as transferring the relations of one language system into another language (in the case of a foreign language learning it is usually from the native
language or mother tongue onto a foreign or second language).
Interference can be graded in terms of its stability and prevention possibilities in
the following way: phonetic-prosody interference is the strongest, followed by spelling (*mortyr (Lith. mortyra) instead of mortar, *rang (Lith. rangas) instead of rank,
*granate (Lith. granata) instead of grenade), phraseological and lexical-semantical
interference (on the level of figurative meaning), then goes morphological or syntactic interference, and, finally, lexical-semantical interference on the level of literal
meaning (Karaliūnas 1997, 347). That means that phonetic-phonological, grammatical-syntactical, and lexical-semantical systems of the native/first language serve like
a filter through which a foreign or second language is 'poured'. This 'filter' can be
helpful, but next to the positive role played by the native language in second/foreign
language acquisition, its interference may be an obstacle, both in pronunciation and
vocabulary acquisition. Aprijaskytė's (1982, 5) research proves that even advanced
level students make mistakes in pronouncing international words (or words similar
in form in Lithuanian and English) because of the interference of Lithuanian. Aprijaskytė bases her conclusions on the findings of the Soviet scholar Uznadze and his
followers, who investigated resolution, i.e. psycho-physical readiness of an individual to perform a certain action, as a major factor preceding any human behaviour,
speech included. The transfer of Lithuanian pronunciation rales onto English words
of a similar form also holds true for the semantic transfer. That is why the most common mistakes of Lithuanian students in word usage are also caused by interference
of their mother tongue. Most errors in the vocabulary use are due to the differences
in the semantic structure of words and their different combinability in both languages. Mistakes due to the difference in the semantic structure occur even when there
is no formal similarity (English word belong is used instead of depend because the
Lithuanian word priklausyti has both meanings, the same happens with carry and
bear - pernešti, listen and obey - klausyti, etc.). Laptėvaitė's (1978, 28) research
seems to prove that interference is more likely to occur where there is a formal similarity between the elements of the two languages. Differences in meaning or even
the absence of any common semantic components do not prevent interference (e.g.
the students spell *gourilas ('guerrillas') in English because of its similarity with
70
the Lithuanian word gorila ('gorilla'). Aitchison (1987) also supports the idea of
the importance of formal similarity for interference or transfer. In her book "Words
in the Mind" she attempts at finding out in what morphological and phonetic form
words are stored in the human brain. Basing her findings on the results of wide research, she arrives at a conclusion that our mental lexicon contains complete words.
Phonetically words are grouped together by similar sound patterns, in particular at
the beginning and end of words. That is why she thinks that mistakes in word choice
can be caused not only by semantic similarity, but also by phonetic structure or by
both. Here it is difficult not to quote Karaliūnas who said that "the formal difference
of words does not affect semantic interference, but similarity of expression definitely
stimulates it" (1997, 352) (our translation). Thus very often the student endows an
English word which has a similar form in Lithuanian with the meaning peculiar only
to its etymological equivalent in Lithuanian (e.g. Lith. kabinetas "a room/study" is
wrongly translated into English as a cabinet, scena "stage" is translated scene, and
komanda "team" is translated command).
Gottlieb, on the other hand, argues that interference is not caused by the formal
similarity. He writes: "It would be wrong to believe that external similarity (phonetical or morphological) between the word pairs is the main factor determining false
semantic correspondence of these words. Most false friends are polysemous words,
which could be ascribed to the group of partial false friends. This can be explained
by the fact that the existence of one or more common meanings between formally similar words leads to a mechanical transference of other meanings of the word in the
native language to the word in a foreign language, in which it lacks these meanings"
(1972, 438) (our translation). More than that, in his opinion, interference does not
even require the existence of one or two common meanings; some common components of meaning (semes) are enough. External similarity, in his opinion, is rather an
impulse and is important only when both foreign language knowledge and receptive
skills are very weak.
The appearance of FF thus can be ascribed to the unreliability of the assumption
of correspondence between externally similar words in the native and foreign languages. Unreliability can be of various degrees, depending on the different aspects of
formal and semantic structure and usage of the expected equivalent. To quote Wilczyńska who writes: "The sources of the mechanisms of interference are likely to
exist in general learning and communicative strategy, based, most often, implicitly,
on the principle of structural-semantic correspondence between the languages. This
naive but popular belief is further supported by bilingual dictionaries and language
teaching strategies based on explaining foreign language characteristics as differences without trying to reveal their internal links (especially concepts and symbols in
cultural sphere). Then a list of FF seems to be an unimportant segment of the general
pattern of principal correspondence, while the main way to understand the phenomenon is to memorize the differences" (Wilczyńska 1992, 167) (our translation). She
believes that next to interference, such factors as usual carelessness, convenience,
and search for psychical comfort cause using false friends. All this explains their ap-
71
pearance in both spoken and written texts: the student sees/hears the word s/he has
already known for a long time and endows it with the same meaning as in his/her
mother tongue. This seems to be the easiest and most economical way unless s/he
is warned to watch out. However, she points out to a common tendency: the more
educated people are, or the more advanced they are in a foreign language studies,
the less they trust direct interlingual analogies, the more they tend to check the first
equivalent that automatically comes to mind.
Other authors also demonstrate that simplification, understood in its broadest
terms, rather than interference is the most common scenario during bilingual contact. For example, Sylva-Corvalan writes: "The general hypothesis is that bilinguals
develop strategies aimed at lightening cognitive load of having to remember and use
two linguistic systems" (1994, 6). That is why cognitive simplification may be an
accurate assessment in the case of false friends. Even though she speaks about simplification, and not interference, she admits that "...it most easily leads to transfer
when parallel structures already exist between the two languages" (Sylva-Corvalan
1994,205).
Thus it can be summed up that the source of interpreter's false friends is words
of common etymology in different languages that developed different meanings/shades of meanings or usage; also loan words, borrowed either from the contrasted
language or from a third language directly or through an intermediary language. On
the level of speech (especially language learning, translation and interpreting) the
appearance of FF seems to be explainable by various phenomena: interference of the
native language, usual carelessness, convenience, search for psychical comfort and
cognitive simplification.
Although false friends have been recognised in linguistics as one of the most
expressed forms of interlingual interference, yet no false friend component seems to
be incorporated in foreign language courses (textbook and other teaching materials),
with the result that a significant number of errors can be blamed on methodology.
This has become especially common with audio-visual and communicative approaches, which too often tend to present an over-simplified picture of word behaviour
and can downgrade accuracy in favour of other factors. The problem would be easier
to solve if all false friends were total or absolute pseudo-equivalents. As the words
associated have nothing in common except their graphical appearance and perhaps
their etymology, it is comparatively easy for the learner to keep them apart and ascribe to them the correct meaning in the right language, although it seems that adult
learners often think that etymology of a word is its only and permanent meaning.
The difficulty lies with the numerous partial false friends, pairs of words which are
very close to each other and often share some senses while they differ in others. On
the other hand, with partial false friends, students may sometimes get by with an
assumption of a semantic identity between the native and foreign lexeme, because
partial false friends share at least one meaning and the mistake may either pass by
unnoticed or cause only minor distortion of the text. With absolute false friends this
72
is not the case: these words can never be used as translation equivalents without causing a major misunderstanding.
To expand on the last point we have to go back to the notions of interference.
As has been mentioned, FFs in language learning are the result of an interference of
the mother tongue or LI on a foreign language - L2. Interference can be classified
into direct and indirect (Aprijaskytė, Pareigytė 1972, 18). In our case interference
of the mother tongue may be considered direct when the meaning of the LI word is
transferred on to the L2 word. Interference is indirect when, with the range of meanings of the LI word being narrower than that of the L2 counterpart, the peculiar
meaning(s) of the latter are neglected by the learner. As a result, the student abstains
from using the L2 counterpart in the meaning(s) not peculiar to LI. In comprehension interference of the mother tongue is felt too; it results in the faulty interpretation
of English words.
In the case of absolute false friends, the difficulties for the student to overcome
are both in usage and in comprehension. In usage, i.e. in production of the English
text, the direct interference finds its expression in the student's endowing the English
word with the meaning of the Lithuanian word (e.g. instance is used for Lith. instancija "institution, organization"). The indirect interference in usage is felt when the
student does not use the English counterpart at all, replacing it by some other word.
For instance, when the student is to use an equivalent of the Lithuanian sporto salė,
s/he will rather use sports hall/facilities than gymnasium, because the latter is associated in his/her mind with a classical/grammar school. In comprehension the Lithuanian student will face direct interference. In cases when the English word has more
than one meaning, all of them different from the Lithuanian word, opportunities
for misinterpreting the English word grow in number accordingly. Thus, confronted
with the English decoration, the learner will have to overcome not only the difficulty of not associating it with dekoracijos ("scenery"), but also to learn to associate it
with two objects: orders/medals and Christmas tree decorations.
In the case of partial false friends, the language learner also faces difficulties in
both usage and comprehension. As the Lithuanian word possesses meanings not peculiar to the English counterpart, the student will erroneously use the English word
in a non-existing meaning, e.g., camera is likely to be used instead of cloakroom or
baggage compartment, freezer, inner tube of the tire, etc. (because of the meanings
of the Lithuanian word kamera) and cabinetinstead ofoffice, room, etc. (Lith. kabinetas). The greater the number of meanings peculiar to the Lithuanian word, the more
occasions for the students to use the English counterpart in a non-existing meaning.
The student will experience some difficulty in learning to use the English words of
this group in meanings peculiar only to the English counterpart. Furthermore, s/he
will abstain from using the word scandal that the Lithuanian word does not have and
will sooner use harmful gossip (Aprijaskytė & Pareigytė 1975, 22) as a result of the
indirect interference. The difficulty will also arise while listening and reading, i.e. in
comprehension: the student is likely to overlook the specific meaning(s) of the English counterpart, which results in either misunderstanding or a mistranslation. If the
73
learner has to find an equivalent for the Lithuanian words interesas, rekordas, intervalas, s/he will make no mistakes in using words of the same form in English (interest,
record and interval). Here the formal similarity is helpful or we can say that we have
a case of a 'positive' interference. However, the student failing to realize the greater
polysemy of the English word will tend to abstain from using the English word in its
peculiar English meaning(s), thus falling prey to the indirect interference. The harm
done here by the interference will result not in a mistake but in the student's poorer
vocabulary. The student will also experience difficulty in comprehension and interpreting the English text if the English word is used in the meaning it does not have
in Lithuanian. The student is likely to use the word technique in the meaning of 'machinery', 'equipment' (Lith. technika) and cocktail (Lith. kokteilis) in the meaning
of a non-alcoholic drink, though s/he knows the words equipment and milkshake.
The temptation is all the greater as all the meanings of the English word (technique,
cocktail) coincide with the Lithuanian technika and kokteilis. Here we have a case of
direct interference. As can be seen, the difficulties caused by either direct or indirect
interference of the LI may result in mistakes in both interpreting/understanding and
speaking, i.e. both in comprehension and usage.
Very much depends on the age and the level of the language knowledge of the
students, but in the specialist literature it has been pointed out that false friends are a
cause of mistakes not only for the beginners, but also for bilingual speakers and experienced translators/interpreters (Veisbergs 1998; Baker 1994; Karaliūnas 1997, etc.).
A study of false friends will sharpen the students' precision in the use of vocabulary
as well as help them to avoid mistakes that, at worst, may seriously hamper effective
communication. It also provides a motivation for the learner to pay more attention to
the context for further indication or confirmation of what s/he has discovered. This
way false friends, being potential enemies, could be transformed into allies.
References
Aitchison J. Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon. Basil Blackwell,
1987.
Aprijaskytė R., Pareigytė E. Lietuviams būdingos leksinės anglų kalbos klaidos. Kalbotyra
XXIII (3), 1972,7-16.
Aprijaskytė R., Pareigytė E. Beware of Pitfalls. Vilnius: Vilnius University Press, 1975.
Aprijaskytė R. Влияние интерференции интернационализмов литовского языка на
произношение английских слов литовцами. Kalbotyra XXXIII (3), 1982, 5-13.
Baker M. In Other Words. Routledge, 1992.
Baker M., Kaplan R. Translated! Anew breed of bilingual dictionaries. Babel, 1994, vol. 40,
no. 1, 1-11.
Budagov В. Человек и его язык. Moskva, 1976.
Gottlieb K. G. M. German-Russian, Russian-German Dictionary of False Friends. Moscow:
Sovietskaya encyklopediya, 1972.
74
Gottlieb H. Revealing False Friends: Creating a Truthful Dictionary of Danish-English Pseudo-Equivalents. Abstracts of the 11th International Symposium on Lexicography, University of Copenhagen, 2002, 2-4 May, p. 14.
Gudavičius А. Ложные друзья переводчика в литовско-русском двуязычии. Методы и
формы обучения русскому языку в национальной аудитории. Vilnius, 1997, 38—40.
Hayward Т. & Moulin A. False Friends Invigorated. LEXeter '83 proceedings. Papers from
the International Conference on Lexicography in Exeter, Sept. 83, pp.190—198. Ed. by
Hartmann, Tubingen, 1984.
Hartmann R. R. K. Contrastive Linguistics and Bilingual Lexicography. An International Encyclopedia of Lexicography. Vol. 3. De Grayter, 1991.
Karaliūnas S. Kalba ir visuomenė. Vilnius, 1997.
Laptėvaitė L Būdingi anglų kalbos leksikos įsisavinimo interferencijos atvejai. Kalbotyra
XXIX(3), 1978,27-31.
Lipczuk R. Internacjonalizmy a "fałszywi przyjaciele tłumacza". Język a kultur-a, 1992,
vol. 7, 135-143.
Perkins Ch. The "English Sickness": a Contribution towards Better Understanding of Interlingual Interference. DieNeueren Sprachen (DNS), 1977, 26, 58-62.
Piesarskas B. Sisteminiai žodžių ryšiai mokomajame dvikalbiame žodyne. Kalbotyra
XXXVII (3), 1987, 120-129.
Sansome R. Applying Lexical Research to the Teaching of Phrasal Verbs. IRAL, 2000, vol. 38,
no. 1, 59-69.
Sheen R. English^azo: amis for Francophones Learning English. English and French language resources. Volterre-Fr database, 2000.
Sylva-Corvalan C. Language contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.
Veisbergs A. 'False Friend's in Latvian: Dictionaries, Current Problems. Linguistica Lettica,
1998, vol. 3, 12-25.
Wilczyńska W. "Faux Amis" czy "amis infideles" - definicja a praktyka. Język a kultura,
1992, vol. 7, 161-169.
Sources
Bendorienė A., Bogušienė V, Dagytė E., etc. Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas (Dictionary of International Words) (DIW). Vilnius: Alma littera, 2001.
Keinys S. (editor-in-chief). Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas (Dictionary of Current Lithuanian) (DCL). Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2000.
Piesarskas В., Svecevičius B. Lithuanian-English Dictionary (LED). Vilnius: Mokslas, 1979,
1992.
th
Thompson D. (ed.). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (COD 9). 9 edition.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
Fielding H. Bridget Jones's Diary. Picador, 1996.
Fielding H. Bridžitos Džouns dienoraštis. Vilnius, 1999.
Lithuanian Securities Commission Annual Report. Vilnius, 1999.
75
^
L
^5
ą
Laimutė Kaspare
ANGLŲ-LIETUVIŲ KALBŲ NETIKRI VERTĖJO DRAUGAI:
PSICHOLINGVISTINIS ASPEKTAS
Santrauka
Pagrindiniai žodžiai: netikri vertėjo draugai, psicholingvistinis aspektas, semantinė
žodžio struktūra, interferencija, užsienio kalbų studentai, vertėjai.
Gretinamoji giminingų ir negiminingų kalbų analizė rodo jose esant daug išoriškai
panašių ar net identiškų žodžių. Tačiau didžioji tokių žodžių dalis skiriasi savo semantine
struktūra (pvz., angį. dislocate „iš(si)narinti", „(su)trikdyti", „(su)trakdyti", liet. dislokuoti
„iš(si)dėstyti"); tokios žodžių poros vertimo teorijoje yra vadinamos netikrais vertėjo draugais (NVD). Pavartoti kaip vertimo ekvivalentai vertimo kalboje, NVD sukelia klaidingas
asociacijas, vartojimo trūkumus, teksto iškraipymus, netikslumus, nesusipratimus, stiliaus
klaidas ir daugybę kitų vertimo problemų.
Pats terminas netikri draugai apibūdina psicholingvistinę kategoriją: nagrinėdami šį
klausimą, negalime ignoruoti užsienio kalbos studentų, kalbančiųjų užsienio kalba, taip pat
vertėjų raštu ir žodžiu. Todėl šiame straipsnyje nagrinėjami kai kurie psicholingvistiniai lietuvių-anglų kalbų netikrų vertėjo draugų aspektai. Remiantis mokslinės literatūros analize ir
vartojimo pavyzdžiais, analizuojamos priežastys, dėl kurių šios žodžių poros tampa kliūtimi
užsienio kalbos vartotojams. Reziumuojama, kad, be tiesioginės ir netiesioginės gimtosios
kalbos interferencijos, atsirandančios dėl šių žodžių išorinio ir kartais semantinio panašumo,
tokie veiksniai kaip kognityvinis supaprastinimas, nerūpestingumas, neatidumas, patogumo
ir fizinio komforto siekimas gali būti NVD priežastis. Galima manyti, kad klaidas, susijusias
su NVD vartojimu, sąlygoja besimokančiųjų amžius ir žemas užsienio kalbos mokėjimo lygis, tačiau mokslinėje literatūroje teigiama, kad NVD sukelia problemų ne tik pradedantiesiems, bet ir dvikalbiams vartotojams, ir net patyrusiems vertėjams.
Laimutė Kaspare
ENGLISH-LITHUANIAN INTERPRETER'S FALSE FRIENDS:
PSYCHOLINGUISTIC ISSUES
Summary
Keywords: interpreter's fals e friends, psycholinguistic issues, semantic structure of the
word, interference, foreign language learners, translators, interpreters.
Comparative analysis of both related and non-related languages presents a large corpus
of formally similar or identical lexemes. A considerable share of these lexemes, however, has
differences in their semantic structures (e.g. English dislocate "to disturb the normal connection, esp. in a joint in the body; disrupt, put out of order": Lith. dislokuoti "to deploy, to station"); such pairs of words are known in translation studies as interpreter's false friends (FF).
76
Used as equivalents in another language, FF lead to false associations, wrong use, distortion
of text, imprecision, misunderstanding, disregard for the right stylistic colouring and other
numerous translation problems.
The term 'false friends' in fact defines a psycholinguistic category: dealing with false
friends one cannot ignore the foreign language learner, speaker, translator or interpreter. That
is why the present paper focuses on a number of psycholinguistic issues in connection with
the phenomenon of English-Lithuanian FF. Basing its findings on the study of research literature on the question and examples of usage, it aims at discussing the reasons of them being a
stumbling-block for the foreign language users. It is concluded that next to direct and indirect
mother tongue interference due to the external and in some cases semantic similarity, such
factors as cognitive simplification, usual carelessness, convenience, and search for psychical
comfort on the part of foreign language speakers cause the appearance of FF.
It could be assumed that the appearance of FF very much depends on the age and the
level of the language knowledge of the students; however, specialist literature points out that
FF are a cause of mistakes not only for the beginners, but also for bilingual speakers and exp erienc ed translators/interpreters.
77