Comparative Constructions in Tatar and Their Translation Methods

This article discussed the specifics of the translation of comparative constructions in literature from Tatar into Russian. It also suggested methods for the full-fledged translation of such constructions according to semantics and functional features of conjunctions. Postpositions were the main method to represent comparative constructions in simple and complex sentences in Tatar. Conjunctions, the instrumental case of the noun and other means, could further express the meanings of such postpositions when translated into Russian. The analysis of translation of comparative constructions helped to identify the integral and the differential in the semantics and functioning of the conjunctions, which not only connected the components of the comparative constructions, but also created imagery. Using comparative constructions, writers and translators could refer both to the general concepts inherent in their native culture, and to their personal worldview. This seemed possible only with a preliminary comparative analysis of the semantics and the structure of lexical units. Analyzing the translations of literary texts, some functional and semantic correspondences were revealed: comparative postpositions such as kebek, syman, kuk, etc. and Russian comparative conjunctions such as As if for sure, etc. (Eng. like, as if, kind of); relative pair words in Tatar and correlative pairs in Russian; affixes of adverbs such as -cha/-che, -day/dey in Tatar and the instrumental case of the noun in Russian.


Introduction
Translation is a complex and multifaceted human activity. The process of translation is not only the substitution of a language with another one, but it is also the clash of different cultures, traditions, and mindsets. The following Russian and Tatar scholars have also made great contributions to the development of translation theory: L.S. Barkhudarov, V.S. Vinogradov, G.R. Gachechiladze, V.N. Komissarov, Yu.D. Levin, Ya.I. Retsker, A.V. Fedorov, L.A. Chernyakhovskaya, P.D. Schweitzer, V. Shor, E.G. Etkind, R.A. Yusupov, R.S. Nurmukhametova, etc. (Komissarov, 2002;Yusupov, 2009). Among foreign scholars, the works by J. Catford, L. Kelly, A. Neubert, P. Newmark, M. Snell-Hornby, T.R. Steiner, J. Holmes, S. Bassnett, etc. can be emphasized (Bassnett, 2002;Newmark, 1988). Applied aspects of the translation from Tatar language and into Tatar language were also reflected in the works by Yerbulatova et al. (2017a).
Translated texts are a valuable source of information about languages involved in the translation process. Translation starts a linguistic experiment in the communicative equating of utterances and texts in two languages. It further helps to reveal similarities and differences in the use of units and structures of each of these languages to express identical functions and to describe identical situations (Bakhyt et al., 2018).
It is important to take the specifics and peculiarities of these languages into account to ensure that the translation into Russian is maximally equivalent to its original in Tatar language. This is only possible with a preliminary comparative analysis of the semantics and the structure of lexical units (Gabdrakhmanova et al., 2016). Analogies and differences in the forms and functioning of languages and linguistic universals should be also revealed, which is of great importance for translation studies (Villalobos, 2015).
There are no two different languages in which such semantic units as morphemes, words, and set word combinations would coincide completely in their direct and idiomatic meanings. Although the concepts themselves mostly coincide, the methods of expressing them may diverge in different languages (Romanova et al., 2017).
The problems faced by translators in terms of the transfer of comparative constructions from the source text are a mismatch of the range of meanings inherent in the units of the source and the target languages; divergence of the perception of the same images by representatives of different nations, etc. Therefore, when translating comparative constructions, a translator does not replace one worldview with another, but combines them. At the same time, it is important to take both the semantics and functional features of such constructions into account to ensure their full-fledged translation.

Methodology
To conduct this research, previous experience of studying the semantic and the functional features of lexical units was used (Gabdrakhmanova et al., 2017;Yerbulatova et al., 2017b). The main method employed in the work was comparative analysis, involving the comparison of two or more languages. The authors also resorted to the methods of analytical processing of theoretical materials on a problem, classification, systematization of linguistic materials, and elements of structural and component analysis.
Methods of generalization and systematization were also used to study linguistic materials and views of different researchers. To analyze scientific and methodological literature on the topic as well as scientific concepts in modern Russian and foreign studies, the analytical method was recruited. Descriptive method is a system of research techniques used to characterize linguistic phenomena at a particular stage of language development; however, the comparative method could establish general and specific features of Russian and Tatar languages. Materials for the study were extracted from (The Corpus of Written Tatar, 2018).

Results and Discussion
One of the most interesting aspects of translation theory is the problem of transferring stylistic devices of a language. The adequate transfer of imagery of a literature is the main aspect for studying the translation of figurative means recreating the stylistic effect of the original in the target text.
To this end, the authors considered the system of comparative constructions in Tatar and the methods of translating them into Russian based on the translation of literature, since texts could perform the function of storing and transmitting cultural information and reflect the material and spiritual world of the human.
In Tatar, comparative constructions could also use meaningful words with different lexical and semantic meanings. For example, meaningful adjectives denoting size, magnitude, length, and physical state could form a comparison with affixes -lyk/-lek. Such constructions were translated in several ways: more often with the noun+preposition combination velichinoy s, less often -with such conjunctions as kak, slovno, etc. For example: Chirkeүde patshanyn keshe biyeklege zur resemen kurgenem bar ide / Ya kak-to videl v tserkvi portret tsarya velichinoy s chelovecheskiy rost; Ayagy ikenche konne uk burene kalynlyk bulyp sheshken / Na vtoroy zhe den yego noga opukhla, kak brevno. Comparatives in the system of the parataxis/hypotaxis of the languages studied could be represented in complex types of sentences in Tatar, in complex sentences of divided and undivided structures, and in conjunctionless complex sentences in Russian.
Complex sentences expressing comparison in the languages also differred significantly from each other. The sentences the parts of which had comparative relations could represent similarity of two situations. Russian linguistics distinguished two types of comparative sentences: sentences with a deterministic relations and sentences with correlational relations. However, in Tatar, they were considered as complex sentences with a subordinate clause of manner.
Complex sentences, in which pronouns could act as conjunctions, occupied a special place in the subordination system. In Russian syntactic science, they were also qualified as correlative words, correlative pairs or correlates, and in Tatar, they were identified as paired relative words since 1958.
In Tatar language, analytical constructions with relative pairs of words (nichek -shulay, nu chalky -shul chakly, etc.) expressed the relations of comparison, which could be translated into Russian by correlative pairs kak -tak, skolko -stolko, etc.

For example: Kigen kiyem nichek tuza, Yash gomer shulay uza (Zhyr) / Kak iznashivayetsya odezhda, Tak prokhodit molodost; Agachta yafrak ni chakly, Bezde shatlyk shul chakly / Skolko listyev na dereve, Stolko radosti u nas; Kupme bulsa sezde koch һem yalkyn, Shul kaderle zhirde khakygyz / Skolko dano vam ognya i svobody, Stolko dano vam prozhit pa zemle!; Bal korty chechekten chechekke kunyp nichek bal zhyysa, Gazinur da khalyktan ishetken suzlerne shulay kheter sandygyna zhyygan / Kak pchely sobirayut pyltsu, pereletaya s tsvetka na tsvetok, tak i Gazinur sobiral i zapominal vse uslyshannoye.
These examples showed that two elements of comparison -the object and the imagecould appear in two sentences: the images of the comparison were in the subordinate clause, and the objects of the comparison were in the principle clause. However, not all correlative words were a means of expressing subordination, but only those in which in principle clause could replace the subordinate one in general and establish a connection between them. If demonstrative and pronominal words had replaced only a sentence part, but not the entire sentence, they were not then correlative words.
Unlike Russian language, Tatar distinguished complex structures of a synthetic type -complex-soldered sentences, which was a specific feature of all Turkic languages. In such sentences, the form of the predicate in the subordinate clause expressed the subordination between the sentence parts. Thus, the subordinate clause was called soldered, and the dominant one was called principle. The affixes -myni/-meni and the affixes of adverbs -cha/-che,day/-dey could also act as conjunctions in the soldered sentence. They were translated into Russian as slovno, budto, kak budto, etc. For example: Professor da, Makһire khanym da, inneren avyr yok baskanday, sygyla toshep, uyga kalyp utyralar / I professor, i Magira khanum sidyat prignuvshis, slovno tyazhelaya nosha davit im na plechi.
In Tatar, postpositions kebek, syman, shikelle, tosle combined with the verb form with suffix -gan also acted as conjunctions in complex-soldered sentences. Such complex sentences could express the meaning of comparing the action or phenomenon indicated by the relative clause with the action or phenomenon described in the principle clause. Conjunctions in such sentences were also translated into Russian as kak, kak budto, etc., and by such correlational pairs as kak.

Summary
Thus, it can be noted that in the analysis of translations of literary texts, functional and semantic correspondences were revealed: postpositions of comparison kebek, syman, kyk, etc. and comparative conjunctions kak, slovno, tochno, kak budto, etc.; relative pair words in Tatar and correlative pairs in Russian; affixes of adverbscha/ -che, -day/ -dey in Tatar and instrumental case of the noun in Russian.
However, it was impossible to establish strictly defined correspondences among individual conjunctions in comparative constructions, since these postpositions and conjunctions did not differ significantly from each other in terms of semantic nuances.

Conclusion
Comparison, being a means of cognition of the surrounding reality, can reflect mentality, a certain mindset of each nation. Using comparative constructions in literary texts, both universal concepts inherent in their native culture, and their own convictions, individual experience, and worldview were addressed.
Comparative units of multi-structural languages differed, because they expressed secondary sensations and also reflected ideas about the world, the features of thinking characteristic of one or another ethno-cultural community.
A further matter of concern was to analyze comparative units in texts of different functional styles and different genres, as well as to identify the national and cultural specifics of set and individual (author) comparisons in Russian and Tatar.