Your shopping cart is empty.
Log in

Cultural translation ≠ перевод культуры: Relationship between culture and translation

N. Xin
80,00 ₽

 

https://doi.org/10.20339/PhS.1-18.019

 

Xin Na,

Doctor of Russian literature, associate professor of the Research center of Russian philology and culture at Heilongjiang University, China

e-mail: xinna@hlju.edu.cn

 

This paper deals with the relationship of culture and translation and an attempt was made to illustrate the concept of culture oriented translation. Based on research aimed to study this topic in Russia, China and Western countries, it should be recognized that culture oriented translation remains a focus of attention of translation researchers from different countries; however, there are differing views on the relationship of culture and translation. Therefore, our study will give a new perspective, namely from a perspective of culture in both its broader and narrower senses, we have formed the concept of culture oriented translation in three levels: macro, meso and micro-levels. These levels are, respectively, the selection, the deformation and transformation, in which the translations of cultural products are being implemented. The concept of culture plays a key role in addressing the problem of relationship of culture and translation, at macro and meso-levels, culture is the environment, and at the micro-level, translation is a mean of transmission of cultural components from one language to another.

Keywords: culture oriented translation, cultural translation, culture translation, choice, deformation, transformation.

 

References

1. Barkhudarov L.S. Language and translation (questions of general and special theory of translation). Moscow: International relations, 1975, 240 p.

2. Bassnett, S., Lefevere, A. Translation, History and Culture. London & New York: Pinter, 1990, 182 p.

3. Wang, Zuoliang. Cultural comparisons in translation. Chinese translators journal, 1984, no. 1, pp. 2–6.

4. Vinogradov, V.S. Lexical questions of the translation of artistic prose. Moscow: Moscow university press, 1978, 174 p.

5. Garbovskiy, N.K. Translation theory. Moscow: Moscow university press, 2004, 544 p.

6. Komissarov, V.N. Theory of translation (linguistic aspect). Moscow: Higher Schools Publ., 1990, 253 p.

7. Lefever, A., Bassnett, S. Constructing cultures: Essays on literary translation, Multilingual matters. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 1998, 143 p.

8. Mayor, F. New page. Moscow: Progress, 1995, 144 p.

9. Rarenko, M.B. The main concepts of theory of translation (Russian experience). Terminological dictionary-handbook. Moscow: INION RAN, 2010, 260 p.

10. Rarenko, M.B. The main concepts of theory of the German translation. Terminological dictionary-handbook. Moscow: INION RAN, 2013, 258 p.

11. Rarenko, M.B. Literary translation. Terminological dictionary-handbook. Moscow: INION RAN, 2014, 379 p.

12. Fedorov, A.V. Introduction into general theory of translation (linguistic problems). St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg state university; Moscow: Filologia Tri. 2002, 416 p.

13. Fefelov, A.F. Interrelationship between translation and culture according to Susan Bassnett. Bulletin of the Novosibirsk state university. Series: Linguistics and intercultural communication, 2014, vol. 12, iss. 1, pp. 90–97.

14. Huang, Zhonglian. Levels of cultural translation. Teaching of russian language in China, 2009, no. 2, pp. 73–77.

15. Cai, Ping. Cultural Translation as a puzzle. Foreign language education, 2005, no. 6, pp. 75–78.

16. Shuttleworth, M., Cowie, M. Dictionary of translation studies. London & New York: Routledge, 2014, 233 p.

17. Shveitser, A.D. Is the general theory of translation possible? In: Interpreters’ notebooks. Moscow: Intern. Relations, 1970, iss. 7, pp. 35–46.

18. Shveitser, A.D. Theory of translation: status, problems, aspects. Moscow: Science, 1998, p. 215.

19. Shelestyuk, E.V., Gritsenko E.D. Foreiniztion/domestication in translation and their linguistic evaluation. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University. Philology Sciences, 2016, no. 4, iss. 100, pp. 202–207.