On the translation dichotomies in the synergetics paradigm

https://doi.org/10.20339/PhS.5-18.017

Kushnina Liudmila V.,

Dr. Sci. in Philology, Professor,

Chair of Foreign Languages, Linguistics and Translation of the Faculty of Humanities

Perm National Research Polytechnic University

e-mail: lkushnina@yandex.ru

The article reveals dichotomy problem as an immanent characteristic proper to translation process. It is represented by the following categories: stereotype/creative, harmony/disharmony, symmetry/asymmetry, objective/subjective. Their analysis is done in terms of the author’s conception named “translation space”viewing translation as a process of languages and cultures interaction, as a process of numerous heterogeneous meanings transposition the synergy of which results in the emergence of harmonic target text of high quality. Meanings harmony is opposed to its disharmony which is the translator’s fault or inadequacy. Objective is contra posed to subjective as an explicit meaning of the content field and countered with all implicit meanings of other translation space fields. Asymmetry as one of the essential features of translation process is contrasted with symmetry that is its formal property. Stereotype is faced to creative as translation congruity is confronted its quasi-adequacy. In general harmonious translation suggests conformity of stereotype and creative; symmetry and asymmetry; objective and subjective, characteristics that ensure natural conformity of target text with target culture enriching it.

Keywords: translation space; synergy of meanings; harmony/disharmony; symmetry/asymmetry; stereotype/creative; objective/subjective.

References

1.         Nazmutdinova S.S. Garmoniia kak perevodcheskaia kategoriia (na materiale russkogo, angliiskogo, frantsuzskogo kinodiskursa). Avtoref. diss. … kand. filol. nauk. Tiumen’, 2008. 21 s.

2.         Gonchar N.G. Asimmetriia v perevode hudozhestvennogo teksta: etnolingvokul’turnyi aspekt. Avtoref. diss. ... kand. filol. nauk. Tiumen’, 2009. 21 s.

3.         Kushnina L.V. Iazyki i kul’tury v perevodcheskom prostranstve: monografiia. Perm’, 2004. 163 s.

4.         Kushnina L.V. Teoriia garmonizatsii: opyt kognitivnogo analiza perevodcheskogo prostranstva: monografiia. Perm’, 2009. 196 s.

5.         Kushnina L.V., Haidarova I.N., Nazmutdinova S.S. i dr. Vvedenie v sinergetiku perevoda: monografiia / Pod obshhei red. L.V. Kushninoi. Perm’, 2014. 278 s.

6.         Kushnina L.V. Kul’turnaya paradigma perevoda / Stereotipnost’ i tvorchestvo v tekste. Mezhvuz. sb. nauch. trudov // Pod red. prof. M.P. Kotiurovoi. Perm’, 2016. S. 130–139.

7.         Myshkina N.L. Vnutrenniaia zhizn’ teksta: mehanizm, forma, harakteristiki: monografiiya. Perm’, 1998. 152 s.

8.         Murzin L.N., Shtern A.S. Tekst i ego vospriiatie. Sverdlovsk, 1998. 169 s.

9.         Drozhashhih N.V. Vvedenie v dinamicheskuiu sinergetiku iazyka: monografiia. Tyumen’, 2012. 252 s.

10.       Kornilov O.A. Iazykovye kartiny mira kak proizvodnye natsional’nyh mentalitetov. Moscow: CheRo, 2003. 349 s.

11.       Riabtseva N.K. Stereotipnost’ i tvorchestvo v perevode / Stereotipnost’ i tvorchestvo v tekste. Mezhvuz. sb. nauch. trudov. Pod red. prof. M.P. Kotiurovoi. Perm’, 2008. S. 12–26.

12.       Andre K. Iskusstvo schast’ia. Taina schast’ia v shedevrah velikih hudozhnikov. Moscow, 2016. 222 s.

13.       Kotiurova M.P. Predislovie / Stereotipnost’ i tvorchestvo v tekste. Mezhvuz. sb. nauch. trudov // Pod obshhei red. M.P. Kotiurovoi. Perm’, 2003. S. 3–8.

14.       Kotiurova M.P. Stereotipnost’ rechi / Stilisticheskii entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ russkogo iazyka // Pod red. M.N. Kozhinoi. Moscow: Flinta, 2003. S. 397–401.

15.       Matevosian L.B. Tvorchestvo v sisteme stereotipnyh vyskazyvanii / Stereotipnost’ i tvorchestvo v tekste. Mezhvuz. sb. nauch. trudov // Pod red. prof. M.P. Kotyurovoi. Perm’, 2012. S. 102–115.