Conceptual frame for a textbook on social-cultural aspects of translation
У статті розглядаються концептуальні підходи до висвітлення питань взаємодії мови і культури у підручнику з соціокультурних аспектів перекладу для студентів університетів. Переклад з англійської мови на українську і з української на англійську показаний як багатостороння діяльність, яка неможлива бе...
Gespeichert in:
| Datum: | 2010 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | English |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Центр наукових досліджень та викладання іноземних мов НАН України
2010
|
| Schriftenreihe: | Лінгвістика ХХІ століття: нові дослідження і перспективи |
| Online Zugang: | http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/37831 |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Назва журналу: | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| Zitieren: | Conceptual frame for a textbook on social-cultural aspects of translation / I. Malynovska, A. Haponiev // Лінгвістика ХХІ століття: нові дослідження і перспективи. — К.: Логос, 2010. — С. 166-174. — Бібліогр.: 16 назв. — англ. |
Institution
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine| id |
irk-123456789-37831 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
irk-123456789-378312012-10-24T12:15:28Z Conceptual frame for a textbook on social-cultural aspects of translation Malynovska, I. Haponiev, A. У статті розглядаються концептуальні підходи до висвітлення питань взаємодії мови і культури у підручнику з соціокультурних аспектів перекладу для студентів університетів. Переклад з англійської мови на українську і з української на англійську показаний як багатостороння діяльність, яка неможлива без урахування культурних, соціальних та ідеологічних феноменів і понять. Вибір варіантів перекладу ідеологічно або культурно пов‟язаних лексичних одиниць відбувається через подолання складності їх інтерпретаціїі, а іноді – неперекладності, які спричинені неспівпадінням концептів, що вербалізуються в обох мовах, та лінгвістичної ментальності двох народів. В статье рассматриваются концептуальные подходы к освещению вопросов взаимодействии языка и культуры в учебнике, посвященном социокультурным аспектам перевода, предназначенном для студентов университетов. Перевод с английского языка на украинский и с украинского на английский показан как многогранная деятельность, осуществление которой не возможно вне учета культурных, социальных и идеологических феноменов и понятий. Выбор вариантов перевода идеологически или культурно связанных единиц осуществляется через преодоление сложности (вплоть до непереводимости) их передачи, которая коренится в несовпадении вербализуемых в обоих языках концептов и лингвистических ментальностей двух народов. The paper deals with the interaction of language and culture issues as related to the teaching of translation to university students. Outlined have been conceptual approaches to writing a unique textbook on the sociocultural aspects of translation. English↔Ukrainian translation is considered to be a multi-faceted activity performed with the view of considering a number of cultural, social and ideological artefacts and concepts. The choice of ideologically and culturally biased lexical units is made by appraising their difficulty or even untranslatability, resulting from the lack of coincidence between the concepts they verbalize in the SL and TL as well as differences in lingual mentalities of the two peoples. 2010 Article Conceptual frame for a textbook on social-cultural aspects of translation / I. Malynovska, A. Haponiev // Лінгвістика ХХІ століття: нові дослідження і перспективи. — К.: Логос, 2010. — С. 166-174. — Бібліогр.: 16 назв. — англ. ХХХХ-0006 http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/37831 en Лінгвістика ХХІ століття: нові дослідження і перспективи Центр наукових досліджень та викладання іноземних мов НАН України |
| institution |
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| collection |
DSpace DC |
| language |
English |
| description |
У статті розглядаються концептуальні підходи до висвітлення питань взаємодії мови і культури у підручнику з соціокультурних аспектів перекладу для студентів університетів. Переклад з англійської мови на українську і з української на англійську показаний як багатостороння діяльність, яка неможлива без урахування культурних, соціальних та ідеологічних феноменів і понять. Вибір варіантів перекладу ідеологічно або культурно пов‟язаних лексичних одиниць відбувається через подолання складності їх інтерпретаціїі, а іноді – неперекладності, які спричинені неспівпадінням концептів, що вербалізуються в обох мовах, та лінгвістичної ментальності двох народів. |
| format |
Article |
| author |
Malynovska, I. Haponiev, A. |
| spellingShingle |
Malynovska, I. Haponiev, A. Conceptual frame for a textbook on social-cultural aspects of translation Лінгвістика ХХІ століття: нові дослідження і перспективи |
| author_facet |
Malynovska, I. Haponiev, A. |
| author_sort |
Malynovska, I. |
| title |
Conceptual frame for a textbook on social-cultural aspects of translation |
| title_short |
Conceptual frame for a textbook on social-cultural aspects of translation |
| title_full |
Conceptual frame for a textbook on social-cultural aspects of translation |
| title_fullStr |
Conceptual frame for a textbook on social-cultural aspects of translation |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Conceptual frame for a textbook on social-cultural aspects of translation |
| title_sort |
conceptual frame for a textbook on social-cultural aspects of translation |
| publisher |
Центр наукових досліджень та викладання іноземних мов НАН України |
| publishDate |
2010 |
| url |
http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/37831 |
| citation_txt |
Conceptual frame for a textbook on social-cultural aspects of translation / I. Malynovska, A. Haponiev // Лінгвістика ХХІ століття: нові дослідження і перспективи. — К.: Логос, 2010. — С. 166-174. — Бібліогр.: 16 назв. — англ. |
| series |
Лінгвістика ХХІ століття: нові дослідження і перспективи |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT malynovskai conceptualframeforatextbookonsocialculturalaspectsoftranslation AT haponieva conceptualframeforatextbookonsocialculturalaspectsoftranslation |
| first_indexed |
2025-07-03T19:40:40Z |
| last_indexed |
2025-07-03T19:40:40Z |
| _version_ |
1836655985020633088 |
| fulltext |
Лінгвістика ХХІ століття: нові дослідження і перспективи
166
I.Malynovska, Ph.D., A. Haponiev
CONCEPTUAL FRAME FOR A TEXTBOOK
ON SOCIO-CULTURAL ASPECTS OF TRANSLATION
Language VS culture as an issue been alluded to for many years in general and
applied linguistics since so obviously overlaps with questions about the nature of
communication between people and their cultures. It also highlights issues in
translation in general, insofar as it takes seriously the work done over the past few
decades on the social nature of language and the impact this necessarily has on the
expansion and deepening of international communication.
For the past 20 years, the apparently opposing issues of “language and culture”
have been successfully examined not only as methodological paradigms for modern
linguistic studies (for the recent studies see: R.Bell, W. Labov, A. Verzbitska, В.В.
Воробьев, О.А.Донских, В.Н.Телия, В.А.Маслова, А.Д. Бєлова, И. А.
Голубовская, О.В.Малікова) [1; 3; 6;7; 11;16] but as an efficient theoretical
background for English language teaching practice (ELT). We can refer to a number
of substantial university textbooks devoted to sociocultural issues, the first and most
fundamental being “Язык и межкультурная коммуникация” by S. Ter-Minasova
[12]. Today, both in terms of theory and the methods of ELT practices, the borders of
cross-cultural communication have been significantly advanced to teaching
translation, although this topic still tends to limit itself to brief comments on the texts
studied and avoids addressing the above matters on an extended basis. It can be
argued that contemporary and comprehensive, theoretically-based textbooks and
manuals on translation are absent.
This gap should be, and could be overcome immediately by recognizing the
developing awareness of multiculturalism in our world, especially as translation is
deeply rooted in and indispensable from this domain. It should not be left solely to
Sociology, Management and Marketing to drive our understanding of cultural
diversity, while leaving linguists and translators to sort out the details in hindsight.
It has long been commonplace for translators to be intermediaries or mediators
between two cultures and two societies. Their task does not consist just in performing
linguistic operations, it involves sociocultural responsibilities which are rendering
and even adapting social, ethnic and cultural as well as ideological implications.
Translation is a dynamic process and is performed within certain boundaries.
Dynamism in translation is determined by the dynamism of language and culture,
according to the linguistic, social and cultural changes of the SL and TL. Any
translation (both as a result and creative process) is better understood at the backdrop
of the social and linguistic conditions of its performing. A translation is never finite;
it could (and sometimes should) be resumed with the passing of time. Each epoch has
© Malynovska I. , Haponiev A., 2010
Лінгвістика ХХІ століття: нові дослідження і перспективи
167
created its own translations; a translation that is perfect at a certain moment may
prove unsatisfactory later on. It is generally recognised that dynamism in literary
translation is also determined by the translators; each version being unique,
contributing to the prestige of the original text. Subjectivity dependent dynamism is
no less pertinent to general/journalistic translation, his/her cultural, educational and
ideological background. A good example is the play with words and languages when
rendering present day and Soviet realia рада, ради from Ukrainian into English.
Under the Soviet Union the name of the highest legislative body of Ukraine
Верховна Рада УССР was translated only as the “the Supreme Soviet of the UkSSR‖
based on the Russian equivalent of the Ukrainian word рада. The method was
applied in translation of the collocation ради різних рівнів: ―local soviets‖. Today,
when Ukraine is an independent state, one can encounter a number of explicit and
implicit ideological associations embodied in the choice of this or that lexical unit. A
variant preferred by translators would be either a transliterated borrowing Verkhovna
Rada with the subsequent explanation ―Ukrainian Parliament‖ or just the latter. An
equivalent phrase for місцеві ради would be local councils following British and
American administrative structures. This differs when it is necessary to refer to
historical realia. A neutrally disposed translator will stick to the historically accepted
semantic calques the Supreme Soviet of the UkSSR and local soviets. A more
nationalistically sensitive translator will focus on transliterations of the Russian
names, thus drawing a hard line between the present and the past and distancing the
present-day Ukraine from the one associated with its former union with Russia:
“sov‘etsky supreme legislator in Ukraine” and “sov‘iety”.
However, any translation presupposes loss and gain. When conveying such
messages into the TL, losses are inevitable. Usually, the greatest losses appear in
translation when the original text describes a situation with elements which
exclusively pertain to a certain culture: its national history, institutions, geography,
community, religion. In the above-mentioned case, the substitution or the transfer are
approximate. When translating, one realises that he or she does not have the
necessary knowledge about the author‟s life experience, which is absolutely
necessary; the translator‟s knowledge about the author‟s universe of discourse is
rather theoretical.
All kinds of losses can be compensated. By compensation the translator proves
his presence in translation. Each version represents a re-formulation of the original.
In this way, the literary work gains in terms of prestige. In translation, one cannot
preserve all the language and style nuances, as each language possesses aesthetic
values that cannot be transposed exactly. Another important issue in translation is
equivalence. Equivalence depends on linguistic and cultural factors. The translation
process depends on these factors. Following Eugene Nida, we distinguish two types
of equivalence: formal and dynamic. Formal equivalence focuses on the message
itself, in both form and content, whereas dynamic equivalence is based upon „the
principle of equivalent effect‟. The disadvantages of formal equivalence would be the
fact that it distorts the grammatical and stylistic patterns of the TL, and hence distorts
the message, so as to cause the recipient to misunderstand or to labour unduly hard.
Лінгвістика ХХІ століття: нові дослідження і перспективи
168
Dynamic equivalence is defined as a translation principle according to which a
translator seeks to translate the meaning of the original in such a way that the TL
wording will trigger the same impact on the TL audience as the original wording did
upon the SL audience. Thus, Nida is in favour of dynamic equivalence, as a more
effective translation procedure. Nida states that „dynamic equivalence is far more
than mere correct communication of information.
The notion of equivalence has been analysed, evaluated and discussed from
different points of view and has been approached from many perspectives, since it is
one of the most problematic and controversial areas in the field of translation theory.
There are two culturally biased segments within a lexicon which require
creative rendering, here called EBUs (ethnically biased units) and IBUs
(ideologically biased units)). Cognitively, CBUs (culturally biased units) are based on
cultural information accumulated by a given community over centuries of its
historical development. They comprise realia words and phrases as well as other
cultural lacunae in the TL (hetman, hopack, povzunets, plakhta, varenics, rada, salo
etc.). On the contrary, IBUs are formed not so much on the information background
of the speaker, as on his/her value settings which demonstrate a collection of lingual,
cultural and pragmatically accentuated artefacts. These may be labeled ideologemes.
The definition of ideologeme implies such interpretation of the concept of ideology,
which emphasizes both its Weltanschauung function and its belonging to a vast
continuum of culture [5]. The division between these units is subtle with a lot of
intermediate transitive forms. Usually it is the context that assigns this or that status
to a lexical unit.
Lets consider a passage from Day:
«Поняття «шароварщина» з'явилося, з одного боку, від дуже вузького
сприйняття української культури, а з іншого — від специфічного викривлення
лише одного її сегмента — шаровар, як елемента одягу, який потім навмисне-
ненавмисне, свідомо-несвідомо «нашарувався» на українську культуру загалом.
І, в результаті, на перше місце виводиться карикатурний і дещо водевільний
сегмент — шаровари як головний і єдиний, відкидаючи інші складові української
культури. «Щоправда, — додає арт-директор мистецької агенції «Арт-Велес»
Тарас Грималюк, — існує думка, що поняття «шароварщини» походить від
прізвища відомого режисера, колишнього художнього керівника
Всеукраїнського державного центру фестивалів і концертних програм Бориса
Шарварка, який культивував в Україні тип псевдофольклорної культури, яка й
увійшла в історію під назвою «шароварщина»[День].
The journalist explains how the word sharovary (an item of Ukrainian men‟s national
costume) has become a realia, attempting to overlap Ukrainian culture per se, placing
it in exceptionally rural ethnic tradition. Translating the abstract we face the
challenge of cultural clash. Whether it is possible at all to covey the idea, the question
must be raised how to render adequately not only factual information but the whole
range of emotions, bitter satire and indignation of the author, who seems to be
personally abused by the primitive segmentation of national culture. The latter has
Лінгвістика ХХІ століття: нові дослідження і перспективи
169
been unknown in Great Britain since the end of the era of medieval conquest. Of
course, direct explanation can be employed: the word sharovary means wide trousers
which are a part of the national costume that has significant historical importance to
Ukrainian men and carries with it national sentiment that may be lost by careless
translation or rendering. The abstract noun sharovarstchyna derived from it, on the
contrary, implies neglecting national feelings by speaker, showing the clothes
outdated, funny and non-civilized (non-European). The above comment, good or bad
as it is, will take more time than translation/interpretation itself. The question of value
arises when translating such a brief journalistic column. Moreover it isn‟t in
compliance in terms of oral translation, the issue being highly volatile and disputable
at press-conferences, political round tables and seminars. Avoiding loss of attention
from the listener/reader we can try discussing with students the necessity to be less
abstract and more understandable:
If you still wear sharovars (folk trousers) everyday, you exaggerate and even distort
the role of folk elements in modern Ukrainian culture which is much richer than just
a set of historical reminiscences (artefacts). What you achieve by doing this is
nothing but a caricature of Ukrainian culture. However, according to Taras
Hrymaluik, art director of the ‗Art Veles‘ agency, the idea of the ‗sharovars culture‖
could have been drawn from the family name of Borys Sharvarko, a well-known
director and former art-director of the All-Ukrainian Festivals and Concerts Center.
It was he who implanted a pseudo folk culture in Ukraine which entered in history
under the name of ‗sharovars culture‖.
The lexeme sharovars seems to be more appropriate as it is morphologically adapted
to the English language better than the calque term sharovary and may be explained
by utilizing a typical English word formation in order to be fully understood.
Following Anna Wierzbicka, we are well aware of a vast area of settings, values and
of expectations implied by this word and its usages [17, 304].
The issue of culture-clash overlaps practically all the conceptual areas of
national mentality. There are a number of key pedagogical issues to face when
determining how this topic should be taught to students of English and translation.
Experience shows a very basic division in the students‟ approach: Business and
Social Science students want to know why whereas Linguistics students want to know
how. This it reflects many differences in the educational systems of Ukraine and
English-speaking countries. Any empirical approach will immediately find
fundamental differences.
For example, pedagogy is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as the ‗art
or science of teaching‘ whereas in Ukraine this discipline is invariably наука. An
Arts subject implies subjectivity and creative thinking whereas a Science subject
implies objectivity and conformity to paradigms. Hence the root terminology
immediately adopts linguistic interpretation from near contrary viewpoints. The
consequence of this variance in approach may be seen in the mission statements of
Лінгвістика ХХІ століття: нові дослідження і перспективи
170
universities, where every Ukrainian university seeks to „train specialists‟ while, for
example, Manchester University „…generates and shares new ideas and is committed
to providing a dynamic working and learning environment, where every member of
our community is valued for their contribution and individuality‟[5].
The CBU values are unusually high for many linguists, because we observe
ideologemes that reflect the original work of Jameson, in a context where ingrained
societal values from childhood direct both the behaviours and the attitudes of the
linguists and pedagogues studying this very topic.
It may be argued that the key teaching task is to permit students to appreciate
the importance of IBUs in both critical areas. The first is that of the semiotics
applicable to, in our case, Ukraine and the key English-speaking countries. The better
a student may be persuaded to examine why in respect of the fundamental areas of
semiotics, and perhaps build their own, individual taxonomic superstructure for the
subsequent application of translation techniques to linguistics most affected by the
underlying ideologemes, the more effective they will be as translators and
interpreters.
The second question is where translation overlaps greatly with Linguistics, in
the determination of language, communication and lexical equivalence in the
comparison of the SL and the TL. A linguist may apparently achieve normative
adequacy in the study of languages and treat diachronic change as a manageable,
even predictable, process. A translator has to render through appropriate techniques
and allow communication that may even be puzzling to a linguist. In this case it may
be argued that how must be a creative Arts discipline for successful translators. A
number of examples is given below.
It may be judged that there arises another consequent dichotomy in the
perceptions of Ukraine and, say, Britain. Ukraine has a tendency to historical
linguistics (often called philology) as a monitor of diachronic change and has even
tended to translate the discipline of „Linguistics‟ as „філологія‟. The most recent
dictionaries no longer do this and use „мовознавство‟ or „лінгвістика‟. Britain will
focus more on Sociolinguistics. For the record, historical linguists examine how
people in the past used language and seek to determine how subsequent languages
derive from previous ones and relate to one another - essentially a scientistic
approach utilizing scientific methodology. Sociolinguists study the origins of
language change and aim to explain how societal value systems and changes in
society influence language. The principal methodology of sociolinguistics utilizes
creative subjectivity that has no ultimate “proof” in scientific quantification of value
systems [11,14].
In this paper we will take a single root of sociocultural variance – that of State
bureaucracy - and describe three examples of how resulting ideologemes have caused
drastic confusion in the rendering of their terminology.
Лінгвістика ХХІ століття: нові дослідження і перспективи
171
The instigation of the Soviet Union brought with it many rigid control systems
that were either not present in Western society, or subsumed in more forgiving
mechanisms for the management of the State. Max Weber defined and harshly
criticized the “Ideal Bureaucracy” that was adopted by the Soviet Union, yet deviated
from, during the early 20
th
century in the West in favour of the State serving the
Public and not vice versa as determined by Soviet leadership.
Societal structure from this particular implementation of ideology has caused
many linguistic terms to have evolved where translation techniques and methodology
are inadequate without the application of sociocultural understanding of core
concepts and their associated rites and practices.
One example of where this concept appears today is in the effectively
untranslatable term приймальні години. The Western mind does not see a difference
between this and режим роботи. Yet every Ukrainian from childhood faces this
procedural paradigm and the rites associated with this functioning of Ukraine‟s civil
Service (UK) or public Service (US) (державні установи) and its relationship with
its clients (also known as the Public who in the contemporary Ukrainian social
context are described more formally by the concrete noun громадяни which literally
means citizens or Ukrainian nationals). If a translator understands why better, then
the how of translation or rendering becomes effective. It is postulated in this paper
that without the semiotic background, without examination of the ideologemes
created by what is ultimately culture-clash, translators may never reached a meeting
of minds in the conversion process of SL to TL.
Another example is the concept of оформлення на роботу where there is no
elegant direct translation and standard methodology used by translators that may
appear to be adequate, such as descriptive translation, also usually fails for
sociocultural reasons. The Ukrainian mind perceives this concept as a standard step in
the employment of an individual and the bureaucratic process involved, whereas an
English native speaker perceives an auspicious result of recruitment and selection
processes in a Human Resources context. Consequently a descriptive translation for
the term such as „formalization of employee records‟ sounds extremely clumsy and
unnatural and indeed would probably never be used in native English. A culturally-
equivalent phrase such as „to welcome on board a new recruit‟ in back-translation
will usually lead a Ukrainian translator to drift off to military terminology in the TL
rather than Human Resources terminology, whereas in the SL this is standard
Business English and has no direct relationship to any military mind-set or military
terms of reference.
Thirdly, perhaps rather simple example, is that in English the word militia
means “a military force, a temporary body of soldiers, especially one conscripted in
an emergency, such as the onset of civil war”. And in Ukrainian this should be
translated from English as народне ополчення. In the Soviet Union this word was
used as a borrowing to mean „police‟ and the name has stuck in some Slavic
Лінгвістика ХХІ століття: нові дослідження і перспективи
172
languages. The translation of „міліція‟ into English should be „police‟ in all
instances, yet the majority of translators tend to invariably forget this.
Embedded cultural values and societal norms need to be challenged when
linguistically travelling across cultures in order to achieve pride in the achievements
of our students and pushing the boundaries of why will give our students a better
intuitive feel for their second language while living in the culture of their first
language.
From such a foundation of theoretical issues and practical considerations we
proceeded to writing a textbook on the sociocultural aspects of translation for
students taking their master‟s degree.
The textbook is designed to combine two educational strategies: introduce students of
translation to a number of linguistics topics (national picture of the world, verbalized
cultural concepts and ideologemes, culturally and ideologically rooted lacunas in the
SL and TL and the methods of their rendering in translation), as well as discussions
of preparatory reading materials with professor-led input and hands-on analyses of
linguistic data and texts by students. The book also comprises a compendium of texts
of various genres (basically, jounalistic columns, official information and interviews
from mass-media sources) for homework. The skills to be developed are as follows:
true adequacy in translation and interpretation of texts containing socio-cultural
information together with other transferable skills, including enhanced
communication and discussion skills in written and oral contexts; the ability to
analyze and evaluate different textual materials, the ability to organize information,
and to assimilate and evaluate competing arguments.
Structurally the textbook consists of two parts: English – Ukrainian and Ukrainian –
English. Thematically it involves a number of tricky subjects which, as we know both
from academic literature and our own experience, present a real headache for
translators. As may be judged from the above discussion, it overlaps a wide spectrum
of topics from the concept of proximity in English and Ukrainian mentalities to the
concepts of tradition and bureaucracy in Great Britain compared to the role of a
“zhek” and the Verkhovna Rada in modern Ukrainian life.
Thus we implemented our approach by attempting to systematise and to
expand linguistic and cultural factual material that we have encountered in both our
academic and practical experience, in a manner similar to that used in «Мой
несистематический словарь» by Pavel Palazhchenko [8], while at the same time
introducing briefly the societal and cultural theoretical background that directs
students to think about why in order to help the process of judgmental rendering of
previously unknown terminology when met for the first time in perhaps an unfamiliar
context.
Лінгвістика ХХІ століття: нові дослідження і перспективи
173
Література
1. Бєлова А.Д. Лексична семантика і між культурні стереотипи // Мовні і концептуальні
картини світу: Збірник наукових праць / Ред. І.О. Чередниченко. – № 7 – К.: Вид-во
Київськ. нац. університету ім. Т. Шевченка, 2002. – С. 43 – 54.
2. Вежбицкая А. Понимание культур через посредство ключевых слов. I. Введение //
Вежбицкая А. Семантические универсалии и описание языков / Пер. с англ.
А.Д.Шмелева под ред. Т.В.Булыгиной. – М.: Языки русской культуры, 1999. - С.263-
305. - http://philologos.narod.ru/ling/wierz2.htm
3. Голубовская И.А. Этнические особенности языковых картин мира. – Киев:
Издательско-полиграфический центр «Киевский университет», 2002. – 293 с.
4. Донец П.П. О причинах «межкультурного поворота» в лингвистике и других
гуманитарных дисциплинах // Вісник Харківського національного університету. –
Випуск 471. – Харків: Константа, 2000. – С. 83 – 88.
5. Малиновська І.В. Ідеологема як категорія дискурсології // Мовні і концептуальні
картини світу: Збірник наукових праць / Ред. І.О. Чередниченко. – Вип. 10 – К.: Вид-во
Київськ. нац. університету ім. Т. Шевченка, 2002. – С. 380 – 391.
6. Малікова О.В. Проблеми мовної інтерференції у міжкультурній комунікації // Мовні і
концептуальні картини світу: Збірник наукових праць / Ред. І.О. Чередниченко. – Вип.
10 – К.: Вид-во Київськ. нац. університету ім. Т. Шевченка, 2002. – С. 396 – 404.
7. Маслова В. А. Введение в лингвокультурологию. - М.: Наследие, 1997. – 207 с.
8. Палажченко П.Р. Мой несистематический словарь (Из записной книжки переводчика).
– 3-изд. -, стереотип. – М.: Р.Валент, 2003. – 304 с.
9. Телия В. Н. Первоочередные задачи и методологические проблемы исследования
фразеологического сотава языка в контексте культуры//Фразеология в контексте
культуры. - М.: Языки русской культуры, 1999 – С.13-24.
10. Тер-Минасова С.Г. Язык и межкультурная коммуникация. – М.: Слово/Slovo, 2008. –
264 с.
11. Labov W. Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume III: Cognitive and Cultural Factors.
Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. - 2001. - 448 p.
12. Rogers E.M., Hart W.H., Miek Y. Edward T. Hall and The History of Intercultural
Communication// The United States and Japan Keio Communication Review No. 24, 2003,
Р.1-5. - http://www.mediacom.keio.ac.jp/publication/pdf2002/review24/2.
13. Ter-Minasova S. Langauge, Linguistics and Life. – M.: Humanitarian Knowledge, TEIS,
1996. – 156 p.
14. Wardhaugh R. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. - Oxford, New York: Wiley-Blackwell,
1986. – 464 p.
15. Weber M. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. – N.Y.: Free Press, 1915. –
451 p.
16. Anna Wierzbicka. I. Introduction // Wierzbicka, A. Understanding Cultures through their
Key Words: English, Russian, Polish, German, Japanese. - New York: Oxford University
Press, 1997. - http://philologos.narod.ru/ling/wierz2.htm#4.
Джерела ілюстративного матеріалу
17. Кацун Ю. Як урятувати шаровари від «шароварщини»?// Кацун Юлія - День №53, 7
квітня 2006 р. - http://www.day.kiev.ua/ua.2006.58
18. Manchester University. - http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/
http://www.mediacom.keio.ac.jp/publication/pdf2002/review24/2
http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/
Лінгвістика ХХІ століття: нові дослідження і перспективи
174
У статті розглядаються концептуальні підходи до висвітлення питань взаємодії мови і
культури у підручнику з соціокультурних аспектів перекладу для студентів університетів.
Переклад з англійської мови на українську і з української на англійську показаний як
багатостороння діяльність, яка неможлива без урахування культурних, соціальних та
ідеологічних феноменів і понять. Вибір варіантів перекладу ідеологічно або культурно
пов‟язаних лексичних одиниць відбувається через подолання складності їх інтерпретаціїі, а
іноді – неперекладності, які спричинені неспівпадінням концептів, що вербалізуються в обох
мовах, та лінгвістичної ментальності двох народів.
Ключові слова: міжкультурна комунікація, конфлікт культур, переклад, усний
переклад, ідеологема, культурно пов‘язані лексичні одиниці
В статье рассматриваются концептуальные подходы к освещению вопросов
взаимодействии языка и культуры в учебнике, посвященном социокультурным аспектам
перевода, предназначенном для студентов университетов. Перевод с английского языка на
украинский и с украинского на английский показан как многогранная деятельность,
осуществление которой не возможно вне учета культурных, социальных и идеологических
феноменов и понятий. Выбор вариантов перевода идеологически или культурно связанных
единиц осуществляется через преодоление сложности (вплоть до непереводимости) их
передачи, которая коренится в несовпадении вербализуемых в обоих языках концептов и
лингвистических ментальностей двух народов.
Ключевые слова: межкультурная коммуникация, конфликт культур, перевод, устный
перевод, идеологема, культурно связанные лексические единицы.
The paper deals with the interaction of language and culture issues as related to the teaching of
translation to university students. Outlined have been conceptual approaches to writing a unique
textbook on the sociocultural aspects of translation. English↔Ukrainian translation is considered to
be a multi-faceted activity performed with the view of considering a number of cultural, social and
ideological artefacts and concepts. The choice of ideologically and culturally biased lexical units is
made by appraising their difficulty or even untranslatability, resulting from the lack of coincidence
between the concepts they verbalize in the SL and TL as well as differences in lingual mentalities
of the two peoples.
Key words: cross-cultural communication, clash of cultures, translation, interptetation,
lingual mentality, ideologeme, culturally biased lexical units.
|