Adaptive Model in Translation: Psycholinguistic Dimension

Keywords: adaptive model, adequacy/equivalency, translation, culture-bound texts, psycholinguistic approach.

Abstract

The aim of the article is to offer a theoretical overview of the relevance of the adaptive model in translation from psycholinguistic perspective. Based on psycholinguistic approach to defining the notions of adequacy/equivalency in translation the research suggests theoretically and methodologically justified reasons for applying the translational adaptation to culture-bound texts.

The comprehensive analysis of the “adaptation” as a notion presupposes the implementation of the hierarchy of the scientific methods of analysis among which the most relevant are: general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis of theoretical discussions on adaptation, text-typological structural/functional, psycholinguistic and translational methods of text analysis. An adaptive potential of a text is defined within the framework of intralinguistic and interlinguistic comparison of pragmatic texts, which grounds the adaptive translational models of pragmatic texts under analysis.

The results of the research speak to the fact that from the psycholinguistic perspective the notion of an equivalent translation presupposes the transcoding of the content of a source text with its semantic, stylistic and functionally communicative information. On the other hand, the notion of an adequate translation is understood as the translational reproduction of the reaction which is caused by the source text on the audience taking into account text-typological, cultural, psychological stereotypes of the target audience.

In conclusion one can state that the adequate variant of translation of pragmatic culture-bound text is possible under the conditions of its adaptation to the linguocultural stereotypes of the target audience. In other words, the common beam of the adequacy in translation is the target audience’s comprehension.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abuashvili, A.B. (1989). Za strokoy liriki [Behind the Scenes of Lyrics]. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [in Russian].

Vannikov, Yu.V. (1988). Problemy adekvatnosti perevoda. Tipy adekvatnosti, vidy perevoda i perevodcheskoy deyatelnosti [The problems of Adequate Translation. Types of Adequate Translation, Kinds of Translation and Translation Activity]. Tekst i perevod – Text and Translation (pp. 34–39). Moscow: Nauka [in Russian].

Vinogradov, V.S. (1997). Temporalnaya (vremennaya) stilizatsiya kak perevodcheskiy priyem [Temporal Stylization as a Translation Method]. Filolohicheskiye nauki – Philological Sciences, 6, 54–59 [in Russian].

Vinogradov, V.S. (2001). Problema ekvivalentnosti i tip perevodimoho teksa [The Problem of Equivalence and a Type of Translated Text]. Retrieved from http://linguistic.ru/index.php?id=86&op=content [in Russian].

Harbovskiy, N.K. (2002). Hermenevticheskiy aspekt perevoda: tipolohiya oshybok ponimaniya orihinalnoho teksta [Hermeneutical aspect of translation: the typology of perception errors of the source text]. Vestnik Moskovskoho universiteta – Herald of the Moscow University, 1, 7–24 [in Russian].

Komissarov, V.N. (1980). Linhvistika perevoda [Linguistics of translation]. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya [in Russian].

Komissarov, V.N. (1991). Yevristicheskaya tsennost modeley perevoda. Teoriya i perevodcheskaya praktika [Heuristic Value of the Translation Models. The theory and Translation Practice]. Kartina mira: Leksikon i tekst – View of the World: Lexicon and Text, 378, 126–131 [in Russian].

Koptilov, V.V. (1971). Aktualni pytannya ukrainskoho khudozhnyoho perekladu [The Relevant Issues of the Ukrainian Artistic Translation]. Kyiv: Dnipro [in Ukrainian].

Levshun, L.V. (1992). Propoved kak zhanr srednevekovoy literatury [Sermon as a Genre of the Medieval Literature]. Candidate’s thesis. Moscow [in Russian].

Leontyev, A.A. (1976). Psykholinhvisticheskiy aspekt yasykovoho obscheniya [Psycholinguistic Aspect of Communication]. Printsipy i metody semanticheskih issledovaniy – Principles and Methods of Semantic Research (pp. 46–73). Moscow: Nauka [in Russian].

Markshtain, E. (1996). Postmodernistskaya kontseptsiya perevoda (s voprositelnym znakom ili bez neho) [Postmodern Concept of Translation (with question mark or without it)]. Retrieved from www.lingvoda.ru/transforum/articles/markshtein_al.htm [in Russian].

Nayda, Yu.A. (1983). Protsedura analiza komponentnoy struktury referentsionnoho znacheniya [The Analysis of Componential Structure of Referential Meaning]. Novoye v zarubezhnoy linhvistike – New Development in Foreign Linguistics, 14, 61–74 [in Russian].

Novikova, L.Yu. (1999). Bezekvevalentnaya leksika v aspekte interkulturnoy kommunikatsii [Nonequivalent Lexical Units in the Aspect of Intercultural Communication]. Pervaya Rossiyskaya konferentsiya po romanskomu yasykoznaniyu “Aktualnyye problemy romanistiki. Obschestvo. Kultura” – The Ist Russian Conference on Romanic Linguistics “Topical Issues of Romance Philology. Society. Culture”. Saratov [in Russian].

Nоvikova, M.A. (1986). Prekrasen nash soyuz. Literatura – perevodchik – zhisn: literaturno-kriticheskiye ocherki [The Beauty of Our Union. Literature – Translator – Life: Literal and Critical Digest]. Kyiv: Radyanskiy pysmennyk [in Russian].

Radchuk, V. (2008). Perekladnist v dynamitsi [Translation in Dynamics]. Retrieved from http://radchuk.novamova.com.ua/pereklad_9.htm [in Ukrainian].

Rays, K. (1978). Klassifikatsiya tekstov i metodov perevoda [Classification of the Texts and Translation Methods]. Voprosy teorii perevoda v zarubezhnoy linhvistike – Issues of Translation Studies in Foreign Linguistics (pp. 202–228). Moscow [in Russian].

Revzin, I.I., & Rosentsveyh, V.Yu. (1962). K obosnovaniyu linhvisticheskoy teorii perevoda [The Theoretical Background to the Translation Theory]. Voprosy yazykoznaniya – Issues of Linguistics, 1, 37–54 [in Russian].

Tischenko, K.N., & Borschahovskiy, P.F. (1982). Perevod i adaptatsiya [Translation and Adaptation]. Teoriya i praktika perevoda – Theory and Practice of Translation, 8, 18–28 [in Russian].

Shveytser, A.D. (1988). Teoriya perevoda: status, problemy, aspekty [The Theory of Translation: Status, Problems, Aspects]. Moscow: Nauka [in Russian].

Yakymenko, O.A. (2004). Perevod i kommentariy: predely adaptatsiyi [Translation and the Commentary: The Boundaries of Adaptation]. In Materialy VI Mezhdunarodnoy nauchnoy konferentsii po perevodovedeniyu “Fedorovskiye chteniya” – The VI International Scientific Conference on Translation Studies “Readings from Fedorov” (pp. 508–514). Saint Petersburg [in Russian].

Boguslawska-Tafelska, M. (2001). Psycholinguistic Mechanisms in Translation. Acta Neophilologia, 3, 11–24.

Duff, A. (1989). Translation. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

Ferreira, A., Schwieter, J.W., & Gile, D. (2015). The Position of Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Science in Translation and Interpreting: An Introduction. In A. Ferreira & J.W. Schwieter (Eds.), Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Inguires into Translation and Interpreting (pp. 3–16). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.115.01fer

Gile, D. (2009). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi : https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8

House, J. (2016). Translation as communication across languages and cultures. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315668956

Kade, O. (1980). Die Sprachmittlung als gesellschaftliche Erscheinung und Gegenstand wissenschaftlicher Untersuchung. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie.

Krings, H.P. (1986). Translation problems and translation strategies of advanced German learners of French. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.

Kruger, J-L. (2016). Psycholinguistics and audiovisual translation. Target: International Journal of Translation Studies, 28(2), 276–287. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.28.2.08kru

Kussmaul, P. (1995). Training the Translator. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Newmark, P. (1982). Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Newmark, P. (2003). Textbook of Translation. Longman.

Nida, E. (1964). Towards a Science of Translating. Leiden.

Rubert, I., & Kapitonova, M. (2017). On the Problem of Interpreting-Psycholinguistics Interaction: Interlinguistic Interference. Journal of Siberian Federal University, 3(10), 400–408. https://doi.org/10.17516/1997-1370-0047

Ullman, S. (1957). Style in the French Nobel. Cambridge.

Vinay, J.-P, & Darbelnet, J. (2000). Comparative stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation. The Translation Studies Reader. London, New-York : Routledge.

Weightman, J.G. (1947). On Language and Writing. London: Sylvan Press.

Wilss, W. (1982). The Science of Translation. Problems and Methods. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Wlosowicz, T-M. (2012). Some Applications of Translation to Psycholinguistic Research. Linguistica Silesiana, 33, 127–145.

Zasyekin, S. (2010). Translation as a Psycholinguistic Phenomenon. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39(3), 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-009-9134-2


Abstract views: 38
PDF Downloads: 7
Published
2019-11-12
How to Cite
Demetska, V. (2019). Adaptive Model in Translation: Psycholinguistic Dimension. PSYCHOLINGUISTICS, 26(2), 70-90. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2019-26-2-70-90