Investigating Cognitive and Psycholinguistic Features of Translation Universals

Keywords: relevance theory, translation universals, procedural/conceptual meaning.

Abstract

Traditionally, translation is viewed as a reliable shield over linguistic diversity, one of the ways to ensure a target language survival. However, translation is also reported to distort a translated language due to introducing ‘the third code’ (Frawley, 1984) features. These “deforming tendencies” (Berman, 1985) destroy the translated language by erasing its natural pattern and by adding there a bundle of alien features that cause its lexical, syntactical, and stylistic deficiencies. The current study is aimed at detecting those destructive features treated in translation studies as “translation universals” (Chesterman, 2004). To this end, a psycholinguistic analysis was held to establish the use of language which is not the result of intentional, controlled processes and of which translators may not be aware. These subliminal translation-inherent processes can be traced in the use of function words that encode procedural meaning. Relevance Theory (Wilson & Sperber, 1993) explains a conceptual-procedural distinction as a major distinction made between two types of linguistically encoded information. Conceptual information expressed by content words is viewed as encoding concepts whereas words with procedural meaning contribute to the derivation of implicatures, certain ways of processing propositions. Discourse connectives, conjunctions, prepositions, particles, pronouns, modal words constitute that group of function words with procedural meaning. To uncover certain variations in the use of these linguistic units, a parallel English-Ukrainian corpus made up of an 8,000-character excerpt from Franny by J.D. Salinger, its professional translation, and forty novice translators’ target versions, was compiled.

The corpus data were processed by Textanz and SPSS computerized tools.

The results of the psycholinguistic analysis proved that the Ukrainian versions as contrasted to the original text contained the following S-universals: implicitation expressed through the shortage of discourse markers of global coherence, simplification due to the lack of personal pronouns, decreased mean number of words per sentence, and greater number of sentences; normalization embodied in vernacular network impoverishment due to the decreased amount of pragmatic markers and fillers, explicitation due to higher lexical variety and density rates, and rationalization as a result of abundant marking of discourse relations.

Conclusions. Taken together, these findings have significant implications for the understanding of how procedural information processing by novice translators is manifested in translation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Zasiekin, S. (2012). Psykholinguistychni Universalii Perekladu Khudozhnioho Tekstu [Psycholinguistic Universals in the Translation of Literary Texts]. Lutsk: Lesya Ukrainka Volyn State University [in Ukrainian].

Karasik, V. (1992). Sotsialnyi status cheloveka v lingvisticheskom aspekte [Human social status in linguistic aspect]. “Ya”, “Subjekt”, “Individ” v Paradigmakh Sovremennoho Yasykoznaniya [“I”, “Subject”, “Individual” in the Paradigms of Modern Linguistics] (pp. 47–74). Moscow: Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences [in Russian].

Cherednychenko, O. (2007). Pro Movu i Pereklad [On Language and Traanslation]. Kyiv: Lybid [in Ukrainian].

Chernovatyi, L., & Karaban, V. (2007). Oleksandr Finkel – Zabutyi Teoretyk Ukrainskoho Perekladoznavstva [Oleksandr Finkel – Forgotten Theoretician of the Ukrainian Translation Studies]. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha [in Ukrainian].

Alves, F., & Gonçalves, J.L. (2013). Investigating the conceptual-procedural distinction in the translation process. Target, 25(1), 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.09alv

Alves, F., Gonçalves, J., & Szpak, K. (2014). Some thoughts about the conceptual/procedural distinction in translation: a key-logging and eye-tracking study of processing effort. MonTI Special Issue – Minding Translation, 151–175.

Alves, F., Szpak, K.S., Gonçalves, J.L., Sekino, K., Aquino, M., Castro, R.A., et. al. (2016). Investigating cognitive effort in post-editing: A relevance-theoretical approach. In S. Hansen-Schirra & S. Grucza (Eds.), Eyetracking and Applied Linguistics (pp. 109–142). Berlin: Language Science Press. doi: 10.17169/langsci.b108.296

Berman, A. (1985). La traduction et la lettre ou l’Auberge du lointain. Paris: Seuil.

Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456

Blum-Kulka, S. (1986). Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies (pp. 17–35). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

Chesterman, A. (2004). Hypotheses about translation universals. In G. Hansen, K. Mlmkjær & D. Gile (Eds.), Сlaims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies (pp. 1–13). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.50.02che

Chesterman, A. (2011). Translation universals. In Y. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies (Vol. 2, pp. 175–179). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.2.tra12

Dragsted, B. (2010). Coordination of reading and writing processes in translation. In G.M. Shreve & E. Angelone (Eds.), Translation and Cognition (pp. 41–62). Amsterdam, the Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xv.04dra

Frawley, W. (1984). Prolegomenon to a Theory of Translation. In W. Frawley (Ed.), Translation: Literary, Linguistic, and Philosophical Perspectives (pp. 54–98). Newmark: University of Delaware Press.

Halverson, S.L. (1998). Translation Studies and representative corpora: establishing links between translation corpora, theoretical/descriptive categories and a conception of the object of study. Meta, 43(4), 631–651. https://doi.org/10.7202/003000ar

Hvelplund, K. (2017). Eye tracking in translation process research. In J.W. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The Handbook of Translation and Cognition (pp. 248–264). New York: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch14

Ireland, M. Slatcher, R., Eastwick, P., & Pennebaker, J. (2011). Language style matching predicts relationship initiation and stability. Psychological Science, 22(1), 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610392928

Laviosa-Braithwaite, S. (1996). The English Comparable Corpus (ECC): A Resource and a Methodology for the Empirical Study of Translation. Manchester: Centre for Translation Studies, UMIST.

Nicolle, S. (1998). A relevance theory perspective on grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.1

Olohan, M. (2002). Leave it out! Using a comparable corpus to investigate aspects of explicitation in translation. Cadernos de Tradução, 9, 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.15.1.04olo

Olohan, M., & Baker, M. (2000). Reporting that in translated English. Evidence for subconscious processes of explicitation? Across Languages and Cultures 1(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.1.2000.2.1

Paradis, M. (2004). A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.18

Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and Procedural Determinants of Second Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.40

Pennebaker, J.W., Boyd, R.L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841

Smith, E., & Senter, R. (1967). Automated Readability Index AMRL-TR. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: Aerospace Medical Division.

Toury, G. ( 1995 ) Descriptive Translation Studies – And Beyond. Revised edition. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.4

Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1993). Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua, 90(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5

Wilson, D. (2011). The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future. In V. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti & A. Ahern (Eds.), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives (pp. 3–31). Bingley: Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1472-7870(2011)0000025005

Zasiekin, S. (2014). Literary translation universals: a psycholinguistic study of novice translators’ choices. East European Journal of Psycholinguistics, 1(1), 223–233. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10605

Salinger, J.D. (1964). Franny and Zooey. N.Y.: Bantam Books.

Salinger, J.D. (1984). Franny [Franny]. (Yu. Pokalchuk, Trans). Kyiv: Molod [in Ukrainian].


Abstract views: 38
PDF Downloads: 11
Published
2019-11-12
How to Cite
Zasiekin , S. (2019). Investigating Cognitive and Psycholinguistic Features of Translation Universals. PSYCHOLINGUISTICS, 26(2), 114-134. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2019-26-2-114-134