Yerol Turashbek,
Master Tutor,
LINGUISTIC
ISSUES OF TRANSLATION
The translation is considered as a vector of interference
between different cultures. Nowadays systematic conception on the ontology and
heuristics of interlinguistic and intercultural interaction is gaining much
importance. Growing interest to cognitology in the contemporary linguistics is
displayed by the fact that general theoretical issues in fundamental and
applied linguistics are connected with cognitive aspect of research.
Linguistic-conceptual analysis, revealing and description of basic categories
of cognitive linguistics, theoretical basis of cognitive models, cognitive
approach to text interpretation have brought linguists to the idea of
interrelation between processes of structuring and understanding language
messages including translation. The system of language meanings corresponds to
the cultural competence of native speakers as the language reflects world
vision and understanding of the population in the context of cultural
traditions. Language map of the lingua-cultural community world appears as an
approach to embody cultural stereotypes, symbols, standards which form the
given society in the community. National mentality being the major aspect of
language thinking is reflected in the lexical-semantic and grammatical systems
of a language, therefore study and adequacy of transferring national-cultural
specifics of an original text during the translation process is of significant
importance from the perspectives of optimizing intercultural communications.
Each national world is a unity of local nature and character of the nation
generated in this location and its thinking or perception and reflection in the
minds of the given ethnos. The mentioned parameters define deep semantic
structure embodied in the linear sequence of language units of the given
language used by the creator of the text. Text reflects the level and character
of the culture of the given national and cultural formation. Culturological
content of the text is created by language units containing cultural component
in the form of denotative, connotative meanings and full descriptions of
objects, cultural phenomena, and cultural-historical events. It builds a
certain system of culturological markers which characterize language units
applied in it. It promotes to forming cultorological space of a text. Language
units in the text environment get cultorological character enriching the sense
of a text. By representing figurative emblems of another culture in the
translated text, a translator introduces various explanatory and supplementary
lingua-cultorological comments. Figurative thinking of any ethnos is reflected
in artistic images, artistic specifics of the form, that is tracks which in
translation should be replaced by such images so that not to cause
contradictions in the perception of a reader – speaker of another language. It
means a translator has to maintain a ̳balance‘between cultures. A
translator‘s choice reflects dependence of his or her strategic decisions on
the volume of his/her linguistic and cognitive knowledge, level of his/her communicative
competence, applying translation receptors with the certain stock of background
information. During the translation process every communication party brings
his or her own meaning. A translator refracts the meaning of the original text
so that he/she becomes a representative of both national and foreign language
cultures. He/she creates his/her own translational picture of the world which
forms his/her mind as a bilingual. Recipient refracts the meaning of the
derived text through his/her own national mind and culture. Translator can
belong to the same culture as the author or can belong to the foreign language
culture. In his/her turn, a recipient can belong to the same culture as the
translator or to a foreign language culture. It is important to note here that
a translator reverbalizesor deverbalizesother meanings‘ either in relation to
the author or recipient. Difficulty in the translational interpretation is
caused by the character of the approaches applied in the original, their
reproduction level, and understanding of the original text content identified
by the time, spatial or sociocultural distance between parties involved in the
intercultural communication. From the cognitive linguistics perspectives, the
translation process appears as the perception of one type of information and
its transformation into another type. Surveys provide with convincing evidence
the fact that difference between cognitive processes of an author of the
original text and a translator is caused by differences in the culture which
are reflected in the language. The given statement allows defining translation
as ̳verbal projection of ethno mental experience of one linguacultural
community through integration of mental space of a translator as a
representative of another lingua-cultural community‘. Optimality of the
translation process is caused not only by the knowledge of algorithms of a
̳foreign‘ culture but also by crossing mental spaces of the author of the
original text and the translator. Actual issues on translation theory are
raised by L.M. Alexeyeva who focuses the attention on semiotic nature of
translation highlighting the role of a translator. The author presents
translation as ̳mutual process of interaction between a text and a
translator‘. Function of a translator is to combine existing cognitive spaces.
Translation optimality is caused by ̳crossing‘ mental spaces of an author
of the original text and its translators, i.e. their individual-personal
specifics; major emphasis is made on research of the ̳personality of an
author –personality of a translator‘ relationship. Translator must use not only
language units of a certain language system but also take into consideration a
cognitive environment of these units. Any translation assumes interpretation;
hence, any product of any activity bears personality of its creator. And in
this sense subjectivity is one of the dominants in a professional personality
of a translator. Eliminating subjectivity of a translator does not take place
during the translation process as translator being a representative of the culture
for which he or she is translating, is fulfilling a function of a
̳transformer‘ transferring original text elements to a foreign
cultural-language sphere and which cannot be perceived and understood
adequately by the readers. Here adequacy can be explained by the originality of
the text and as a result it is not possible to achieve absolute equivalence of
the initial and translation texts, and also by the relative equivalence of the
reconstruction of the semantic modality of the initial text i.e. reconstruction
of conceptual, subjective-evaluative peculiarity of the plans for the content
and expression of the original text. It isimpossible to create a translated
text which is an exact functional and communicative replica of the original as
it is not possible to have an absolute match of conceptual systems of
communicators. Translator aspires to obtain a maximum textual similarity of the
original text (OT) and translation text (TT) ensuring to keep equal impact of
these texts on recipients. In comparison with an author of a text a translator
cannot express his or her individual viewpoint on the matter as his/her
activity is directed by the author‘s idea and translation situation. That is
why processes of a translator‘s perception and understanding of the text under
translation can be biased as his/her personality is different from an author‘s
personality. We can state that perception and understanding of a certain piece
of art depend on fixed attitudes of a person, on his attitude to the
surrounding world. Translator‘s personality is inevitably reflected in
translation. It is important to note that mental spaces of an author and a
translator can never match as they are defined by individual experience,
knowledge and perceptions and can be represented in an individual verbal code.
Translation process is facilitated by the so-called ̳general zones‘in
individual mental spaces which are caused by general knowledge in the
conceptual system of a language personality. This combined mental space allows
representing by means of the translating language
̳psycho-semiotic‘specifics of an author. Communicative intentions of an
author of an original text and a translator can differ. Analysis of the
transformation on this level allows identifying specifics of cognitive and
motivational levels of a translator‘s language personality. Taking into
consideration the fact that original text is an individual realization of the
author‘s model of the world we can state that translation activity is
determined by two models of the world: ethnic and individual. The model of the
world acts as a way to harmonize various spheres of the human activity and
their interconnection. It is the basis for all acts of the world outlook
enabling to understand world events. Major units of the world models are
concepts, the combination of which forms a concept sphere. National specifics
of concept spheres are expressed in various parity of their components. While
comparing cultures during the translation process it is possible to reveal a
lack of concepts in one of the cultures which leads to the occurrence of
nonverbal elements of the OT meaning i.e. occurrence of lacunas. Conflict or
success of communicative interactions depend on culture-based communicational
competence of the communication participants i.e. similarity and difference in
their perception processes and symbolic systems. Translator is the speaker of
both TL (translating language) and OL (original language) and has features for
perceiving the reality and expressing it in a language peculiar to both TL and
OL; he or she is the secondary language individual. Entering the interaction
with a foreign culture text, translator encounters problems of misunderstanding
some text fragments reflecting values and national specifics of the Lingua-cultural
community. As a result occurs a barrier in understanding the text idea which
represents so-called ̳cream‘of the idea. For a foreign culture receptor
they act as specific fragments of the culture context. These significant units
of culture are given by various terms: gap‖, interval‖, culture
scripts‖, chink, and lacuna. Lacuna as a unit of the
lingua-Culturological analysis limits the text which is the research object.
Presence of lacunas inhibit to the full understanding of the text as
translation of the lingua-culturological lacunas assumes a certain level of
background knowledge and translation competence. During the process of
penetration of a certain work into the culture of the TT subsequent
translations can move only in the direction of the increase in the accuracy in
the meaning transfer. Hence we can make a conclusion about incomplete language
personality of a translator. In this connection we can assume that finding
nonverbal zed units in the translator‘s discourse is connected with the fact
that theme and character of the translated texts by this person have not
created conditions to display these units in translations. Comparison of two
texts can reveal nonequivalent lexis which testifies presence of endemic
concepts in the world outlook of the OL and TL speakers. To compensate lacunas
recipient‘s culture elements enter the translation text; it deforms recipient‘s
perception of the work. Thus, lingua-cognitive level of the translator‘s
personality is defined by transformations and substantial changes of concepts
directed at transferring genre specifics of the world picture in the original
text, lingua-cultural realities, system of values and mentality of the culture
which generated the text. In translation texts concepts are replaced when
translating ethnographic, onomastic, geographical, ethno cultural realities
into another cultural environment. The problem of achieving translation
adequacy is caused by the nature of the given phenomenon which is dependent on
a certain variety of factors specific to activities of a translator who
realizes their integration in the process of transformations.
References:
1. Sorokin Yu.A. Translation
studies: a translator‘s status and psychohermeneutic procedures.//Yu.A.Sorokin.
– M., 2003.
2. Alexeyeva L.M. Professional
training of a translator.// L.M.Alexeyeva. – St.P., 2002.