Functional Variation of Translation as a Factor in Successful Intercultural Interaction

About the authors:

Liudmila V. Kushnina, Dr. Sci. (Philol.), Professor, Department of Foreign Languages, Linguistiсs and Translation, Perm National Research Polytechnic University;  lkushnina@yandex.ru; ORCID: 0000-0003-4360-7243

Lyubov K. Geykhman, Dr. Sci. (Ped.), Professor, Department of Foreign Languages, Linguistics and Translation, Perm National Research Polytechnic University; lyubageykhman7@gmail.com

Abstract:

The authors discuss functional variability as an urgent problem of modern cognitive translation studies and consider it both as a natural property of translation activity and as an imperative for successful intercultural interaction of communicants. Kushnina’s synergetic model is the basis for theoretical analysis of translation space alongside with skopos-theory of translation by K. Nord and functional typology of translation by J. Delilah. The leading methods of analysing translation space are the field, Gestalt, interpretative, conceptual and functional methods. The aim of the work is to substantiate the idea of the translation functional variation, which determines its harmony. Hamlet’s monologue from Shakespeare’s immortal work and its translations into Russian and French are used as material for the analysis.

The authors prove that functional variability of translation most clearly can be traced in the two functions of translation: identifying and culture-forming. The identifying function while translating the same meanings into different linguistic cultures manifests itself in the synergetic accretion of new meanings. The meanings are expressed by certain cultural markers, identified by the recipients with perceptions, judgments, associations that are peculiar to their native culture. At the same time, the cultural variability of semantic increments and transfers in the phatic field of translation space acquires the properties of cultural determination. The properties meet the requirements of foreign-language and fo­reign-cultural recipients. And that is the novelty of the research undertaken. As a result of the study, it has been established that the culture-forming function of translation is the leading one: each culture imposes its own imprint on the formation of images, ideas and concepts that are close and understandable to the reader.

The authors conclude that the success of intercultural interaction is due to the addition of new meanings as a prerequisite for translation harmony, whereby the text of the translation naturally integrates into and enriches the host culture.

References:

1. Bubnova I. A., Zykova I. V., Krasnykh V. V., Ufimtseva N. V. 2017. (Neo-)Psycholinguistics and (psycho-)Linguoculturology. Moscow: Gnozis. 392 p. [In Russian]

2. Drozhashchikh N. V. 2006. The Synergetic Model of Integration of Iconic Units of Different Levels. In Diachrony. Tyumen: TyumGU. 256 p. [In Russian]

3. Enbaeva L. V. 2018. “Postmodern in translation studies”. Nizhny Novgorod Linguistics University Bulletin, no. 44, pp. 40-49. [In Russian]

4. Kazakova T. A., Achkasov A. V. 2006. “Foreword to 100 anniversary of A. V. Fedorov”. In: Federov A. V. 2006. On Literary Translation. Works of 1920-1940s, pp. 3-18. Saint Petersburg: SpbGU. [In Russian]

5. Gritsanov A. A. (ed.). 2003. The Newest Philosophical Dictionary. Minsk: Knizhnyi dom. 1280 p. [In Russian]

6. Nord K. 2020. Functions in Texts and Translations. Selected Works. Edited by E. Yu. Moshchanskaya. Perm: PNIPU. 209 p. [In Russian]

7. Kushnina L.V. (ed.). 2020. Translation Theory in Classical and Contemporary Research Paradigm: Ontology, Methodology, Axiology. Moscow: Flinta. 336 p. [In Russian]

8. Federov A. V. 2006. On Literary Translation. Works of 1920-1940s. Saint Petersburg: SpbGU. 256 p.

9. Eco U. 2015. Say Almost the Same. Experience of Translation. Moscow: AST: CORPUS. 736 p.

10. Delisle J. 2010. “Les traducteurs, artisans de l’histoire et des identités culturelles”. Atelier de Traduction. Dossier: Le traducteur — un ambassadeur culturel, no. 13, pp. 23-36. [In French]

11. Delisle J. 2014. “Dimension culturelle de certaines fonctions de la traduction”. Atelier de Traduction. Dossier: La dimension culturelle du texte littéraire en traduction, no. 21, pp. 37-60. [In French]

12. Durieux Ch. 2020. “Un paradigme cognitif pour la traductologie”. In: Achard-Bayle G. (ed.). 2020. Cognitivisme et Traductologie. Approches Sémantiques et Psychologiques, pp. 27-38. Paris: Classiques Garnier. [In French]

13. Kushnina L., Perlova I., Permiakova K. 2021. “Knowledge transfer in intercultural technical communication in view of translation synergetical paradigm”. Proceedings of 6^th International Congress on Information and Communication Technology, ICICT 2021 (25-26 February 2021, London, UK). Vol. 1. Edited by X.-S. Yang, S. Sherratt, N. Dey, A. Joshi. Pp. 227-237. London: Springer.

14. Ladmiral J.-R. 2016. Sourcier ou Cibliste. Les Profondeurs de la Traduction. Traductologiques. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. 311 p. [In French]

15. Monneret Ph. 2020. “Les analogies impliquées de la traduction”. In: Achard-Bayle G. (ed.). 2020. Cognitivisme et Traductologie. Approches Sémantiques et Psychologiques, pp. 39-58. Paris: Classiques Garnier. [In French]

16. Richard-Diamond F. 2011. To Be or not to Be: Shakespeare, Le Monologue d’Hamlet. Bordeaux: PU Bordeaux. 48 p. [In French]