UDC

81'255+81'42

DOI

10.37482/2687-1505-V207

Authors

Eduard N. Mishkurov
Lomonosov Moscow State University; Leninskie gory 1, str. 51, GSP-1, Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation;
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5879-3515 e-mail: e.mishkurov@mail.ru
Marina G. Novikova
The Russian State University of Justice; ul. Novocheremushkinskaya 69, Moscow, 117418, Russian Federation;
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1221-8635 e-mail: Novikova_mg@mail.ru

Abstract

Within the framework of the cognitive-hermeneutic approach to the implementation of modern theoretical and methodological translation strategies and tactics, this article suggests taking the heat off the centuriesold confrontation between adherents and antagonists of the theory of untranslatability. Once we realize that the translatability–untranslatability dichotomy, which consists in the lack of an equivalent to a linguocultural phenomenon in the recipient language, is of academic nature, we will be able to remove this antinomy by means of a two-pronged cooperative transposition of the source text (ST) into the target language (TL) at the discursive-communicative level. The concept of translatability is linked with the use of regular translation equivalents, i.e. translation proper, while untranslatability is overcome using quasi-translation in the form of discursive-manipulative games. The latter are understood as a “free” communicative rendering of the ST content into the TL by means of translation manipulations, which are perceived as a positive phenomenon based on the cognitive-hermeneutic translation methodology. In the modern translatological interpretation, translation is presented as an alternation and a combination of translation techniques proper and manipulative games to ensure adequate adaptation of the ST content by means of the TL, while taking into consideration the linguistic and extralinguistic features of the ST. The basis for overcoming untranslatability and verifying the adopted translation decisions is a transdisciplinary approach to the procedure for generating the target text, which is expropriated by the potential recipient, at the discursive-communicative level. Discursivemanipulative translation games should not distort the semantic and stylistic parameters of the ST, even in cases where “it is difficult or impossible to find a concept that would be close to that of the source culture”. The main task of these games is to turn translation from the art of failure into the art of concordance between the cultures of the language pair in contact.

Keywords

translatability–untranslatability, scenario, visual philosophy, quasi-translation, discursive-manipulative games, transdisciplinarity, translatological discourse

References

1. Timko N.V. Faktor “kul’tura” v perevode [The Cultural Factor in Translation]. Kursk, 2007. 154 p.

2. Retsker Ya.I. Teoriya perevoda i perevodcheskaya praktika. Ocherki lingvisticheskoy teorii perevoda [Translation Theory and Translation Practice. Essays on the Linguistic Theory of Translation]. Moscow, 2016. 244 p.

3. Maugham S. Selected Short Stories. Moscow, 1996.

4. Maugham S. Sbornik rasskazov [Collected Stories]. Rostov-on-Don, 2000. 480 p.

5. Maugham S. Nechto chelovecheskoe: Rasskazy [The Human Element: Stories]. Moscow, 1989. 528 p.

6. Wittgenstein L. Philosophische Untersuchungen = Philosophical Investigations. Chichester, 2009. 240 p.

7. Wittgenstein L. Filosofskie issledovaniya [Philosophical Investigations]. Moscow, 2011. 347 p.

8. Filosofiya: entsiklopedicheskiy slovar’ [Philosophy: Encyclopaedic Dictionary]. Moscow, 2006. 1072 p.

9. Arutyunova N.D. Diskurs [Discourse]. Yartseva V.N. (ed.). Lingvisticheskiy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar’ [Linguistic Encyclopaedic Dictionary]. Moscow, 1990, pp. 136–137.

10. Arutyunova N.D. Lingvisticheskaya filosofiya [Linguistic Philosophy]. Yartseva V.N. (ed.). Lingvisticheskiy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar’ [Linguistic Encyclopaedic Dictionary]. Moscow, 1990, pp. 269–270.

11. Mishkurov E.N., Novikova M.G. Cognitive-Hermeneutic Approach to Translation Theory and Methodology. Moscow, 2020. 300 p. (in Russ.).

12. Khayrullin V.I. Perevod i freymy [Translation and Frames]. Moscow, 2010. 144 p.

13. Binet L. La septième fonction du langage. Paris, 2015. 475 p. (Russ. ed.: Bine L. Sed’maya funktsiya yazyka. St. Petersburg, 2019. 536 p.).

14. Kornaukhova N.G. Manipulyatsiya kak kategorial’nyy priznak khudozhestvennogo perevoda [Manipulation as a Category Feature of Literary Translation]. Vestnik Buryatskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2011, no. 11, pp. 65–70.

15. Hermans T. Images of Translation: Metaphor and Imagery in the Renaissance Discourse on Translation. Hermans T. (ed.). The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. London, 1985, pp. 103–135.

16. Prunč E. Entwicklungslinien der Translationswissenschaft: Von den Asymmetrien der Sprachen zu den Asymmetrien der Macht. Berlin, 2012 (Russ. ed.: Prunch E. Puti razvitiya zapadnogo perevodovedeniya. Ot yazykovoy asimmetrii k politicheskoy. Moscow, 2015. 512 p.).

17. Fefelov A.F. Sovremennoe rossiyskoe perevodovedenie: v poiskakh novoy suverennoy paradigmy [Paradigmatic Trends in the Evolution of the Russian Translation Studies: Pro and Contra Roman Jacobson]. Vestnik Novosibirskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser.: Lingvistika i mezhkul’turnaya kommunikatsiya, 2015, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 48–72.

18. What We Mean by a “Good Translation”. Engineering Translation Company “Intent”. Available at: http://www.intent93.ru/quality/93/ (accessed: 14 December 2021) (in Russ.).

19. Lotman Ju. La struttura pensante. Lotman Ju. Cercare la strada: Modelli della cultura. Venice, 1994. 46 p.

20. Lotman Yu. M. Kul’tura i vzryv [Culture and Explosion]. Moscow, 1992. 272 p.

21. Cassin B. V zashchitu neperevodimosti. Beseda s Mikaelem Ustinoff [Untranslatability and Globalization. The Interview with Michael Oustinoff]. Logos, 2011, no. 5-6, pp. 4−12.

22. Komissarov V.N. Lingvistika perevoda [The Linguistics of Translation]. Moscow, 2007. 167 p.

23. Shveytser A.D. Perevod i lingvistika: O gazetno-informatsionnom i voenno-publitsisticheskom perevode [Translation and Linguistics: On Newspaper and Military-Journalistic Translation]. Moscow, 1973. 280 p.

24. Shveytser A.D. Teoriya perevoda: Status, problemy, aspekty [Translation Theory: Status, Problems and Aspects]. Moscow, 1988. 215 p.

25. Mishkurov E.N. O “diskursivno-igrovom povorote” v sovremennoy teorii i metodologii perevoda [On the Discursive-Game Turn in the Modern Theory and Methodology of Translation]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Ser. 22. Teoriya perevoda, 2021, no. 3, pp. 16–32.