Correlation of qualification features of translation with the translator’s tasks in the modern scientific paradigm

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Correlation of qualification features of translation with the translator's tasks in the modern scientific paradigm

Zhanna Krasnobaieva-Chorna



Анотація

linguistics textual translator

Лінгвістика перекладу та міжкультурного текстового трансформування позиціонована як перспективний напрямок прикладної лінгвістки. Роль перекладу пов'язана з удосконаленням інтралінгвістичних методик і прийомів і розумінням перекладу як багатовимірного процесу з домінуванням критерію успішної / неуспішної передачі затекстової інформації перекладачем. У статті простежено специфіку кореляційних зв'язків конститутивних ознак перекладу та завдань перекладача з урахуванням різноманітних перекладознавчих теорій та опертям на сучасну наукову парадигму.

Ключові слова: переклад, перекладач, прикладна лінгвістика, текст-оригінал, текст-переклад.



Correlation of qualification features of translation with the translator's tasks in the modern scientific paradigm

Zhanna Krasnobaieva-Chorna

Department of General and Applied Linguistics and Slavonic Philology, Vasyl' Stus Donetsk National University, Vinnytsia, Ukraine

Abstract

Background: The meaningful perspective of a translator's actions in the 21st century, which are of great importance for applied linguistics in general, is influenced by the expansion of interdisciplinary areas of activity and the loss of translation optimism, which manifests itself in the quality of translations made by «computer translators». The topicality is due to necessity to systematize views on translation and the role of the translator with the identification of various problematic issues and is determined by the importance of establishing relations between them.

Purpose: to trace the specifics of the correlations between the constitutive features of translation and the tasks of the translator, considering various translation theories and relying on the modern scientific paradigm.

Results: All considered constitutive signs of translation in translation activity: 1) they are interrelated and must be implemented in a comprehensive manner; 2) they can be grouped in different ways, depending on the specific situation and tasks; 3) they do not exclude contradictions (for example, functional (speech-related) equivalence of the original text and the translated text vs their linguistic similarity; setting for equivalence vs setting for accessibility and intelligibility for recipients in another language and culture, that is, for adequacy, etc.); 4) they can be positioned as criterion for evaluating the quality of translation, but they cannot be absolute and identical in relation to different types of translation (for example, written and oral); 5) they update the following views on translation: a) the translation as secondary (reproductive) activity, and the translated text is secondary non-independent text («double or copy» of the original); b) the translation is creative and productive activity, and the translated text as a secondary independent text; c) translation as a complete project (not just «text» or «text creation»), i.e. a certain set of signs, objects, and subjects and their interactions aimed at achieving a specific goal of the translator.

Discussion: The role of translation is associated with a) the improvement of intralinguistic techniques and methods and techniques; b) understanding of translation as a multifaceted process of dominance of the criterion of successful or unsuccessful transmission of textual information by the translator.

Keywords: translation, translator, applied linguistics, original text, translated text.



Linguistics of translation and intercultural text transformation is positioned as a promising area of applied linguistics (along with linguistics of socio-political communication; linguistic standardization and unification; linguistics of organizational and documentary communication; linguistics of speech machines and multifunctional data sets; linguistics of external norms and law (Кушнерук 2017). The role of translation at the present stage is related to 1) improvement of intralinguistic methods and techniques; 2) understanding of translation as a multidimensional process, in which the successful or unsuccessful transmission of the textual information by the translator becomes more important than language correspondence. The meaningful perspective of a translator's actions in the 21st century, which are of great importance for applied linguistics in general, is influenced by the expansion of interdisciplinary areas of activity and the loss of translation optimism, which manifests itself in the quality of translations made by «computer translators». The topicality is due to necessity to systematize views on translation and the role of the translator with the identification of various problematic issues and is determined by the importance of establishing relations between them.

The purpose of the article: to trace the specifics of the correlations between the constitutive features of translation and the tasks of the translator, considering various translation theories and relying on the modern scientific paradigm. The stated goal motivates the solution of the following tasks: 1) to generalize the qualification features of translation as a result and translation as a process in the concepts from the second half of the XX century to the 20s of the XX century; 2) outline the possible relationship of the original text with the translated text; 3) define the tasks of the translator (or translation activities) in modern translation studies. In accordance with the set tasks, a pragmatic method, subject-review, comparative, systematic analysis of monographs, scientific articles, educational works on the theory and practice of translation in domestic and foreign linguistics were used.

The object in the article are the definitions of the translation, the subject are the qualification features of translation and translator's tasks. The first part of the article provides an overview of the definitions of translation as a process; the second part contains an overview of the features of translation as a result; the third part is devoted to understanding the original text and the translation text, as well as the tasks of a modern translator, which are inextricably linked with the selected features; the fourth part offers conclusions and perspectives.

The practical significance of the article is motivated by the possibility of using its materials during the implementation of educational components of educational and professional programs «Applied Linguistics» of the first (bachelor) and second (master) levels (field of knowledge 03 Humanities, specialty 035 Philology, specialization 035.10 Applied Linguistics) and the educational-scientific program «Philology» of the third (educational-scientific) level (03 Humanities, specialty 035 Philology), etc.

Translation as a Result: Constitutional Features

Naturalness. The translated text should be read like a text written by a native speaker: «Basically, the word natural is applicable to three areas of the communication process: for a natural rendering must fit (1) the receptor language and culture as a whole, (2) the context of the particular message, and (3) the receptor-language audience. The conformance of a translation to the receptor language and culture as a whole is an essential ingredient in any stylistically acceptable rendering» (Nida 1964: 166).

Equivalence. The theory of dynamic (functional) equivalence, where dynamic equivalence (the original text is transferred into the target language so that the reaction of the recipient of the translation text is generally similar to the reaction of the recipient of the original text). Equivalence is opposed to formal equivalence (formal correspondence, translation in violation of syntactic and stylistic rules (by Eu. Nida & Ch. Tiber (Nida, Tiber 1969: 202)), as well as:

as the correspondence of the text created as a result of interlanguage communication to certain parameters of the original; answers the question of whether the final text matches the original (by A. Shveytser (Швейцер 1988: 95));

as a community of content (semantic closeness) of the original and the translation: theoretically possible equivalence (determined by the ratio of structures and rules for the functioning of two languages) and optimal equivalence (closeness achieved in a specific act of translation) (by V. Komissarov (Комиссаров 2002: 414));

as a complete transfer of the functional and communicative aspect of the original (by L. Latyshev & A. Semenov (Латышев, Семенов 2003));

as preserving the relative equality of content, senseful, semantic, stylistic and functional-communicative information contained in the original and translation (by V. Vinogradov (Виноградов 2001: 18));

as a retrospective category from the standpoint of the translator, it is aimed at reconstructing the requirements of the invariance of the textual components of the original in the translated text, that is, the communicative function (functions), content and form and their relationship and hierarchy (by S. Evteyev (Евтеев 2017)).

Integrity. Integrity as a unity of form and content on a new linguistic basis (by Ya. Retsker (Рецкер 1974: 7)).

Usefulness. Usefulness means an exhaustive transfer of the semantic content of the original and a full functional and stylistic correspondence to it; usefulness consists in the transfer of a correlation of content and form specific to the original by reproducing the features of the latter (if possible due to linguistic conditions) or creating functional correspondences to these features (i.e. using such linguistic means that, often not coinciding in their formal nature with the elements the original, would perform a similar semantic and artistic function in the system (by A. Fedorov (Федоров 1983: 125127)).

Adequacy:

as a correspondence between the original text and the translation text (by Yu. Vannikov (Ванников 1988: 34-37)) with the emphasis on the semantic-stylistic (determined through an assessment of the semantic and stylistic equivalence of the language units that make up the translation text and the original text), functional (pragmatic, functional-pragmatic) (derived from the assessment of the ratio of the translation text with the communicative intention of the message sender, implemented in the original text); desiderative (turns out to be entirely focused on the requests of the recipient of the translated product (selective translation, abstracting, annotation, viewing reading)); voluntary (actualizes the translator's own communicative attitude) adequacy;

ensures the pragmatic tasks of the translation act at the highest possible level of equivalence to achieve this goal, without violating the norms and usus of the target language, observing the genre and stylistic requirements for texts of this type and compliance with the conventional translation standard (by V. Komissarov (Комиссаров 2002: 407));

the prospective category from the standpoint of the translator, means the constant attention of the translator in the process of translation to achieve a communicative impact on recipients, equal to the impact of the original text on its recipients; is aimed at bringing the translated text closer to the perception of recipients in another language and culture (by S. Evteyev (Евтеев 2017)).

Harmony of meanings. Harmony of meanings between the original text and its translation within the framework of the concept of translation space (the essence of the concept is reduced to describing the synergetic interaction of the following explicit-implicit semantic fields: 1) pretext - author's field - modal meaning; 2) subtext - the field of the translator - individual-figurative meaning; 3) context - the recipient's field - reflective meaning; 4) explicitly expressed text - content field - factual meaning; 5) back-text - energy field - irradiating meaning; 6) intertext - phatic field - cultural sense (by L. Kushnina (quoted in (Назмутдинова 2008: 9)).

Harmony as a translation category organizes a translation quality assessment system, including disharmony as a poor-quality translation, adequacy and equivalence as different levels of translation quality (Назмутдинова 2008: 10-11). There are four levels of harmony: 1) disharmony as a quasitranslation leading to a distortion of the factual meaning, as a result of which the communicants do not understand each other; 2) adequacy as an exact dictionary match. In the process of translation, only the actual meaning of the content field of the translation space is transposed; 3) equivalence as a set of interlingual transformations at the level of utterances and superphrasal unities, ensure transposing modal, individually shaped, reflective, radiating differential meanings; 4) harmony as interlanguage and intercultural interaction is the highest level of translation quality, when the translator manages to transpose all intercultural differences between the original and derived texts / discourses. Their functioning in the translation space takes place in the phatic field and is determined through the cultural sense, which is harmonized with all other meanings of the fields of the translation space).

Creativity. Creativity as provided by ontological power. The creative nature of translation is realized in three interrelated features: translation as a means of cognition / (self) reflection; translation as a means of individual and collective development; translation as a means of ensuring a cultural continuum (by O. Rebriy (Ребрш 2012: 102)).

Functionality. Create a product that can function, «work», i.e.: a) be used as intended, b) provide communication (if necessary and possible, the translated text needs to provide a multiplicity of interpretations), c) meet certain parameters in this situation - in accordance with the needs and wishes of the employer, the needs and recipient specifics, text specifics, specific socio-cultural context of existing norms and traditions of translation (or even with their violation), etc. (by D. Shlep- nev (Шлепнев 2018: 174-175)).

Translation as a Process: Constitutional Features

Phenomenon of bilingualism (by B. Benediktov, Zh. Munen (Бенедиктов 1974; Мунэн 1978)). Translation, according to Zh. Munen, is an undeniable case of linguistic contact. It should be described as a statistically rare case where the resistance to the usual consequences of bilingualism is more conscious and more organized.

Decoding and transcoding (by A. Lyudskanov, I. Levyy (Людсканов 1967; Левый 1974)). This feature makes it possible to consider translation as a continuous thought process, including a decision-making process.

The translation as a decision-making process. The interaction of decision theory and the science of translation provides an “inside view” of the translation process, which allows you to identify specific problems of translation activities and possible ways to solve them with the main goal - with the main goal of improving the translation process and the translator's capabilities (Воюцкая 2018: 3-4)); elements of the translation process are the stages of decision-making, types of decisions, consequences, limitations, etc. (Darwish 2008: 6). For instance, the classification of stages Corbin's solution, supplemented by seven steps revealing post-choice behavior: stage «behavior before the moment of choice» (identifying the problem; description, clarification of the structure of the problem; collection of information (consultation with a dictionary, etc.); thinking about choosing an approach to solving the problem; search for alternative options; the moment of choice (primary)); stage «behavior after the moment of choice» (doubt; rejection of old alternatives; search for a new alternatives; return to the old solution; making a new decision (the final moment of choice); postponing decision making; transition to another level).

In the investigation of the decision-making process in translation that presents interest is the variety of possible approaches to solving translation problems in the context of the fact that the behavior of the translator is the behavior of bounded rationality and depends on the individual characteristics of decision-making and behavior in a situation of uncertainty (Воюцкая 2018: 4).

Complex speech activity (by R. Min'yar-Beloruchev (Миньяр-Белоручев 1980: 25)) and a complex set of mutual transitions between intrapsychic and interpsychic «text - action - image - action - text» (by A. Yakovlev (Яковлев 2015)).

Process of interlanguage and intercultural communication. Process of interlanguage and intercultural communication is considered as: a) unidirectional and biphasic (by A. Shveytser (Швейцер 1988)); b) a biphasic activity (transmission of hearing / reading (receptive phase) and speaking / writing (productive phase)), so that it is a receptive-reproductive activity (by I. Zimnyaya (Зимняя 2001)); c) a double correction of the content of the original text by the translator (he carries out his own reflection of the content of the original and lays his own reflection of the text in a new symbolic form of another language) (by O. Selivanova (СелЬанова 2015: 158-159)).

Interlingual transformation (by L. Barkhudarov (Бархударов 1975)). L. Barkhudarov means a certain relationship between two linguistic or speech units, of which one is the original, and the second is created on the basis of the first: the translator has a source text in language A and creates a text in language B using certain operations - «translation transformations». A text in language B is in a certain natural relationship with text A. In their totality, these linguistic (interlanguage) operations constitute the «translation process» in the linguistic sense.

Type of linguistic mediation (by V. Komissarov (Комиссаров 2002)) or the type of interlingual mediation during bilingual communication (by Ye. Chervinko (Червінко 2013), or a type of interlanguage and intercultural mediation (by S. Evteyev (Евтеев 2017)).

Perception of meaning and its expression (interpretive theory of translation (or theory of meaning), which is based on three stages: 1) understanding the meaning of what is said/written; 2) the stage of deverbalization (rejection of words and sentences that gave rise to meaning); 3) transferring the meaning of the means of another language): a) interpretation - highlighting the meaning of a message and its subsequent reproduction in another language; the main goal of the translator is to directly convey the meaning of the utterance into another language, that is, the translator should not adhere to words, their order in the sentence during translation, since they are symbols that only indicate the direction to the translator, but not the path itself (by D. Seleskovich & M. Lederer (Seleskovitch, Lederer 1984)); b) the concept of «draft» and «white» versions of information comprehension, which fix the initial image of the content of the text and its final meaning (by N. Peshkova (Пешкова 2006: 55)). This feature allows us to consider translation as a research tool for understanding.

Translation as a tool for exploring the process of understanding. In understanding a foreign language written message in the process of transition from the primary perception of the text to the final understanding (from the level of content to the level of meaning formation), that is, from the «draft» version to the final «white» version, the recipients use various intermediate operations of transforming one text into another (by A. Avakyan (Авакян 2009)). The results of the transformations cannot be realized on the external explicit side of the realized translation text. The presence of variants in the semantic structure of translations is the result of the individual characteristics of the recipients, different cognitive experiences, discrepancies in assessments, and emotional attitude to the reported information, which confirms the idea of this process as a hierarchical system «with an ascent from the lower sensory elementary to the highest conceptual integral level» (Зимняя 2001: 321).

Speech creation or co-creation. Speech creation, which provides uncertainty (caused by the personal nature of interpretive processes) and diversity (embodied through linguistic variability and diversity of translations/means/possibilities of translation) (by O. Rebriy (Ребрій 2012: 50)), or co-creation in connection with the interpretive load of the translator (Ребрій 2012: 104).

Interdisciplinarity or transdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinarity as physiological, psychological, literary, ethnographic, etc. aspects (by L. Honcharenko (Гончаренко 2017: 197) and transdisciplinarity (by N. Garbovskiy (Гарбовский 2015: 19)).



Connection between the Original Text and the Translated Text

The presence of two traditional approaches to the consideration of translation actualizes the problem of the connection between the original text and the translated text:

as a speech work in its relation to the original and in connection with the features of two languages and the material belonging to certain genre categories (by A. Fedorov (Федоров 1983: 10));

the translated composition retains the ideological and figurative structure of the original foreign-language literary composition and acts as its semantic and stylistic parallel (by V. Koptilov (Коптілов 1969: 183)); critics of translation is based on the definition of «conformity» between the original and the translation at five language levels - phonetic, rhythmic, lexical, morphological and syntactic (Коптілов 1972: 34);

the translated text should be a substitute for the original text, primarily in terms of communication (in terms of its verbal and / or emotional impact) (by L. Latyshev & A. Semenov (Латышев, Семенов 2003: 16));

the external structure of the translated text should implicitly contain «traces» of the recipients' intellectual activity (by A. Novikov (Новиков 2007: 86));

translation always differs from the original source in at least three inconsistencies: the nonidentity of social reality, the inadequacy of logical content, the inconsistency of speech means (by T. Kyyak & A. Naumenko & O. Ohuy (Кияк, Науменко, Огуй 2008: 105));

a translated text is a certain compromise between equivalence and adequacy, between reproduction the features of the original and acceptable perception, and pragmatic adaptation of the translated text for recipients (by S. Evteyev (Евтеев 2017));

translation of the text should have relevant similarities with the original text required for the text in such situation and for this task (by D. Shlepnev (Шлепнев 2016: 196-198)), while relevant similarities between the translated text and the original text normally can't be evaluated by the recipient (this is one of the reference sign (requirement) for the translator, one of the criterion for peer review only presumption for the recipient and even customer) (Шлепнев 2018: 175).

The scientific works devoted to theoretical and practical problems of translation of the last ten years formulate the tasks of translation activity:

desubjectivize the original text (remove the subjective meaning) and the translated text (taking into account the characteristics of the addressee) in order to adequately objectify the translated text in accordance with the situation (by Ye. Chervinko (Червінко 2013: 82));

create the most optimal balance of semantics and forms, denotative, connotative, stylistic, cultural and pragmatic information of the original and translated texts (cit. by (Селіванова 2015: 159));

provide communication by creating a translated text (by V. Sdobnikov (Сдобников 2015: 118));

create a translated text that is not only equivalent to the original, providing, in accordance with the expectations of the author of the source text, a communicative impact on the recipient of the translation, but also its full understanding and compliance with the volume of background knowledge of recipients in another culture (by S. Evteyev (Евтеев 2017)).

The correlation of constitutional features of translation with the translator's tasks is shown in the Fig. 1.



Fig. 1. Correlation of Constitutional Features of Translation with the Translator's Tasks



Conclusions

All considered constitutive signs of translation in translation activity: 1) they are interrelated and must be implemented in a comprehensive manner; 2) they can be grouped in different ways, depending on the specific situation and tasks; 3) they do not exclude contradictions (for example, functional (speech-related) equivalence of the original text and the translated text vs their linguistic similarity; setting for equivalence vs setting for accessibility and intelligibility for recipients in another language and culture, that is, for adequacy, etc.); 4) they can be positioned as criterion for evaluating the quality of translation, but they cannot be absolute and identical in relation to different types of translation (for example, written and oral); 5) they update the following views on translation: a) the translation as secondary (reproductive) activity, and the translated text is secondary non-independent text («double or copy» of the original); b) the translation is creative and productive activity, and the translated text as a secondary independent text; c) translation as a complete project (not just «text» or «text creation»), i.e. a certain set of signs, objects, and subjects and their interactions aimed at achieving a specific goal of the translator.

The research perspective is connected with clarifying the boundaries of the interdisciplinary areas of the translator's activity within educational and professional program «Applied Linguistics».



Література

1. Авакян, Асия. «Перевод как инструмент исследования процесса понимания». Вопросы психолингвистики 10, 2009: 242-246.

2. [Avakyan, Asiya. «Perevod kak instrument issledovaniya protsessa ponimaniya». Voprosy psikholingvistiki 10, 2009: 242-246.].

3. Бархударов, Леонид. Язык и перевод (Вопросы общей и частной теории перевода). Москва: Международные отношения, 1975.

4. [Barkhudarov, Leonid. Yazyk i perevod (Voprosy obshchey i chastnoy teorii perevoda). Moskva: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya, 1975.].

5. Бенедиктов, Борис. Психология овладения иностранным языком. Минск: Вышэйшая школа, 1974.

6. [Benediktov, Boris. Psikhologiya ovladeniya inostrannym yazykom. Minsk: Vysheyshaya shkola, 1974.]

7. Ванников, Юрий. «Проблемы адекватности перевода: Типы адекватности, виды перевода и переводческой деятельности». [В:] А.Д. Швейцер (отв. ред.) Текст и перевод. М., 1988, 34-37.

8. [Vannikov, Yuriy. «Problemy adekvatnosti perevoda: Tipy adekvatnosti, vidy perevoda i perevodcheskoy deyatel'nosti». [V:] A.D. Shveytser (otv. red.) Tekst i perevod. M., 1988, 34-37.].

9. Виноградов, Венедикт. Введение в переводоведение (общие и лексические вопросы). Москва: Издательство института общего среднего образования РАО, 2001.

10. [Vinogradov, Venedikt. Vvedeniye v perevodovedeniye (obshchiye i leksicheskiye voprosy). Moskva: Izdatel'stvo instituta obshchego srednego obrazovaniya RAO, 2001.]

11. Воюцкая, Александра. «Процесс принятия решений в переводе: приемлемость и предпочтительность». Вестник Московского университета. Серия 22. Теория перевода 3, 2018: 3-16.

12. [Voyutskaya, Aleksandra. «Protsess prinyatiya resheniy v perevode: priyemlemost' i predpochtitel'nost'». VestnikMoskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 22. Teoriyaperevoda 3, 2018: 3-16.] Гарбовский, Николай. «Системологическая модель науки о переводе. Трансдисциплинар- ность и система научных знаний». Вестник Московского университета. Серия 22. Теория перевода 1, 2015: 3-20.

13. [Garbovskiy, Nikolay. «Sistemologicheskaya model' nauki o perevode. Transdistsiplinarnost' i sistema nauchnykh znaniy». Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 22. Teoriya perevoda 1, 2015: 3-20.].

14. Гарбовский, Николай. Теория перевода. Москва: Издательство Московского университета, 2004.

15. [Garbovskiy, Nikolay. Teoriya perevoda. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 2004.] Гончаренко, Людмила. «Сутність поняття «переклад» в міждисциплінарному та перекладознавчому аспектах». Молодий вчений 11(51), 2017: 196-201.

16. [Honcharenko, Lyudmyla. «Sutnist' ponyattya «pereklad» v mizhdystsyplinarnomu ta perekladoznavchomu aspektakh». Molodyy vchenyy 11(51), 2017: 196-201.].

17. Евтеев, Сергей. «Перевод: эквивалентно - насколько возможно, и адекватно - насколько нужно». Вестник Брянского государственного университета 1(31), 2017: 262-267.

18. [Evteyev, Sergey. «Perevod: ekvivalentno - naskol'ko vozmozhno, i adekvatno - naskol'ko nuzhno». VestnikBryanskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 1(31), 2017: 262-267.].

19. Зимняя, Ирина. Лингвопсихология речевой деятельности. Москва: Московский психологосоциальный институт, Воронеж: НПО «МОДЭК», 2001.

20. [Zimnyaya, Irina. Lingvopsikhologiya rechevoy deyatel'nosti. Moskva: Moskovskiy psikhologo- sotsial'nyy institut, Voronezh: NPO «MOD-EK», 2001.].

21. Кияк, Тарас, Науменко, Анатолій, Огуй, Олександр. Перекладознавство (німецько-український напрям). Київ: ВПЦ «Київський університет», 2008.

22. [Kyyak, Taras, Naumenko, Anatoliy, Ohuy, Oleksandr. Perekladoznavstvo (nimets'ko-ukrayins'kyy napryam). Kyyiv: VPTs «Kyyivs'kyy universytet», 2008.].

23. Комиссаров, Вилен. Современное переводоведение. Москва: Издательство «ЭТС», 2002. [Komissarov, Vilen. Sovremennoye perevodovedeniye. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo «ETS», 2002.] Коптілов, Віктор. «Художній переклад і структурна типологія». Мовознавство 5, 1969: 2935.

24. [Koptilov, Viktor. «Khudozhniy pereklad i strukturna typolohiya». Movoznavstvo 5, 1969: 2935.].

25. Коптілов, Віктор. Першотвір і переклад: Роздуми і спостереження. Київ: Дніпро, 1972. [Koptilov, Viktor. Pershotvir i pereklad: Rozdumy i sposterezhennya. Kyyiv: Dnipro, 1972.] Кушнерук, Сергей. «Прикладная лингвистика: вызовы XXI века». Вестник Волгоградского государственного университета. Серия 2. Языкознание 16(2), 2017: 6-17.

26. [Kushneruk, Sergey. «Prikladnaya lingvistika: vyzovy XXI veka». Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 2. Yazykoznaniye 16(2), 2017: 6-17.].

27. Латышев, Лев, Семенов, Аркадий. Перевод: теория, практика и методика преподавания. Москва: ИЦ «Академия», 2003.

28. [Latyshev, Lev, Semenov, Arkadiy. Perevod: teoriya, praktika i metodika prepodavaniya. Moskva: ITS «Akademiya», 2003.].

29. Левый, Иржи. Искусство перевода. Москва: Прогресс, 1974.

30. [Levyy, Irzhi. Iskusstvo perevoda. Moskva: Progress, 1974.].

31. Людсканов, Александър. Превеждат човекът и машината. София: Наука и изкуство, 1967. [Lyudskanov, Aleksandьr. Prevezhdat chovekьt i mashinata. Sofie: Nauka i izkustvo, 1967.] Миньяр-Белоручев, Рюрик. Общая теория перевода и устный перевод. Москва: Воениздат, 1980.

32. [Min'yar-Beloruchev, Ryurik. Obshchaya teoriya perevoda i ustnyy perevod. Moskva: Voyenizdat, 1980.].

33. Мунэн, Жорж. «Теоретические проблемы перевода. Перевод как языковой контакт». [В:] В.Н. Комиссаров (ред.) Вопросы теории перевода в зарубежной лингвистике. Москва: Международные отношения, 1978, 36-41.

34. [Munen, Zhorzh. «Teoreticheskiye problemy perevoda. Perevod kak yazykovoy kontakt». [V:] V.N. Komissarov (red.) Voprosy teorii perevoda v zarubezhnoy lingvistike. Moskva: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya, 1978, 36-41.].

35. Назмутдинова, Светлана. Гармония как переводческая категория (на материале русского, английского, французского кинодискурса): автореф. дисс. ... к. филол. н.: 10.02.20. Тюмень, 2008.

36. [Nazmutdinova, Svetlana. Garmoniya kak perevodcheskaya kategoriya (na materiale russkogo, angliyskogo, frantsuzskogo kinodiskursa): avtoref. diss. ... k. filol. n.: 10.02.20. Tyumen', 2008.].

37. Новиков, Анатолий. Текст и его смысловые доминанты. Москва: Институт языкознания РАН, 2007.

38. [Novikov, Anatoliy. Tekst i ego smyslovyye dominanty. Moskva: Institut yazykoznaniya RAN, 2007.].

39. Пешкова, Наталья. «Перевод как средство экспликации стратегий понимания иноязычного письменного текста». [В:] Теория и практика перевода и профессиональной подготовки переводчиков. Пермь: ПГТУ, 2006, 54-61.

40. [Peshkova, Natal'ya. «Perevod kak sredstvo eksplikatsii strategiy ponimaniya inoyazychnogo pis'mennogo teksta». [V:] Teoriya i praktika perevoda i professional'noy podgotovki perevodchikov. Perm': PGTU, 2006, 54-61.].

41. Ребрій, Олександр. Сучасні концепції творчості у перекладі. Харків: ХНУ імені В.Н. Каразіна, 2012.

42. [Rebriy, Oleksandr. Suchasni kontseptsiyi tvorchosti u perekladi. Kharkiv: KhNU imeni V.N. Karazina, 2012.].

43. Рецкер, Яков. Теория перевода и переводческая практика. Москва: Международные отношения, 1974.

44. [Retsker, Yakov. Teoriya perevoda i perevodcheskaya praktika. Moskva: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya, 1974.].

45. Сдобников, Вадим. Перевод и коммуникативная ситуация. Москва: ФЛИНТА: Наука, 2015.

46. [Sdobnikov, Vadim. Perevod i kommunikativnaya situatsiya. Moskva: FLINTA: Nauka, 2015.].

47. Селіванова, Олена. «Метафоричні трансформації в перекладі (на матеріалі роману М. Булгакова «Майстер і Маргарита» та його українського перекладу)». Записки з романо-германської філології 1(34), 2015: 158-166.

48. [Selivanova, Olena. «Metaforychni transformatsiyi v perekladi (na materiali romanu M. Bulhakova «Mayster i Marharyta» ta yoho ukrayins'koho perekladu)». Zapysky z romano-hermans'koyi filolohiyi 1(34), 2015: 158-166.].

49. Федоров, Андрей. Основы общей теории перевода (Лингвистические проблемы). Москва: Высшая школа, 1983.

50. [Fedorov, Andrey. Osnovy obshchey teorii perevoda (Lingvisticheskiye problemy). Moskva: Vysshaya shkola, 1983.].

51. Червінко, Євген. «Зміст понять «переклад» та «усний послідовний переклад» як об'єктів навчання майбутніх перекладачів». Педагогічні науки 3(59), 2013: 81-87.

52. [Chervinko, Yevhen. «Zmist ponyat' «pereklad» ta «usnyy poslidovnyy pereklad» yak ob”yektiv navchannya maybutnikh perekladachiv». Pedahohichni nauky 3(59), 2013: 81-87.].

53. Швейцер, Александр. Теория перевода: статус, проблемы, аспекты. Москва: Наука, 1988.

54. [Shveytser, Aleksandr. Teoriya perevoda: status, problemy, aspekty. Moskva: Nauka, 1988.].

55. Шлепнев, Дмитрий. Общая теория перевода: начала. Часть I.Н. Новгород: НГЛУ, 2016.

56. [Shlepnev, Dmitriy. Obshchaya teoriya perevoda: nachala. Chast' I.N. Novgorod: NGLU, 2016.].

57. Шлепнев, Дмитрий. «Переводческая деятельность и целеполагание. Часть I. Почему перевод рассматривается не только как речевая деятельность». Перспективы науки и образования 1(31), 2018: 172-176.

58. [Shlepnev, Dmitriy. «Perevodcheskaya deyatel'nost' i tselepolaganiye. Chast' I. Pochemu perevod rassmatrivayetsya ne tol'ko kak rechevaya deyatel'nost'». Perspektivy nauki i obrazovaniya 1(31), 2018:172-176].

59. Яковлев, Андрей. Психолингвистические аспекты перевода. Красноярск: Сибирский федеральный университет, 2015.

60. [Yakovlev, Andrey. Psikholingvisticheskiye aspekty perevoda. Krasnoyarsk: Sibirskiy federal'nyy universitet, 2015.].

61. Darwish, Ali. Optimality in Translation. Ali Darwish. Melbourne: Writescope Publishers, 2008.

62. Nida, Eugene. Toward a Science of Translating, with Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1964.

63. Nida, Eugene, Taber, Charles. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969.

64. Sйleskovitch, Danica, Lederer, Marianne. Interprйter pour traduire. Paris: Didier Erudition, 1984.

Размещено на Allbest.ru