The Common and the Specific in the Translation of Pragmatic Clichés
PDF (English)

Słowa kluczowe

pragmatic clichés
translation
common and specific
equivalence and adequacy
non-equivalence

Jak cytować

Balandina, N. (2020). The Common and the Specific in the Translation of Pragmatic Clichés. Bibliotekarz Podlaski, 47(2), 265-281. https://doi.org/10.36770/bp.482

Abstrakt

The object of the analysis is pragmatic clichés. Their linguistic behavioral nature serves as an example to demonstrate subtleties of Czech-Ukrainian translation and is based on the differentiation of the common and the specific, systemizing the specific which causes most translation difficulties. Among the common features we can specify are: the presence of explicit or implicit performatives in the structure of clichés; speech act specificity; the connection with stereotypical communicative situations and culturally defined standards of behavior; perception of communicative success in different spheres and at different stages; retranslation of ethical and cultural meanings; the obligatory nature of the recipient’s reaction, at least, in the form of ‘received’. The specific is presented as a set of attributes different from the attributes of an analogous unit of the target language; it should demonstrate quantitative and qualitative definiteness. The study shows the way the specific can cause interest, occasionally cognitive dissonance, and cases when it can hinder full-fledged communication. The specific has been described in the context of issues of translation equivalence and adequacy. It has been proved that the vocabulary significative equivalent is only one possibility among the abundance of reference variants connected with specific contexts. Taking verbs as an example, the paper offers possible approaches to rendering grammatical meanings which are abstract by their nature and require taking into consideration different nuances and subtleties, including frequency of usage. Zero equivalence is presented as the highest degree of expressing the specific. This idea is proved using the translations of wishes which include the lexemes рушник (lit. ‘towel/ cloth’) and доля (lit. ‘fate’) in the Ukrainian language. The common and the specific are characteristic for both the linguistic model and the communicative model of translating pragmatic clichés. But it is the specific which offers most resistance in the process of rendering linguistic units. 

https://doi.org/10.36770/bp.482
PDF (English)

Bibliografia

Apresyan, Yu. D. (1995). Izbrannyye trudy: v 2 t., Tom 2, Integral’noye opisaniye yazyka i sistemnaya leksikografiya, Moskva.

Baider, F. (2013). Cultural Stereotypes and Linguistic Clichés: Their Usefulness. Intercultural Competency. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 4(2), 1166–1171.

Balandina, N. F. (2002). Funktsiyi i znachennya ches’kykh prahmatychnykh klishe v komunikatyvnomu konteksti: monohrafiya. Kyyiv.

Fasmer, M. (1987). Etimologicheskiy slovar’ russkogo yazyka: v 4 t., Tom 3, Moskva.

Havránka B. (hlavního redaktora), Běliče, J., Helcla M., &. Jedličky A. (Eds.). (1960– 1971, 1989). Slovník spisovného jazyka českého. http://ssjc.ujc.cas.cz/

Mizin, K. I., & Petrov, O. O. (2018). Zistavna linhvokul’turolohiya: metodolohichni problemy ta perspektyvni metodyky: monohrafiya, Pereyaslav-Khmel’nyts’kyy, Vinnytsya, Kremenchuk.

Nayda, Yu. (1978). K nauke perevodit’. In Voprosy teorii perevoda v zarubezhnoy lingvistike (pp. 114-136). Moskva.

Nelyubin, L. L. (2007). Vvedenie v tekhniku perevoda. Moskva.

Ostin, Dzh. L. (1986). Slovo kak deystviye. In B. Yu. Gorodetskogo (Ed.), Novoye v zarubezhnoy lingvistike, Vyp.17: Teoriya rechevykh aktov, obshch (pp. 22-130). Moskva.

Retsker, Ya. I. (2007). Teoriya perevoda i perevodcheskaya praktika. Ocherki lingvisticheskoi teorii perevoda. Moskva.

Romanyuk, N. (2017). Dyferencijni ta klasyfikacijni oznaky movnoyi klishovanoyi odynyci. Visnyk Zaporizkogo nacionalnogo universytetu. Seriya ‘Filologichni nauky’, 1, 177–182.

Safiullina, G. R. (2018). Sposoby perevoda pragmaticheskih klishe s tatarskogo yazyka na russkij yazik. Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, 9(87), ch. 1, 166-169. http://www.gramota.net/materials/2/2018/9-1/37.html

Sdobnikov, V. V., & Petrova, O. V. (2001). Teoriya perevoda: Uchebnik dlya perevodcheskikh fakul’tetov i fakul’tetov inostrannykh yazykov, N. Novgorod.

Serl’, Dzh. R. (1986). Chto takoye rechevoy akt? In B. Yu. Gorodetskogo (Ed.), Novoye v zarubezhnoy lingvistike, Vyp. 17: Teoriya rechevykh aktov, obshch (pp. 151-169). Moskva.

Slovar’ ukrayins’koyi movy, Uporyadkuvav Borys Hrinchenko: v 4 t., Tom 4, Kyyiv 1997. Slovnyk ukrayins’koyi movy: v 11 t., Tom 2 (1971). Kyyiv. http://sum.in.ua/s/dolja

Slovnyk ukrayins’koyi movy: v 11 t., Tom 8 (1977). Kyyiv. http://sum.in.ua/s/rushnyk

Zhayvoronok, V. V. (2006). Znaky ukrayins’koyi etnokul’tury. In Slovnyk-dovidnyk (pp. 192-194). Kyyiv.

Creative Commons License

Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Na tych samych warunkach 4.0 Miedzynarodowe.

Pobrania

Download data is not yet available.