METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF TRANSLATIONAL TEXT ANALYSIS

Iryna Mykolaiivna Navrotska

doi:10.32999/ksu2663-3426/2019-1-32

Iryna Mykolaiivna Navrotska

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32999/ksu2663-3426/2019-1-32

Keywords: translation methodology, field, tenor, mode, evaluative criteria

Abstract

The article represents the discussion of theoretical and methodological aspects and the results of the survey, which was conducted to determine syllabus peculiarities of translational text analysis as a course of limited choice for the third year students of foreign philology department. Despite that, the research being undertaken in this branch of translational methodology is relatively new but rather extensive, there is a lack of consistent approaches to the various models of translational analysis of texts pertaining to different contexts of culture and situation. The methodology presupposed translation brief involving situational factors followed by gradual critical reading model of translational text analysis according to field, tenor, and mode strands of macro- and microtextual meanings. The aim of translational analysis and the procedure depended on text typology according to the register, field of expertise, and verbal or nominal character, factors of coherence and cohesion. With some modifications not undermining the approach, this model was suggested as a universal one and proved to be effective. In fact, the students were provided with the plan and text samples, which were assigned and analyzed together with the lecturer. During the verification stage, the students were invited to fill out the anonymous questionnaire containing a set of evaluative questions and statements. The obtained results demonstrate that the students distinguished the main comprehension difficulties as those connected with terminology and the scholars’ contributions, whereas the course was mostly regarded as useful and topical regardless of the fact that the majority of students do not have substantial experience and their idea of professional activities as translators is still vague. The respondents also denoted the aspects of lecture rhetorics to be improved and suggested the text types they would like to add as the most challenging. Interestingly, the students especially liked analyzing parallel newspaper texts

References

1. Allen M. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. 2017. Vol. 1. URL: https://books.google. com.ua/books?id=4GFCDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1754&lpg=PA 1754&dq=Mike+Allen+Textual+analysis&source=bl&ots=F eJrcdJipH&sig=ACfU3U3xzKHlj5Uqto9nVJ4eAerqPIRWQ &hl=ru&sa=&ved=2aUKEwi9kOf_6LThAhVxoosKHRHgBu 8Q6AEwAnoECAgQAQ#v=onpage&q=Mike%20Allen%20 Textual%20analysis&f=false. (Last accessed 25.04.2019).
2. Arntz R.“Interlingualer Fachsprachenvergleich und Übersetzen” In M. Snell Hornby, F. Pӧchhaker, and K. Kaindl (eds), Translation Studies, An Interdiscipline. 1992. Amsterdam: Benjamins. P. 235–246.
3. Bell R.T. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. 1991. London/New York : Longman. 298 p.
4. Canzhong Wu. Discourse and Text Analysis for Translators and Interpreters. 2017. URL: http://handbook.mq.edu.au/2017/ Units/PGUnit/TRAN880. (Last accessed 20.04.2019).
5. Careless B.J. Rediscovering Text Analysis in Translator Training and Further Training – a Macro-Textual and Micro- Textual Approach. 2014. P. 396–404. URL: https:// www. academia.edu/11315998/Rediscovering
6. _Text_Analysis_in_Translator_Training_and_Further_ Training_a_Macro-Textual_and_Micro-Textual_Approach. (Last accessed 20.04.2019).
7. Catford J.C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford: OUP, 1965. 103 p.
8. Halliday M.A.K., McIntosh A. Patterns of Language: Papers in General, Descriptive and Applied Linguistics. London: Longmans, 1966. 199 p.
9. Halliday M.A.K. and Hasan R. Cohesion in English. London, 1976. Longman. 374 p.
10. House J. “How do we know when a translation is good?”, in Steiner, E. & C. Yallop. 2001. P. 127–160.
11. Kim M. Text Analysis for Translation. 2017. URL: https:// hal.arts.unsw.edu.au/media/HALFile/MODL5106_2017_ S1.pdf. (Last accessed 20.04.2019).
12. Коптілов В.В. Першотвір і переклад. Роздуми та спосте¬реження. Київ: Дніпро, 1972. 215 с.
13. Manfredi M. Translating Text and Context. Translation Studies and Systemic Functional Linguistics. Bologna : CeSLiC, 2008. 97 p.
14. Mastnà E. The nature of scientific and technical texts from the viewpoint of translation studies. Tomas Bata University in Zlìn, 2010. 73 p.
15. Munday J. Introducing Translation Studies. Routledge, 2001. 222 p.
16. Newmark P. A Textbook of Translation. Prentice Hall, 1988. 292 p.
17. Nida E. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden : E.J. Brill. Netherlands, 1964. 331 p.
18. Nord C. Text analysis in translation: theory, methodology, and didactic application of a model for translation-oriented text analysis. Amsterdam/New York, NY : Rodopi, 1991. 250 p.
19. Nord C. Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Manchester : St. Jerome, 1997. 154 p.
20. RTU. Course “Modern Methods of Text Analysis”. 2017. URL: https://www.rtu.lv/writable/public_files/RTU_via605_ teksta_analizes_modernas_metodes.pdf. (Last accessed 20.04.2019).
21. Schäffner Ch. Text Analysis for Translation. 2011. URL: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sour ce=web&cd=5&ved=2ahUKEwjajJya9eHhAhXBo4sKHS8 4A3cQFjAEegQIAxAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aston. ac.uk%2FEasySiteWeb%2FGatewayLink.aspx%3FalId% 3D100805&usg=AOvVaw0yVSpdRXwFhUvw94lpHMKf. (Last accessed 20.04.2019).
22. Шмігер Т.В. До питання перекладознавчого аналізу: історія та методологія. Харків: Видавничий центр “ХАІ”, 2003. С. 199–201.
23. Trosborg A. Analysing professional genres. John Benjamins Publishing, 2000. 272 p.
24. Wallace C. Critical literacy awareness in the EFL classroom. In Fairclough N. (Ed.), Critical language awareness. London and New York : Longman, 1992. P. 59–93.
25. Wallace C. Critical reading in language education. New York : Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. 217 p. DOI: 10.1057/9780230514447. (Last accessed 20.04.2019).