COGNITIVE AND DISCURSIVE FACTORS OF REGULARITIES IN TRANSLATION
Abstract
The article attempts to analyse the cognitive and discursive factors of deforming tendencies interpreted as regularities in translation. This study aims to discover the cognitive factors of the emergence of these translation regularities in the translation of literary texts. Translation regularities should be considered as features present in the target language that are inherent in the translation process and absent in the source language, encoded by linguistic units with procedural meaning. According to Halverson (2010), their nature is related to how the translator processes the linguistic material. These units include conjunctions, prepositions, particles, and interjections, but also products of grammaticalisation – discourse markers (connectives), modal words, and pronouns. These encoders of procedural meaning are the focus of our attention because they are verbal markers of translation regularities that, due to their properties, are not subject to conscious control by the translator during their work. Focusing on the cognitive aspects of the translator's activity seems to be fruitful since finding out the difference in the proportion of functional words, cognitive complexity and shifts in the deictic "axis" in the translated discourse is evidence in favour of the presence of a "third code" (Frawley, 1984) in the translated version, whose language becomes artificial because it has the features of the source language. Experienced translators, who rely mainly on implicit information processing, have integrated coordination of the processes of understanding the source text and producing the target version. They can instantly predict the further course of events in the source text and choose the appropriate processing method based on the statistically more frequent and significant neural connections reflected in their previous experience. Student translators, by contrast, due to their not so rich experience, prefer explicit (controlled), consistent coordination of their cognitive steps in interpreting the source text and generating their target version at the stage of L2 text synthesis. Over time, as translators become more proficient, they gradually shift from using a controlled (arbitrary) horizontal data processing mechanism to an automated (non-arbitrary) one.
References
2. Булатецька Л. І. Теорія і теоретизація у лінгвістиці. Вінниця : Нова книга, 2004.176 с.
3. Жаботинська С. А. Мовні знаки як конструкти. Науковий вісник Чернівецького університету. Германська філологія. 2012. Вип. 630-631. С. 213-222.
4. Засєкін С. В. Психолінгвальні закономірності відтворення художнього тексту в перекладі (на матеріалі англійської та української мов). Дис. д-ра філол. н. Харків: ХНУ імені В. Н. Каразіна. 486 p.
5. Мартинюк А. П. Когнітивно-комунікативна лінгвістика: в пошуках базових принципів і методик аналіза. Когніція, комунікація, дискурс. 2016. № 12. С. 17-35.
6. Ahrens B. Neurolinguistics and interpreting. In Y. Gambier, L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies, Vol. 2. Amsterdam : John Benjamins, 2011. P. 105-107.
7. Ahrens B., Kalderon E., Krick C. M., Reith W. fMRI for exploring simultaneous interpreting. In D. Gile, G. Hansen & N. K. Pokorn (Eds). Why Translation Studiesmatters? Amsterdam/Philadelphia : John Benjamins, 2010. P. 237-247.
8. Alves F. (2007). Cognitive effort and contextual effect in translation: a relevance-theoretic approach. Journal of Translation Studies, 2007. Vol. 10(1). P. 18–35.
9. Alves F., Gonçalves J. L. (2013). Investigating the conceptual-procedural distinction inthe translation process. Target, 2013. Vol. 25(1). P. 107–124.
10. Alves F., Gonçalves J., & Szpak K. Some thoughts about theconceptual/procedural distinction in translation: a keylogging and eye-tracking study of processing effort. MonTI Special Issue – Minding Translation, 2014. P. 151– 175.
11. Alves F., Szpak K. S., Gonçalves J. L., Sekino K., Aquino M., Castro R. A., et. al. Investigating cognitive effort in post-editing: A relevance-theoretical approach. In S. Hansen-Schirra & S. Grucza (Eds.). Eyetracking and Applied Linguistics. Berlin: Language Science Press, 2016. P. 109-142.
12. Blakemore D. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers, Vol. 99. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2002. 212 p.
13. De Groot, A. M. B. The cognitive study of translation and interpretation: Threeapproaches. In H. J. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain, M. K. McBeath (Eds). Cognitive Processingin Translation and Interpreting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997. P. 25-56.
14. Dragsted, B. Coordination of reading and writing processes in translation. In G.M. Shreve & E. Angelone (Eds.).Translation and Cognition. Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 2010. P. 41-62
15. Favreau, M., Segalowitz, N.S. Automatic and controlled processes in the first- andsecond-language reading of fluent bilinguals. Memory & Cognition, 1983. Vol. 11(6), P. 565–574.
16. Frawley, W. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Translation. In W. Frawley, Ed. Translation: Literary, Linguistic, and Philosophical Perspectives. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1984. P. 54-98.
17. Halverson S. (1998). Translation Studies and representative corpora: establishing linksbetween translation corpora, theoretical/descriptive categories and a conception of theobject of study. Meta, 1998. Vol. 43(4). P. 631–651.
18. Halverson S. The cognitive basis of translation universals. Target. 2003. Vol. 15(2). P. 197-241.
19. Halverson, S. Cognitive translation studies: Developments in theory and method. Translation and Cognition. In G. Shreve, E. Angelone, (Eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2010. P. 349-369.
20. Halverson, S.Gravitational pull in translation. Testing a revised model. In G.De Sutter, M.A. Lefer, I. Delaere, (Eds). Empirical Translation Studies: NewMethodological and Theoretical Traditions. Berlin: DeGruyter, 2017. P. 9-45.
21. Hvelplund, K. Eye tracking in translation process research. In J.W. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The Handbook of Translation and Cognition. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017. P. 248-264.
22. Jackendoff R. (2007). Language, Consciousness, Culture. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 403p.
23. Kurz I. Simultandolmetschen als Gegenstand der interdisziplinären Forschung.Vienna: WUV, 1996.
24. Langacker R.W. Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. 562 p.
25. Nicolle S. (1998). A relevance theory perspective on grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics. 1998. Vol. 9(1). P. 1–35.
26. Olohan M., Baker M. Reporting that in translated English. Evidence forsubconscious processes of explicitation? Across Languages and Cultures, 2000. Vol. 1(2), P. 141–158.
27. Paradis M. Prerequisites to a study of neurolinguistic processes involved insimultaneous interpreting. A synopsis. In B. Englund Dimitrova & K. Hyltenstam. (Eds.). Language processing and simultaneous interpreting: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia : John Benjamins, 2000. P. 17-24.
28. Paradis M. A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004. 299 p.
29. Paradis M. Declarative and Procedural Determinants of Second Languages. Amsterdam : John Benjamins, 2009. 220 p.
30. Parret H. Deixis and shifters after Jakobson. In L. R. Waugh, S. Rudy, (Eds.). Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Vol. 49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1991. P. 321-340.
31. Pennebaker J.W., Boyd R.L., Jordan K., & Blackburn K. The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, 2015. 26 p.
32. Pym A. Exploring translation theories. NewYork: Routledge, 2014. 178 p.
33. Roehr K. Linguistic and metalinguistic categories in second language learning.Cognitive Linguistics. 2008. Vol. 19. P. 67-106.
34. Segalowitz N. Automaticity and attentional skill in fluent performance. Perspectives on Fluency. H. Riggenbach (Ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000. P. 200-219.
35. Sperber, D, Wilson, D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995. 338 p.
36. Toury, G. Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2012. 350 p.
37. Wilson, D. The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future. In V. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti & A. Ahern (Eds.). Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Bingley: Emerald, 2011. P. 3-31.
