1 / 16

A. Chesterman (2004): S-universals T-universals

Serhii Zasiekin Lesia Ukrainka East European National University, Ukraine PSYCHOLINGUISTIC PROSPECTS OF TRANSLATION UNIVERSALS. A. Chesterman (2004): S-universals T-universals. Data Franny by J. D. Salinger, its translations into Ukrainian by forty novice translators (students).

alissa
Download Presentation

A. Chesterman (2004): S-universals T-universals

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SerhiiZasiekinLesiaUkrainka East European National University,UkrainePSYCHOLINGUISTIC PROSPECTS OF TRANSLATION UNIVERSALS

  2. A. Chesterman (2004): • S-universals • T-universals

  3. Data Franny by J. D. Salinger, its translations into Ukrainian by forty novice translators (students). Literary works by Lesia Ukrainka, Yurii Pokal’chuk, Mark Twain, Dan Brown, and their respective English and Ukrainian versions.

  4. METHODS • a ‘think aloud protocol’ (TAP) analysis • method of free word association test • content analysis • psycholinguistic text analysis

  5. Participants (translators) Group 1 34 undergraduate students majoring in English-Ukrainian translation were selected for the purpose of the TAP-study aiming to establish the procedural S-universals. Group 2 40 undergraduate students majoring in English-Ukrainian translation. They were selected for the purpose of establishing the discursive S-universals.

  6. Intuition uncontrolled working space neural connections prototypes ОЛЬОВАНИЙ ЧИЙ ПРОСТІР TRANSLATOR’S PERSONALITY Dominant perceptual channel (visual–auditory–kinaesthetic) Cognitive style Affective unit Archetypes Model of situation Visual image (schemata) pragmatic semantic grammatical SLlinguistic knowledge (rules) Inferential knowledge Encyclopedic knowledge meaning of meaning Mental representation – ST reality image Mental representation – ST proposition Cognitive unit perception Conative unit (language performance) TL linguistic knowledge (rules) TT Analysis (interpretation) of ST ST TT1 TT planning and synthesis verification of TT Fig. 1. Psycholinguistic model of literary translation

  7. cognitivism vs. connectionism

  8. analytical mechanism meets hard constraints and relies on ‘discursive’ (Pitt, 2010) rule-observing “top-down” path of processing (Solso et al. 2008).

  9. Table 1 Groups of translators based on their dominant channel of perception

  10. V-translators predominantly used words which described their visual quasi-experience: saw, show, eyes, bright, to observe, at first sight, blue, in a distance green, yellow, etc. • A-translators preferred using sound-related words such as cry, noisy, whistle, crash, sound, loud, and splash. • K-translators’ texts contained an abundance of words such as warm, cool, touch, strong, hot sand, and skin.

  11. Group 2 (40 novice translators) 22 - ‘analysts’, 14 ‘synthetic’ 4 -‘mixed’ cognitive styles.

  12. RESULTS Translators with analytical and mixed cognitive styles tended to explicate local syntactic ties between sentences by introducing conjunctions and discourse markers of local coherence into their target versions.

  13. Translators with a synthetic cognitive style applied a strategy of simplifying the source syntactic structures while introducing simple sentences into the target text instead of using their composite source counterparts.

  14. Lexically, target texts of both groups showed higher indices of exical variety, density and readability. Stylistically, those who pertained to the group with analytical cognitive style tended • to avoid repetitions, • to delete pragmatic and discourse markers of ‘global coherence’ (Lenk 1998). The overwhelming majority of their synthesis-oriented counterparts tended to • reproduce these linguistic units in their target texts.

  15. CONCLUSIONS The analysis which integrated TAP-analysis, content-related and psycholinguistic techniques showed that the translator’s brain does possess something like a ‘switching’ mechanism which enables him to apply either a ‘gestalt’ or a verbal-propositional approach to the encoding and decoding of source and target texts.

  16. S-universals include procedural and discursive regularities. The proposed psycholinguistic model can help to facilitate an understanding of the concept that translation should be viewed not merely as an algorithmic, rule-observing mental activity, but also as a heuristic, strategic and creative process. As the model incorporates both cognitivist and connectionist components, it is able to provide an insight into the way in which a translator’s memory can be trained through recurrent synapse activation, resulting in the strengthening of neuronal connections in the translator’s cerebral network and the emergence of new ones. When translating texts of fiction, the interpreter should exercise great care, since any inaccurate choice may make it impossible for the reader of the target text to arrive at an aesthetic response comparable to that of the reader of the source text.

More Related