查尔斯·皮尔斯《论新类别》乌克兰语翻译中的元语言翻译

N. Andreichuk
{"title":"查尔斯·皮尔斯《论新类别》乌克兰语翻译中的元语言翻译","authors":"N. Andreichuk","doi":"10.28925/2311-2425.2020.144","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article substantiates the choice of Ukrainian equivalents for rendering “terminological jargon” of an outstanding American philosopher and semiotician Charles Sanders Peirce. The analysis is conducted on the basis of the Ukrainian translation of his paper “On a New List of Categories” (1867) made by the author of the article. Peirce’s theory of signs greatly depends on his doctrine of categories, since it informs or inspires virtually all of his classifications of signs (e.g., that of iconical, indexical, and symbolic signs). Thus, an adequate understanding of Peirce’s semiotic or (as he most often spelled it) semeiotic is impossible apart from at least a working knowledge of the Peircean categories discussed in “On a New List of Categories”. This paper has not been translated into Ukrainian before and as it is Peirce’s earliest significant attempt at an account of signs it may be of special interest for Ukrainian semioticians.\n\nThe article is aimed at suggesting methodology for overcoming difficulties that the translation of Peirce’s metalanguage poses for a Ukrainian translator because of the absence of generally accepted Ukrainian terminology in the field. Specific concerns involved in the translation of Peirce’s terminology are discussed and terminological equivalents are suggested. The author claims that to capture the desired equivalence the translator has to identify the meaning of concepts that shape the knowledge domain and are verbalized by means of “technical dictionary” of this particular domain. Using different dictionaries and conducting additional research of the definitions suggested by different scholars the author substantiates the choice of equivalents in the target language. If several equivalents can be discovered in the Ukrainian scholarly discourse in the relevant field, the author provides arguments to support her choice though emphasizes that her suggestions are open and actually need further discussion by scholarly community. The key principle advocated by the author is that the translator should comply with the laws of terminology formation in the target language which means avoiding the use of borrowed forms and offering a native equivalent. For example, подоба for icon or вказівник for index. The terms are analyzed in order of their occurrence in the article.","PeriodicalId":377023,"journal":{"name":"Studia Philologica","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rendering of Charles Peirce’s metalanguage in Ukrainian translation of his article “On a New List of Categories”\",\"authors\":\"N. Andreichuk\",\"doi\":\"10.28925/2311-2425.2020.144\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article substantiates the choice of Ukrainian equivalents for rendering “terminological jargon” of an outstanding American philosopher and semiotician Charles Sanders Peirce. The analysis is conducted on the basis of the Ukrainian translation of his paper “On a New List of Categories” (1867) made by the author of the article. Peirce’s theory of signs greatly depends on his doctrine of categories, since it informs or inspires virtually all of his classifications of signs (e.g., that of iconical, indexical, and symbolic signs). Thus, an adequate understanding of Peirce’s semiotic or (as he most often spelled it) semeiotic is impossible apart from at least a working knowledge of the Peircean categories discussed in “On a New List of Categories”. This paper has not been translated into Ukrainian before and as it is Peirce’s earliest significant attempt at an account of signs it may be of special interest for Ukrainian semioticians.\\n\\nThe article is aimed at suggesting methodology for overcoming difficulties that the translation of Peirce’s metalanguage poses for a Ukrainian translator because of the absence of generally accepted Ukrainian terminology in the field. Specific concerns involved in the translation of Peirce’s terminology are discussed and terminological equivalents are suggested. The author claims that to capture the desired equivalence the translator has to identify the meaning of concepts that shape the knowledge domain and are verbalized by means of “technical dictionary” of this particular domain. Using different dictionaries and conducting additional research of the definitions suggested by different scholars the author substantiates the choice of equivalents in the target language. If several equivalents can be discovered in the Ukrainian scholarly discourse in the relevant field, the author provides arguments to support her choice though emphasizes that her suggestions are open and actually need further discussion by scholarly community. The key principle advocated by the author is that the translator should comply with the laws of terminology formation in the target language which means avoiding the use of borrowed forms and offering a native equivalent. For example, подоба for icon or вказівник for index. The terms are analyzed in order of their occurrence in the article.\",\"PeriodicalId\":377023,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studia Philologica\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studia Philologica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.28925/2311-2425.2020.144\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Philologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.28925/2311-2425.2020.144","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

文章对美国杰出哲学家、符号学家查尔斯·桑德斯·皮尔斯的“术语术语”选择乌克兰语进行了论证。分析是在乌克兰语翻译他的论文“on a New List of Categories”(1867)的基础上进行的。皮尔斯的符号理论在很大程度上依赖于他的范畴学说,因为它告诉或启发了他几乎所有的符号分类(例如,象征符号、索引符号和象征符号)。因此,要充分理解皮尔斯的符号学或(正如他经常拼写的那样)符号学是不可能的,除非至少对皮尔斯在“新类别列表”中讨论的类别有实际的了解。这篇论文之前没有被翻译成乌克兰语,因为它是皮尔斯最早对符号的重要尝试,它可能对乌克兰符号学家特别感兴趣。本文旨在提出一种方法,以克服由于在该领域缺乏普遍接受的乌克兰术语而导致的翻译皮尔斯元语言给乌克兰翻译人员带来的困难。讨论了皮尔斯术语翻译中涉及的具体问题,并提出了相应的术语。作者认为,为了获得期望的对等,译者必须识别形成知识领域的概念的含义,并通过该特定领域的“技术词典”来表达。作者使用不同的词典,并对不同学者提出的定义进行了进一步的研究,从而证实了译语中对等物的选择。如果在乌克兰相关领域的学术话语中可以找到几个对等的,作者提供了论据来支持她的选择,但强调她的建议是开放的,实际上需要学术界进一步讨论。作者主张的关键原则是译者应遵循译入语的术语形成规律,即避免使用借来的形式,提供与原文对等的形式。例如,подоб为图标或ваказівник指数。这些术语是按照它们在文章中出现的顺序进行分析的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rendering of Charles Peirce’s metalanguage in Ukrainian translation of his article “On a New List of Categories”
The article substantiates the choice of Ukrainian equivalents for rendering “terminological jargon” of an outstanding American philosopher and semiotician Charles Sanders Peirce. The analysis is conducted on the basis of the Ukrainian translation of his paper “On a New List of Categories” (1867) made by the author of the article. Peirce’s theory of signs greatly depends on his doctrine of categories, since it informs or inspires virtually all of his classifications of signs (e.g., that of iconical, indexical, and symbolic signs). Thus, an adequate understanding of Peirce’s semiotic or (as he most often spelled it) semeiotic is impossible apart from at least a working knowledge of the Peircean categories discussed in “On a New List of Categories”. This paper has not been translated into Ukrainian before and as it is Peirce’s earliest significant attempt at an account of signs it may be of special interest for Ukrainian semioticians. The article is aimed at suggesting methodology for overcoming difficulties that the translation of Peirce’s metalanguage poses for a Ukrainian translator because of the absence of generally accepted Ukrainian terminology in the field. Specific concerns involved in the translation of Peirce’s terminology are discussed and terminological equivalents are suggested. The author claims that to capture the desired equivalence the translator has to identify the meaning of concepts that shape the knowledge domain and are verbalized by means of “technical dictionary” of this particular domain. Using different dictionaries and conducting additional research of the definitions suggested by different scholars the author substantiates the choice of equivalents in the target language. If several equivalents can be discovered in the Ukrainian scholarly discourse in the relevant field, the author provides arguments to support her choice though emphasizes that her suggestions are open and actually need further discussion by scholarly community. The key principle advocated by the author is that the translator should comply with the laws of terminology formation in the target language which means avoiding the use of borrowed forms and offering a native equivalent. For example, подоба for icon or вказівник for index. The terms are analyzed in order of their occurrence in the article.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信