Diachronic plurality in translation of Shakespeare’s plays: a cognitive-discursive perspective
Abstract
This paper focuses on the efficiency of cognitive-discursive approach to the study of diachronic plurality in translation on the material of Shakespeare’s plays as time-remote original texts and their chronologically distant Ukrainian retranslations of the 19th-21st centuries. Complex research methodology based on the methods of cognitive translation studies together with methodological principles of discourse analysis is implemented to reveal the influence of discursive and cognitive factors on the process and result of retranslation. Discourse analysis substantiates the discursive factor that becomes a prerequisite of diachronic plurality in translation of Shakespeare’s plays in cases when chronological and ideological, cultural and individual frameworks of the original and translated texts are different. Methods of cognitive translation studies prove the cognitive factor to become the determinant of the diachronic plurality in translation of Shakespeare’s plays because cognitive consonance or cognitive dissonance of the translators with the author’s ideas cause different interpretations of the original texts by the translators and—consequently—different degrees of cognitive proximity of the translated text with the original one. The correlation of cognitive consonance and cognitive dissonance with the degrees of cognitive proximity appears to be the following: cognitive consonance correlates with cognitive equivalents (full and partial) or cognitive analogues (functional and stylistic); cognitive dissonance correlates with cognitive variants (referential, valorative, and notional). Methodology of cognitive translation studies helps determine the translator’s choice of effective translation strategies (achaization, modernization, and neutralization of temporal distance) and tactics (reproductive or adaptive) while translating a time-remote original work.
Downloads
References
Boiko, Ya. V. (2022a). Interpretation module in the framework of the cognitive-discursive model of diachronic plurality in translation of Shakespeare’s plays. Topics in Linguistics. 23 (1), 1-14.
Boiko, Ya., & Nikonova, V. (2021). Cognitive model of the tragic in Ukrainian retranslations of Shakespeare’s plays. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 17 (2), 1034-1052.
Brownlie, S. (2006). Narrative theory and retranslation theory. Across Languages and Cultures, 7(2), 140-170.
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Farahzad, F. (1999). Plurality in translation. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED429449.pdf
Feng, L. (2014). Retranslation hypotheses revisited: A case study of two English translations of Sanguo Yanyi – the first Chinese novel. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus, 43, 69-86.
Gove, Ph. B. (2023). New Webster’s dictionary and thesaurus of the English Language. Danbury: Lexicon Publications Inc. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worth
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999). Construing experience: A language-based approach to cognition. London, New York: Continuum.
Hermans, T. (2006). Translating others. London: Routledge.
Holsanova, J. (2008). Discourse, vision, and cognition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kaiser, R. (2002). The dynamics of retranslation: Two stories. Translation Review, 63, 84-85.
Kolomiiets, L. V. (2015). Ukrayinsʹkyy khudozhniy nereklad ta nerekladachi 1920-30-kh rokiv [Ukrainian artistic translation and translators of the 1920s-30s]: materialy do kursu «Istoriya nerekladu». Vinnytsya: Nova Knyha.
Kolomiiets, L. V. (2023). Dva Leonida Hrebinky: do pytannya pro avtentychnyy pereklad I redaktorsʹku pravku (na materiali perekladu “Hamleta” V. Shekspira) [Two Leonid Hrebinkas: on the question of an authentic translation and editorial correction (on the material of the translation of “Hamlet” by W. Shakespeare)]. Retrieved from https://shakespeare.znu.edu.ua/ uk/kolomiiec-l-dva-leonida-grebinki-do-pitannja-pro-avtentichnij-pereklad-i-redaktorsku-pravku-na-materiali-perekladu-gamleta-v-shekspira/
Koskinen, K., & Paloposki, O. (2003). Retranslations in the age of digital reproduction. Cadernos de Tradução, 1(11), 19-38.
Larson, M. L. (1997). Meaning-based translation: A guide to cross-language equivalence, 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (2010). Re-conceptualization and the emergence of discourse meaning as a theory of translation. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, & M. Thelen (Eds.), Meaning in translation (pp. 105-147). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Luchuk, О. (1995). Chasovyy faktor yak problema perekladoznavstva [Time factor as a problem of translation studies] Visnyk derzhavnoho universytetu “Lʹvivsʹka politekhnika”, 295, 92-97.
Martynyuk, A. P. (2012). Linhvistychna kontseptolohiya: metodolohichni platformy, metodyky analizu, perspektyvy rozvytku. [Linguistic conceptology: methodological platforms, methods of analysis, development perspectives], Naukovyy visnyk Volynsʹkoho universytetu. Seriya Filolohichni nauky. 23, 81-88.
Neoklasytsyzm. (1962). [Neo-classicism]. In E. Onatskii. Ukrains’ka mala entsyklopediia: 16 kn: u 8 t. Buenos-Ajres, 5 (IX), Litery Na – Ol, 1123-1124.
Nikonova, V. H. (2008). Kontseptual'nyy prostir trahichnoho v pʺyesakh Shekspira: poetyko-kohnityvnyy analiz [The conceptual space of the tragic in Shakespeare’s plays: a poetic-cognitive analysis]. (Unpublished doctoral thesis, Kyiv National Linguistic University, Kyiv, Ukraine). Retrieved from http://www.disslib.org/kontseptualnyi-prostir-trahichnoho-v-p-yesakh-shekspira-poetyko-kohnityvnyi-analiz.html
O’Brien, S. (2013). The borrowers: researching the cognitive aspects of translation. Target, 25(1),
5-17.
Ortega y Gasset, J. (2004). The misery and the splendor of translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (pp. 49-63). London, New York: Routledge.
Pavliuk, A. B. (2013). Fenomen mnozhynnosti perekladu v konteksti pytanʹ suchasnoho movoznavstva. [The phenomenon of multiplicity of translation in the context of issues of modern linguistics]. Movni i kontseptualʹni kartyny svitu, 43(3), 190-197.
Perminova, A. O. (2005). Mnozhynnistʹ perekladiv yak faktor stvorennya kulʹturomovnoho buttya khudozhnʹoho tvoru. [The multiplicity of translations as a factor in the creation of the cultural-linguistic existence of an artistic work]. Visnyk Sumsʹkoho derzhavnoho universytetu. Seriya «Filolohichni nauky», 6(78), 99-105.
Pym, A. (2007). Natural and directional equivalence in theories of translation. Target, 19(2),
271-294.
Rebrii, O. V. (2012). Suchasni kontseptsiyi tvorchosti u perekladi. [Modern concepts of creativity in translation]. Kharkiv: Kharkivsʹkyy natsionalʹnyy universytet imeni V. N. Karazina.
Rylskyi, M. T. (1975). Problemy khudozhnʹoho perekladu [Problems of artistic translation]. Mystetstvo perekladu. Kyyiv: Rad. pysʹmennyk, 25-92.
Sitar, R. A. (2014). Mnozhynnistʹ perekladiv yak variantnistʹ vidtvorennya zhanrovo-stylistychnykh osoblyvostey chasovo viddalenoho pershotvoru. [The multiplicity of translations as a variant of the reproduction of genre and stylistic features of a temporally distant original work]. Naukovyy visnyk Chernivetsʹkoho universytetu: Hermansʹka filolohiya. 692 (693), 237-240.
Shevchenko, I. (2019). Enactive meaning-making in the discourse of theatre and film. Cognition, communication, discourse, 19, 15-19. https://doi.org/10.26565/2218-2926-2019-19-01
Sickinger, P. (2017). Aiming for cognitive equivalence – mental models as a tertium comparationis for translation and empirical semantics. Research in language, 15(2), 213-226.
Slovnyk ukrayinsʹkoyi movy. Akademichnyy tlumachnyy slovnyk (1970-1980). (2023). [Dictionary of the Ukrainian language. Academic explanatory dictionary (1970-1980)]. Retrieved from http://sum.in.ua/
Venuti, L. (2003). Retranslations: The creation of value. Bucknell review, 47(1), 25-39.
Viliam Shekspir. (2023). [William Shakespeare]. Retrieved from http://www.aspnet.com.ua/ BlogAll/uilyamshekspir. aspx/8#.Y_9Nn3ZBzZ4
Vorobyova, O. (2005). “The mark on the wall” and literary fancy: A cognitive sketch. In H. Veivo, B. Petterson, & M. Polvinen (Eds.), Cognition and literary interpretation in practice (pp. 201-217). Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Copyright (c) 2023 Yana Boiko
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors, who publish with this journal, accept the following conditions:
The authors reserve the copyright of their work and transfer to the magazine the right of the first publication of this work under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Non-Derivs License (CC BY-NC-ND), which allows other persons to freely distribute a published work with mandatory reference to the authors of the original work and the first publication of the work in this journal.
Authors have the right to enter into separate additional agreements for the non-exclusive dissemination of the work in the form in which it was published by this journal (for example, to post the work in the electronic institutions' repository or to publish as part of a monograph), provided that the link to the first publication of the work in this journal is given.
The journal policy allows and encourages the authors to place the manuscripts on the Internet (for example, in the institutions' repositories or on personal websites), both before the presentation of this manuscript to the editorial board and during review procedure, as it contributes to the creation of productive scientific discussion and positively affects the efficiency and dynamics of citing the published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
