Cognitive Model of the Tragic in Ukrainian Retranslations of Shakespeare’s Plays

Yana Boiko, Vira Nikonova

Abstract


The problem of reconstructing the conceptual content of Shakespeare’s tragedies in chronologically distant Ukrainian translations is solved in the article by applying the method of complex poetical and cognitive analysis, which provides for research in two directions: genre – text – language (from the general characteristics of Shakespeare’s poetics to the analysis of the language of his works in the source text and in Ukrainian translations), and concept – conceptual scheme – meaning (from the reconstruction of the relevant structures of the author’s consciousness to the identification of the conceptual priorities of the writer and translators). The procedures of linguistic and cognitive modelling reveal possible directions of applying the cognitive dimension of Linguistics in studying the plurality in translation regarding to the fact that the epoch in which the translator lived and his own worldview can influence the representation of the author’s idea in translation. Comparing the pre- and post-Soviet translations of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet†into Ukrainian allowed proving the hypothesis that the chronologically distant retranslations of the source text must be perceived as such influenced by the national and cultural specifics of the time which improves the theory of plurality in translation by the cognitive perspective.

Keywords


cognitive modelling; the tragic; Shakespeare; plurality in translation; chronologically distant retranslations

Full Text:

PDF

References


Andriienko, T. P. (2014). Informatsiini kharakterystyky tekstu yak faktor realizatsii stratehii perekladu [Information characteristics of the text as a factor in the implementation of translation strategy]. Movni i kontseptualni kartyny svitu [Linguistic and conceptual pictures of the world], 48, 25-36.

Askoldov, S. A. (1997). Kontsept i slovo [Concept and word]. In Neroznak, V. P. (Ed.). Russkaya slovesnost. Ot teorii slovesnosti k strukture teksta. Antologiya [Russian literature. From the theory of literature to the structure of the text. Anthology] (pp. 267-279). Moscow: Academia.

Barkhudarov, L. S. (1975). Yazyik i perevod (Voprosyi obschey i chastnoy teorii perevoda) [Language and translation (Issues of general and specific theory of translation)]. Moscow: International Relationships.

Bex, T. (1996). Varieties in Written English: Texts in Society and Societies in Texts. London & New York: Routledge.

“Buty chy ne buty†v perekladi Panteleimona Kulisha [“To be or not to be†translated by Panteleimon Kulish] (2007). Retrieved on December 7, 2020 from: https://translate-ua.livejournal.com/10577.html.

Collins, S. (2016). The Moral Basis of Family Relationships in the plays of Shakespeare and his Contemporaries: a Study in Renaissance Ideas. York: The University of York.

Demyankov, V. Z. (2007). “Kontsept†v filosofii yazyika i v kognitivnoy lingvistike [“Concept†in the philosophy of language and in cognitive linguistics]. In Kubryakova, Y. S. (Ed.). Kontseptualnyiy analiz yazyika: sovremennyie issledovaniya [Conceptual Analysis of Language: Contemporary Research] (pp. 26-332). Moscow; Kaluga: IP Koshelev A. B. / Eidos.

Farahzad, F. (1999). Plurality in Translation. Retrieved on December 7, 2020 from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED429449.pdf.

Fedorov, A. V. (1983). Osnovyi obschey teorii perevoda: Lingvisticheskie problemy [Fundamentals of general translation theory: linguistic problems]. (4th ed.). Moscow: Higher School.

Freeman, D. (2000). Cognitive Metaphor and Literary Theory: Towards the New Philology. Filolohiia, pedahohika i psykholohiia v antropotsentrychnykh paradyhmakh [Philology, pedagogy and psychology in anthropocentric paradigms], 31, 552-566.

Freeman, M. (2002). The Body in the World: A Cognitive Approach to the Shape of a Poetic Text. In Semino, E. A., Culpeper, J. V. (Eds.). Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analysis (pp. 23-48). Amsterdam: Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing House.

Garbovsky, N. K. (2007). Teoriya perevoda [Theory of translation]. Moscow: Publishing house of Moscow University.

Husak, S. (2013). “A Mans a Man For AThat†R. Bernsa i “Trotz Alledem†F. Freiligrata v perekladakh Mykoly Lukasha: do pytannia pro perekladatsku mnozhynnist [“A Man's a Man For A’That†by R. Burns and “Trotz Alledem†by F. Freiligrat in translations by Mykola Lukash: to the question of translation plurality]. Inozemna filolohiia [Foreign philology], 125, 176-183.

Kolomiiets, L. (2017a). Ukrainski perekladachi “Hamleta†V. Shekspira: Panteleimon Kulish, Yurii Klen, Leonid Hrebinka, Mykhailo Rudnytskyi, Ihor Kostetskyi, Hryhorii Kochur, Yurii Andrukhovych [Ukrainian translators of Shakespeare’s Hamlet: Panteleimon Kulish, Yurii Klen, Leonid Hrebinka, Mykhailo Rudnytskyi, Ihor Kostetskyi, Hryhorii Kochur, Yurii Andrukhovych]. Retrieved on December 7, 2020 from: http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/bitstream/handle/123456789/15456/10-Kolomiyets.pdf?sequence=1.

Kolomiiets, L. V. (2017b). Novyi ukrainskyi “Hamletâ€: perekladatska stratehiia Yuriia Andrukhovycha [New Ukrainian Hamlet: Yurii Andrukhovych’s Translation Strategy]. Retrieved on December 7, 2020 from: https://shakespeare.znu.edu.ua/uk/kolomiiec-l-v-novij-ukrainskij-gamletperekladacka-strategija-jurija-andruhovicha/.

Kubryakova, Y. S. (1991). Osobennosti rechevoy deyatelnosti i problemyi vnutrennego leksikona [Features of speech activity and problems of internal lexicon]. In Chelovecheskiy faktor v yazyike. Yazyk i porozhdenie rechi [The human factor in the language. Language and speech production] (pp. 82-137). Moscow: Science.

Kucherenko, I. (2018). Evoliutsiia morali radianskoho totalitarnoho rezhymu [The evolution of the morals of the Soviet totalitarian regime]. Retrieved on December 7, 2020 from: https://ipiend.gov.ua/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/kucherenko_evoliutsiia.pdf.

Kykot, V. M. (2012). Pereklad yak transformatsiia obraznoi struktury virshovoho tvoru [Translation as a transformation of the figurative structure of a poetic work]. Filolohichni traktaty [Philological treatises], 4, 35-41.

Leites, A. (1965). Vvedenie v obschuyu teoriyu hudozhestvennogo perevoda [Introduction to the general theory of literary translation]. In Masterstvo perevoda [Translation mastery] (pp. 252 270). Moscow: Soviet Writer.

Leontyev, A. A. (2005). Psiholingvisticheskie edinitsyi i porozhdenie rechevogo vyiskazyivaniya [Psycholinguistic units and the generation of speech utterance]. (3rd ed.). Moscow: Editorial URSS.

Levchenko, O. M. (2003). Linhvokulturolohiia ta yii terminna systema [Linguoculturology and its term system]. Visnyk natsionalnoho universytetu “Lvivska politekhnika†[Bulletin of Lviv Polytechnic National University], 490, 105-113.

Levin, Y. D. (1981). K voprosu o perevodnoy mnozhestvennosti [On the issue of translation plurality]. In Klassicheskoe nasledie i sovremennost [Classic heritage and modernity] (pp. 365-372). Leningrad: Science.

Lotman, Y. M. (1998). Struktura hudozhestvennogo teksta [The structure of literary text]. Lotman, Y. M. Ob iskusstve [On the art] (pp. 14-288). St. Petersburg: “Art – SPbâ€.

Luchuk, O. (2004). Chasovyi faktor i problema perekladnoi mnozhynnosti v teorii khudozhnoho perekladu [The time factor and the problem of translation plurality in the theory of literary translation]. In Dialohichna pryroda literatury: Perekladoznavchi ta literaturoznavchi narysy [Dialogic nature of literature: Translation and literary essays] (pp. 163-168). Lviv: Ukrainian Catholic University Publishing House.

Luchuk, O. (2015). Panteleimon Kulish i Shekspir: perekladatskyi proekt 19 st. [Panteleimon Kulish and Shakespeare: a translation project of the 19th century.]. Retrieved on December 7, 2020 from: https://intrel.lnu.edu.ua/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/renst_2011_16-17_19.pdf.

Mehela, K. I. (2011). Chynnyky mnozhynnosti vidtvorennia dyskursyvnykh markeriv (na materiali ukrainskykh perekladiv tvoru R. L. Stivensona “Ostriv skarbivâ€) [Factors of multiplicity of reproduction of discursive markers (on the material of Ukrainian translations of R. L. Stevenson’s work “Treasure Islandâ€)]. Retrieved on December 7, 2020 from: http://www.philology.kiev.ua/library/zagal/Movni_i_konceptualni_2011_37/055_062.pdf.

Miller, G. A. (1990). Obraztsyi i modeli, upodobleniya i metaforyi [Patterns and models, assimilations and metaphors]. In Arutiunova, N. D., Zhurinskaya, M. A. (Eds.). Teoriya metafory [Theory of metaphor] (pp. 236-254). Moscow: Progress.

Miller, L. V. (2000). Hudozhestvennyiy kontsept kak smyislovaya i esteticheskaya kategoriya [Literary concept as a semantic and aesthetic category]. Mir russkogo slova [The world of the Russian word], 4, 39-45.

Monoloh Hamleta u perekladi Yuriia Andrukhovycha [Hamlet’s monologue translated by Yurii Andrukhovych] (2019). Retrieved on December 7, 2020 from: https://dovidka.biz.ua/gamlet-buti-chi-ne-buti/.

Nikonova, V. H. (2008). Kontseptualnyi prostir trahichnoho v piesakh Shekspira: poetyko-kohnityvnyi analiz [The conceptual space of the tragic in Shakespeare’s plays: a poetic-cognitive analysis]. Dnipropetrovsk: Dnipropetrovsk University of Economics and Law.

Novikova, M. A. (1986). Prekrasen nash soyuz: Literatura. Perevodchik. Zhizn [Wonderful is our union: Literature. Translator. Life]. Kyiv: Soviet Writer.

Pavliuk, A. B. (2013). Fenomen mnozhynnosti perekladu v konteksti pytan suchasnoho movoznavstva [The phenomenon of plurality of translation in the context of modern linguistics]. Movni i kontseptualni kartyny svitu [Linguistic and conceptual pictures of the world], 43 (3), 190-197.

Pavlova, O. K. (Ed.). (2012). Istoriia ukrainskoi kultury [History of Ukrainian Culture]. Kyiv: Center for Educational Literature.

Permimova, A. O. (2007). Kulturomovne buttia khudozhnoho tvoru yak perekladoznavcha problema [Cultural-linguistic existence of a work of art as a translation problem]. Kyiv: Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv.

Picard, L. (2016). The social structure in Elizabethan England. Retrieved on December 7, 2020 from: https://www.bl.uk/shakespeare/articles/the-social-structure-in-elizabethan-england#.

Polischuk, Y. (2018). Sotsiokulturni transformatsii v suchasnii Ukraini yak obiekt doslidzhennia vitchyznianykh naukovtsiv [Socio-cultural transformations in modern Ukraine as an object of study of domestic scientists]. Retrieved on December 7, 2020 from: https://ipiend.gov.ua/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/polishchuk_sotsiokulturni.pdf.

PopoviÄ, A. (1976). Dictionary for the analysis of Literary Translation. Edmonton: University of Alberta.

Popovich, A. (1980). Problemyi hudozhestvennogo perevoda [Problems of literary translation]. Moscow: Higher School.

Pritchard, K. (2011). Legitimacy, Illegitimacy and Sovereignty in Shakespeare’s British Plays. Manchester: University of Manchester.

Razumovskaya, V. A. (2011). Hudozhestvennyiy tekst v reshetkah kulturyi i perevode [Fictional text in culture grids and translation]. Vestnik Tyumenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Filologiya [Bulletin of the Tomsk State university. Series: Philology], 1, 206-213.

Rebrii, O. V. (2012). Suchasni kontseptsii tvorchosti u perekladi [Modern concepts of creativity in translation]. Kharkiv: V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University.

Retsker, Y. I. (1974). Teoriya perevoda i perevodcheskaya praktika [Translation theory and translation practice]. Moscow: International Relationships.

Rylskyi, M. T. (1975). Problemy khudozhnoho perekladu [Problems of literary translation]. In Mystetstvo perekladu [The art of translation] (pp. 25-92). Kyiv: Soviet Writer.

Safina, G. V. (2009). Mnozhestvennost perevodov liriki A. S. Pushkina na tatarskiy yazyk [The plurality of translations of Alexander Pushkin’s lyrics into the Tatar language]. Uchenyie zapiski Kazanskogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnyie nauki [Scientific notes of Kazan University. Series: Humanities], 3 (151), 154-162.

Semino, E. A. (2002). Cognitive Stylistic Approach to Mind Style in Narrative Fiction. In Semino, E. A., Culpeper, J. V. (Eds.). Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analysis (pp. 95-122). Amsterdam: Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing House.

Serageldin, I. (1998). The Modernity of Shakespeare. Cairo: Cairo University; Washington, D. C.: American University.

Shakespeare, W. (1899). To be, or not to be, that is the question. Retrieved on December 7, 2020 from: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/56965/speech-to-be-or-not-to-be-that-is-the-question.

Shor, V. Y. (1989). Subyektivnoe i obyektivnoe v hudozhestvennom perevode (kontseptsiya “mnogotipnosti†perevodov i relyativistskaya metodologiya) [Subjective and objective in literary translation (the concept of “multi-type†translations and relativistic methodology)]. Teoriya i praktika perevoda: Respublikanskiy mezhvedomstvennyi nauchnyi sbornik [Theory and practice of translation: Republican interdepartmental scientific collection], 16, 37-52.

Sokolianksyi, M. (2008). U poloni hroteskovoi stratehii [Captive of grotesque strategy]. Retrieved on December 7, 2020 from: http://litakcent.com/2008/12/12/u-poloni-hroteskovoji-stratehiji/.

Stepanov, G. V. (1980). O granitsah lingvisticheskogo i literaturovedcheskogo analiza hudozhestvennogo teksta [On the boundaries of linguistic and literary analysis of a literary text]. Izvestiya AN SSSR. Seriya literaturyi i yazyka [Herald of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Literature and Language Series], 3, 198-204.

Tarasova, I. A. (2004). Freymovyiy analiz v issledovanii idiostiley [Frame analysis in idiostyle research]. Filologicheskie nauki [Philological sciences], 4, 42-49.

Tsur, R. (1992). Toward a Theory of Cognitive Poetics. Amsterdam; New York: North-Holland.

Turner, M. (1996). The Literary Mind: The Origins of Thought and Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vinogradov, V. V. (1980). O yazyke hudozhestvennoy prozyi [About the language of fiction]. Moscow: Science.

Zasiekiv, S. V. (2012). Psykholinhvistychni universalii perekladu khudozhnoho tekstu [Psycholinguistic universals of literary text translation]. Lutsk: Lesya Ukrainka Eastern European National University in Volyn.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies
ISSN 1305-578X (Online)
Copyright © 2005-2022 by Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies