Duality of sign in translation: methodology of linguo-semiotic analysis

Context and relevance. The study of the status of signs in translation is the central issue in semiotics of translation, a dynamically developing field in contemporary translation theory. Traditionally, linguistic translation theory focuses on analyzing translation transformations and assessment within the frameworks of translation equivalence and adequacy. While current evaluation models of translation are based on the relationship between forms and meanings of correlated signs and their functions, the focus should be shifted to the process of conveying the content of signs in translation. It is evident that there is an urgent need to develop methods of analyzing transformations of the content of signs in translation, to approach the process of meaning generation in accordance with the principle sensum de senso, well-known in the history of translation. The relevance of the study is determined by the need of linguo-semiotic analysis of the sign in translation, revealing the essence of translation transformations and the creation of a derived dual sign, congruent with the tasks of translation, meeting the norms of the target language and the target culture. Objective. To identify characteristics of the process of nomination in translation (translation semiosis in its broader sense), investigating signs resulting from variable translation choices and the newly coined signs in the target language (translation semiosis proper). Hypothesis. The research hypothesis is that the derived nature of a dual sign in translation is primarily determined by the referential correlation of the sign with the primary communicative event and, accordingly, the formation of a derived field of reference as a complex formation of duplicating and transforming constructs. Methods and materials. The article develops methodology for linguo-semiotic analysis of the sign in interlingual translation, focusing on the study of the content transformations of the sign. The research material is presented by English scientific terms in a popular science text in the field of psychology of intelligence and their translation correlates in Russian. Results. The result of the study is algorithm of analyzing translation interpretation of terminological signs and assessment of effectiveness of conveying content of translation units. Conclusions. The study postulates that derived character, as a special property of linguistic sign in translation, tracking its primary correlative unit, is a determining factor in designing translation strategies and techniques. Moreover, the referential field of a derived translation sign is variable, largely dependent on the interpreter and, consequently, the subjectivity of the sign interpretation, and the functional characteristics of communication.

1. Бархударов, Л.С. (1975). Язык и перевод (Вопросы общей и частной теории перевода). М.: Международные отношения.
   Barkhudarov, L.S. (1975). Language and translation (Issues of general and private translation theory). Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. (In Russ.).
2. Бойко, О.А. (2010). Роль индивидуации в процессе личностного совершенствования в концепции К.Г. Юнга. Вестник Тамбовского университета, 4(84), 182—186.
   Boiko, O.A. (2010). The role of individuation in the process of personal perfection in C.G. Jung's concept. Vestnik Tambovskogo universiteta, 4(84), 182—186. (In Russ.).
3. Гарднер, Г. (2007). Структура разума: теория множественного интеллекта. Пер. с англ. М.: И.Д. Вильямс.
   Gardner, H. (2007). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Trans. from Engl. Moscow: I.D. Williams. (In Russ.).
4. Золян, С.Т. (2020). О семиотических характеристиках возможных теорий перевода. Вопросы языкознания, 1, 65—83.
   Zolian, S.T. (2020). On semiotic characteristics of possible translation theories. Voprosy yazykoznaniya, 1, 65—83. (In Russ.).
5. Кобозева, И.М. (2000). Две ипостаси содержания речи: значение и смысл. В: Н.Д. Арутюнова (Ред.), Язык о языке: Сб. ст. (с. 303—359). М.: Языки русской культуры.
   Kobozeva, I.M. (2000). Two hypostases of speech content: Meaning and sense. In: N.D. Arutyunova (Ed.), Language about language (pp. 303—359). Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul'tury. (In Russ.).
6. Комиссаров, В.Н. (1980). Лингвистика перевода. М.: Международные отношения.
   Komissarov, V.N. (1980). Linguistics of translation. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. (In Russ.).
7. Леонтьева, К.И. (2022). Когнитивно-семиотическая модель перевода: доминанты, перспектива, дискурс (на материале русских переводов произведений англоязычной литературы XIX-XX веков): Дис. ... д-ра филол. наук. Тверь.
   Leont'eva, K.I. (2022). Cognitive-semiotic model of translation: Dominants, perspective, discourse (based on Russian translations of English-language literature of 19th – 20th centuries): Diss. Dr. Sci. (Philol.). Tver. (In Russ.).
8. Лотман, Ю.М. (2000). Семиосфера. СПб.: Искусство-СПБ.
   Lotman, Iu.M. (2000). Semiosphere. St. Petersburg: Iskusstvo-SPB. (In Russ.).
9. Никитин, М.В. (1996). Курс лингвистической семантики. СПб.: Научный центр проблем диалога.
   Nikitin, M.V. (1996). Course of linguistic semantics. St. Petersburg: Nauchnyi tsentr problem dialoga. (In Russ.).
10. Нестерова, Н.М. (2005). Вторичность как онтологическое свойство перевода: Дис. ... д-ра филол. наук. Пермский государственный технический университет. Пермь.
    Nesterova, N.M. (2005). Secondary nature as an ontological property of translation: Diss. Dr. Sci. (Philol.). Perm State Technical University. Perm. (In Russ.).
11. Пирс, Ч.С. (2000). Избранные философские произведения. М.: Логос.
    Peirce, C.S. (2000). Selected philosophical works. Moscow: Logos. (In Russ.).
12. Сыроваткин, С.Н. (1978). Теория перевода в аспекте функциональной лингвосемиотики. Калинин.
    Syrovatkin, S.N. (1978). Translation theory in the aspect of functional linguosemiotics. Kalinin. (In Russ.).
13. Худяков, А.А. (2000). Семиозис простого предложения: Дис. ... д-ра филол. наук: 10.02.04. Изд-во ПГУ. Архангельск.
    Khudiakov, A.A. (2000). Semiosis of a simple sentence: Diss. Dr. Sci. (Philol.). Pomorsky State University Publ. Arkhangelsk. (In Russ.).
14. Шуверова, Т.Д. (2024). Семиотические преобразования при переводе. В: Актуальные проблемы коммуникации. Язык и перевод (с. 132—139). М.: Спутник.
    Shuverova, T.D. (2024). Semiotic transformations in translation. In: Actual problems of communication. Language and translation (pp. 132—139). Moscow: Sputnik. (In Russ.).
15. Элейн, Э. (2021). Сверхчувствительная натура. Как преуспеть в безумном мире. М.: Азбука-Аттикус.
    Elaine, E. (2021). The highly sensitive nature. How to succeed in a crazy world. Moscow: Azbuka-Attikus. (In Russ.).
16. Якобсон, Р. (1978). О лингвистических аспектах перевода. В: Вопросы теории перевода в зарубежной лингвистике (с. 16—24). М.: Международные отношения.
    Jakobson, R. (1978). On linguistic aspects of translation. In: Issues of translation theory in foreign linguistics (pp. 16—24). Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. (In Russ.).
17. Aguiar, D., Queiroz, J. (2013). Semiosis and intersemiotic translation. Semiotica, 2013, 283—292.
18. Gutt, E.-A. (1991). Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
19. Elaine, E.N. (2018). The Highly Sensitive Person: How to Thrive When the World Overwhelms You. Ebook Edition.
20. Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
21. Kourdis, E. (2015). Semiotics of Translation: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Translation. In: International Handbook of Semiotics (pp. 303—320). Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media.
22. Neubert, A., Shreve, G.M. (1992). Translation as Text. Kent, Ohio: The Kent State University Press.
23. Venuti, L. (2008). The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation. London: Routledge.