Peculiarities of sign translation in museum discourse

Context and relevance. This article examines the translation of museum discourse signs as a complex semiotic process associated with the interpretation of signs in foreign cultural environments. The relevance of this study stems from the need for effective interaction between participants in museum discursive practices based on the semiotic space of museum exhibits. Objective. The aim of this study is to identify the specific functioning of signs in museum discourse and to analyze the mechanisms of their interpretation and transformation in the processes of intrasemiotic, intersemiotic, and interlingual translation. Hypothesis. The hypothesis of this study is that the perception and understanding of museum exhibits is achieved through the activation of intersemiotic and intrasemiotic translation mechanisms. Methods and materials. The study uses the descriptive method, the structural method, and the method of semiotic and discourse analysis. The research material is a set of museum texts presented in the State Tretyakov Gallery. Results. The result of this study is a comprehensive analysis of museum texts and translation decisions, aimed at identifying the specific features of sign transmission in different types of translation. Based on this analysis, methods for overcoming difficulties in sign interpretation associated with the transmission of culturally specific information are proposed. Conclusions. The study established that effective interpretation of museum artifacts is achieved through the integration of modern technologies and various semiotic systems. The use of translation techniques such as transliteration, transcription, and literal translation in some cases leads to the formation of lacunary signs in the target language.

1. Бархударов, Л.С. (1975). Язык и перевод (Вопросы общей и частной теории перевода). М.: Междунар. отношения.
   Barkhudarov, L.S. (1975). Language and translation (Issues of general and private translation theory). Moscow: International Relations. (In Russ.).
2. Бочкарева, А.И., Скворцова, Е.Б. (2018). Семиотическое пространство языка: Лингвосемиотический анализ языковых явлений. Новосибирск: АНС «СибАК».
   Bochkareva, A.I., Skvortsova, E.B. (2018). Semiotic space of language: Linguosemiotic analysis of language phenomena. Novosibirsk: ANS "SibAK". (In Russ.).
3. Волкова, Т.А. (2011). Методика анализа дискурса в моделировании перевода дипломатических текстов. Политическая лингвистика, 17—24.
   Volkova, T.A. (2011). Methodology of discourse analysis in modeling the translation of diplomatic texts. Political Linguistics, 17—24. (In Russ.).
4. Зверева, Т.В. (2018). Суриковский след в русской поэзии ХХ века. Филологический класс, 94—101.
   Zvereva, T.V. (2018). Surikov's trace in Russian poetry of the 20th century. Philological Class, 94—101. (In Russ.).
5. Карасик, В.И. (2004). Языковой круг: личность, концепты, дискурс. М.: Гнозис.
   Karasik, V.I. (2004). Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse. Moscow: Gnozis. (In Russ.).
6. Комиссаров, В.Н. (1990). Теория перевода (лингвистические аспекты). Учеб. для ин-тов и фак. иностр. яз. М.: Высш. шк.
   Komissarov, V.N. (1990). Translation theory (linguistic aspects). Textbook for institutes and faculties of foreign languages. Moscow: Higher School. (In ).
7. Курилович, Е. (1962). Понятие изоморфизма. В: Очерки по лингвистике (с. 21—36). М.: ИЛ.
   Kurilovich, E. (1962). The concept of isomorphism. In: Essays on linguistics (pp. 21—36). Moscow: Foreign Literature Publishing House. (In Russ.).
8. Леви-Строс, К. (2001). Структурная антропология. М.: ЭКСМО-Пресс.
   Levi-Strauss, C. (2001). Structural anthropology. Moscow: EKSMO-Press. (In Russ.).
9. Лотман, Ю.М. (2000). Семиосфера. СПб.: Искусство-СПБ.
   Lotman, Y.M. (2000). Semiosphere. St. Petersburg: Iskusstvo-SPB. (In Russ.).
10. Нестеров, А.Ю. (2010). Онтологические границы семиозиса в процедурах коммуникации, познания и понимания: Дис. … д-ра филос. наук. Самарский государственный университет. М.
    Nesterov, A.Yu. (2010). Ontological boundaries of semiosis in communication, cognition, and understanding procedures: Diss. Dr. Sci. (Philosophy). Samara State University. Moscow. (In Russ.).
11. Пирс, Ч.С. (2000). Избранные философские произведения. М.: Логос.
    Peirce, C.S. (2000). Selected philosophical works. Moscow: Logos. (In Russ.).
12. Потебня, А.А. (1990). Теоретическая поэтика. М.: Высш. шк.
    Potebnya, A.A. (1990). Theoretical poetics. Moscow: Higher School. (In Russ.).
13. Фещенко, Ф.Ф., Бочавер, С.Ю. (2016). Теория культурных трансферов: от переводоведения – через cultural studies – к теоретической лингвистике. В: Лингвистика и семиотика культурных трансферов: методы, принципы, технологии: коллективная монография (с. 5—35). М.: Культурная революция.
    Feshchenko, F.F., Bochaver, S.Yu. (2016). Theory of cultural transfers: from translation studies – through cultural studies – to theoretical linguistics. In: Linguistics and semiotics of cultural transfers: methods, principles, technologies: collective monograph (pp. 5—35). Moscow: Kulturnaya revolyutsiya. (In Russ.).
14. Фуко, М. (2004). Археология знания. СПб.: Гуманитарная академия.
    Foucault, M. (2004). The archaeology of knowledge. St. Petersburg: Gumanitarnaya akademiya. (In Russ.).
15. Худяков, А.А. (2000). Семиозис простого предложения: Дис. ... д-ра филол. наук. Поморский государственный университет. Архангельск.
    Khudyakov, A.A. (2000). Semiosis of a simple sentence: Diss. Dr. Sci. (Philology). Pomor State University. Arkhangelsk. (In Russ.).
16. 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.).
17. Якобсон, Р.О. (1975). Лингвистика и поэтика. В: Структурализм: «за» и «против» (с. 193—230). М.: Прогресс.
    Jakobson, R.O. (1975). Linguistics and poetics. In: Structuralism: "for" and "against" (pp. 193—230). Moscow: Progress. (In Russ.).
18. Якобсон, Р.О. (1978). О лингвистических аспектах перевода. В: Вопросы теории перевода в зарубежной лингвистике: сб. науч. ст. (с. 16—24). М.: Международные отношения.
    Jakobson, R.O. (1978). On linguistic aspects of translation. In: Issues of translation theory in foreign linguistics: collection of scientific articles (pp. 16—24). Moscow: International Relations. (In Russ.).
19. Aguiar, D., Queiroz, J. (2013). Semiosis and intersemiotic translation. Semiotica, 283—292.
20. Bennett, T. (1995). The birth of the museum: History, theory, politics. London: Routledge.
21. Egawa, K., Kitajima, M. (2019). Utilization of audio guide for enhancing museum experience relationships between visitors’ eye movements, audio guide contents, and the levels of contentment. In: Computer vision, imaging and computer graphics – theory and applications (pp. 47—65). Cham: Springer.
22. Espagne, M., Werner, M. (1987). La construction d’une reference culturelle allemande en France: Genèse et histoire (1750–1914). Persée, 42(4), 969—992.
23. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.
24. Hopkins, G.M. (1959). Poetic diction. London: Penguin Books.
25. Kourdis, E. (2015). Semiotics of translation: An interdisciplinary approach to translation. In: International handbook of semiotics (pp. 303—320). Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media.