Cover not available
Article published In:
Traduire, écrire, réécrire dans un monde en mutation / Writing and Translating as changing Practices: Volume I
Edited by Fayza El Qasem and Freddie Plassard
[FORUM 15:2] 2017
► pp. 178–211

La transposition de la valeur discursive

Variables sociocognitives et enjeux traductologiques

| Université d’Ottawa
L’appréciation d’une traduction dépend, comme celle du texte original, d’un ensemble de facteurs linguistiques, psychologiques et sociaux dont l’interaction est généralement difficile à appréhender. Dans un premier temps, cet article présente un modèle socio-cognitif intégrant ces facteurs, développé dans le champ de la communication écrite unilingue afin d’expliciter l’articulation des variables qui déterminent la perception de la valeur discursive.
Dans un second temps, il examine l’apport possible de ce modèle à certains problèmes de la traduction, d’abord en envisageant en théorie celle-ci comme un processus multifactoriel de transposition de la valeur des discours, puis en appliquant cette approche à l’analyse de cas de traductions perçues comme défaillantes.
Keywords: valeur discursive, communication écrite, compréhension, pertinence, convenance sociale
Article outline
  • 1.Le problème de l’intelligibilité
  • 2.Éclaircissements sur la « clarté »
  • 3.La dialectique de la pertinence
  • 4.Vers un modèle de l’adéquation communicationnelle
  • 5.Quelques implications et applications didactiques
  • 6.L’adéquation et les dilemmes de la traduction
  • 7.Ce que les « trahisons » trahissent
  • Notes
  • Références

Article language: French

Published online: 1 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.15.2.02lab
References (99)
Références
Austen, Jane & Amy Amstrong. 2012. Pride and Prejudice. New York: Totally Bound Publishing.Google Scholar
Austen, Jane & Seth Graham Smith. 2009. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Philadelphie: Quirk books.Google Scholar
Baddeley, Alan. 1992. La mémoire humaine. Théorie et pratique. Grenoble: Presses universitaires de Grenoble.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1999. “Perceptual symbol systems”. Behavioral and brain sciences, 221: 577–660. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barthes, Roland. 1966. “Introduction à l’analyse structurale des récits”. Communications, 8 (8): 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, Elsa Jaffe. 1981. Learning to write: Some cognitive and linguistic components. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bitgood, Stephen. 2006. “An analysis of visitor circulation: movement patterns and the general value principle”. Curator, 49(4): 463–475. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Social design in museums: the psychology of visitor studies”. Journal of Interpretation Research, 5(2): 31–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitgood, Stephen, Stephany Dukes, & Layla Abbey. 2006. “Interest and effort as predictors of reading: A test of the general value principle”. Current Trends in Audience Research, 19/201: 5–10.Google Scholar
Blais, André, Elisabeth Gidengil, Neil Nevitte, & André Nadeau. 2004. “Where does turnout decline come from?” European Journal of Political Research, 431: 221–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blyton, Enid. 2006. Le club des cinq et le trésor de l’île. Paris: HachetteGoogle Scholar
. 1962. Le club des cinq et le trésor de l’île. Paris: HachetteGoogle Scholar
. 1942. Five on a Treasure Island. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
Bonin, Patrick, Alain Méot, Lydie Aubert, Nathalie Malardier, Paula Niedenthal, & Marie-Christine Capelle-Toczek. 2003. “Normes de concrétude, de valeur d’imagerie, de fréquence subjective et de valence émotionnelle pour 866 mots”. L’année psychologique, 103 (4): 655–694. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1979. La distinction: critique sociale du jugement. Paris: MinuitGoogle Scholar
Bruner, Jerome. 1960. The Process of Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Maragaret C. 1995. “When attention-getting advertising tactics elicit consumer inferences of manipulative intent: the importance of balancing benefits and investments”. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(3): 225–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cauchard, Fabrice. 2008. Empan perceptif en lecture et en recherche d’information dans un texte: influence des signaux visuels. Thèse de doctorat en psychologie cognitive. Toulouse: Université Toulouse-le-Mirail.Google Scholar
Charolles, Michel. 2011. “Cohérence et cohésion du discours”. In Klaus Hölker, & Carla Marello (Éds.), Dimensionen der Analyse Texten und Diskursivent – Dimensioni dell’analisi di testi e discoursi (153–173). Münster: Lit Verlag.Google Scholar
Cicéron. 1991. Première Tusculane (Devant la mort). (Trad. D. Robert). Paris: Arléa.Google Scholar
Coirier, Pierre, Daniel Gaonac’h, and Jean-Michel Passerault. 1996. Psycholinguistique textuelle. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Daneman, Meredyth, & Murray Stainton. 1993. “The generation effect in reading and proofreading: Is it easier or harder to detect errors in one’s own writing?” Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 51: 297–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewey, John. 1913. Interest and Effort in Education. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duault, Alain. 2012. “Lever de rideau: l’opéra, une passion?” In Bertrand Dermoncourt (Dir.) L’univers de l’opéra: oeuvres, scènes, compositeurs, interprètes. Paris: Robert Laffont.Google Scholar
Dunwoody, Sharon. 1996. “Science writing offers a model for critical thinking”. SEJournal, 6 (1): 1–10.Google Scholar
Durieux, Christine. 2009. Vers une théorie décisionnelle de la traduction. LISA, 7(3), p. 350–367.Google Scholar
Engel, Pascal. 2007. “Belief and normativity”. Disputatio, II1, 231: 179–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faigley, Lester, & Stephen Witte. 1981. “Analyzing revision”. College Composition and Communication, 32(4): 400–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Festinger, Leon. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Fincher-Kiefer, Rebecca. 2001. “Perceptual components of situation models”. Memory & Cognition, 29(2): 336–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flesch, Rudolf. 1949. The art of readable writing. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
Fletcher, Charles R. 1981. “Short-term memory processes in text comprehension”. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(5): 564–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flower, Linda S., John R. Hayes, Linda Carey, Karen A. Schriver, & James Stratman. 1986. “Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision”. College Composition and Communication 37(1): 16–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franck, Georg. 1999. “Scientific communication – a vanity fair?” Science, 2861: 53–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Froeliger, Nicolas. 2010. “De la centralité du compromis en traduction et en traductologie”. In T. Milliaressi (Ed.) La traduction: de la linguistique à la didactique. Lille: Université de Lille III, 1–22.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 1998. “Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies”. Cognition, 681 1–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Susan R., Richard M. Golden, & Paul van den Broek. 2007. “Why are computational models of text comprehension useful?” In Franz Schmalhofer, & Charles A. Perfetti. (Eds.), Higher-level language processes in the brain (27–51). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gordon, Peter C., Randall Hendrick, & Marcus Johnson. 2001. “Memory interference during language processing”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 27(6): 1411–1423.Google Scholar
Graesser, Arthur C., Keith K. Millis, & Rolf A. Zwaan. 1997. “Discourse comprehension”. Annual review of psychology. 48(1): 163–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graesser, Arthur C., Murray Singer, & Tom Trabasso. 1994. “Constructing inferences during narrative comprehension”. Psychological Review, 1011: 371–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grutman, Rainier. 2009. “Le virage social dans les études sur la traduction: une rupture sur fond de continuité”. Texte, revue de critique et de théorie littéraire, 45/461: 135–152.Google Scholar
Guillemin-Flescher, Jacqueline. 2003. “Théoriser la traduction”. Revue française de linguistique appliquée (8)21, 7–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hachette, Catulle. 1879. Les poésies de Catulle. (Trad. E. Rostand). Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Hecht, Emmanuel. 2011. “Historique et haut de gamme”. L’Express, 31181 (16 04 2011): 117.Google Scholar
Hermans, Theo. 1996. “Norms and the determination of translation: A theoretical framework”. In Román Álvarez & Carmen África Vidal (Eds.), Translation, power, subversion (24–51). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Hidi, Suzanne. 1990. “Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning”. Review of educational research, 60(4): 549–571. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. “Interest, reading, and learning: theoretical and practical considerations.” Educational Psychology Review, 13(3): 191–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hidi, Suzanne, & William Baird. 1986. “Interestingness – a neglected variable in discourse processing”. Cognitive Science, 10(2): 179–194.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, Philip Nicholas. 1983. Mental Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kintsch, Walter. 1998. Comprehension; a paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, Ma: Cambridge University press.Google Scholar
Kintsch, Walter, & Praful Mangalath. 2011. “The Construction of meaning. Topics in Cognitive Science, 31: 346–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labasse, Bertrand. 1999. “La lisibilité rédactionnelle: fondements et perspectives”. Communication & langages, 1211: 86–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Une dynamique de l’insignifiance; Les médias, les citoyens et la chose publique dans la « société de l’information ». Villeurbanne: Presses de l’Ecole nationale supérieure des sciences de l’information et des bibliothèques.Google Scholar
. 2004. “Lisibilité et pertinence”. Études de Presse, 31: 1–8.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Modeling the communication of complexity in an information saturated society”, in Céline Beaudet, Pamela Grant-Russell & Doreen Starke-Meyerring (Éds), Research Communication in the Social and Human Sciences: From Dissemination to Public Engagement (pp. 60–84). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholar Press.Google Scholar
Labasse, Bertrand. 2012a. “Structures narratives et congruence cognitive: cas du summary lead et de la pyramide inversée”. Rédactologie – Canadian Journal for Studies in Discourse and Writing, 24 (1): 65–83.Google Scholar
. 2012b. “Un trou noir dans la galaxie: la compétence opératoire dans les recherches en communication”. Canadian Journal of Media Studies, 10(2): 176–214.Google Scholar
. 2012c. “Sexe, sang et physique des particules: le « sensationnalisme » est-il partout… ou nulle part?” Les Cahiers du Journalisme, 241: 114–149.Google Scholar
Labasse, B. 2015. “Les déterminants cognitifs et sociaux de l’adéquation communicationnelle”. In Céline Beaudet & Véronique Rey (Eds.), Écriture expertes en question. Aix: Presses universitaires de Provence, 39–68.Google Scholar
Markowicz, André. 1985. Le livre de Catulle. Paris: L’âge d’homme.Google Scholar
Martins, Daniel. 1993. Les facteurs affectifs dans la compréhension et la mémorisation des textes. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McKoon, Gail, & Roger Ratcliff. 1992. “Inference during reading”. Psychological Review, 991: 440–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jeon, Mi-Yeon, & Annie Brisset. 2006. “La notion de culture dans les manuels de traduction: domaines allemand, anglais, coréen et français”. Meta: journal des traducteurs (51)21: 389–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mikk, Jaan. 2008. “Sentence length for revealing the cognitive load reversal effect in text comprehension”. Educational Studies, 34(2): 119–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munsters, Wil. 1991. La poétique du pittoresque en France de 1700 à 1830. Genève: Droz.Google Scholar
Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1990. Par-delà le bien et le mal, in Œuvres (t. II). Paris: Robert Laffont.Google Scholar
Olivier, Séverine. 2007. “Lecture d’un “mauvais genre: le “roman sentimental”. In Laurence Rosier & Marie-Christine Pollet (Éds), Les mauvais genres en classe de français?: retour sur la question. Namur: Presses Universitaires de Namur, 55–68Google Scholar
Paivio, Allan. 1991. “Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status”. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 451: 255–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parodi, Giovanni. 2007. “Reading-writing connections: Discourse-oriented research”. Reading and Writing, 201: 225–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pascal, Blaise. 1826. Les pensées de Bl. Pascal, suivies d’une nouvelle table analytique. Paris: Lefèvre.Google Scholar
Quintilien. 1933. Institution oratoire, Livres IV-VI. (Trad. Henri Bornecque). Paris: Garnier.Google Scholar
Radvansky, Gabriel A., Rolf A. Zwaan, Jacqueline M. Curiel, & David E. Copeland. 2001. “Situation models and aging”. Psychology and Aging, 16(1): 145–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richard, Jean-François. 1990. Les activités mentales: comprendre, raisonner, trouver des solutions. Paris: A. Colin.Google Scholar
Sadoski, Mark, & Allan Paivio. 2007. “Toward a unified theory of reading”. Scientific studies of reading, 11(4): 337–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadoski, Mark, Ernest T. Goetz, & Maximo Rodriguez. 2000. “Engaging texts: Effects of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and recall in four text types”. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1): 85–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapiro, Gisèle. 2008. “Normes de traduction et contraintes sociales”. In Anthony Pym, Miriam Shlesinger & Daniel Simeoni (Eds.) Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies: Investigations in homage to Gideon Toury. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing: 199–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Savin, Harris B., & Ellen Perchonock. 1965. “Grammatical structure and the immediate recall of English sentences”. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 41: 348–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schank, Roger C. 1979. “Interestingness: controlling inferences”. Artificial Intelligence, 121: 273–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schäffner, Christina. 1998. “The concept of norms in translation studies”. Current Issues in Language and society, 5(1–2): 1–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schramm, Wilbur. 1954. “How communication works”. In Wilbur Schramm (Ed.), The process and effects of mass communication (3–26). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Schraw, Gregory, & Stephen Lehman. 2001. “Situational interest: a review of the literature and directions for future research”. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1): 23–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica. 1976. “Traduire: de l’expérience aux concepts”. Études de linguistique appliquée, 241: 64–91Google Scholar
Shannon, Claude E., & Warren Weaver. 1948. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Silvia, Paul J. 2006. Exploring the psychology of interest. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, Herbert. 1971. “Designing organizations for an information-rich world”. In M. Greenberger (Ed.), Computers, communications and the public interest (40–41). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, & Deirdre Wilson. 1989. La pertinence. Paris: Editions de minuit.Google Scholar
. 1997. “Remarks on relevance theory and the social sciences”. Multilingua 161: 145–151 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thornton, Robert, Maryellen C. MacDonald, & Jennifer E. Arnold. 2000. “The concomitant effects of phrase length and informational content in sentence comprehension”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 291: 195–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tinker, Miles Albert. 1963. Legibility of print. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun Adrianus, & Walter Kintsch. 1983. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Vinay, Jean-Paul. 1975. “Regards sur l’évolution des théories de la traduction depuis vingt ans”. Meta: journal des traducteurs, 20 (1): 7–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitney, Pau, Desiree Budd, Robert S. Bramucci, & Robert S. Crane. 1995. “On babies, bath water, and schemata: A reconsideration of top-down processes in comprehension”. Discourse Processes, 201: 135–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitney, P., Ritchie, B. G., & Clark, M. B. 1991. “Working-memory capacity and the use of elaborative inferences in text comprehension”. Discourse Processes, 141: 133–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. & Sperber, Dan. 1992. “Ressemblance et communication”. In Daniel Andler (Ed.), Introduction aux sciences cognitives (219–238). Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Zaid, Gabriel. 2005. Bien trop de livres? Lire et publier à l’ère de l’abondance. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Zipf, George Kingsley. 1935. The psycho-biology of language: an introduction to dynamic philology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Zwaan, Rolf A. 1994. “Effect of genre expectations on text comprehension”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4): 920–933.Google Scholar
Zwaan, Rolf A., & Gabriel A. Radvansky. 1998. “Situation models in language comprehension and memory”. Psychological bulletin, 123(2): 162–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Assogba, Henri
2021. Bertrand LABASSE (2020), La valeur des informations : ressorts et contraintes du marché des idées. Communication :Vol. 38/1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.