Semantilised mudelid ja tõlkimine [Semantic models and translation]

Paul Kussmaul
University of Mainz

tõlkija Maarja MeriojaTerje Loogus

Sisukord

Akadeemilised tõlkeuuringud on algusest saadik tegelenud tähendusega. Nida kasutas oma teedrajavas töös (Nida 1964) strukturaalsemantikat ja komponentanalüüsi – eelkõige seoses piiblitõlkega (vt Religious translation). Strukturaalsemantika tegeleb keele kui süsteemiga ja tollal andis see tõlkimisele tugeva teoreetilise aluse. Üks Nida peamisi tõdemusi oli see, et me ei tõlgi mitte sõnu, vaid semantiliste komponentide kogumeid. Näiteks sõna „andestus“ koosneb komponentidest: (1) ühe isiku taunitav tegu, (2) mõjutatud isiku otsus seda tegu ignoreerida ja (3) sellest tulenev seisund, mis on sisuliselt samaväärne olukorraga, mis oli enne taunitava teo toimumist. Navajo keeles on sellise komponentide kogumi kohta parafraas „anda talle tema patt tagasi“ (Nida 1974: 47).

Full-text access to translations is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

Kasutatud allikad

Fillmore, Charles J.
1977 “Scenes-and-Frames Semantics.” In Linguistic Structures Processing, Antonio Zampolli (ed), 55–88. Amsterdam: N. Holland.Google Scholar
Hönig, Hans G.
1995Konstruktives Übersetzen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Kadric, Mira, Kaindl, Klaus & Kaiser-Cooke, Michèle
2005Translatorische Methodik. Wien: Facultas. (Quoted as Kadric et al. 2005.)Google Scholar
Kussmaul (=Kußmaul), Paul
1995Training the Translator. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
Kußmaul, Paul
2000aKreatives Übersetzen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Kussmaul, Paul
2000b “A cognitive Framework for Looking at Creative Mental Processes.” In Intercultural Faultlines. Research Models in Translation Studies I. Textual and Cognitive Aspects, Maeve Olohan (ed), 57–71. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Neubert, Albrecht
1988 “Top-down-Prozeduren beim translatorischen Informationstransfer.” In Semantik, Kognition und Äquivalenz, Gert Jäger & Albrecht Neubert (eds), 18–30. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A.
1964Toward a Science of Translating. With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
1974 “Semantic Structure and Translating.” In Aspekte der theoretischen, sprachenpaarbezogenen und angewandten Übersetzungswisenschaft II, Wolfram Wilss & Gisela Thome Gisela (eds), 33–63. Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary
1975 “The Meaning of Meaning.” In Language, Mind, and Knowledge. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science Vol. 7, Keith Gunderson (ed), 131–193, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor
1973 “Natural categories.” Cognitive Psychology 4, 328–350Google Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary
1988Translation Studies. An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam: BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
2005 “Of catfish and blue bananas: Scenes-and frames semantics as a contzrastive ‘knowledge system’ for translation.” In Knowlede Systems in Translation, Helle V. Dam, Jan Engberg & Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast (eds), 193–206. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vannerem, Mia & Snell-Hornby, Mary
1986 “Die Szene hinter dem Text: ‘scenes-and-frames semantics’ in der Übersetzung.” In Übersetzungswissenschaft. Eine Neuorientierung. Mary Snell-Hornby (ed), 184–205. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
Vermeer, Hans J. & Witte, Heidrun
1990Mögen Sie Zistrosen? Scenes & frames & channels im translatorischen Handeln. Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar