<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD with OASIS Tables with MathML3 v1.4 20241031//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/archiving/1.4/JATS-archive-oasis-article1-4-mathml3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" dtd-version="1.4" article-type="research-article" xml:lang="en"><front><journal-meta><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="ru">Вестник Волгоградского государственного университета. Серия 2. Языкознание</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn publication-format="print">1998-9911</issn><issn publication-format="electronic">2409-1979</issn></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.15688/jvolsu2.2023.3.7</article-id><article-categories><subj-group><subject>Other</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title xml:lang="ru">Является ли перевод средством обеспечения межкультурной коммуникации? [На англ. яз.]</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="en"><trans-title>Is Translation a Means of Cross-Cultural Communication?</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Сдобников</surname><given-names>Вадим Витальевич</given-names></name><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Sdobnikov</surname><given-names>Vadim V.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0002-4717-2980</contrib-id></contrib><aff-alternatives id="aff1"><aff xml:lang="en"><institution>Linguistics University of Nizhny Novgorod (Nizhny Novgorod, Russia)</institution></aff><aff xml:lang="ru"><institution>Нижегородский государственный лингвистический университет им. Н.А. Добролюбова (Нижний Новгород, Россия)</institution></aff></aff-alternatives></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="epub" iso-8601-date="2023-08-10"><day>10</day><month>08</month><year>2023</year></pub-date><volume>22</volume><issue>3</issue><fpage>77</fpage><lpage>85</lpage><history><date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="2023-01-11"><day>11</day><month>01</month><year>2023</year></date><date date-type="accepted" iso-8601-date="2023-04-03"><day>03</day><month>04</month><year>2023</year></date></history><permissions><license xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" xlink:title="CC BY 4.0"><ali:license_ref>https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ali:license_ref><license-p xml:lang="ru">CC BY 4.0</license-p></license></permissions><abstract xml:lang="ru"><p>В статье подвергается сомнению представление о переводе как виде межкультурной коммуникации или способе обеспечить межкультурную коммуникацию. Показано, что антропологический поворот в переводоведении привел к появлению коммуникативно-функционального подхода, который дик- тует необходимость пересмотреть это популярное представление. Примеры «переводческих событий», в которых используется перевод, рассмотренные с точки зрения коммуникативно-функционального подхо- да, свидетельствуют о том, что участники коммуникативного акта (автор оригинала, получатель перевода и переводчик) редко вступают в непосредственную или опосредованную коммуникацию друг с другом. Единственная объективная реальность, доступная им, – это текст, выступающий в качестве инструмента осуществления ими предметной деятельности. Во многих случаях цель перевода не совпадает с целью создания оригинала, что делает коммуникацию между автором оригинала и получателем перевода в принципе невозможной. Основная задача переводчика – создать текст, который был бы полезен получателю в рамках осуществляемой им деятельности. Основная цель получателя перевода – извлечь из текста информацию, полезную для осуществления предметной деятельности. Участники коммуникативного акта имеют дело, прежде всего, с текстами и не общаются друг с другом (за исключением ситуаций устного перевода). Утверждение «перевод – вид межкультурной коммуникации» – только метафора, используемая для того, чтобы выдать желаемое за действительное. Оно не соответствует определению коммуникации, понимаемой как предоставление информации или обмен информацией.</p></abstract><abstract xml:lang="en" abstract-type="summary"><p>The paper disputes the concept of “translation as cross-cultural communication”. Anthropological turn in Translation Studies resulted in the emergence of the communicative-functional approach to translation which dictates the need to reconsider this most popular concept. Examples of translation events are considered from the perspective of this approach to prove that the actors (source text sender, target text recipient and translator) rarely communicate directly or indirectly. The only objective reality accessible to them is the texts in two languages; these texts serve as instruments of substantive activity performed by each of the actors. In many cases the purpose of translation differs from the purpose of the Source Text (ST) Sender, which makes communication between the ST Sender and the Target Text (TT) Recipient impossible. The translator’s principal task is to create a text in the target language that would be useful for the TT Recipients activity. The principal purpose of the TT Recipient is to receive information which could be used successfully in his or her substantive activity. Actors in a translation event deal only with texts, not with each other (except in situations of oral communication in which interpretation is performed). Thus, “translation as cross-cultural communication” is a metaphor used to substitute the wish for the reality. The concept does not fit the mere definition of communication seen as giving information or exchange of information.</p></abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>перевод</kwd><kwd>виды перевода</kwd><kwd>участники коммуникативного акта</kwd><kwd>межкультурная коммуникация</kwd><kwd>коммуникативно-функциональный подход</kwd><kwd>коммуникативная ситуация</kwd><kwd>переводческое событие</kwd><kwd>цель перевода</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>translation</kwd><kwd>types of translation</kwd><kwd>communication actors</kwd><kwd>cross-cultural communication</kwd><kwd>communicative-functional approach</kwd><kwd>communicative situation</kwd><kwd>translation event</kwd><kwd>purpose of translation</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><back><ref-list><ref id="ref1"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Baker M., 2008. Ethics of Renarration: Mona Baker is Interviewed by Andrew Chesterman. Cultus, no. 1, pp.10-33.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref2"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Brake T., Medina-Walker D., Walker T., 1995. Doing Business Internationally: The Guide to Cross- Cultural Success. Burr Ridge, Illinois, Irwin, 282 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref3"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Dejica D., 2009. Approaching Cultural Relations for Translation Purposes. Translation Studies: Retrospective and Prospective Views, iss. 6, pp. 40-47.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref4"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Dejica D., 2013. Mapping the Translation Process: The Cultural Challenge. Translating Across Cultures. BAS 21st Annual International Conference. Cambridge, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 11-24.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref5"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Erenchinova E., Chumanova N., 2018. Translation as Form of Cross-Cultural Communication. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, vol. 312, pp. 117-122. DOI: 10.2991/tphd-18.2019.24</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref6"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Gentzler E., 2001. Contemporary Translation Theories. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters Ltd., 2001. 232 р. Glodjovic A., 2010. Translation as a Means of Cross-Cultural Communication: Some Problems of Literary Text Translation. Facta Universitatis. Series "Linguistic and Literature", vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 141-151.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref7"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Hatim B., Mason I., 1997. The Translator as Communicator. London, Routledge. 217 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref8"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">House J., 2009. Translation. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 122 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref9"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Katan D., 2016. Translation at the Cross-Roads: Time for the Transcreational Turn? Perspectives, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 365-381. Х.2015.1016049. DOI: 10.1080/0907676</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref10"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Komissarov V.N., 1990. Teoriya perevoda (lingvisticheskie aspekty) [Translation Theory (Linguistic Aspects)]. Moscow, Vyssh. shk. Publ. 253 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref11"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Kuzenko H., 2017. Translation as Cross-Cultural Communication. Science and Education a New Dimension. Philology, vol. 33, iss. 123, pp. 40-43. Newmark P., 2003. No Global Communication Without Translation. Anderman G., Rogers M., eds.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref12"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Translation Today. Trends and Perspectives. S.l., Multilingual Matters Ltd., pp. 55-67.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref13"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Nida E.A., 1964. Towards a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden, Brill. 331 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref14"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Nord Ch., 2002. Manipulation and Loyalty in Functional Translation. Current Wring, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 32-44.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref15"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Nord Ch., 2007. Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester, St. Jerome Publishing. 154 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref16"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Rei/3 K., Vermeer H., 2013. Towards a General Theory of Translational Action. Skopos Theory Explained. Manchester, St. Jerome Publishing. 221 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref17"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Sdobnikov V.V., 2015. Perevod i kommunikativnaya situatsiya [Translation and Communicative Situation]. Moscow, FLINTA Publ., Nauka Publ. 464 p. EDN: QDXTBL</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref18"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Shamilov R.M., 2015. Formanty kommunikativnoi situatsii spetsifalnogo perevoda [Formants of the Communicative Situation of Specialized Translation]. Yazyk. Kultura. Kommunikatsiya: sb. nauch. st. [Language. Culture.Communication. Collection of Scientific Articles], no. 1 (18), pp. 100-116.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref19"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Sidorov E.V., 2008. Ontologiya diskursa [Ontology of Discourse]. Moscow, LKI Publ. 232 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref20"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Sidorov E.V., 2010. Obshaya teoriya rechevoy kommunikatsii: ucheb. posobie [General Theory of Oral Communication. Textbook]. Moscow, Izd-vo RGSU. 244 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref21"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Snell-Horny M., 2006. The Turns of Translation Studies. New Paradigms or Shifting Viewpoints? Amsterdam, Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Company. 205 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref22"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Schweizer A.D., 1988. Teoriya perevoda: status, problemy, aspekty [Translation Theory: Status, Problems, Aspects]. Moscow, Nauka Publ. 215 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref23"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Vandepitte S., 2008. Remapping Translation Studies: Towards a Translation Studies Ontology. Meta: Translators' Journal, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 569-588.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref24"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Vereshchagin E.M., Kostomarov V.G., 1990. Yazyk i kultura: Lingvostranovedenie v prepodavanii russkogo yazyka kak inostrannogo [Culture-Oriented Linguistics in Teaching Russian as a Foreign Language]. Moscow, Rus. yaz. Publ. 251 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref25"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Vlakhov S., Florin S., 1980. Neperevodimoe v perevode [Untranslatable in Translation]. Moscow, Mezhdunar. otnosheniya Publ. 343 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref26"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Wolf M., 2017. A "Performative Turn" in Translation Studies? Reflections from a Sociological Perspective. TranscUlturAl, vol. 9.1, pp. 27-44.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref27"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Yan C., Huang J.J., 2014. The Culture Turn in Translation Studies. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, no. 4, pp. 487-494. DOI: 10.4236/ojml.2014.44041</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="ref28"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xml:lang="en">Zwilling M.Ya., 2009. O nekotorykh modifikatsiyakh kommunikativnogo podkhoda k ponyatiyu perevoda [On Some Modifications of Communicative Approach to the Notion of Translation]. O perevode i perevodchikakh [About Translation and Translators]. Moscow, Vost. kn. Publ., pp. 80-85.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>
