Классификации стратегий перевода в научных статьях и наивный метод: результаты квазиэксперимента

Инга Милевич

doi:10.18778/1731-8025.23.13

Authors

Inga Milevich Колледж Альберта https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4948-8655

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-8025.23.13

Keywords:

translation strategy, naive research method, classification of translation strategies

Abstract

The aim of this article is to explore the concept of the “naive method”, a term not yet widely adopted in academic discourse. The naive method can be defined as a research approach utilized in naive linguistics or “zombie science”, characterized by its simplicity in application and interpretation of results. This study proposes that classifications which are both easy to use and appear methodologically rigorous can serve as the foundation for a naive method in researching translation strategies. Such classifications not only simplify research processes but also create an impression of scholarly rigor by referencing established literature and presenting representative results.

The research draws on E.E. Davies’s classification of translation strategies as its primary material. A quasi-experimental approach was employed, hypothesizing that if adolescents on the “non-linguist-linguist” spectrum ‒ particularly those closer to the non-linguist end ‒ can replicate the findings of scholarly articles using the same classification, then the research method in such articles can be considered naive. Results from the quasi-experiment revealed that participants identified 76‒79% of the same strategies (“techniques”), partially supporting the hypothesis.

This study highlights issues surrounding research methodologies, particularly the theoretical sources and classifications used in translation strategy studies. It also underscores that elements of “zombie science” and naive methods can be observed in articles focused on translation strategies.

References

Милевич, И. (2020b). Стратегия перевода: средство самопрезентации автора научной публикации? Acta Universitatis Lodzensis. Folia Linguistica Rossica, 19, 103–111. https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-8025.19.09 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-8025.19.09

Милевич, И. (2021). Исследования стратегии перевода: к проблеме метода исследования, Мова: Науково-теретический часопис з мовазнавства, 35, 221–224. https://doi.org/10.18524/2307-4558.2021.35.237788 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18524/2307-4558.2021.35.237788

Albury, N.J. (2014). Introducing the Folk Linguistics of Language Policy, International Journal of Language Studies, 8 (3), 85–106.

Albury, N.J. (2017). The Power of Folk Linguistic Knowledge in Language Policy, Language Policy, 16 (2), 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-016-9404-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-016-9404-4

Barbe, K. (1996). The Dichotomy Free and Literal Translation, Meta, XLI, 3, 328–337. https://doi.org/10.7202/001968ar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/001968ar

Chesterman, A. (2011). Reflections on the Literal Translation Hypothesis. In: Methods and Strategies of Process Research: Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies (23–35), C. Alvstad, A. Hild, E. Tiselius. (ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.05che DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.94.05che

Čestermens, E. (2019). Tulkošanas mēmi: Ideju izplatīšanās tulkošanas teorijā. Rīga: Latvijas Universitāte.

Davies, E.E. (2003). A Goblin or a Dirty Nose?, The Translator: Studies in Intercultural Communication, 9 (I), 65–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2003.10799146 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2003.10799146

Gambier, Y. (2010). Translation Strategies and Tactics, Handbook of Translation Studies, 1, 412–418. https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.1.tra7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.1.tra7

Heyd, T. (2014). Folk-Linguistic Landscapes: The Visual Semiotics of Digital Enregisterment, Language in Society, 43 (5), 489–514. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404514000530 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404514000530

Hoenigswald, H. (1985). A Proposal for the Study of Folk-Linguistics, Sociolinguistics: Proceedings of the UCLA Sociolinguistics Conference 1964, 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110856507-004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110856507-004

Jääskeläinen, R. (2010). Looking for a Working Definition of “Translation Strategies”, Copenhagen Studies in Language, 1, 375–387.

Khudaybergenova, Z. (2021). About the Concept of “Translation Strategies” in the Translation Studies, Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 27, 1, 1369–1385.

Mārtinsone, K., Pipere, A. (red.). (2011). Ievads pētniecībā: stratēģijas, dizaini, metodes. Rīga: RaKa.

Milevica, I. (2020a). On Non-existent of Audiovisual Translation Studies in Latvia (According to Material of Scientific Paper Collection). Modernization of Teaching Profession: Approaches, Best Practices, Challenges, Scientific Journal of the Modern Education & Research Institute, 12, 23–26.

Milevica, I. (2024). Is Scientific Articles about Translation Strategies Zombie Articles? Manuscript.

Milevich, I. (2020b). Strategiya perevoda: sredstvo samoprezentatsii avtora nauchnoi publikatsii? Acta Universitatis Lodzensis. Folia Linguistica Rossica, 19, 103–111.

Milevich, I. (2021). Issledovaniya strategii perevoda: k probleme metoda issledovaniya, Mova: Naukovo-tereticheskii chasopis z movaznavstva, 35, 221–224.

Niedzielsky, N.A., Preston, D.R. (2000). Folk Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110803389 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110803389

Owji, Z. (2013). Translation Strategies. Translation Journal, 17 (1), https://translationjournal.net/journal/63theory.htm accessed: 03.12.2024.

Pasquale, M.D., Preston, D.R. (2013). The Folk Linguistics of Language Teaching and Learning. In: Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Second Language Learning and Teaching: Studies in Honor of Waldemar Marton (163–174), K. Drozdzial-Szelest, M. Pawlak (ed.). Berlin–Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23547-4_10 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23547-4_10

Paveau, M.A. (2011). Do Non-Linguists Practice Linguistics?: An Anti-Eliminative Approach to Folk Theories, AILA Review, 24 (1), 40–54. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.24.03pav DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.24.03pav

Preston, D.R. (1993). The Uses of Folk Linguistics, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3 (2), 181–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1993.tb00049.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1993.tb00049.x

Sandoval, M. (2014). Do We Still Call It “Literal” vs. “Free” Translation? Are These Notions as Important These Days as They Were in the Past?, https://msandovalg.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/do-we-still-call-it-literal-vs-free-translation-are-these-notions-as-important-these-days-as-they-were-in-the-past-2/ accessed: 12.02.2024.

Sun, S. (2013). Strategies of Translation. In: The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (5408–5412), Vol. 9.