Rendering confrontation strategies in the process of political discourse translation: cognitive modeling

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

Rendering confrontation strategies in the process of political discourse translation: cognitive modeling

Sevastiuk M.I., Ph.D. Student at the Department of Theory and Practice of Translation from English

Summary

This article offers an exploratory approach to the cognitive modeling of the process of political discourse translation focusing on the applied problem of rendering confrontation strategies of American politicians in the Ukrainian translation. Empirical investigations conducted within the comparative study of written translations by two sample groups, together with the psychological observations of their retrospective TAPs (think-aloud protocols) verbalizations let us create the scenario that algorithmizes the process of rendering confrontation strategies in the political discourse translation by structuring the translation process into a certain number of sequential processes, which we expressed and described with the help of frames and subframes. Based on the existing cognitive models of the translation process, results of retrospective TAPs analysis, and taking into account the specific nature of the object of our research, we suggested our translation scenario using the following frames: “Analyzing the communicative situation of translation” which is consistent with the stage of pre-translation analysis, “Processing a translation unit” and “Finding an equivalent”, which together make up the stage of the actual translation, and “Evaluation of results”, that finishes the process of translation with the verbalization of the text. The evidence from this study suggests that most frequent translation shifts on the macrocontextual level are observed in the first stage of pretranslation analysis, and can lead to the complete distortion of the pragmatic purpose of the original message. Whereas, the majority of microcontextual translation errors occur while working with the frames “Processing the translation unit” and “Finding equivalence”. The purpose of the final frame is to identify these mistakes and prevent possible negative shifts of meaning. We established some highly recurrent patterns that show certain correlations between the stages and frames activated within the process of translation and the translator's competence, which affects the quality of translation. Moreover, several factors that influence the choice of translation strategies at each stage were identified.

Key words: cognitive modeling, translation process, translation scenario, political discourse translation, confrontation strategy, confrontation tactics.

Анотація

Севастюк M. і. Відтворення стратегій конфронтації в процесі перекладу політичного дискурсу: когнітивне моделювання

У статті розглянуто питання когнітивного моделювання процесу перекладу політичного дискурсу на прикладі вирішення прикладної проблеми відтворення конфронтаційних стратегій американських політиків в українському перекладі. Авторка пропонує власний опис сценарію перекладу проблемної одиниці шляхом структурування процесу перекладу на певну кількість послідовних процесів (фреймів), вирішення кожного з яких дозволяє перейти до наступного етапу перекладу та, в кінцевому рахунку, знайти оптимальне рішення для перекладу проблемного фрагменту тексту оригіналу засобами цільової мови. Були запропоновані наступні фрейми: «Аналіз комунікативної ситуації перекладу», «Опрацювання одиниці перекладу», «Підбір відповідника» та «Оцінка результатів». Кожен з цих фреймів складається з проміжних цілей та компонентів, які були описані за допомогою категорії субфреймів. Основну увагу акцентовано на фреймах «Аналіз комунікативної ситуації перекладу» та «Оцінка результатів», які відповідають етапам доперекладацького аналізу і редагування, і відповідно розпочинають і завершують процес перекладу. Доведено, що неправильний аналіз комунікативної ситуації перекладу може призвести до повного спотворення прагматичної цілі вихідного повідомлення або спричинити помилки у перекладу, допущені на макроконтекстуальному рівні. Наголошено, що інформація, отримана на цьому етапі, має вирішальний вплив на вибір перекладачем глобальної стратегії перекладу та застосування локальних стратегій у кожному конкретному випадку. Фінальний фрейм «Оцінка результатів перекладу» дозволяє перекладачеві виявити і виправити негативні зсуви, які відбулися на попередніх етапах описаного сценарію. Запропонований сценарій протестовано за допомогою емпіричного дослідження, яке було проведеного в рамках порівняльного аналізу письмових перекладів, виконаних двома вибірковими групами, а також аналізу вербалізацій ретроспективних протоколів «Міркуй вголос». Виявлено певний ряд закономірностей, які демонструють кореляції між компетенціями перекладача і етапами та фреймами, активованими в процесі перекладу. Виділено і описано фактори, які впливають на процес перекладу на кожному етапі, а також на вибір перекладачем глобальної стратегії перекладу.

Ключові слова: когнітивне моделювання, процес перекладу, сценарій перекладу, переклад політичного дискурсу, стратегія

Problem statement

The incorporation of cognitive research into the field of translation studies has considerably broadened the spectrum of inquiry and provided a new theoretical comprehension of translational activity as a complex system with a dynamic and heuristic nature. This has led to the reorientation in the field, implying a much more central position for the individual translator [1, p. 116] and offering more insight into what goes on in the translator's cognition, or `black box'. The paradigm shift has signified the turn to process-oriented studies, redirecting the focus of scholars from the result of translation to its process.

Although this approach proves interesting, there are certain objective difficulties in describing the process of translation. The translator's cognition is not open to direct scrutiny, which does not allow the study to go far beyond the empirical framework. For this reason, a major toolkit has been offered by cognitive science methodology, including verbal reports (TAPs, dialogue protocols, retrospection), as well as so-called `hard methods', which have emerged with the latest advancement of technologies and software, such as eye-tracking, video and screen recording, keystroke logging, etc [2, p. 15].

The method of cognitive modeling seems applicable in the situation where the object of cognition is inaccessible for direct study and is replaced by a substitute - a hypothetical model, which, carrying similar properties to the object under scrutiny, provides information about this object or its parts. The translation process involves more than one dimension and comprises the processes of understanding, interpretation, comparison, inference, weighing of possibilities, planning, combining, etc. [3, p. 20] which are interactively united. However, we can study it by building empirical theories or simplified representations, i.e. cognitive models, to describe the process of translation or its stages or generate possible explanations and predictions that can be tested [4, p. 155].

With the help of modeling, translation theorists aim to map the entire translation process, reveal translation mechanisms and algorithms, describe the actions and decisions translators take, strategies and tactics they use, as well as establish the level of equivalence and quality assessment criteria that ensure successful interlingual communication.

While there are many descriptions of translation process models (see, e.g. functional, communicative, interpretive models of translation), each of them has been subjected to some criticism for being inherently hypothetical and conjectural by nature. A translation model tends to have a relative nature while it describes the sequence of actions that can be undertaken to solve a translation task under the specific conditions of the translation process. As the variables of the translation process change (translation type, purpose, communicative situation, etc), the corresponding changes are introduced to the algorithms and decisions made by translators. Moreover, we cannot eliminate the role of creativity, intuition, and the translator's personality from the process of translation. Subsequently, any of the translation models may be preferable for describing the particular type of translation and its applied problems. To this end, the applied models appeared, which focus on the specific types or problems of translation.

Although in practice a translator can achieve the desired result without following any of the established translation models, knowledge of theoretical models can help them in solving complex translation problems. Moreover, as translation is a process that often entails conditions of considerable risk [5, p. 67] (uncertain circumstances and quality assessment criteria, lack of time for preparation, insufficient background knowledge, ad hoc terminology, emotional state of the translator, etc), translation modeling helps to introduce an amount of routinization to the translation process as far as decision-making is concerned, and serves as a `course of action', or an `action plan' that is oriented to the totality of the text to be translated and excludes arbitrary assignment of meaning. It minimizes the factor of improvisation and intuition, though leaving space for creativity. Along with its theoretical value and explanatory potential, modeling can find its application among practicing translators, helping to reduce time, stress, and effort put into the translation process, as well as among translation students by serving didactic purpose.

Analysis of recent research and publications

Cognitive approaches to the study of translational mechanisms, and particularly process-oriented studies, have been examined intensely with reference to the study of nature, methods, and causes of the translator's actions in the process of their work. Within the psycholinguistic and cognitive approaches, the focus of researchers is addressed primarily on such important issues as the cognitive nature of translation strategies [6], the cognitive basis of translation errors [7], the acquisition of translation competence [8], the types of units that translators focus on while translating/interpreting the original text [7; 9], etc.

The analysis of the translation process from the viewpoint of cognitive studies has been carried out by V. Wills [3], P. Sikinger [10], P. KuBmaul [11], H. Yencheva [І2], V Demetska and O. Rebrii [13], and others. In their works, the translation process is represented as a series of speech and mental operations, which result in forming certain meanings in the translator's mind, based on which the translated text is produced.

Regarding the applied aspects of translation, the cognitive approach finds its representation in the development of translation models that are built on the basis of one particular type of translation. These studies, include, for example, modeling the process of simultaneous interpreting [14; 15]; models for translator and interpreter training [16]; cognitive modeling of the technical translation process [17]; interactional model of literary translation (prosaic and dramaturgic texts) [18]. translating political discourse confrontational

The research relevance. In the context of the interdisciplinary nature of the analyzed scholarly inquiries, as well as taking into account the specifics of political discourse as the material for translation, our research focuses on the process of political translation as a specific type of translational activity, which has not yet received the sufficient research interest and requires more careful study through the prism of new scientific paradigms.

Whereas translation of political discourse is regarded as an anthropocentrically and functionally-oriented activity, the cognitive approach to its research allows us to take full account of its strategic nature, as well as emphasizes the role of the translator in preserving and reproducing the confrontational meanings of the original message.

The aim of the research is to model the cognitive process of political discourse translation focusing on the applied problem of rendering confrontation strategies of American politicians in the Ukrainian translation. The main objectives of this research are: a) to identify the main stages of the political translation process (focusing on rendering confrontation strategies of political texts) in the form of frames and subframes, and to describe them; b) to determine factors that influence the translation process at each stage.

In order to attain the aim and objectives of the research we used the following methods and research tools: a method of cognitive modeling for the creation of the translation scenario, which was later tested with a help of comparative analysis of a written translation of a political text from English into Ukrainian and psychological observations of the retrospective think-aloud protocols for on-sight experiment translations. To interpret the results, we used mathematical-statistical methods.

Two sample groups were formed of 10 undergraduate students majoring in translation (Group 1), and 10 practicing translators (Group 2) who were asked to perform a written translation of the text composed of abridged pieces of speeches and debates made by American politicians, which demonstrated the high level of confrontation. It is worth pointing out that the participants were not given any translation brief with the particular requirements or instructions. They were just informed about the type and direction of translation, text genre, communication parties, and settings. While registering the results of retrospective TAPs verbalization, we asked the sample group members to focus predominantly on the thoughts of hypothetical stages, which they underwent in the process of translation, and comment on the main difficulties and specificities which they had while going through these stages; time, that they spent on each stage; and factors, which influenced the choice of employed translation strategies and decisions.

Discussion and Results. In order to model a translation process, we considered the reproduction of the confrontation potential of political communication as one of the applied problems of translation and, accordingly, a subsystem in the system of political texts translation. Thus, as a cognitive process aimed at solving a problem, rendering confrontation tactics in translation was regarded through the prism of such stages as the formulation and analysis of the problem, the advancement of a hypothesis, its verification, and the evaluation of the results (Fig. 1).

We believe that the processes of translation of problematic text fragments can be structured most consistently within the framework of the cognitive category of the scenario, which we use as a paradigm for modeling the process of rendering confrontation tactics in translation. We regard the scenario as a set of stereotyped actions aimed at solving a specific problem - in our case, the reproduction of confrontation tactics markers in the translation of political texts.

A fragment of the original text containing a problem for translation (i.e. means of implementing a confrontation strategy) is considered an object, and compliance with the target language is the aim of the translation activity. The solution to the problem of translation can be divided into several intermediate tasks, which we will try to outline in the form of frames and subframes. The solution of each intermediate task allows one to move on to the next intermediate task - to the next stage of translation.

Based on the analyzed cognitive models of the translation process, results of retrospective TAPs analysis, and taking into account the specific nature of the object of our research, we've modelled our own translation scenario (Fig. 2) using the following frames: “Analysis of the communicative situation of translation”

which is consistent with the stage of pre-translation analysis, “Processing a translation unit” and “Finding an equivalent”, which together make up the stage of the actual translation, and “Evaluation of results”, that finishes the process of translation with the verbalization of the text. Let us consider in detail each of the components of the suggested scenario.

Fig. і. Stages of the translation process as a problem-solving activity

Table 1 A proportion of the use of translation strategies by sample groups

Analyzing the communicative situation of translation

The frame “Analyzing the communicative situation of translation” precedes the process of actual translation and determines the actions the translator undertakes at each stage. It consists of a pre-translation analysis of all relevant features of the situational context (pragmatic, socio-cultural, psychological factors) in which the translation takes place, and affects the reception and understanding of the message by the recipient.

We believe that the identification of the specific tasks and problems in translation, as well as determining the optimal way to solve them, largely depends on the type of communicative situation in which the translation takes place. The important subframes at this stage are “Identifying the communicative purpose of the message” and “Identifying communicative strategies and tactics of the speaker”. The former is a fundamental stage of the translation process, which largely determines its success at the subsequent stages. Reproduction of the pragmatic function in translation involves the fullest transferring of communicative goals, intentions, and motives of communicators embedded in the text with the help of language units that have subordinate subject-logical and connotative meanings. Thus, the correct rendering of the communicative purpose of the original is taken as a translation invariant, which the choice of translation strategy and subsequent choice of translation methods are subordinate to. The latter is a logical continuation of the scenario, as it is the communicative strategy that embodies the communicative purpose of the speaker, and tactics, respectively, signify concrete actions for its implementation. Our on-sight experiment has shown that the incorrect identification of the speaker's global intention (communicative purpose of the message) and means of its expression (communication strategies and tactics) can lead to a complete distortion of meaning in translation and, in the case of political communication, unpredictable consequences on a global scale.

This stage gives a translator a basis for solving macrocontextual problems, i.e. a plan that is oriented to the totality of the text to be translated and excludes arbitrary assignment of meaning [3, p. 27]. It means that a translator gets a clear idea of the content of the text, understands what its communicative purpose is and for what reader or group of readers the target text is intended. Here a rough orientation is usually enough, for which the Lasswell formula [19] can be helpful as a problem-solving scheme. Thus, pre-translation analysis of translation situation components (even an intuitive one), as a frame that initiates the translation scenario, helps to avoid translation mistakes at the macrocontextual level, and has a decisive influence on the translator's choice of a global translation strategy and the application of local strategies in each case.

In their TAPs verbalizations, participants of Group 2 tended to avoid commenting any factors associated with the first stage, which can signal that they paid minimal attention to the pretranslation analysis of the relevant features of the situational context of the translation. Group 2 started the translation process by carefully getting familiarized with the text of the translation and the main parameters of the communicative situation of translation. In their commentaries, they reported that while facing any translation problem connected to rendering confrontation strategy in the proposed texts, they bore in mind the genre of translation, communicative purpose, and functions of the original, as well as communicative strategies and tactics of the speaker.

It is at this stage that, relying on the analysis of the situational context of interaction, psychological, demographic, social, and personal characteristics of the translator, their experience, the translator chooses an optimal global translation strategy (within the subframe “Identifying the global translation strategy”), which dictates the general trend of rendering confrontation strategy markers in translation.

We could observe some patterns regarding the strategies both groups used, as well as the factors which influenced the choice of translation strategies in each group (Table 1).

As was previously stated, participants of Group 1 have shown a tendency towards avoiding this frame at the initial stage of their translation process, which generally resulted in skipping the subframe “Harmonizing translation variants with the global translation strategy” while choosing the best suitable equivalent, thus demonstrating the more intuitive and unsubstantiated ratio between reproductive and adaptive strategies. Participants of Group 2 tended to stick to one macrostrategy in dealing with particular communicative tactics, having thought of the best suitable strategy at the stage of pre-translation analysis. We attribute this tendency to the higher level of strategic sub-competence associated with experienced translators. However, translations of this group have also shown several unsubstantiated deviations from the initially chosen strategy. Such deviations may be explained by pragmatic and semantic inconsistencies between similar means of confrontation tactics in two languages, the need to explicate the images implied in confrontation tactics (e.g., in tactics of irony and hidden mockery), provide a descriptive translation or substitute one stylistic means with another one (e.g., in case of invectives based on puns or wordplay), or even a high rate of emotions and stress associated with rendering confrontation strategy.

Processing the unit of translation

The retrospective TAP analysis let us compose the description of this stage which was fairly similar for both parts of the sample group. The translator, who at the stage of pre-translation analysis has already identified all features relevant for the translation situation and at the stage of analysis of the message (interpretation, decoding) has determined the main intention of the author and the communicative strategies that it is implemented in, begins the process of actual translation which is initiated by the frame “Processing the unit of translation”.

This frame is constituted by subframes “Extracting the translation unit”, “Analyzing the translation unit”, “Analyzing the linguistic context of the translation unit”.

Fig. 2. A translation scenario of “Rendering confrontation tactics in the translation of political texts”

Within the subframe “Extracting the translation unit” the translator, based on their knowledge of cultural, historical, stylistic, lexical, and grammatical features of the source and target languages singles out the fragments in the text which are difficult to translate - translation units.

We follow the most common definition in psycholinguistic and cognitive approaches that study translation as a process and define the translation unit as `the stretch of source text on which the translator focuses attention in order to represent it as a whole in the target language' [9, p. 304], that is a focus of translator's attention in each given situation.

Thus, we assume that the units of translation in rendering confrontation in political discourse are represented by confrontation tactics markers, including invectives, pejoratives, metaphors, and allusions with negative evaluative coloring, other lexical, stylistic, and grammatical means with negative connotations.

After singling out the translation unit, the translator moves on to the next subframe - “Analyzing the translation unit”, which results in the creation of a translation unit model that predetermines the choice of the optimal equivalent. We highlight the following criteria by which the translation unit of the confrontation strategy can be analyzed at this stage: defining denotations (which involve connotations (additional shades of meaning), emotional load (expresses an emotion or feeling), evaluative load (expresses positive or negative judgments carried by the language unit), expressive load (imagery that enhances what is said), and stylistic load (characteristic of certain functional styles and varieties of language); defining linguistic context (attributions, further development, wordplays, puns); and defining a function.

It was determined, that the stage of building a model of a translation unit requires from a translator to determine the function of a translation unit, which lets them to establish the meaning of the unit, its relationship with other parts of the text, and its role in the text. When analyzing the unit, it is also necessary to take into account the genre, style, and situational characteristics of the translated text, which is its broader context, identified at the stage of pre-translation analysis.

The comparative analysis of the on-sight experiment translations has shown that the majority of the mistakes associated with this stage occurred since translators failed to define the connotative meanings of the units which were realized within the confrontation strategy (especially in the cases of irony tactics, which was not always recognized by respondents), as well as the confrontation tactics markers which received a further development in the text, e.g. in the form of a joke, pun or word play. The former in some cases can be explained by negative shifts in translation scenario which occurred during the pre-translation stage (a failure to correctly identify speaker's communicative strategies and tactics, or a general tone of communication).

Finding equivalents

Based on the information obtained by the translator during the analysis of the unit, its linguistic and situational context, translation options are selected and analyzed. These processes take place within the frame “Finding equivalence”.

By `an equivalent' we mean a translation variant that guarantees the coincidence of the relevant (formal, semantic, expressive, etc.) components of the source and target translation units in each specific case. Thus, the process of synthesizing the required translation variant begins with the subframe “Searching for translation options'", which is the process of selecting the target language unit that would correspond to the translation unit model created at the previous stage and consistent with the criteria set in the translation situation analysis, and, accordingly, the global strategy chosen for the translation (subframes “Harmonizing translation variants with the global translation strategy"").

Next, based on the comparison of the original text frames and the corresponding frames in the target text, the translation method is chosen and the equivalent in the target language is selected or coined by using the frame “Applying local translation strategy".

However, it is necessary to note that the choice of an equivalent for a unit that causes difficulties in translation cannot be limited to a purely algorithmic way of solving the problem, which in our case is to follow the algorithm developed in the translation scenario. Translation activity often demonstrates a heuristic nature. This means that the selection of an equivalent often requires intuitive or creative decisions, which the translator makes based on linguistic and instrumental knowledge and competencies they operate with.

All participants had generally no problems at this stage, provided that they successfully dealt with the previous stage of extracting and processing the unit of translation. However, some problems could occur with choosing the best strategy to fully render emotional, evaluative, expressive, and stylistic loads pertaining to the confrontation strategy. Here, some participants faced the moral and ethical problems of rendering confrontation, tending subconsciously to mitigate disputable words or expressions or even trying to fully omit them in their translations, which resulted in a certain kind of censorship. Some of the participants during TAP verbalization emphasized that they consciously resorted to adaptive strategies because of the ethical dilemma dictated by the traditionally institutionalized and formal nature of political discourse and some bias towards using (and consequently translating) confrontation markers, especially invectives and pejoratives, in this genre.

Evaluating the Results of Translation

The data formed under the structural component “Equivalent"" let a translator formulate tasks for the frame “Evaluating the results of translation". The main component of this frame is the dynamic subframe “Establishing compliance with the requirements", which is the process of evaluating the selected translation option by the translator. The equivalent is checked for compliance with the requirements. The translator checks the features of the translation variant in the text, the degree of compliance with the criteria put forward during the analysis of the translation unit (matching denotative, connotative meanings, etc.), communicative characteristics of the message, and all relevant features of the situational context.

The translator evaluates the compliance of the translation result with the requirements and either includes the equivalent in the translation text, which updates the subframe “Verbalization of the text" (expressing the translation text containing the equivalent selected in the described scenario with the help of language means), or in case of any discrepancies - returns to the stage “Finding equivalence".

However, the problem here is to establish the appropriate criteria for this type of material. In our opinion, the most suitable criterion for evaluating the quality of the translation of political texts can be pragmatic equivalence, which requires, first of all, to render the main communicative function of the original text. The translator must convey not only his vision of the situation model of the source text, but also compare it with the intentions of the author and the recipient. At the same time, the successful rendering of the pragmatic potential of the text depends on the use of adaptive strategies, which help to transfer the communicative intention of the author, pragmatic properties of the original, taking into account the factor of the recipient, their linguistic and cultural stereotypes.

Moreover, since the application of the confrontation strategies by political leaders has a strong stylistic and expressive coloring and is aimed primarily at provoking a certain reaction from political opponents and the audience, the translator cannot forget about the rhetorical appeal of such texts. Thus, we consider that communicative and expressive functions must be equally preserved in translation.

At the stage of “Evaluating the results of translation" we can finally observe all negative shifts which occurred at the earlier stages of the described scenario. In our experiment, the most frequent errors were made while working with the frames “Processing the translation unit” and “Finding equivalence”. Such mistakes can be caused by a number of factors such as severe time constraints, direction of translation, national and cultural coloring of the confrontation strategy, psycholinguistic and emotional factors, insufficient background knowledge and translator's competence, etc. The purpose of the final frame is to identify these mistakes and prevent possible shifts.

This stage was proposed only in the verbalizations of 8 participants from the sample group of practicing translators, thus showing that the students tend to generally stick to the first equivalent, without undergoing the process of self-reflection and selfevaluation. Some representatives of students' group talk about evaluation and editing as a final stage of their translation process, more in the form of proof-reading, though they do not mention any parts of this frame while working namely with separate translation units (not with the final product of translation).

Consequently, we can say that even despite the higher level of experience, professionals do not tend to neglect any of the given frames (however, some of the processes may undergo intuitively or automatically, saving a lot of time for other stages, the translators can consciously go back to any frame in case it is necessary for elaborating a better solution to a translation problem), pay more attention to pre- and post-translation stages and try to assess all possible dangers to minimize them.

With that in mind, we assume that translation process modeling can serve didactic purposes and help develop students' strategic sub-competence, i.e. teach them to plan the translation process, assess it, identify translation problems, and apply procedures to solve them. Moreover, it may help develop some psychological components of translation competence. By providing a student with an `action plan' for the translation process, it helps reduce stress in the real situation of translation, to deal with emotions and attitudinal aspects, and to increase creativity, logical reasoning capacity, as well as confidence in one's abilities (self-efficacy), which often can be crucial for the translation process.

Conclusion

Empirical investigations conducted within the study of both written translations and retrospective TAPs verbalization revealed valuable features contributing to our understanding of the cognitive process of rendering confrontation strategy in political texts. The research resulted in the creation of the scenario that algorithmizes the process of rendering confrontation tactics in the translation of political texts by structuring the translation process into a certain number of sequential processes, which we expressed and described with the help of frames “Analyzing the communicative situation of translation”, “Processing the unit of translation”, “Finding equivalents” and “Evaluating the results of translation”, each particular consisting of intermediate goals and components specified using subframes. Within the scenario, we put an emphasis on the frames “Analyzing the communicative situation of translation” and “Evaluating the results of translation”, which initiate and end the translation process respectively, and can cause some major translation mistakes on the macrocontextual level. The evidence from this study suggests that most frequent microcontextual translation errors occur while working with the frames “Processing the translation unit” and “Finding equivalence”. The purpose of the final frame is to identify these mistakes and prevent possible negative shifts of meaning.

Using the methodology of analytical thought and a comparative analysis of written translations, we have also established some highly recurrent patterns that show certain correlations between the stages and frames activated within the process of translation and the translator's competence, which affects the quality of translation. We have also indicated a number of factors that influence the choice of translation strategies at each stage.

This study is the first step towards enhancing our understanding of the cognitive process of rendering confrontation strategies in translation. Larger samples, control groups, and more reliable indicators would be necessary to confirm the results and findings of the present research. In our view these results constitute an excellent initial step toward elaborating the didactic basis for students and practicing translators, making them aware of potential applied problems in political discourse translation, and helping them to avoid arbitrary decision-making, reduce time, stress, and effort put into the translation process. However, further experimental research is needed to substantiate the didactic purpose of translation modeling. An important matter to concern in the context of rendering confrontation is also manipulation of the source text under the effects of ethical and emotion-related factors and its place in the proposed scenario.

References

1. Halverson, S. L. Reorienting Translation Studies: Cognitive Approaches and the Centrality of the Translator. Translation: A Multidisciplinary Approach. 2014. pp. 116-139.

2. Xiao, K., & Mufloz Martin, R. Cognitive Translation Studies: Models and methods at the cutting edge. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series - Themes in Translation Studies, 2021. pp. 1-19.

3. Wilss, W. Cognitive aspects of the translation process. Language &Amp; Communication. 1990. 10(1). pp. 19-36.

4. Chesterman A. Models of what processes?. Describing Cognitive Processes in Translation: Acts and events. 2013. Vol. 8, no. 2. pp. 155-168.

5. Pym, A. Translating as risk management. JournalofPragmatics. 2015. 85. pp. 67-80.

6. Jaaskelainen, R. Investigating Translation Strategies. en S. Tirkkonen- Condit y J. Laffling (eds.). Recent Trends in Empirical Translation Research, Studies in Languages. 1993. pp. 99-120

7. Krings H. P Repairing texts: Empirical investigations of machine translation post-editing processes. Kent, Ohio : Kent State University Press, 2001. 635 p. KuBmaul, P. Translation through Visualisation. Meta. 2005. 50(2). pp. 378-391

8. The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance / ed. by K. A. Ericsson et al. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2006.

9. Malmkj^r, K. `Unit of Translation', in Mona Baker (ed.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (1st edition), London & New York: Routledge. 1998. pp. 286-288.

10. Sickinger P Aiming for Cognitive Equivalence. Mental Models as a Tertium Comparationis. for Translation and Empirical Semantics. Research and Language. 2017. Vol. 15:2. pp. 213-236.

11. KuBmaul, P. Translation through Visualisation. Meta. 2005. 50(2). pp. 378-391

12. Єнчева Г.Г. Лінгвокогнітивне моделювання процесу перекладу авіаційних термінів : дис... канд. наук: 10.02.16. Київ, 2011. 201 с.

13. Rebrii, O., Demetska, V. Adaptation, association, and analogy: triple A of the translator's decision-making. East European Journal of Psycholinguistics. 2020. 7(2). pp. 231-242.

14. Moser, B. Simultaneous Interpretation: A Hypothetical Model and its Practical Application. In D. Gerver & H. W. Sinaiko (ed.), Language, Interpretation and Communication. 1978.

15. Reiss, K. and Vermeer, H.J. Groundwork for a General Theory of Translation. Niemeyer, Tubergen. 1984.

16. Gile D. Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Philadelphia, Pa: John Benjamins Pub. Company, 2009.

17. Nefedova, L. A., & Remkhe, I. N. Towards Cognitive Modelling of the Technical Translation Process. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2014. vol.154. pp. 237-244.

18. Андрієнко T. Інтеракційна модель перекладу. Гуманітарна освіта в технічних вищих навчальних закладах. 2016. № 34.

19. Lasswell, H., Bryson, L. (ed.). The Structure and Function of Communication in Society. The Communication of Ideas. New York: Institute for Religious and Social Studies. 1948. p. 117.

Размещено на Allbest.ru