Specific translation using ethnic languages of Russia: Erratology-discourse preventive theory

In the field of translation studies, there is no comprehensive academic textbook or monograph detailing the specific correlations between ethnic languages of the Russian Federation as a specific translation theory, though scholarly articles regularly discuss this issue. Also, there is ongoing work within the public institution “Union of Translators of Russia,” particularly within the Council for Translation between Russia’s national languages. This article aims to introduce an erratology-discourse approach to develop the specific theory of translation studies in Russia. The second component focuses on the interdisciplinary research into text as discourse, while the first one draws on the extensive experience of research on identifying and addressing translation errors. So, the proposed systemic preventive strategy involves creating a taxonomy of common errors made by bilingual speakers and addressing discursive asymmetries between the interacting languages, and developing a proscriptive method through a systemic pre-, post-, and translation analysis. Error typologies by Dmitry Buzadzhi and his colleagues, Garbovsky, Ovchinnikova and Pavlova are presented, along with the author’s  perspective on indicators of the discursive asymmetry and a translation analysis algorithm. To support the shift from a pure linguistic paradigm in studying intercultural mediation the paper references the doubled model of the communicative act by Andrews and Maksimova (2010). The structure of the article includes Introduction  highlighting the research topic’s significance, followed by the sections Justification for Moving Away from a Formal-Linguistic Approach, part of  Theoretical Basis on Translation Erratology , and  Rationale for Adopting an Erratology-Discourse Approach in Specific Theory of Translation which uses Russia’s ethnic languages. In the Conclusion, the author advocates for interdisciplinary methodologies, emphasizing their potential to enhance the evidential and explanatory power to contribute to general translation theory.

1. Severova NY. Specific theories of translation: their subject and development prospects. World of science, culture, education. 2016;6(61):367-369 (in Russian).

2. Andrews E., Maksimova EA. Russian translation: theory & practice. Abingdon, OX14: Routledge; 2010:187.

3. Hervey S., Higgins I.. Thinking French Translation: A Course in Translation Method. French to English. London: Routledge; 2002.

4. Jakobson R. On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. In: Achilles Fang et al. On Translation. Cambridge, Massachusets: Harvard University Press, 1959:232-239.

5. Mossop B. ‘Intralingual translation’: A desirable concept? Across Languages and Cultures. 2016;17 (1):1-24.

6. Laviosa S. Translanguaging and Translation Pedagogies. In: Helle V. Dam, Matilde Nisbeth Brøgger and Karen Korning Zethsen (eds). Moving Boundaries in Translation Studies. Routledge. P, 2019:181-199.

7. Buzadzhi DM., Gusev VV., Lanchikov VK., et al. A new look at the classification of translation errors. Moscow; 2009:120 (in Russian).

8. Garbovsky NK. Translation theory: textbook. Moscow: Moscow University Press; 2004:544 (in Russian).

9. Zalevskaya AA. Speech error as a tool of scientific research. Questions of psycholinguistics. 2009;9:6- 21 (in Russian).

10. Kunilovskaya MA. Assessing the quality of educational translation based on markup by errors: a corpus approach. Bulletin of Tyumen State University. Humanities studies. Humanities. 2017;3(3):94-112. DOI: 10.21684/2411-197X-2017-3-3-94-112 (in Russian).

11. Ovchinnikova IG., Pavlova AV. Psycholinguistic interpretation of written translation errors as a reflection of the features of translation bilingualism. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/9951068 [Accessed 20 February 2024] (in Russian).