1,721,045 research outputs found
Intersemiosis y traducción intersemiótica. Cuicuilco Revista de la Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia: Análisis del discurso y semiótica de la cultura: perspectivas analíticas para el tercer milenio Tomo II. Num. 25 (2002) Vol. 9 mayo-agosto
No full textCon base en la concepción de traducción total, este artículo describe diferentes tipos de comunicación textual en la cultura. El cambio en la ontología del texto en la cultura contemporánea -debido a la posibilidad de coexistencia simultánea de varias formas de un mismo texto en diferentes medios y discursos- permite considerar a la cultura como un proceso de traducción intersemiótica. La intertextualidad, la interdiscursividad y la intermedialidad -como entorno de generación y recepción textuales- conducen a considerar los signos de diferentes textos como una intersemiosis, comprendida simultáneamente en el marco de diferentes sistemas de signos.The article proceeds from the conception of total translation describing different types of textual communication in culture. The change on text´s ontology in contemporary culture due to the possible simultaneous existence of various forms of the same text in different media and discourses allows us to regard culture as the process of intersemiotic translation. Intertextuality, interdiscursivity and intermediality as the environment of text generation and reception impel us to regard the signs of different texts as intersemiosic, being comprehended simultaneously within the frameworks of different sign systems.Allott, Robbin. 1994 “Language and the Origin of Semiosis”, en Nöth, Winfried Nöth (ed.), Origins of Semiosis: Sign Evolution in Nature and Culture, Berlín, Nueva York, Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 225-268.Bernardelli, Andrea. 1997 “Introduction. The Concept of Intertextuality Thirty Year On: 1967–1997”, en Versus, núm. 77/78, pp. 3-22.Cachia, Fernando. 1983 “Ekranizacija klassihceskij literaturnyj proizvedenii na televidenii”, en Kultury, núm. 4, pp. 64-91.Carroll, John M.. 1997 “A program for Cinema Theory”, en The journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, XXXV, núm. 3, pp. 337-351.Caws, M. A. 1986 “Literal or Liberal: Translating Perception”, en Critical Inquiry, núm. 13 (1).Clüver, C.. 1989 “On Intersemiotic Transposition”, en Poetics Today, núm. 10 (1), pp. 55-90.Dubrovski, D.. 1979 “Rassifrovka kodov (Metodologicheskie aspekty problemy)”, en Voprosy filosofii, núm. 12.Eco, Umberto. 1977 A Theory of Semiosis, London, Basingstoke, MacMillan.Eco, Umberto. 1990 The Limits of Interpretation, Bloomington, India University Press.Eichenbaum, Boris. 1973 “Literatura i kino”en Iz istorii Lenfilma Vyp, núm. 3, Leningrad, Iskusstvo, pp. 29-31.Esslin, Martin. 1987 The Field of drama, London, Methuen.Fairclough, Norman. 1992 “Discourse and Text: Linguistic and Intertextual Analysis within Discourse Analysis”, en Discourse & Society, núm. 3 (2), pp. 193-217.Fawcett, Robin P.. 1984 “System Networks, Codes, and Knowlwdge of the Universe” en Fawcett, R. P. M. A. K. Halliday, S. M. Lamb, A. Makkai (eds.), The Semiotics of Culture and Language, vol. 2, Language and other Semiotic Systems of Culture, London-Dover N. H., Frances Printer, pp. 135-179.Gaifman, Hana A.. 1989 “Svejk Don Quixote Jesus Christ”, en Tobin Y. (ed.), From Sign to Text. A Semiotic View of Communication, Amsterdam-Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 191-213.Ginzburg, Lidia. 1979 O literaturnom geroje, Leningrad, Sovietski pisatel.Gombrich, Ernst Hans. 1972 “The visual Image”, en Scientific American, núm. 227 (3).Gorlée, Dinda. 1993 Semiotics and the Problem of Translation with Special Reference to the Semiotic of Charles S. Peirce, Alblasserdam, Offsetdrukkerij Kanters B.V.Greber, Erika. 1989 Intertextualität und Interpretierbarkeit des Texts. Zur früben Prosa Boris Pasternaks, München, Wilhelm Fink.Grivel, Charles. 1983 “Serien textueller Perzeption. Eine Skizze”, en Dialog der Texte=Winer Slawistischer Almanach Sonderb, núm. 11, Viena, pp. 291-360.Hannoosh, M.. 1986 “Painting as Translation in Baudelaire’s Art Criticism”, en Forum for Modern Language Studies, núm. 22 (1).Hansen-Löve, Aage A.. 1983 “Intermedialität und Intertextualität. Probleme der korrelation von Wort- und Bildkunst-Am Beispiel der russischen Moderne”, en Dialog der texte=Wiener Slawistischer Almanach Sonderb, núm. 11, Viena, pp. 291-360.Holmes, James S.. 1988 Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies, Amsterdam, Rodopi.Holthuis, Susanne. 1994 “Intertextuality and Meaning Constitution. An Approach to the Compre- hension of Intertextual Poetry”, en Petöfi, J. S., T. Olivi (eds.), Approaches to Poetry. Some Aspects of Textuality, Intertextuality and Intermediality, Berlín, Nueva York, Walter de Gruyter, pp. 77- 93.Hopfinger, Maryla. 1974 Adaptacje filmove utworów literackich. Problemy teorii i interpretaci, Wroclaw- Warzawa-Kraków-Gdansk, PAN.Jakobson, Roman. 1971 “On linguistic Aspects of Translation”, en Jakobson, R., Selected Writings, 2. Word and Language, The Hague-París, Mouton.Jensen, Klaus B.. 1995 The Social Semiotics of Mass Communication, London, Thousand Oaks, Nueva Delhi, Sage.Kibédi Varga, A.. 1989 “Criteria for Describing Word-and-Image Relations”, en Poetics Today núm. 10 (1), pp. 31-54.Kline, T. J.. 1992 Screening the Text. Intertextuality in New Wave French Cinema, Baltimore, Londres, The John’s Hopkins University Press.Koppenfels, W. V.. 1985 “Intertextualiät und Sprachwechsel: Die literatische Übersetzung”, en Broich, U. y M.Pfister, (eds.), Intertextualiät. Formen, Kunktionen, Anglistitche Fallstudien, Tübingen, Max Niemeyer, pp. 137-158.Lachmann, Renate. 1989 “Concepts of Intertextuality”, en K. Eimermacher, K. P. Grzybek, y G. Witte (eds.), Issues in Slavic Literary and Cultural Theory, Bochum, Brockmeyer, pp. 391-400.Lotman, Iuri. 2000 La semiosfera III. Semiótica de las artes y de la cultura, Navarro, Desiderio (ed.), Madrid, Cátedra.Lotman, Juríj M.. 1990 Universe of the mind. A Semiotic Theory of Culture, Londres, Nueva York, I. B. Tauris & Co.Lotman, Juríj M.. 1992 Izbrannie stati v trioj tomaj, vol. 1. Stati po semiotike i tipologii kultury, Tallinn, Aleksandra.Mamardashvili, Merab y A. Piatigorski. 1984 Simvol i soznanie (Metafizihceskie rassuzdenia o soznanii, simvolike i iazyke), Jerusalem.Mandel’stam, Osip. 1987 Slovo i kultura, Moskva, Sovietski pisatel.Mcfarlane, Brian. 1983 Words and Images. Australian Novel into film, Richmond.Menezes, Philadelpho. 1997 “Verbal and Visual Intersemiosis in Aesthetical Experiments. The Case of Contemporary Brazilian Culture”, en I. Rauch, G. y F. Carr (eds.), Semiotics around the world: Synthesis in Diversity, Berlín, Nueva York, Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 295-298.Mijalkov, Nikita. 1985 “Zdelat’ kartinu dlia vsej!”, en Sovietskaja kultura, núm. 16.03.Mijalkovich, V.. 1986 Izobrazitelni iazyk sredstv massovoi kommunikacii, Moskva.Parker, B.. 1986 “’Ran’ and the Tragedy of History”, en University of Toronto Quarterly, núm. 55 (4).Pfister, Manfred. 1985 “Konzepte der Intertextualität”, en U. Broich, M. Pfister (eds.), Intertextualitat. Formen Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien, Tübingen, Max Niemeyer, pp. 1-30.Plaza, Julio. 1987 Traducao Intersemiótica, Sao Paulo, Perspectiva.Portis-Winner, Irene. 1994 Semiotics of Culture: “The strange Intruder”, Bochum, Brockmeyer.Riffaterre, Michael. 1994 “Intertextuality vs. Hypertextuality”, en New Literary History, núm. 25 (4), pp. 778 y s.Robyns, C.. 1994 “Translation and Discursive Identity”, en Poetics Today, núm. 15 (3), pp. 405-428.Saparov, M.. 1982 “Slovesny obraz i zrimoje izobrazenie (zivopis-fotografija-slovo)”, en Literatura i zivopis, Leningrado, Nauka, pp. 66-92.Schulte, R.. 1980 “Translation: An Interpretative Act through Visualization”, en Translational Agent of Communication. A special Issue of Pacific Moana Quarterly, núm. 5 (1).Smirnov, Igor. 1985 “Porozdenie interteksta. (Elementy intertekstualnogo analiza s primerami iz tvorchestva B. L. Pasternaka)“, en Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, núm. 17 [edición especial].Toporov, Vladimir. 1992 “Translation: Sub Specie of Culture”, en Meta XXXVII, núm. 1, pp. 29-49.Toporov, Vladimir. 1993 “O ‘rezonantnom’ prostranstve literatury (neskolko zamechanii)”, en Poluchina, Andrew, V. J.y R. Reid (eds.), Literary Tradition and Practice in Russian Culture, Amsterdam, Atlanta, Rodopi, pp. 16-60.Torop, Peeter. 1995 Totalny perevod, Tartu, Tartu University Press.Torop, Peeter. 1998 “Granicy perevoda (sociosemioticeski aspect semiotiki perevoda)”, en Sign
Systems Studies, núm. 26, pp. 136-150.Tynianov, Jurij. 1973 “Libreto Kinofilma ‘Sinel’”, en Iz istorii Lenfilma. Vyp, núm. 3, Leningrado, Iskusstvo, pp. 78-80.Tynianov, Jurij. 1997 Poetika, istoria literatury, kino, Moskva, Nauka.Visconti, Lucchino. 1986 Stati. Svidetelstva. Vyskazyvania, Moskva, Iskusstvo.Voloshinov, Valentin. 1995 Filosofija i sociologia gumanitarnyj nauk, San Petesburgo, Acta Press.Vygotski, Lev. 1982 “Myslenie i rech”, en Vygotski, L., Sobranie sochineni v chesti tomaj, vol. 2, Moskva.White, A. R.. 1987 “Visualizing and Imagining Seeing”, en Analysis, núm. 47 (4), pp. 221-224.Zinkin, Nikolai. 1964 “O kodovyj perehodaj vo vnutrennei rechi”, en Voprosy iazykoznania, núm. 6, pp. 26-38
Szkoła tartuska jako szkoła
Full text linkPeeter ToropDepartment of Semiotics, University of Tartu"The Tartu School as a School"The paper addresses the question in what sense the Tartu school of semiotics constituted and still constitutes a coherent research community, and in what sense it can be called a school. The author discusses especially two aspects of this question: first, the Tartu school as a trend in semiotic research, and secondly, as a semiotic doctrine. The leading role of Yuri Lotman, the evolution of his thought, and his influence on the school during his lifetime and after his death are exposed as well as the contribution and impact of the school abroad.Peeter ToropDepartment of Semiotics, University of Tartu"The Tartu School as a School"The paper addresses the question in what sense the Tartu school of semiotics constituted and still constitutes a coherent research community, and in what sense it can be called a school. The author discusses especially two aspects of this question: first, the Tartu school as a trend in semiotic research, and secondly, as a semiotic doctrine. The leading role of Yuri Lotman, the evolution of his thought, and his influence on the school during his lifetime and after his death are exposed as well as the contribution and impact of the school abroad
The Tartu School as a School
No full textPeeter ToropDepartment of Semiotics, University of Tartu"The Tartu School as a School"The paper addresses the question in what sense the Tartu school of semiotics constituted and still constitutes a coherent research community, and in what sense it can be called a school. The author discusses especially two aspects of this question: first, the Tartu school as a trend in semiotic research, and secondly, as a semiotic doctrine. The leading role of Yuri Lotman, the evolution of his thought, and his influence on the school during his lifetime and after his death are exposed as well as the contribution and impact of the school abroad
Ideoloogia tõlketeooria ja tõlkeloo dialoogis / Field of ideology in a dialogue between theory and history of translation
No full textArtikkel on pühendatud tõlketeooriat ja tõlkelugu ühendavale ideoloogia mõistele. Jälgitud on ideoloogia mõistevälja dünaamikat 21. sajandi tõlketeoorias ja tõlkeloos. Vaatluse all on tõlketeaduslikes käsiraamatutes loodud terminiväljade muutumist ideoloogia mõiste hägustumisest uute mõistete juurutamiseni. Artikkel osutab olukorrale tõlketeaduses, kus tõlketeoreetiline kirevus on nii suur, et tõlkeloolastel on raske nii metodoloogilist kui praktilist tuge leida. Samas osutab tõlketeooria areng üldisele mõttelaadi dünaamikale tõlkekultuuriga seoses ja selles toimuvaid protsesse on võimalik tõlkeloo analüüsimeetodite täiustamisel ära kasutada.
If there is a wish to understand translation, it is necessary to consider all its aspects also from the point of view of ideology. The process of translation should be seen as a complex of interlinguistic, intralinguistic, and intersemiotic translations, on the one hand, and as a complex of linguistic, cultural, economic, and ideological activities, on the other hand. Translators work on the boundaries of languages, cultures, and societies, and position themselves between the poles of specificity and adaptation, in accordance with the strategies of their translational behaviour: they either preserve the otherness of the Other (foreignisation) or transform the Other into Self (domestication). By the same token, they cease to be simple mediators for, in a semiotic sense, they are capable of generating new languages to describe a foreign language, text, or culture, and renewing a culture or influencing a culture’s capacity for dialogue with other cultures as well as with itself. In this way, translators work not only with natural languages, but also with metalanguages, languages of description. As mediators between languages, translators are important creators of new metalanguages.
Different parameters should be observed in the process of translation, among which economic and ideological aspects of translation hold the first place. In turn, these are associated with professional ethics or with the professional ethics of the translator. The practice of translation is even more complex, and the behaviour of translators and the quality of their work do not depend solely on their linguistic or literary abilities. The translator is simultaneously a mediator, a creator, a producer, a manager, a critic, as well as an ideologue. All of these roles constitute various aspects of cultural behaviour and can be correlated with the entire textual corpus of a culture. An actualisation of the various cultural and social roles of the translator reflects the general effort, made in analysis, to reach a complex understanding of the phenomenon of translation in the processes of culture.
It is difficult to observe the issues of ideology and economics in isolation, since the concept of the market in itself combines both the local and the global aspects. The confluence of the economic and the ideological is especially characteristic of mass literature, and sholars studying the translation of the latter have been exploring, among other things, concepts such as collective translation (team translation), standardisation (of theme, language, style, size, weight), ignoring of authorial idiosyncrasies (the so-called sacredness of the author), commercial calculations (definite market, deadlines, no revision), selection of texts (reusability), the repeated publication of old translations (the recycling strategy), marketing strategies and pseudotranslations.
The ideological issues arising in translation activities have gained significance both on an empirical and on a theoretical level. The very introduction of an author into a culture is an ideologically and politically coloured act, and the ideological aspect of translation activity is one of the factors involving translation within the process of the culture’s historical autocommunication. All in all, the historical identity of translation cannot be restricted to either the historical existence of translations, or to the history of translation. The history of translation is only one way of observing translation in time, as well as in ideological space. History of translation does have a significant influence on translation studies, but is simultaneously dependent on the latter as well, which is why the category of ideology is of major significance as concerns the notion of translation
Semiosphere and/as the research object of semiotics of culture
Full text linkSince 1984 when J. Lotman’s article “On semiosphere” was published, this concept has been moving from one terminological field to another. In the disciplinary terminological field of the Tartu–Moscow School semiotics of culture, ‘semiosphere’ is connected with terms ‘language — secondary modelling system — text — culture’. From interdisciplinary terminological fields, the associations either with biosphere and noosphere, or with logosphere, are more important. As a metadisciplinary concept, semiosphere belongs to the methodology of culture studies and is associated with the concepts of holism and the part and the whole. In this context, semiosphere marks the complementarity of disciplines studying culture, the movement towards the creation of general culture studies and “understanding methodology”. On the background of the contemporary trends of science it has to be remembered that semiosphere is simultaneously an object- and a metaconcept. The dynamism of culture as a research object forces science to search for new description languages but the new description languages in turn influence the cultural dynamics as they offer new possibilities for selfdescription. Often, however, from a historical perspective, a new description language is nothing but a methodological translation. Thus also the term semiosphere joins together several concepts that are related to semiotics of culture and that have gained new relevance on the background of the culture’s developmental dynamics. The concept of semiosphere brings semiotics of culture again into contact with its history, as it also brings applicational cultural analysis into contact with the history of culture and with the newest phenomena in culture. These contacts determine the place of the semiotics of culture among the sciences studying culture
- …
